Sooner living in Collie Station called Traber

[picasso]

a while ago. Apparently she works at the school or something but she said they sent her off with cheers of encouragement Saturday on her way to Stillwater.
They wanted a Sooner win so they could pass us and the Pokes in the BCS.

She was confused as am I and she said now that she's returned, the entire campus is in shock.

This cracks me up.

[tommieharris91]

I'm thinking most aggies need to realize 10-2 > 9-3.

[sooner_born_1960]

What? I never heard anyone predict aTm would pass OSU, let alone OU, when the Sooners won.

[rainiersooner]

Ergo, her confusion - that's hilarious!

[jumperstop]

a while ago. Apparently she works at the school or something but she said they sent her off with cheers of encouragement Saturday on her way to Stillwater.
They wanted a Sooner win so they could pass us and the Pokes in the BCS.

She was confused as am I and she said now that she's returned, the entire campus is in shock.

This cracks me up.

I thought most people understood that if OU wins they go, if OSU wins they go, aTm was only a technicality in the equation in my mind.

[badger]

I'm thinking most aggies need to realize 10-2 > 9-3.

I would sat that 9-3 would be greater than 10-2 if your losses were to undefeated Oregon, Auburn and TCU. However, their losses are to 2-loss teams, including at a neutral site and at home.

[Mississippi Sooner]

It seems insane, but there were actually people trying to say that if OU beat OSU, and the Sooners and Pokes wound up within in one spot of one another in the rankings, somehow that meant aTm would go to the championship because the Aggies had the head to head win over us.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I would sat that 9-3 would be greater than 10-2 if your losses were to undefeated Oregon, Auburn and TCU. However, their losses are to 2-loss teams, including at a neutral site and at home.What's mystifying about the highest BCS ranked of the 3 teams represents the Big 12 South?

[jumperstop]

It seems insane, but there were actually people trying to say that if OU beat OSU, and the Sooners and Pokes wound up within in one spot of one another in the rankings, somehow that meant aTm would go to the championship because the Aggies had the head to head win over us.

I had some OSU fan on OP.com trying to say if OU ranked #9, OSU #15 and aTm #16, that OSU would go because they would win the head to head tiebreaker for being within one spot of aTm....hahaha. It was one of the funniest/sadest things every. Ok mostly funny...:D

[owenfieldreams]

Have you ever wondered why the Big 12 is dominated by agricultural schools....K-State, Iowa State, A&M, & Okie State....you can probably through in the Sand Aggies for good measure.

These people are clueless.

[Mississippi Sooner]

I had some OSU fan on OP.com trying to say if OU ranked #9, OSU #15 and aTm #16, that OSU would go because they would win the head to head tiebreaker for being within one spot of aTm....hahaha. It was one of the funniest/sadest things every. Ok mostly funny...:D

Exactly. I've never seen so many strange, convoluted equations emerge as we saw last week. As some here said, you could certainly tell which fan bases weren't used to being there.

[cccasooner2]

These people are clueless.

Yeah, they're not as smart as we are. :)

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147978&highlight=BCS

[A-M]

It seems insane, but there were actually people trying to say that if OU beat OSU, and the Sooners and Pokes wound up within in one spot of one another in the rankings, somehow that meant aTm would go to the championship because the Aggies had the head to head win over us.

I think the way the rule is, is that had OU beat OSU and on a 3 way tie, OU was only 1 place ahead of OSU, the Big 12 could decide which one went to the CCG. aTm would not have a chance to go unless he was ranked higher the both OU and OSU.

[C&CDean]

I work with an A&Mer, and the first thing he said Monday was "what a crock, we beat you guys so we should be going to Dallas." I go "uh, we're 10-2. Y'all have lost 3 games. How does that figure?" "We beat you and that's all that matters." I go "really? We're playing in the Big-12 Championship game. I think that matters a lot." He goes "whatever dude." I go "you're right, whatever dude."

This guy is a borderline genius engineer who is one of the most easy-going, intelligent, well-spoken, even-keeled guys you'd ever wanna meet. Somehow this whole football equation effed him the eff up. He still ain't over it.

