SoonerFaninAZ
12/3/2008, 09:45 AM
The college football nation is up in arms right now because the Oklahoma Sooners were picked to represent the B12 South in the Conference Championship game this weekend in Kansas City against the Missouri Tigers. And they have every right to be angry. But the anger should be over the system used, not because the Texas Longhorns got passed by.
Here’s the skinny…the B12 finished in a three-way tie atop the South Division with Oklahoma, Texas and the Texas Tech Red Raiders all finishing with a 7-1 conference record. How to break that tie and pick a representative?
Let’s look at the B12 succession of tie-breakers (after the two-team tie, which is the obvious head-to-head)…
Three way tiebreakers....
If three or more teams are tied, steps 1 through 7 will be followed until a determination is made. If only two teams remain tied after any step, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative.
1) The records of the three teams will be compared against each other
Well, each team went 1-1 against the other two. Texas beat OU 45-35, Tech beat Texas 39-33 and OU beat Tech 65-21.
2) The records of the three teams will be compared within their division
They each went 4-1 within their division.
3) The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5 and 6)
They obviously all beat each of the other three teams so obviously all would have been 1-0 against all three in progression.
4) The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents;
This would include Kansas in the mix, meaning all three teams would be 5-1 against all common opponents.
5) The highest ranked team in the first Bowl Championship Series Poll following the completion of Big 12 regular season conference play shall be the representative.
And here we are. The highest ranked team in the poll was Oklahoma.
And just to show the final two…
6) The team with the best overall winning percentage [excluding exempted games] shall be the representative.
7) The representative will be chosen by draw.
Now, the SEC and ACC (and fans and pundits across the country) will tell you that their tie-breaker is the better tie-breaker. Basically the same getting down to the BCS involvement. However, that tie-breaker says that if the second of the tied teams (Texas) is ranked within five or fewer places of the highest ranked tied team (OU), then the HTH results of the top two ranked teams shall determine the division representative.
Fine. That gets Texas in. But isn’t the problem obvious. It’s not how these conferences use the BCS rankings to determine their division winner, it’s that they use the BCS period.
Why in the world should a mathematician in Seattle, a former Sports Information Director in Pennsylvania and the current head coach of Ball State determine who the B12 South sends to the B12 Conference Championship?
They shouldn’t. At all. Ever.
They can certainly tell us who they think ought to be playing in the BCS Championship Game, but have zero business dictating which team a specific conference sends to its title game.
This is the Big 12 Conference’s fault. And for that matter, any conference who uses the BCS rankings in their tie-breaker, despite how it’s used.
Now that we’ve settled that the BCS should not have been the deciding factor in sending the Oklahoma Sooners to Kansas City, what should have been used to determine which team goes?
I think the first four tie-breakers are fine. (Well, I think they are sort of fine. I have a problem with tie-breakers that go “out of the system” so-to-speak. I think tie-breakers should only consider the teams involved in the tie. But, I will allow, obviously, for difference of opinion.) HTH, record in division, record against next highest placed teams in order within the division, and record against common opponents.
The question becomes, where to go from there.
I can offer many “next in line” tie-breakers. Some of which favor the Sooners. Some of which favor the Longhorns. None of which favor the Red Raiders. Which is a great segue into a couple of the prevailing opinions as to why Texas should be facing Missouri.
Many in the country want to immediately eliminate Texas Tech from consideration and therefore go with Texas based on their win over Oklahoma. I’m certain their thinking is flawed.
Argument #1 - Texas Tech is out of the picture because they got their butts handed to them by 44 points against OU.
Let’s examine this line of thinking. Some want to take Tech out of the picture due to a 44-point beat-down, as if losing by 44 points to the quality of the team. Then, with Tech out of the picture Texas is in because of the HTH win over OU. With that exact same logic, can I not say, “OU is removed from the picture and the obvious representative based on their 44-point drubbing of Tech.” I can. And it makes about as much sense as eliminating Tech. None. Tech can no more be eliminated from the argument by losing big than OU can be elevated above the argument by winning big.
Argument #2 – Texas Tech is out of the picture based on the weakness of their non-conference schedule, which included two FCS (or Div 1-AA) teams.
