As everyone knows by now, Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech tied for the Big 12 South Title, going to the fifth tiebreaker to resolve the issue, the BCS Standings. Many people have weighed in on this, and the blogosphere and media seem to agree that Texas got the shaft. I am here to write that there is no right or wrong answer here. This is a situation that is ridiculous and only happened once before (2003 SEC East), and the stakes were much lower than as the teams had a 6-2 conference record and one team involved was carrying two non-conference losses, making them footnotes in the national title chase.
Back in 2003, the teams in question were Georgia, Tennessee, and Florida. Georgia beat Tennessee, who beat Florida, who beat Georgia. The tiebreaker is much the same in the SEC, except that when teams are within five spots, head-to-head is used. All three teams were beaten by a different western division opponent (Florida lost to Eli Manning's Ole Miss, Tennessee lost at Auburn, and Georgia lost at LSU). That forced it to the BCS where Florida's two non-conference losses to Miami and Florida St. eliminated them from the picture moving the tiebreaker to head-to-jead in Georgia's favor. The winner here would have been Texas as the media have been in uproar about for the last few days.
The 2003 SEC plan would have been a perfectly viable solution. Another solution would be the Big Ten plan to break ties for the conference's BCS automatic bid. All tiebreakers are the same until you reach BCS standings. In the Big 10, is is overall record against Division 1-A opponents to eliminate one or more teams. If one is eliminated, revert to head-to-head to break the tie. In the Big 12 South, this would have knocked Texas Tech with its 2 1-AA opponents out of the tiebreaker. Reverting to head-to-head give the tiebreaker to Texas.
Finally we have the current solution which isn't as outlandish and stupid as the media is making it out to be. I don't agree with having the BCS standings figure this out because that is not what the standings are intended for, but it is fair. For one, it doesn't discount anything. For Texas, you lost to a team in the tiebreaker. You don't get to complain when the tiebreaker doesn't go your way. With the way the season played out, if you lose to Oklahoma St. but beat Texas Tech, you are home free. Also, there is extra incentive to schedule difficult non-conference games. Texas fans may say they had Arkansas scheduled for years and Arkansas is down, but Oklahoma can make the same argument about Washington. Take those out of the mix, and Cincinnati and TCU are still much better than anyone Texas played. The 1-AA that Oklahoma played is a black mark, but not enough of one to override a two game advantage in difficult non-conference games. Advantage Oklahoma.
In my opinion, the right team won the tiebreaker. For years, people have complained that we have not seen lots of big non-conference games. Oklahoma made an effort to play those games while Texas did not. For the betterment of the sport in the future, Oklahoma should have won the tiebreaker. I think almost everyone wants to see better non-conference games.
Going back to that 2003 SEC tiebreaker, had Florida won its non-conference games, they would have been the best choice. It also would have been the same mess we are now in on a smaller level, and it did have an effect on the national title race as eventual co-national champ LSU was the SEC Title game opponent.
The moral of the story to teams: Schedule big non-conference games, it will help you when you need it.
No comments:
Post a Comment