[picasso]

Guys! The deal is they somehow thought by beating Texas that would jump them over us beating a higher ranked Poker team at home.

And perhaps erase that 3rd loss of theirs.

Brilliant.

[AggieGirl2005]

The overwhelming VAST majority of Ags knew it was not going to happen. There were a sliver of Ags who annoyingly believed there was a technicality in the rules that might allow them to go. These Ags were berated everytime they brought it up on Texags.

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. "
The argument was that if A&M came within one of OSU, this rule would be invoked. If we were above OSU but below OU, then the head-to-head with OU would come into play.

But the SPIRIT of the rule is that it should be invoked if two of the TOP teams are within one spot - but it doesn't say that. The Big 12 released a press release just before the OSU-OU game clearing that up - the new language said the TOP two teams.

Anyways, that's probably what they were talking about.

[jumperstop]

I think the way the rule is, is that had OU beat OSU and on a 3 way tie, OU was only 1 place ahead of OSU, the Big 12 could decide which one went to the CCG. aTm would not have a chance to go unless he was ranked higher the both OU and OSU.

Way off...If the top two are within a place of each other they take head to head. So aTm had to jump OSU and then be within one place of us to go. And we would have gone had we been a least one place behind OSU.

I guess some people still don't get it...:P

[jumperstop]

The overwhelming VAST majority of Ags knew it was not going to happen. There were a sliver of Ags who annoyingly believed there was a technicality in the rules that might allow them to go. These Ags were berated everytime they brought it up on Texags.

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. "
The argument was that if A&M came within one of OSU, this rule would be invoked. If we were above OSU but below OU, then the head-to-head with OU would come into play.

But the SPIRIT of the rule is that it should be invoked if two of the TOP teams are within one spot - but it doesn't say that. The Big 12 released a press release just before the OSU-OU game clearing that up - the new language said the TOP two teams.

Anyways, that's probably what they were talking about.

It does say it though, just not in the first part. So what you're saying that Aggies have reading comprehension problems or are they just ignorant?

[AggieGirl2005]

It does say it though, just not in the first part. So what you're saying that Aggies have reading comprehension problems or are they just ignorant?

EDIT: No, if we jumped OSU, it'd be between us and you guys.

[AggieGirl2005]

It does say it though, just not in the first part. So what you're saying that Aggies have reading comprehension problems or are they just ignorant?

The original rule said if any of the tied teams were within one, the rule was invoked. The second release said the TOP TWO teams had to be within one another, not just any of the tied teams.

[jumperstop]

EDIT: No, if we jumped OSU, it'd be between us and you guys.

If you were within one spot, I know this. But anyone in their right mind should have seen that wasn't going to happen. And that's not what you were saying. You were saying that people thought because of the wording that if OSU-aTm ended up within one spot of each other, whether or not OU was highest ranked aTm would go. Like you said, that had to be cleared up by your fans by the conference in a presser.

[humblesooner]

I think the way the rule is, is that had OU beat OSU and on a 3 way tie, OU was only 1 place ahead of OSU, the Big 12 could decide which one went to the CCG. aTm would not have a chance to go unless he was ranked higher the both OU and OSU.

The B12 doesn't make the decision. The higher ranked team goes UNLESS the top two teams are with in 1 place of each other. Then the head-to-head winner goes.

[jumperstop]

The original rule said if any of the tied teams were within one, the rule was invoked. The second release said the TOP TWO teams had to be within one another, not just any of the tied teams.

The second part has always said the top two teams, just not the first part (this is where people got confused). I never had a problem understanding the rules as they were written.

[fadada1]

WHAT IS SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE RULE????? GOOD LORD, ARE ALL AGGIES BRAIN DEAD??? MORONS!!!

[Mississippi Sooner]

Let's all be thankful that at least we didn't have any airplanes dragging banners through the sky this time around.

[TXBOOMER]

Anyone that actually thought the 9 - 3 Aggies would pass a two loss OU team that traveled to Stillwater and beat OSU is a certified dicktard. And they need to have the dick they call a brain surgically removed from their head.