Let’s look at that. Some want to take Tech out of the picture due to the non-conference schedule with the two FCS teams along with 7-5 Nevada and 1-11 SMU. Then, with Tech out of the picture Texas is in because of the HTH win over OU. With that exact same logic, can I not say, “OU is removed from the picture and the obvious representative based on a non-conference schedule, which included wins over a #11 10-2 TCU and a #13 10-2 Cincinnati.” I can. And it makes about as much sense as eliminating Tech. None. Tech can no more be eliminated from the argument by their weak non-conference opponents than OU can be elevated above the argument by their strong non-conference opponents.
A team’s non-conference schedule shouldn’t be a consideration from selecting a division rep. It’s non-conference! A division representative can’t be picked based on what they did out of conference. This isn’t for picking a “national” representative. It’s about picking a “division” representative. Conference records are all that is considered, therefore any tie-breaker considering non-conference activity is flawed.
OK, back from the segue. So, what to do? Let’s get back to my “next-in-line” tie-breakers.
We looked at common opponents from the North Division and found Kansas, who lost to all three teams. Let’s look at strength of all North opponents. Texas played Missouri (5 wins), Kansas (4) and Colorado (2) for a total of 11 wins. Tech and OU both played the same North schedule; Nebraska (5), Kansas (4) and Kansas State (2) for a total of 11 wins. Seems like we need another tie-breaker.
How about record against teams from the North in order of finish? Missouri, by virtue of its HTH win over Nebraska is the North Division Champion. Only Texas played Missouri and the Horns won. Case solved. In this scenario Texas is the South Division Champion.
Now, are those the best “next-in-line” tiebreakers? Perhaps. And if one were to make that argument, I would applaud them and say, “You’ve made a compelling case for the ‘Horns.”
But let’s look in another direction. How about we assign a value to home-neutral-road wins? Let’s give a team three points for a road win, two points for a neutral win and one point for a home win. If we look at that we see in eight conference games, OU gets 12 points for four road wins, three points for three home wins, for 15 points. Texas gets six points for two road wins, two points for a neutral win and four points for four home wins, for 12 points. Tech gets nine points for three road wins and four points for four home wins, for 13 points. In that scenario, it looks like OU is the deserving South Division Champ. But if you want to say, we ought to subtract points for losses, I’m right there with you. Let’s reverse it and say we lose a point for a road loss, two for a neutral loss and three for a home loss. So take away one each from Texas and Tech and two from OU. That leaves us with OU at 13, Tech at 12 and Texas at 11. Still OU.
“Well, we really need to concentrate on the three teams that are tied, don’t we?” Yes, I believe we do. Whatever tie-breaker we deem the best, most certainly should apply to only the three teams in the argument. OU gets a point for a home win against Tech and loses two for a neutral loss to Texas. Tech gets a point for a home win vs Texas and loses a point for the road loss. Texas gets two for a neutral win and loses one for a road loss. Texas 1, Tech 0, OU -1. Texas goes. Again, very good argument for Texas.
Here’s another area I’m a bit fond of. Points allowed. This is a measure we could use that eliminates points scored and as a result, the possible late-running-up-the-score-touchdown.
Now I’ve said we ought to keep our tie-breakers to the teams involved. Let’s have a look at the three games involving the three teams. OU gives up 45 to Texas and 21 to Tech for 66. Texas gives up 35 to OU and 39 to Tech for 74. Tech gives up 33 to Texas and 65 to OU for 98. OU is your South Division Champ. Some of you may want to include all South Division Games. Within reciting all the scores here, I’ll tell you that Texas gave up 128 points in the Division, OU 152 and Tech 171. Texas is your South Division Champ. If we add common Kansas, Texas still wins. The entire North? Texas still wins. Decent argument for Texas.
So we now have five arguments for Texas. They beat the best team in the North (Missouri). They had the best home-neutral-road record in the three-team round-robin. They gave up the fewest points in Division play, among common opponents, and conference play. Those last three are kind of one, but I’ll acknowledge Texas’ wins in three separate categories.
We have three arguments for OU. They have the most “points” based on home-neutral-road conference wins. They still have the most points even after subtracting for “location” losses. And they gave up the fewest points in the three-team round-robin.
