It's to make sure the conference has its best chance at making the title game. If you have the #3 BCS team getting passed up in favor of the #15 team due to the #15 team running up the score in conference play it wouldn't help the conference at all. If there is a three-way tie for first in a conference in the section here for high school football, the first is head-to-head and the second is point differential in the games among the tied teams with a maximum of 13 points per game. I like the tiebreaker because it only uses the results of the games among the three tied teams and doesn't reward running up the score. If the Big 12 used that system, then Oklahoma would still be going to the title game. i was going to say, in that case texas' 4 point win at home over a team we beat by 20 on the road and their 3 point loss to a team we beat by 44 or whatever is not going to help them That wouldn't, but it should be cumulative rather than picking a few games. I'm not arguing the results as much as the process, though. If OU had a larger point differential and went to the Big 12 Championship instead of Texas, I'd be OK with it. It bugs me that a game like Florida v. Florida St. can have an impact on the Big 12 (by Florida possibly taking some of OU's first place votes, reducing their lead in the Coach's Poll). why should un-common opponents be the deciding factor? Or am I reading your argument wrong?