[AggieGirl2005]

If you were within one spot, I know this. But anyone in their right mind should have seen that wasn't going to happen. And that's not what you were saying. You were saying that people thought because of the wording that if OSU-aTm ended up within one spot of each other, whether or not OU was highest ranked aTm would go. Like you said, that had to be cleared up by your fans by the conference in a presser.

People thought if OSU/A&M ended up within one spot with A&M ahead of OSU, say A&M 15 OSU 16, then the head-to-head of the TOP TWO teams (OU and A&M *if* A&M jumped OSU) would determine the matchup according to the rule, which means A&M would go.
"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."

Yes, it was QUITE the long shot for A&M to jump OSU, but I don't think people expected us to drop after beating Texas. And even IF we did jump OSU, the vast majority didn't think we'd slide in on a technicality.

[jumperstop]

People thought if OSU/A&M ended up within one spot with A&M ahead of OSU, say A&M 16 OSU 17, then the head-to-head of the TOP TWO teams (OU and A&M *if* A&M jumped OSU) would determine the matchup according to the rule, which means A&M would go.
"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."

Yes, it was QUITE the long shot for A&M to jump OSU, but I don't think people expected us to drop after beating Texas. And even IF we did jump OSU, the vast majority didn't think we'd slide in on a technicality.

I does say "In this case" at the begining, which refers to the first part of saying they must be within one spot of the team infront of them. So if your fans thought that they could go to the CCG just by passing OSU, then that doesn't sound like that makes them any smarter.

[AggieGirl2005]

The B12 doesn't make the decision. The higher ranked team goes UNLESS the top two teams are with in 1 place of each other. Then the head-to-head winner goes.

THIS. EXACTLY.

But the original rule didn't say the TOP two teams, which led to confusion.

[AggieGirl2005]

I does say "In this case" at the begining, which refers to the first part of saying they must be within one spot of the team infront of them. So if your fans thought that they could go to the CCG just by passing OSU, then that doesn't sound like that makes them any smarter.

In this case refers to:"unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll."

The original rule does not say WHICH of the tied teams need to be within one. So theoretically, if A&M and OSU are within one, the rule is invoked, even if OU is ahead of both of them. That's why the release was put out there. That would be a stupid rule but it WAS written that way.

[AggieGirl2005]

I does say "In this case" at the begining, which refers to the first part of saying they must be within one spot of the team infront of them. So if your fans thought that they could go to the CCG just by passing OSU, then that doesn't sound like that makes them any smarter.

In this case refers to:"unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll."

The original rule does not say WHICH of the tied teams need to be within one. So theoretically, if A&M and OSU are within one, the rule is invoked, even if OU is ahead of both of them. That's why the release was put out there. That would be a stupid rule but it WAS written that way.

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. (If OU is 9, A&M is 15, and OSU is 16, rule invoked). 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. (OU and A&M are top two teams, A&M wins head to head) (

sorry for the double post - stupid computer!

[jumperstop]

THIS. EXACTLY.

But the original rule didn't say the TOP two teams, which led to confusion.

It's always said it in the second part, even in the original. The first part confused people by not saying the top two teams. But I'm done with this, who cares. OU to the Big 12 CG, aTm can sit at home and cry. They'll get to play there in about a month in the Cotton Bowl.

[cccasooner2]

THIS. EXACTLY.

But the original rule didn't say the TOP two teams, which led to confusion.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhsoooooo......

[jumperstop]

In this case refers to:"unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll."

The original rule does not say WHICH of the tied teams need to be within one. So theoretically, if A&M and OSU are within one, the rule is invoked, even if OU is ahead of both of them. That's why the release was put out there. That would be a stupid rule but it WAS written that way.

I'm still pretty sure you're wrong. When they released the "Texas" rule for the tiebreaker and the rules were posted here back before the season, I understood it perfectly then. I don't think it was worded wrong back then. And even if it was worded wrong, people should have been able to understand what it was saying.

[AlboSooner]

I can maybeeeee see their argument for passing OU, but how can one make sense on them passing OSU? OSU is ranked higher than them and beat them.

