Can't blame BCS this time
Deuces Wild
Harold McIlvain II
Issue date: 12/3/08 Section: Sports
Sunday afternoon it was announced that Oklahoma - not Texas or Texas Tech - would play in the Big 12 championship game against Missouri and receive an opportunity to perhaps play for a national championship.
The three-way tie amongst the conference foes was decided by the fifth tiebreaker, which stated the highest ranked team in the BCS would be declared the divisional championship.
Texas fans have argued that the Longhorns should be in because a 45-35 win over Oklahoma on a neutral field is enough to show the team is clearly better.
And that is true. But it is a three-way tie, not a two-way tie.
Although Texas Tech is an afterthought in the current system, the team should count, too. The same Texas over Oklahoma argument can be used for Texas Tech over Texas. Margins of victory were quite different, but a 'W' is a win.
If Texas wants to complain, the team might want to think about stopping Texas Tech receiver Michael Crabtree with a second left in the game.
One thing is clear: the situation is somewhat unique. But it isn't unique enough to have prevented the problem.
Had this happened in the Southeastern Conference, Texas Tech would have been eliminated being the lowest ranked BCS team, leaving just Texas and Oklahoma left with a head-to-head tiebreak.
The lack of foresight from the Big 12 is to blame, not the BCS.
"The tiebreak process currently in place was carefully considered and voted upon by our athletics directors years ago," Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said. "I doubt they envisioned the scenario we have this year with a tie including the No. 2 and 3 teams in the country in one of our divisions."
But the situation happened, and the Big 12 championship game has been compromised to many.
The divisional champion was not decided on the field. Individuals from across the nation and six mathematical formulas decided who would represent the Big 12 South Division in the Big 12 title game.
The three-way tie amongst the conference foes was decided by the fifth tiebreaker, which stated the highest ranked team in the BCS would be declared the divisional championship.
Texas fans have argued that the Longhorns should be in because a 45-35 win over Oklahoma on a neutral field is enough to show the team is clearly better.
And that is true. But it is a three-way tie, not a two-way tie.
Although Texas Tech is an afterthought in the current system, the team should count, too. The same Texas over Oklahoma argument can be used for Texas Tech over Texas. Margins of victory were quite different, but a 'W' is a win.
If Texas wants to complain, the team might want to think about stopping Texas Tech receiver Michael Crabtree with a second left in the game.
One thing is clear: the situation is somewhat unique. But it isn't unique enough to have prevented the problem.
Had this happened in the Southeastern Conference, Texas Tech would have been eliminated being the lowest ranked BCS team, leaving just Texas and Oklahoma left with a head-to-head tiebreak.
The lack of foresight from the Big 12 is to blame, not the BCS.
"The tiebreak process currently in place was carefully considered and voted upon by our athletics directors years ago," Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe said. "I doubt they envisioned the scenario we have this year with a tie including the No. 2 and 3 teams in the country in one of our divisions."
But the situation happened, and the Big 12 championship game has been compromised to many.
The divisional champion was not decided on the field. Individuals from across the nation and six mathematical formulas decided who would represent the Big 12 South Division in the Big 12 title game.
Be the first to comment on this story