The intent of the bcs tiebreaker rule.

[colinreturn]

I suggest you guys check this out.

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1738912&forum_id=5

"I believe Aston may have something here. The rule says that if any of the teams are within 1 spot of each other, then head to head with the 2 highest ranked teams determines who goes.

I believe they intended the scenario to play out like this:
9 - OU
13 - A&M
14 - OSU
OU is the highest ranked team, OU goes.

But the actual wording says that if any team is within 1 spot of another, head to head among the highest ranked 2 goes. Meaning A&M.
It all depends on how you interpret this rule. I believe the rule is incorrectly written, but leaves the door open for A&M."

hmm.

[Okie35]

If we beat OSU @ Stillwater yea we'll be ahead of everyone in the BCS Standings. We're already above everyone but OSU and A&M can't jump us beating a lifeless * team (which I don't think they'll beat).

[DCsooner22]

A 3-loss A&M will not be ahead of a 2-loss OSU (assuming A&M and OU win) in the BCS.

Ain't gonna happen.

[sooner518]

within one spot of each other in the BCS rankings. That guy's an idiot. The rule is meant to make sure that the Big 12 has a highly ranked BCS team in the title game so that another conference's team doesn't jump ahead in the race for the national title because the Big 12 let the lower ranked team go to the Big 12 title game.

Aggies have absolutely no shot of going to the CCG unless there are some REALLY shady voting irregularities next week and the computers still probably wont bump them up enough

[colinreturn]

A 3-loss A&M will not be ahead of a 2-loss OSU (assuming A&M and OU win) in the BCS.

Ain't gonna happen.

True. But I think its interesting that the big12 could screw something up that seems so simple to figure out. Unless this was their intention...

[sooner518]

What he's saying doesnt even make sense. The way he's trying to interpret the rule would mean that in this kind of tie, you remove the lowest ranked team EVERY TIME and just go by head to head of the top two. Think about it. There's only 3 teams.

I will reiterate. This guy is an idiot. ( but then again he's an aggie so that's kind of redundant)

[meoveryouxinfinity]

i posted this and a link to TexAgs talking about this a week ago and not a peep!

[rekamrettuB]

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 in the Big 12 Championship Game, unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the Big 12 Championship Game.


Here's word for word what it says. So the only way the Ags would have any shot is if they were also ranked ahead of Ok State...and that's not going to happen. What they really meant, and maybe they didn't work it correctly, was the exact issue of 2008. #2 OU, #3 Texas, #6 TTech. Texas would go to Big XII champ game and, assuming a win, would have moved to #2 and advanced to the NC game. What this jackhole is saying could cost the Big XII a spot in the NC game. #2 OU, #5 Texas, #6 TTech. OU doesn't go to Big XII champ and most likely suffers in votes and falls to #3.

Nice try Ags.

[sooner518]

Actually what the guy is trying to argue would have the following logic:
OU 9th
OSU 15th
Tamu 16th.
Since osu and Tamu are within on of each other, Tamu goes.

Juxtapose with this scenario
Ou 9th
Osu 16th
Tamu 14th
OU goes.

Obviously that doesnt make logical sense and it's completely contradictory to the logical interpretation of the rule and the spirit of the rule. I'm not worried. We win, we're in.

[soonercastor]

what part of "top two ranked" teams is hard to grasp?

[DCsooner22]

Let's all stop trying to follow Aggie logic. Please.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

what part of "top two ranked" teams is hard to grasp?


if any of the teams are within 1 spot of each other
Where the rule SHOULD read: If the top 2 teams in the 3 way tie are ranked within 1 spot of eachother.

The rule is written poorly.

[Pricetag]

The rule exists poorly. Suck it, Texas, you lost.

[meoveryouxinfinity]

The rule exists poorly. Suck it, Texas, you lost.

agree, why would you EVER use head-to-head in a three way tie? Flip a freakin' coin...

[JLEW1818]

texas loses in 2008, aggies lose in 2010
- follow the rules texas/aggies
heheheheheheheh

[rekamrettuB]

what part of "top two ranked" teams is hard to grasp?
Because this comes first.

unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll

[JLEW1818]

top 2 only matters if they are within one spot of each other.

right?

[Sooner Suzie]

The real intent of the rule was to hopefully keep Mac from continually whining.