[OUEngr1990]

So what you're saying that Aggies have reading comprehension problems or are they just ignorant?

yes

[jumperstop]

In this case refers to:"unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll."

The original rule does not say WHICH of the tied teams need to be within one. So theoretically, if A&M and OSU are within one, the rule is invoked, even if OU is ahead of both of them. That's why the release was put out there. That would be a stupid rule but it WAS written that way.

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. (If OU is 9, A&M is 15, and OSU is 16, rule invoked). 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. (OU and A&M are top two teams, A&M wins head to head) (

sorry for the double post - stupid computer!

It says "in this case" which means you have to look at the two sentences together...I can't believe you are arguing that the wording is confusing there. Some people are just dumb...

[OUEngr1990]

win your games, bottom line

[TopDawg]

It's always said it in the second part, even in the original.

But it didn't say that the top two teams were the ones that had to be within one spot of each other in the BCS. If it wasn't poorly worded, the Big XII wouldn't have released an updated version. They did a bad job of writing it the first time because it was vague.

Having said that, the spirit of the rule was very clear.

And anybody that though A&M was going to jump us in this week's standings was, as someone else so eloquently put it, a dicktard. And that's what makes picasso's OP so funny. They actually thought they were going to jump us.

[tommieharris91]

don't blow leads, bottom line

fify

[OUEngr1990]

I have to work with these tards every day, they really think like that. They will distort facts in their favor to glorify themselves. It goes beyond sports.
Self entitlement, must be a texan thing..

[tommieharris91]

I have to work with these tards every day, they really think like that. They will distort facts in their favor to glorify themselves. It goes beyond sports.
Self entitlement, must be a texan thing..

Just tell them they sound like t-sips in 2008. That'll learn em.

[AggieGirl2005]

I'm still pretty sure you're wrong. When they released the "Texas" rule for the tiebreaker and the rules were posted here back before the season, I understood it perfectly then. I don't think it was worded wrong back then. And even if it was worded wrong, people should have been able to understand what it was saying.

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=1546006

You can read it word for word like I copied it on the Big 12's own website. It's #5. The website doesn't even include the new language.

It was worded wrong, but "spirit of a rule" isn't a valid argument. But regardless, most Aggies agreed with you - everytime someone would bring it up, people would be like "Ugh not this again." Then there were those who felt that if we had ANY chance to get into the B12, we should take it. The point was moot when the rule was cleared up. And it was double moot (if that's possible!) when A&M dropped in the polls. Not an issue, just wanted to clear up what the OP was probably talking about.

[OUEngr1990]

Just tell them they sound like t-sips in 2008. That'll learn em.


I might get shot doin that :D

[tommieharris91]

I might get shot doin that :D

Well, it's true. :O

[AggieGirl2005]

But it didn't say that the top two teams were the ones that had to be within one spot of each other in the BCS. If it wasn't poorly worded, the Big XII wouldn't have released an updated version. They did a bad job of writing it the first time because it was vague.

Having said that, the spirit of the rule was very clear.

And anybody that though A&M was going to jump us in this week's standings was, as someone else so eloquently put it, a dicktard. And that's what makes picasso's OP so funny. They actually thought they were going to jump us.

I'd agree...but the OP's friend probably meant that they wanted us to jump OSU. We would not need to jump OU if the verbatim rule was applied, only OSU, which if they lost by a blowout, would not be a crazy thought as of last week.

[AlboSooner]

There is a saying: let the dogs barks, the car will drive on by.

I hear a lot of barking from the Lassies of College Station....

[jumperstop]

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10410&ATCLID=1546006

You can read it word for word like I copied it on the Big 12's own website. It's #5. The website doesn't even include the new language.