I’ve said I think it’s logical and practical to consider only tie-breakers that involve activities among only the three teams in the argument; Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech. So Texas’ win over Missouri is no longer a valid argument. The other two didn’t play them based solely on the scheduling cycle. The Longhorns’ defensive prowess against the rest of the South, Kansas, and the conference as a whole is out the window. Texas’ biggest argument for representing the B12 South in the B12 Championship is the fact they have a neutral field win over OU compared to OU and Tech having home wins. And that’s a great argument for Texas.
OU’s “points” victory in conference wins and conference activity as a whole are gone. OU’s biggest argument for representing the B12 South in the B12 Championship is the fact they allowed the fewest points in the three-team round-robin. I’m certain that’s not nearly as good an argument as Texas’ H-N-R W-L.
But there is one more argument. And it’s one that I’ve thought appropriate and used all my life in breaking ties of various natures. It’s one many sports have used and continue to use, albeit perhaps lower than I would like to see it.
Point differential. I know, I know--“this rewards running up the score.” Perhaps. But I’m certain it rewards overall play. Offense, defense, special teams. Points. Points allowed. You win based on points scored. You lose based on points allowed. It’s certainly reasonable, when there are ties to be broken, that can’t be broken on a simple HTH, that point differential be considered.
Conference play? OU +195, Texas +149, Tech +101. Common opponents? OU +138, Texas +90, Tech +65. Division Play? OU +124, Texas +62, Tech +23. Wow. Pretty overwhelming in favor of Oklahoma.
To quote the mediocre Lee Corso, “Not so fast, my friend.”
“I thought you said tie-breakers should only consider the three teams involved in the argument.”
To quote the bankrupt Ed McMahon, “You are correct, sir.”
OU +34, Texas +4, Tech -38.
Oklahoma is your Big 12 Conference South Division representative.
I certainly think there are arguments for Texas. I just think the best argument lies with Oklahoma.
So, the Big 12 (and all applicable conferences) deserves a Texas-size can of whup *** for allowing the BCS to pick a team to represent a division in a championship game.
But, the BCS (and thus, the Big 12) got it right. For all the wrong reasons and all the wrong methodology. They got it right.
Here’s the skinny…the B12 finished in a three-way tie atop the South Division with Oklahoma, Texas and the Texas Tech Red Raiders all finishing with a 7-1 conference record. How to break that tie and pick a representative?
Let’s look at the B12 succession of tie-breakers (after the two-team tie, which is the obvious head-to-head)…
Three way tiebreakers....
If three or more teams are tied, steps 1 through 7 will be followed until a determination is made. If only two teams remain tied after any step, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative.
1) The records of the three teams will be compared against each other
Well, each team went 1-1 against the other two. Texas beat OU 45-35, Tech beat Texas 39-33 and OU beat Tech 65-21.
2) The records of the three teams will be compared within their division
They each went 4-1 within their division.
3) The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5 and 6)
They obviously all beat each of the other three teams so obviously all would have been 1-0 against all three in progression.
4) The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents;
This would include Kansas in the mix, meaning all three teams would be 5-1 against all common opponents.
5) The highest ranked team in the first Bowl Championship Series Poll following the completion of Big 12 regular season conference play shall be the representative.
And here we are. The highest ranked team in the poll was Oklahoma.
And just to show the final two…
6) The team with the best overall winning percentage [excluding exempted games] shall be the representative.
7) The representative will be chosen by draw.
Now, the SEC and ACC (and fans and pundits across the country) will tell you that their tie-breaker is the better tie-breaker. Basically the same getting down to the BCS involvement. However, that tie-breaker says that if the second of the tied teams (Texas) is ranked within five or fewer places of the highest ranked tied team (OU), then the HTH results of the top two ranked teams shall determine the division representative.
Fine. That gets Texas in. But isn’t the problem obvious. It’s not how these conferences use the BCS rankings to determine their division winner, it’s that they use the BCS period.
Why in the world should a mathematician in Seattle, a former Sports Information Director in Pennsylvania and the current head coach of Ball State determine who the B12 South sends to the B12 Conference Championship?