[sooner59]

I'm sure that that would only come into play if the final BCS standings were something like this:

#9 OU
#10 ATM
#14 OSU

If that were the case, yeah ATM would go. No way that it happens though, because a 3-loss ATM isn't going to be ranked over a 2-loss OSU that beat ATM. Their point is moot. They are arguing that ATM would go in this scenario:

#9 OU
#14 ATM
#15 OSU

I say again, ATM will not be ranked ahead of OSU in the final poll.

[sooner59]

I just thought of another reason that is a stupid interpretation.

Scenario #1:

#9 OU
#13 ATM
#14 OSU

By ATM logic, they go to the Big 12 CG based on them being within one spot of OSU, making it head-to-head with OU and ATM since those are the top two teams.

Ready for this?...

Scenario #2:

#9 OU
#12 ATM
#14 OSU

LOL. For being higher in the BCS, ATM would lose out by their argument since they are not within one spot of OSU.....in fact no two teams are within one spot of another.

ATM's only shot is for a perfect storm to happen. They would need to destroy * and have a bunch of people lose and OU not move up after beating the #9 team in the nation on the road on national tv. Good luck with that aggies. LOL!

[BoulderSooner79]

I thought they changed the rule to read that in a 3-way tie, the horns win. That's what:mack: is bankin' on.

[OldTimeSooner]

I just thought of another reason that is a stupid interpretation.

Scenario #1:

#9 OU
#13 ATM
#14 OSU

By ATM logic, they go to the Big 12 CG based on them being within one spot of OSU, making it head-to-head with OU and ATM since those are the top two teams.

This isn't Aggie logic. It's what the rule says. This comes into play if two of the three teams are back to back in the BCS standings. It does NOT specify that these must be the top two. So, in the above scenario, have we satisfied the stated conditions? Yes. (This rule was probably written by distraught UT boosters.) So the head-to-head between the top two teams (specified now, but not before) decides the issue.

And a beat-down of the 2008 Tech type could conceivably drop OSU below A&M.


Ready for this?...

Scenario #2:

#9 OU
#12 ATM
#14 OSU

LOL. For being higher in the BCS, ATM would lose out by their argument since they are not within one spot of OSU.....in fact no two teams are within one spot of another.

This is correct. If they move ahead of OSU by two spots or more, they are SOL.


ATM's only shot is for a perfect storm to happen. They would need to destroy * and have a bunch of people lose and OU not move up after beating the #9 team in the nation on the road on national tv. Good luck with that aggies. LOL!

It doesn't matter how much OU moves up. As written, OU could move up to #1 and it wouldn't matter. Aggies would go if they were exactly one spot ahead of OSU, based on head-to-head.

Moral outrage makes for badly-formed rules!

[TMcGee86]

Where the rule SHOULD read: If the top 2 teams in the 3 way tie are ranked within 1 spot of eachother.

The rule is written poorly.

This.

[sooner59]

Dan Beebe is an idiot.

[OUNC06]

It doesn't matter how much OU moves up. As written, OU could move up to #1 and it wouldn't matter. Aggies would go if they were exactly one spot ahead of OSU, based on head-to-head.

Moral outrage makes for badly-formed rules!

You are wrong about this. Someone partially quoted the rule and Aggie logic took it from there. The winner of the OU-OSU game will represent the south in the Big 12 Championship game regardless of what the Aggie South Crotch Grabbing, Dead Dog Worshiping, Pretend Soldiers think.

[badger]

Oh Aggie... let's just settle it with a parody of something they once used against Baylor:

I have a message for our beloved aggies in College Station. I would appreciate it if someone who goes to their site would link up and send them a message for me... actually don't. They lurk enough on their own that they don't need any help finding every last thing people ever say about them.

I want to tell them that I admire them. I admire the fact that they are better fans than we are. I admire them because they've been through so much these past years.

R.C. getting fired, 77-0, Dennis Franchione's e-mail alerts, Mike Sherman's usual incompetence, $Bill's ticket prices.

Why can't we get better coaches here, they ask? Why can't we get better recruits here? We pray, we pay, we cheer, we wear maroon, we travel back to College Station now and then, we wear our senior boots and dunk our class rings in beer. We uncover. We want to win.