It was worded wrong, but "spirit of a rule" isn't a valid argument. But regardless, most Aggies agreed with you - everytime someone would bring it up, people would be like "Ugh not this again." Then there were those who felt that if we had ANY chance to get into the B12, we should take it. The point was moot when the rule was cleared up. And it was double moot (if that's possible!) when A&M dropped in the polls. Not an issue, just wanted to clear up what the OP was probably talking about.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diss on you because you seem to understand, and have been a polite and good opposing fan poster. The rule should be reworded, but everyone else seemed to understand it just fine. To think that you have a shot because the wording is wrong, even though those same people probably knew what the rule meant is just stupid. So aTm fans are either too stupid to understand what the rule meant, or too stupid to understand that the conference would never let you get to the CCG on a technicality.

[jumperstop]

Ok I'm really done with this thread now.. :D

[AggieGirl2005]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to diss on you because you seem to understand, and have been a polite and good opposing fan poster. The rule should be reworded, but everyone else seemed to understand it just fine. To think that you have a shot because the wording is wrong, even though those same people probably knew what the rule meant is just stupid. So aTm fans are either too stupid to understand what the rule meant, or too stupid to understand that the conference would never let you get by on a technicality.

Well you're putting all A&M fans in a big group here. The vast majority (that I read/spoke to) did not believe we'd slide in on a technicality. But yes, SOME did believe that the case should be argued, since technically, dems da rules, and a lot of those still didn't think the argument would prevail, only that we should try- basically a hail mary.

[BoulderSooner79]

All this just proves that hope springs eternal. I recall there were horn fans dreaming up scenarios where they would still make the BCS title game with 2 losses (they were all giddy after beating NU).

[AggieGirl2005]

All this just proves that hope springs eternal. I recall there were horn fans dreaming up scenarios where they would still make the BCS title game with 2 losses (they were all giddy after beating NU).

Yup. I agree with the previous poster. Win more and don't worry about the technicalities. :)

And as much as I love my Aggies and would love to see them in the Big12 title game, as a pure fan of college football, OU/NU is just so fitting.

[badger]

And as much as I love my Aggies and would love to see them in the Big12 title game, as a pure fan of college football, OU/NU is just so fitting.

Kudos for taking this so well... even if it makes you a 2 percenter back home :rcmad:

[cvsooner]

I do understand the frustration. After all, the two teams playing for the Big XII title are both 'W's for aTm. But we didn't write the rule, either.

[AggieGirl2005]

I do understand the frustration. After all, the two teams playing for the Big XII title are both 'W's for aTm. But we didn't write the rule, either.

It's more frustration with ourselves, at least for me and for other fans I know of. I think the rule is fair - whenever there's a three way tie with head-to-head not favoring a single team, it's safe to say each team has a valid argument that they're the team to go. You just have to pick something objective and the BCS is the least of all evils.

[olevetonahill]

Let's all be thankful that at least we didn't have any airplanes dragging banners through the sky this time around.

Sure there was, But you must remember these are AGGIES we talking about. They did it at night :P

[OUEngr1990]

You just have to pick something objective and the BCS is the least of all evils.

some people may argue with you there, but not me. Works fer me:pop:

[AggieGirl2005]

some people may argue with you there, but not me. Works fer me:pop:

Well, actually I prefer a dance off between head coaches, but nobody agrees with me.

[MyT Oklahoma]

a while ago. Apparently she works at the school or something but she said they sent her off with cheers of encouragement Saturday on her way to Stillwater.
They wanted a Sooner win so they could pass us and the Pokes in the BCS.

She was confused as am I and she said now that she's returned, the entire campus is in shock.

This cracks me up.

Oh well.. some people are simply beyond belief.. huh? ;)

[SunnySooner]

I just think it's hilarious that in both 3-ways, we've come out the winner, leaving aggys (maroon and orange) and whorns bewildered and pissed. Priceless!!!

[swardboy]

Well, actually I prefer a dance off between head coaches, but nobody agrees with me.


I like your style.

[StoopTroup]

The real truth is that Tamuflu should be representing the South and they got screwed.

I hope knowing how I feel makes them feel better now.

[jkjsooner]

In this case refers to:"unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll."

The original rule does not say WHICH of the tied teams need to be within one. So theoretically, if A&M and OSU are within one, the rule is invoked, even if OU is ahead of both of them. That's why the release was put out there. That would be a stupid rule but it WAS written that way.

jumperstop, AggieGirl is correct. The wording of the rule did not match the intended meaning.