They shouldn’t. At all. Ever.
They can certainly tell us who they think ought to be playing in the BCS Championship Game, but have zero business dictating which team a specific conference sends to its title game.
This is the Big 12 Conference’s fault. And for that matter, any conference who uses the BCS rankings in their tie-breaker, despite how it’s used.
Now that we’ve settled that the BCS should not have been the deciding factor in sending the Oklahoma Sooners to Kansas City, what should have been used to determine which team goes?
I think the first four tie-breakers are fine. (Well, I think they are sort of fine. I have a problem with tie-breakers that go “out of the system” so-to-speak. I think tie-breakers should only consider the teams involved in the tie. But, I will allow, obviously, for difference of opinion.) HTH, record in division, record against next highest placed teams in order within the division, and record against common opponents.
The question becomes, where to go from there.
I can offer many “next in line” tie-breakers. Some of which favor the Sooners. Some of which favor the Longhorns. None of which favor the Red Raiders. Which is a great segue into a couple of the prevailing opinions as to why Texas should be facing Missouri.
Many in the country want to immediately eliminate Texas Tech from consideration and therefore go with Texas based on their win over Oklahoma. I’m certain their thinking is flawed.
Argument #1 - Texas Tech is out of the picture because they got their butts handed to them by 44 points against OU.
Let’s examine this line of thinking. Some want to take Tech out of the picture due to a 44-point beat-down, as if losing by 44 points to the quality of the team. Then, with Tech out of the picture Texas is in because of the HTH win over OU. With that exact same logic, can I not say, “OU is removed from the picture and the obvious representative based on their 44-point drubbing of Tech.” I can. And it makes about as much sense as eliminating Tech. None. Tech can no more be eliminated from the argument by losing big than OU can be elevated above the argument by winning big.
Argument #2 – Texas Tech is out of the picture based on the weakness of their non-conference schedule, which included two FCS (or Div 1-AA) teams.
Let’s look at that. Some want to take Tech out of the picture due to the non-conference schedule with the two FCS teams along with 7-5 Nevada and 1-11 SMU. Then, with Tech out of the picture Texas is in because of the HTH win over OU. With that exact same logic, can I not say, “OU is removed from the picture and the obvious representative based on a non-conference schedule, which included wins over a #11 10-2 TCU and a #13 10-2 Cincinnati.” I can. And it makes about as much sense as eliminating Tech. None. Tech can no more be eliminated from the argument by their weak non-conference opponents than OU can be elevated above the argument by their strong non-conference opponents.
A team’s non-conference schedule shouldn’t be a consideration from selecting a division rep. It’s non-conference! A division representative can’t be picked based on what they did out of conference. This isn’t for picking a “national” representative. It’s about picking a “division” representative. Conference records are all that is considered, therefore any tie-breaker considering non-conference activity is flawed.
OK, back from the segue. So, what to do? Let’s get back to my “next-in-line” tie-breakers.
We looked at common opponents from the North Division and found Kansas, who lost to all three teams. Let’s look at strength of all North opponents. Texas played Missouri (5 wins), Kansas (4) and Colorado (2) for a total of 11 wins. Tech and OU both played the same North schedule; Nebraska (5), Kansas (4) and Kansas State (2) for a total of 11 wins. Seems like we need another tie-breaker.
How about record against teams from the North in order of finish? Missouri, by virtue of its HTH win over Nebraska is the North Division Champion. Only Texas played Missouri and the Horns won. Case solved. In this scenario Texas is the South Division Champion.
Now, are those the best “next-in-line” tiebreakers? Perhaps. And if one were to make that argument, I would applaud them and say, “You’ve made a compelling case for the ‘Horns.”
But let’s look in another direction. How about we assign a value to home-neutral-road wins? Let’s give a team three points for a road win, two points for a neutral win and one point for a home win. If we look at that we see in eight conference games, OU gets 12 points for four road wins, three points for three home wins, for 15 points. Texas gets six points for two road wins, two points for a neutral win and four points for four home wins, for 12 points. Tech gets nine points for three road wins and four points for four home wins, for 13 points. In that scenario, it looks like OU is the deserving South Division Champ. But if you want to say, we ought to subtract points for losses, I’m right there with you. Let’s reverse it and say we lose a point for a road loss, two for a neutral loss and three for a home loss. So take away one each from Texas and Tech and two from OU. That leaves us with OU at 13, Tech at 12 and Texas at 11. Still OU.