I want them to read this while the lingering defeats of this season that keep them out of the championship game still stings in their loins. I have the answer to these questions. You can read my response and then go have a better life with the satisfaction of having this knowledge.

The reason you can't have better coaches and better recruits is simple.

You're Aggies.

You're not the Sooners or the Whorns. You're not even close. You can't even compete with Tard. TCU? Forget it. I know you're all passionate.

But you're Aggies.

I know you think I'm just running smack, but really I'm not.

You're Aggies.

Say it.

I'm Aggie.

I'm Aggie.

You're getting it.

I'm Aggie. I beat OU for the first time since 2002. Not much better against the other South schools, except maybe Baylor. I'm not going to get any better. Really. This season is our peak. I'm Aggie.

I'm that bully that constantly yells at everyone to do exactly as I'm doing at football games because I'm sitting with my frat or Corps of Cadets. I will scream right in your ear till you give in and not worry about retaliation since I know you're alone and I have stadium security and friends who will lie for me if you dare take one swing. And it feels good to be the bully and not the one bullied for once.

I'm Aggie.

I vote en masse for two juniors and three seniors to prance the sidelines in white jumpsuits while I squeeze myself painfully in front of a national television audience.

I'm Aggie.

I salute a dog as the highest ranking member of a fake army. I think spinning towels will distract the opposing team. I think our lawns on campus including the football field are war memorials. I think practicing the same yells every midnight before a home game is time well-spent.

I'm Aggie.

Notice how I'm not poking fun at your season. You are actually a good team this year, despite several losses. Why do you take joy in other team's misfortunes when you've experienced so much losing in recent seasons?

But you won't do that anymore, not because you've learned your lesson, but because we all know you'll be back to sucking next year.

You're not getting any better, you just got lucky that your coach finally benched JJ.

You'll never be worth mentioning on ESPN after this miracle season, except during basketball season.

You're Aggies.

And you'll be watching your Big 12 South daddy during this final Big 12 Championship game.

Decorate your trees and trim them with the maroon and more maroon. Spend Christmas with nighttime dreams of candy canes, Jolly St. Nick and an OU upset at Kyle or against Texas next year after you fail this week.

And then wake up. Take a whizz. Comb your hair. Kiss your kids.

And then remember what I told you.

You're Aggies.

[SoonerMarkVA]

As the rule reads, either interpretation is defensible. The Ags are hoping for a loophole.

The trouble for Aggy is, the intent is clearly against that interpretation. There is no way under a #9, #13, #14 scenario that Aggy is going to win it. Since the rule was in response to 2008, the intent was to "mitigate" the effects of negligible BCS difference with head-to-head. There is no negligible BCS difference between #9 and #13, regardless of the fact that the ambiguity of the rule allows for Aggy interpretation.

Now, if we sub Hook 'em for Aggy, then I'd be worried. lol

[jkjsooner]

I suggest you guys check this out.

http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=1738912&forum_id=5

"I believe Aston may have something here. The rule says that if any of the teams are within 1 spot of each other, then head to head with the 2 highest ranked teams determines who goes.

I believe they intended the scenario to play out like this:
9 - OU
13 - A&M
14 - OSU
OU is the highest ranked team, OU goes.

But the actual wording says that if any team is within 1 spot of another, head to head among the highest ranked 2 goes. Meaning A&M.
It all depends on how you interpret this rule. I believe the rule is incorrectly written, but leaves the door open for A&M."

hmm.


Interesting point. The entire tiebreaker rules need to be rewritten as there are several sentences that are ambiguous and some that are flatly not what was intended (this one).

[jkjsooner]

What he's saying doesnt even make sense. The way he's trying to interpret the rule would mean that in this kind of tie, you remove the lowest ranked team EVERY TIME and just go by head to head of the top two. Think about it. There's only 3 teams.

I will reiterate. This guy is an idiot. ( but then again he's an aggie so that's kind of redundant)

Why is he an idiot? Because he took a strict interpretation of the language?

The point here isn't that A&M will go. The point is that as usual the Big 12 messed up the language.

[Leroy Lizard]

New tiebreaker rule:

If any conference team played for the national title the previous year and... and...

Screw it. UT sucked so much that I got nothin'.

[jkjsooner]

Let's all stop trying to follow Aggie logic. Please.

Guys, I'm sorry. I love to make fun of the Aggies as much as anyone but let's be fair. Aggies are using correct logic here. It's the Big 12 who messed up.