You (jumperstop) are making assumptions based on a common sense interpretation of the rule but not based on the actual language of the rule.

Either way, the Big 12 clarified this.

[jkjsooner]

The second part has always said the top two teams, just not the first part (this is where people got confused). I never had a problem understanding the rules as they were written.

That's because you're not looking for a loophole. Nevertheless, a loophole existed.

[jkjsooner]

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Aggies were looking for a loophole and they found one.


unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll. (If OU is 9, A&M is 15, and OSU is 16, rule invoked). 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.

There is nothing stating the "top two ranked reams" qualification must be applied to the first sentence. Sure, it makes sense and seems self evident but the language does not specify this.

Blame the Aggies for looking for a loophole. It is pathetic but they're not stupid. That is reserved for the B12 who couldn't write a simple rule.

[jkjsooner]

I'm still pretty sure you're wrong. When they released the "Texas" rule for the tiebreaker and the rules were posted here back before the season, I understood it perfectly then. I don't think it was worded wrong back then. And even if it was worded wrong, people should have been able to understand what it was saying.

Again, everyone understood what it was "saying." Any time someone exploits a loophole they understand the intent of the rule.

[jkjsooner]

I do understand the frustration. After all, the two teams playing for the Big XII title are both 'W's for aTm. But we didn't write the rule, either.

This is the argument I don't get. So what that they beat both OU and NU? Are we supposed to now put in a rule that a tied team in the south automatically goes if they happen to beat both of the teams that would otherwise be in the conference championship game? That's absurd.

And then what if the other tied team again beat the north champ and the "new" south champ? Would you apply this convoluted rule again.

So let's see, OU beats OSU. OSU beats A&M. A&M beats OU. All three beat NU.

So, OU is ranked highest so they go to the champ game. But, A&M beat both OU and NU so they go. But, OSU beat both A&M and NU so they go. But OU beat both OSU and NU so they go. But, ........

Then we could add yet another clarification that if this wierd rule doesn't get a winner we ignore this rule and continue on...

[usaosooner]

the stupid it burns!

[jiminy]

But the original rule as interpreted by Aggie doesn't hold up under logical evaluation. They're saying that if they were ranked higher than OSU by one place, they would get the nod, but if they were higher by more, OU would go. So if OU was 10 and OSU was 19, A&M would go if they were ranked 18th, but not go if they were ranked 12th. How can anybody buy into that.

[jumperstop]

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Aggies were looking for a loophole and they found one.



There is nothing stating the "top two ranked reams" qualification must be applied to the first sentence. Sure, it makes sense and seems self evident but the language does not specify this.

Blame the Aggies for looking for a loophole. It is pathetic but they're not stupid. That is reserved for the B12 who couldn't write a simple rule.

It's kinda a loophole, "In this case" is written in there to connect the two sentence. Could only be misinterpreted if you are trying to misinterpret it by looking for a loophole. Again should probably be fixed. Could it be taken to mean what some Aggies were looking for in it? Only if you're an idiot...

[A Sooner in Texas]

In other sad-Aggie news, today I saw a woman I know who's an aggie alum and went to the OU-A&M game. She said, "I sure did enjoy that game." I said, "I sure am enjoying OU going to the Big XII championship."

Look up "crestfallen" in the dictionary and there's her picture. :D

[PLaw]

I work with an A&Mer, and the first thing he said Monday was "what a crock, we beat you guys so we should be going to Dallas." I go "uh, we're 10-2. Y'all have lost 3 games. How does that figure?" "We beat you and that's all that matters." I go "really? We're playing in the Big-12 Championship game. I think that matters a lot." He goes "whatever dude." I go "you're right, whatever dude."

This guy is a borderline genius engineer who is one of the most easy-going, intelligent, well-spoken, even-keeled guys you'd ever wanna meet. Somehow this whole football equation effed him the eff up. He still ain't over it.

Uhh, I think we can generally attribute this to the public drinking water supply south of the Red River. Clearly, there is some disillusion and an inate inability to comprehend clearly written rules in Austin and College Station. :texan:

Geez.