“Well, we really need to concentrate on the three teams that are tied, don’t we?” Yes, I believe we do. Whatever tie-breaker we deem the best, most certainly should apply to only the three teams in the argument. OU gets a point for a home win against Tech and loses two for a neutral loss to Texas. Tech gets a point for a home win vs Texas and loses a point for the road loss. Texas gets two for a neutral win and loses one for a road loss. Texas 1, Tech 0, OU -1. Texas goes. Again, very good argument for Texas.
Here’s another area I’m a bit fond of. Points allowed. This is a measure we could use that eliminates points scored and as a result, the possible late-running-up-the-score-touchdown.
Now I’ve said we ought to keep our tie-breakers to the teams involved. Let’s have a look at the three games involving the three teams. OU gives up 45 to Texas and 21 to Tech for 66. Texas gives up 35 to OU and 39 to Tech for 74. Tech gives up 33 to Texas and 65 to OU for 98. OU is your South Division Champ. Some of you may want to include all South Division Games. Within reciting all the scores here, I’ll tell you that Texas gave up 128 points in the Division, OU 152 and Tech 171. Texas is your South Division Champ. If we add common Kansas, Texas still wins. The entire North? Texas still wins. Decent argument for Texas.
So we now have five arguments for Texas. They beat the best team in the North (Missouri). They had the best home-neutral-road record in the three-team round-robin. They gave up the fewest points in Division play, among common opponents, and conference play. Those last three are kind of one, but I’ll acknowledge Texas’ wins in three separate categories.
We have three arguments for OU. They have the most “points” based on home-neutral-road conference wins. They still have the most points even after subtracting for “location” losses. And they gave up the fewest points in the three-team round-robin.
I’ve said I think it’s logical and practical to consider only tie-breakers that involve activities among only the three teams in the argument; Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech. So Texas’ win over Missouri is no longer a valid argument. The other two didn’t play them based solely on the scheduling cycle. The Longhorns’ defensive prowess against the rest of the South, Kansas, and the conference as a whole is out the window. Texas’ biggest argument for representing the B12 South in the B12 Championship is the fact they have a neutral field win over OU compared to OU and Tech having home wins. And that’s a great argument for Texas.
OU’s “points” victory in conference wins and conference activity as a whole are gone. OU’s biggest argument for representing the B12 South in the B12 Championship is the fact they allowed the fewest points in the three-team round-robin. I’m certain that’s not nearly as good an argument as Texas’ H-N-R W-L.
But there is one more argument. And it’s one that I’ve thought appropriate and used all my life in breaking ties of various natures. It’s one many sports have used and continue to use, albeit perhaps lower than I would like to see it.
Point differential. I know, I know--“this rewards running up the score.” Perhaps. But I’m certain it rewards overall play. Offense, defense, special teams. Points. Points allowed. You win based on points scored. You lose based on points allowed. It’s certainly reasonable, when there are ties to be broken, that can’t be broken on a simple HTH, that point differential be considered.
Conference play? OU +195, Texas +149, Tech +101. Common opponents? OU +138, Texas +90, Tech +65. Division Play? OU +124, Texas +62, Tech +23. Wow. Pretty overwhelming in favor of Oklahoma.
To quote the mediocre Lee Corso, “Not so fast, my friend.”
“I thought you said tie-breakers should only consider the three teams involved in the argument.”
To quote the bankrupt Ed McMahon, “You are correct, sir.”
OU +34, Texas +4, Tech -38.
Oklahoma is your Big 12 Conference South Division representative.
I certainly think there are arguments for Texas. I just think the best argument lies with Oklahoma.
So, the Big 12 (and all applicable conferences) deserves a Texas-size can of whup *** for allowing the BCS to pick a team to represent a division in a championship game.
But, the BCS (and thus, the Big 12) got it right. For all the wrong reasons and all the wrong methodology. They got it right.