Now, I don't think A&M would push the issue as it would make them look like a fool but their logic is sound.

Two teams tied - check
Compare the head to head against the top two - A&M

Nobody here is arguing about the intent of the rule. The argument is about the actual wording...

[jkjsooner]

Actually what the guy is trying to argue would have the following logic:
OU 9th
OSU 15th
Tamu 16th.


That is incorrect. He is not making that argument.

Are two teams within one spot - yes.
Compare head to head for the top two teams (OU vs OSU) - OU.

His scenario would require Tamu to be one of the top two teams but not necessarily within one spot of OU.

[Leroy Lizard]

We can play the same game:

"In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the Big 12 Championship Game."

"shall determine" only means that the result plays the final role in the decision; it does not mean that that one of the two teams involved in the decision gets to play in the Big XII CCG.

After all, in some tie-breaker systems the winner between two losing teams could determine which one of the higher ranked teams gets the nod. It doesn't mean that one of the two losing teams gets it.

[jkjsooner]

You are wrong about this. Someone partially quoted the rule and Aggie logic took it from there. The winner of the OU-OSU game will represent the south in the Big 12 Championship game regardless of what the Aggie South Crotch Grabbing, Dead Dog Worshiping, Pretend Soldiers think.

The entire rule has been quoted here and if interpreted literally Aggie is correct.

[OUNC06]

The entire rule has been quoted here and if interpreted literally Aggie is correct.

Regardless of what is being said the winner of the OU-OSU game is going to the Big 12 Championship. You can argue all night and nothing will change that.

[NateHeupel]

The entire rule has been quoted here and if interpreted literally Aggie is correct.

Not so fast, my friend. If they want to play twisted interpretations, then I'll play that game.

Let's reread the rule:


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 in the Big 12 Championship Game, unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the Big 12 Championship Game.

If you're paying attention, that doesn't mean:
#9 OU + #12 A&M #13 OSU = A&M South Champions.

It means that #9 OU + #10 A&M + #11 OSU = A&M South Champions.

It says that TWO of the tied teams have to be ranked within one spot of THE OTHER. Not of "each other" The only way to accomplish that is for the teams to be ranked in sequence.

[stoopified]

Let's all stop trying to follow Aggie logic. Please.
Aggie....logic.....funny stuff.

[cccasooner2]

My interpretation of the rule:

Unless there is clear and undisputable evidence to the contrary, OU shall be designated as the Big XII South champion.

[proudsoonergal]

The real intent of the rule was to hopefully keep Mac from continually whining.

Good luck with that. I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear Mack whining for a bowl bid if they lose to the Aggies.

He's like a three year old girl who wants attention and/or candy. How do you stop the whining? Give them what they want, or distract them with something shiny. "Mack, look here!! Look at the pretty balloons!"

[MI Sooner]

Not so fast, my friend. If they want to play twisted interpretations, then I'll play that game.

Let's reread the rule:



If you're paying attention, that doesn't mean:
#9 OU + #12 A&M #13 OSU = A&M South Champions.

It means that #9 OU + #10 A&M + #11 OSU = A&M South Champions.

It says that TWO of the tied teams have to be ranked within one spot of THE OTHER. Not of "each other" The only way to accomplish that is for the teams to be ranked in sequence.

Can you elaborate? If OU is 9, a&m is 13, and OSU is 14, are you saying that two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other? It doesn't say, "if two of the tied teams are ranked one spot behind another ranked tied team." 13 is within one of 14. 14 is within one of 13.

[jkjsooner]

Not so fast, my friend. If they want to play twisted interpretations, then I'll play that game.

Let's reread the rule:



If you're paying attention, that doesn't mean:
#9 OU + #12 A&M #13 OSU = A&M South Champions.

It means that #9 OU + #10 A&M + #11 OSU = A&M South Champions.

It says that TWO of the tied teams have to be ranked within one spot of THE OTHER. Not of "each other" The only way to accomplish that is for the teams to be ranked in sequence.

Good point but that is a little ambiguous. What does "the other" mean in this context. Unfortunately, taken literally the Aggie's interpretation does not prey on an ambiguity. It's a flat out loophole.

