PDA

View Full Version : My blog entry about this BS called a 3 way tie



OU_Sooners75
12/4/2008, 11:56 AM
http://www.talkncaasports.com/index.php?q=node/44

Who really should be in the Big 12 Championship?

Now, before you jump all over me and think I am pro-Texas, hear me out.

In any true Championship game you have the two best teams facing each other. In the Big 12 this year, like most years, we do not have that. We have a team that is the fifth best team in the league facing one of the top teams in the league. You got that right. Missouri which is ranked #5 overall in the Big 12, is facing Oklahoma which is tied for #1 in the Big 12.

There has been plenty of talk about how Texas is getting screwed and should be in the Big 12 title game over Oklahoma. And they do deserve the shot. So does Texas Tech. But the Texas Longhorn Nation wants to forget about one important thing: 33-39. Yes OU lost 45-35 to Texas. In doing so, they effectively lost control of their own destiny. When Texas lost on November 1st, 2008, they effective lost control of their own destiny. And the same can be said when Texas Tech lost by 44 points to Oklahoma. So we were left with a 3 way tie for the best team in the conference.

However, this is about a team that should not even be sniffing Kansas City this weekend. Yet, based on rules, they are going to be appearing for a chance to win the conference trophy.

Why? Because all the athletic programs that are members of the Big 12 agreed to all rules in their respective sport. And Missouri is following the rules.

The same can be said of Oklahoma. I have been to plenty of websites and message boards. The view could not be louder or more incorrect. Oklahoma did not cheat the system. Oklahoma did not rewrite the rules to create their own opportunity. Instead, Oklahoma played by the rules. Oklahoma finished 11-1 (7-1 Big 12) and deserve to be in Kansas City this Saturday as much as anyone else.

So why is everyone all up in arms against Oklahoma and not the system we have in place? Oklahoma broke nothing, they just benefited from a flawed system.

Let me make one more opinion on the matter. If you do not win all of your games, you leave your future in the possible hands of the human polls and computer polls better known as the BCS. Win them all and no controversy in conference play can/will occur. Lose one and this is what we get.

It is time for the Texas fans to move on. You all lost your destiny when you lost to Texas Tech. You were not entitled to anything when you lost. You are making a proud bunch look foolish and childish. You are doing what you accused the Sooner faithful of back in 2006 when OU was screwed by the officiating in the Oregon game, but you are doing it at a much worse and louder pace.

To the “journalists” and “sportswriters”: Please shut up. If you are going to report something, at least do so by checking your facts first. One of the most overlooked facts they try using is the margin of victory or points differential is being used by the computers. This could not be further from the truth. The BCS took the MOV out of the equation about 4 to 5 years ago.

Another misinformed fact they love to report is that OU runs up the score. The true fact is the back ups were playing in most of the 4th quarters this year. In fact, Sam Bradford has missed a total of 121 minutes and 19 seconds in game time, all in the second half. And none to injury time this year. In case you need math help, 00:121:19 = 2 hours and 19 seconds. A game lasts for 60 minutes or 1 hour in regulation.

You want to talk about a flawed system? Missouri should be watching from Columbia instead of playing in Kansas City. If the Big 12 had a true championship game, then Oklahoma and Texas would be playing in Kansas City. Yes, this would screw over Texas Tech and their fans. But Oklahoma and Texas are the two highest BCS ranked teams in the Big 12 this year. At least then we would have two of the three teams that deserve to be called Big 12 Champions playing against each other this weekend.

OU_Sooners75
12/4/2008, 11:58 AM
If you liked this blog entry, please pass it along.

Thanks. and as always...


BOOMER
SOONER!

UncleFester
12/4/2008, 12:02 PM
I just still don't get the prevailing wisdom that this three-way tiebreaker is a "flawed" solution. Why shouldn't the conference want the likeliest national champion contender moving forward?

Boomer.....
12/4/2008, 12:11 PM
Lott's Bandana is going to be so mad.

OU_Sooners75
12/4/2008, 12:12 PM
I just still don't get the prevailing wisdom that this three-way tiebreaker is a "flawed" solution. Why shouldn't the conference want the likeliest national champion contender moving forward?

Obviously you missed the point of the blog.

Why should the #5 team in the Big 12 get a shot to call themselves Big 12 Champs over Texas, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State, all of which are higher than Missouri in the Big 12 standings?

But to answer your question....the tie breakers leaving it up to the opinion of humans could not be more flawed.

They should be using a capped point differential system, like High School in Oklahoma does.

OU_Sooners75
12/4/2008, 12:14 PM
Lott's Bandana is going to be so mad.

I dont care. ;)

UncleFester
12/4/2008, 12:17 PM
No, I got the point of your blog. I was referring to "Oklahoma broke nothing, they just benefited from a flawed system."

OU_Sooners75
12/4/2008, 12:21 PM
No, I got the point of your blog. I was referring to "Oklahoma broke nothing, they just benefited from a flawed system."

And our tiebreaker for the Big 12 three way tie is flawed. It could be better defined and tweaked to work better.

To have the BCS (which is a flawed ranking system) as a tie breaker is stupid and ignorant to say the least.

Read my previous post and you would understand a way that would be better and easier understood.

I could careless if the determination is to get the team with the best chance at a National Championship in the game...the BCS does not require only conference champions, so that point should be moot at best.

UncleFester
12/4/2008, 12:32 PM
You may care less, but the conference AD's, presidents, and coaches sure don't.

What post are you referring to on the tiebreaker alternatives you propose? I didn't see it.

sooner_born_1960
12/4/2008, 12:36 PM
How could it be better defined? The current definition is very clear.

SoonerAtKU
12/4/2008, 12:38 PM
The BCS doesn't require it, but voters have shown that they're unlikely to vote a non-champion into the title game again, as Georgia showed last time. Unfortunately, we have only ourselves and Nebraska to blame for this unofficial policy. If Jason White was able to get a little less air on that pass in New Orleans, maybe things turn out differently and nobody cares whether you win the conference.

OU_Sooners75
12/4/2008, 12:40 PM
You may care less, but the conference AD's, presidents, and coaches sure don't.

What post are you referring to on the tiebreaker alternatives you propose? I didn't see it.

Post #5. I edited it.

OU_Sooners75
12/4/2008, 12:46 PM
The BCS doesn't require it, but voters have shown that they're unlikely to vote a non-champion into the title game again, as Georgia showed last time. Unfortunately, we have only ourselves and Nebraska to blame for this unofficial policy. If Jason White was able to get a little less air on that pass in New Orleans, maybe things turn out differently and nobody cares whether you win the conference.

So 2003 and 2001 never happened?

It has occurred 1/5 or 20% of the time the BCS has been around. So yes, the human voters, can and will take a team that is not a conference champion.
And as far as Georgia goes...they got hosed...but they also lost to the team that LSU destroyed in the SEC CCG last year. Kinda hard to put Georgia in when LSU beat a common opponent that beat Georgia.

OU_Sooners75
12/4/2008, 07:23 PM
Bump for the evening people.