There's No Crying In Football

So after all the craziness, it's going to be OU going to the Big Twelve Championship game. As you might imagine, I'm alltogether very pleased with this to say the least. Do you know what I'm not alltogether pleased with, though? The whining and horrible logic of those who are less pleased with the resuls (ok, some of those who like the result have horrible logic, too). So, if we may, let's just take a moment to look at these things rationally. Of course I have my preferences, but I'll do my best to be unbiased, and if legitimately fail I welcome being called out for it.

Arguments for Texas

1) Texas and OU played head to head and Texas won, so there's no way that OU should be ranked ahead of Texas! (this is by far the most used argument, sometimes with the explicit addendum "that's all that should matter!")

If this was the only game that was played this season, then it would be pretty much air-tight. The problems? The rest of the season for one. For another, it's a circular argument since it's a three-way tie, and if OU can't be ranked ahead of Texas, then Texas can't be ranked ahead of Texas Tech, which is being completely ignored here. For what it's worth, if Tech had lost Saturday, Texas would (rightfully) be the South champ, and I can't imagine Coach Stoops or anybody else complaining. For that matter, if OU would have lost Saturday, Tech would have (again, rightfully) been the champ, and I have no earthly idea if Coach Brown would be happier or not.

2) Sure, it's a three-way tie, but since Tech is ranked lowest, they shouldn't count and then head-to-head should determine the winner from the remaining two.

Translation: the BCS is a great system to eliminate a lower-ranked team and should be used for that, but it's completely bogous to eliminate a different lower-ranked team. Is that really an argument? If you're reading this, Mack, I'll be interested to hear your logic. Further, it's not the rule that we've had in place the whole time. Don't complain about the rule at the end of the game, right? Like if you lost on a last-second field goal, don't say that field goals should really only be worth 1 point and that it's a bad rule. It was the rule by which you agreed to play and it's extremely weak sauce to start banging on it when it looks like it might work against you.

3) Texas lost their game with one second left on a miracle play, and if the db would have caught that potential interception on the last drive, it wouldn't have mattered even at that.

So it shouldn't count as a loss? Look, if we call the score after 3 quarters the final, then OU is undefeated (Wohoo! Let's go with this! Oh, does that not work?). Plus, although your comeback was inspired and noble, Texas was more-or-less pushed around all game long by Tech, and in the end Tech took it home. It's both a whole season and a whole game.

4) Texas also beat the North champion Missouri (and the addendum, "how can they watch 2 teams that they beat!")

Firstly, Missouri isn't such a trophy win. And if they are, then maybe they'll beat OU and Texas will play for the National Championship anyway (we'll see if Mack turns that down based on his philosophies). Secondly, Missouri and Nebraska both finished 5-3, and OU beat Nebraska, who Texas didn't play. They both beat Kansas, and Texas beat 2-6 Colorado while OU beat 2-6 Kansas St. So you can only make an argument that Texas played a tougher conference schedule since Missouri holds the tie-breaker over Nebraska (tie-breakers again, I love it!), and that's obviously extremely weak. Number one, their conference opponents have exactly the same conference records. Number two, you don't have any control over your conference opponents. Number three, OU had 4 conference road games and the best road win (at Pokie State), Texas only had 3. And number four, if we look at the entire schedule including out of conference (which there IS some control over), OU without question played the tougher overall schedule with TCU and Cincinnati both in the current top 15 (Texas's best out of conference victories? Rice and . . . Arkansas, probably?). Interestingly, this is probably what put OU over Texas in the computers, which pretty much made the final difference.

And while I'm admittedly not completely comfortable with out of conference schedule determining a conference champion, it's a tie and something has to, right? And it's the system that was in place all year, and if you have a demonstratively better idea, I've yet to hear it. Brent Musburger at least had a reasonable idea of using point differential among common opponents, but OU wins using that criteria, too.


Just in the interest of fair play, most arguments for OU over Texas are bogus, too. "They scored 60 in their last four games!" It's impressive, absolutley, but not a tie-breaking criteria. "They lost first!" Clearly this can make a difference in college football, but I've never liked it. It seems like the whole season should count. I mean, that's not a revolutionary thought, right? Actually, see above on that one.

Here's the bottom line -- using the rules and criteria that were agreed upon and in place from the beginning of the season, OU comes out on top of the three-way tie. And that, my friends, is inarguable.