[sooner59]

I think we are missing the point here. The point is, which school is will to pay Dan Beebe the most money under the table to "interpret" the rule their favor? ATM has money, but OSU has T.Boone. I guess we could just refuse to offer money and threaten to leave the conference. Beebe would sh!t himself. :eek:

[NateHeupel]

Good point but that is a little ambiguous. What does "the other" mean in this context. Unfortunately, taken literally the Aggie's interpretation does not prey on an ambiguity. It's a flat out loophole.

The hardest part of interpreting the law under a "plain meaning" construction is if your comprehension of English vocabulary and grammar is lacking. I'm not saying that your understanding is lacking, jkj, but merely that the Aggie is the one failing to understand. Unless you really think his interpretation is accurate.

There are two ways to word that rule. The only given in this scenario is that three teams are involved in the tie.

One phrasing implies the meaning that Aggie South gives it:
1) unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of each other in the BCS poll...
This phrasing would mean that no matter which of the two teams are ranked within one spot of each other, as long as two teams are ranked within one spot of each other, then you eliminate the lowest team and go by the head to head of the two highest teams regardless of whether or not the two highest teams are within one spot of each other. We'll call this construction "Aggie's Wet Dream".

The phrasing that the Big 12 used gives it an entirely different meaning.
2) unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll.
This phrasing explicitly requires three teams. There is no way to read the phrase "the other" and think it means the other of the first two teams. The interpretation is simple. Two of the tied teams must be ranked within one spot of the other (third) ranked team. That requires all three to be in sequence. We'll call this construction "Reality".

jkj, this is not "preying on an ambiguity". This is the very clear interpretation of the rule. The Big 12 powers that be wanted the rule to cover a very specific situation, and this rule covers only a very specific situation. When the teams are all clustered together, you have a fair way to eliminate the third team.

The problem with the Aggie's interpretation is that it's overly broad. It creates a scenario where you could have #2 OU (1 loss conference, 1 loss total), #23 Tech (1 loss conference, 3 losses total), and #24 OSU (1 loss conference, 3 losses total) in a three way tie and have Tech be the team that advances to the conference title game if we lost to them in Lubbock. I know that we all think the boys in charge of the Big 12 are stupid, but they're not THAT stupid.


It doesn't say, "if two of the tied teams are ranked one spot behind another ranked tied team."

That's EXACTLY what it says.

[fwsooner22]

Winner of Bedlam goes. * is the 5-6. No style points with a win there. Might even drop with a win. A&M waited too many weeks to change QB's. Too Bad. They are the better team right now. However, they are Aggies and that's what happens to Aggies. Same %^%% gone happen in Stillwater Saturday. Aggies are gonna be Aggies. See ya in Arlington.

[TMcGee86]

The phrasing that the Big 12 used gives it an entirely different meaning.
2) unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll.
This phrasing explicitly requires three teams. There is no way to read the phrase "the other" and think it means the other of the first two teams. The interpretation is simple. Two of the tied teams must be ranked within one spot of the other (third) ranked team. That requires all three to be in sequence. We'll call this construction "Reality".


I think you are right, However, the problem is if you interpret it that way, its impossible that it would ever actually occur.

The way it's written : "unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll."

This would mean that both bottom teams have to be ranked within one spot of the top team. Not only is there no chance that could happen as you (almost) never see exact ties in the BCS, even if that did magically occur, how would you decide who the top two teams are? The bottom two are tied.

Cue Infinite loop.



It's obviously just poorly written. Since the Big12 doesn't take total record into consideration until after this, you could theoretically have two teams ranked in the 50's and one team ranked #1 in the BCS, and if one of the 50's beat the #1 team, they would get the nod simply by being ranked within one spot of the other. That's the worst scenario imaginable.

It should just say if the top two ranked teams are within one spot of each other, then their head to head decides it.

[PLaw]

Actually what the guy is trying to argue would have the following logic:
OU 9th
OSU 15th
Tamu 16th.
Since osu and Tamu are within on of each other, Tamu goes.

Juxtapose with this scenario
Ou 9th
Osu 16th
Tamu 14th
OU goes.

Obviously that doesnt make logical sense and it's completely contradictory to the logical interpretation of the rule and the spirit of the rule. I'm not worried. We win, we're in.

Has anything logical ever come out of stoolwater or college station? I mean really?? Do you understand the meaning of gig 'em?

Boomer