BOOMER

[sooner518]

just tell them that they sound exactly like the whorn fans 2 years ago. I did that to a couple aggies around here and that shut em up real quick. nothing they hate more than being compared to *

[MeMyself&Me]

The overwhelming VAST majority of Ags knew it was not going to happen. There were a sliver of Ags who annoyingly believed there was a technicality in the rules that might allow them to go. These Ags were berated everytime they brought it up on Texags.

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. "
The argument was that if A&M came within one of OSU, this rule would be invoked. If we were above OSU but below OU, then the head-to-head with OU would come into play.

But the SPIRIT of the rule is that it should be invoked if two of the TOP teams are within one spot - but it doesn't say that. The Big 12 released a press release just before the OSU-OU game clearing that up - the new language said the TOP two teams.

Anyways, that's probably what they were talking about.

Actually, the ag that's been giving me the worst time over this knows nothing of the 'technicality' discussion. He thinks since aTm beat OU and Nebbish and that OU and Nebbish are playing for the championship, then aTm got screwed and that it shows the lack if respect aTm gets by the media. He doesn't think that 3rd loss should mean much in the BCS standings. He also doesn't seem to think it's that big of a deal that by his logic, if aTm was there, OSU and Mizzery would have an argument.

For what it's worth, and I've said this to him too, the BCS (since it takes considerations from outside the conference) should not be used to decide standings within the conference. That should be the ags beef. Not the BCS standings themselves or any 'technical vs spirit' discussions.

I did have a look around texags after some of your comments in another thread and your right. It seems that most ags there are understood how it was going down... just some crazies we all have I guess.

By the way, don't let anyone chase you off for defending your fanbase. You're right there with Sic'em in terms of respectful and knowledgeable opposing fan. I don't think there's anyone else in that discussion that visits here.

[mdklatt]

1. OU beats oSu
2. ???
3. CHAMPIONSHIP!

[Sooner_Tuf]

The third loss hurt the Ags as did playing a FCS team.

[mdklatt]

I just think it's hilarious that in both 3-ways, we've come out the winner, leaving aggys (maroon and orange) and whorns bewildered and pissed. Priceless!!!

Just like the BCS, they'll have to come up with another "Oklahoma rule". :rolleyes:

[picasso]

I do understand the frustration. After all, the two teams playing for the Big XII title are both 'W's for aTm. But we didn't write the rule, either.

Yet they lost to 2 teams in the south.

[MeMyself&Me]

Yet they lost to 2 teams in the south.

Actually, they lost to one team in the south and one team in the north, just like OU did and just like OSU did. Otherwise, the tie breaker would have been broken without having to go to the BCS.

[picasso]

Actually, they lost to one team in the south and one team in the north, just like OU did and just like OSU did. Otherwise, the tie breaker would have been broken without having to go to the BCS.

My bad. I'll try to watch aTm more next season.:)

[TopDawg]

I'd agree...but the OP's friend probably meant that they wanted us to jump OSU. We would not need to jump OU if the verbatim rule was applied, only OSU, which if they lost by a blowout, would not be a crazy thought as of last week.

I doubt that's what the person in the OP was referring to. Unless you're suggesting that A&M fans were sending her off hoping for a victory because they were certain that an OU victory would put A&M one spot ahead of OSU in the polls...since that's the only situation in which the verbatim rule helps A&M.

And if it is what they were doing, then it's all the more strange that they would be so dumbfounded upon her return. Based on the story she told, it sounds like they were fully expecting to jump us.

[Sooner Cal]

There's been more discussion on this silly thread than Congress had on health care.

We can discuss this further if the A&M squad shows up for the Championship game.

[sperry]

In this case refers to:"unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll."

The original rule does not say WHICH of the tied teams need to be within one. So theoretically, if A&M and OSU are within one, the rule is invoked, even if OU is ahead of both of them. That's why the release was put out there. That would be a stupid rule but it WAS written that way.

This is correct. It's obviously not how the rule was intended to function, but that's the way the rule as originally posted reads.