jame.gumb

That might work too. I've just never liked the Coach's Poll and hated counting on it to save us. Apologies for having the wrong numbers in this case, but it's more about the principle than the numbers. In my opinion, OU deserves to represent the Big 12 South if they outscored the same opponents as Texas and Tech moreso than by being ranked higher in the BCS. That, of course, doesn't make it any easier to watch OU play for the National Championship after beating them... :nutkick: I will say that I read someone here posting how they feel bad for Colt not being able to win it all. Very classy. I must say that I don't hate OU players or fans NEARLY as much as I did as a student. that was me! i reserve the right to take it back when texas destroys us next year. You might not have to worry about that, as Colt is apparently considering entering the draft if he's happy with where he might go. If he's rated highly enough, losing him and Orakpo will give you an easy road to a repeat South Division title.

I agree. Most of my frustration is shock that it's not a more important tie-breaker. Also, is Dodds proposing a move to another conference or just to become independent?

That might work too. I've just never liked the Coach's Poll and hated counting on it to save us. Apologies for having the wrong numbers in this case, but it's more about the principle than the numbers. In my opinion, OU deserves to represent the Big 12 South if they outscored the same opponents as Texas and Tech moreso than by being ranked higher in the BCS. That, of course, doesn't make it any easier to watch OU play for the National Championship after beating them... :nutkick: I will say that I read someone here posting how they feel bad for Colt not being able to win it all. Very classy. I must say that I don't hate OU players or fans NEARLY as much as I did as a student.

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? You might or might not be reading it wrong, but that's definitely not my argument. I'd be fine if they took the Big 12 South point differential since the teams play different North teams each year. Again, I'm not advocating Texas in the championship (though I'd like it). I'm advocating a better indicator of season-long conference success. I think point differential is a better indicator than BCS rankings. Sorry, I worded that terribly. I meant "why should point differential from uncommon opponents be included?" It doesn't matter though, because OU is ahead of texas either way. And while I'm glad we're going to KC, I'm also afraid that we beat Missouri and then get blown out by Florida. Part of my wants to just beat Utah somewhere and not have to deal with it. I wouldn't want to include uncommon opponents, so I messed up if that's the point I conveyed. Speaking of messing up, I mistakenly left out a week when I added up the point differential a week or so ago. Seeing OU holding the point differential advantage makes me feel better. My point still stands, though, that point differential should have more bearing on the outcome of a conference than BCS standings.

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? You might or might not be reading it wrong, but that's definitely not my argument. I'd be fine if they took the Big 12 South point differential since the teams play different North teams each year. Again, I'm not advocating Texas in the championship (though I'd like it). I'm advocating a better indicator of season-long conference success. I think point differential is a better indicator than BCS rankings.

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).

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. If the Big 12 went by conference point differential instead of BCS ranking, Texas would be in. And if a team ranked No. 15 outscored the same (or virtually the same) opponents and had the same record as the No. 3 team, maybe the rankings system and not the point differential should be called into question. Texas beat virtually the same opponents by a larger margin than Oklahoma and Texas Tech. To me, that means Texas should represent the Big 12 South. I know everyone's on the Oklahoma bandwagon because they're playing better right now, but Texas was THE team about a month ago. The polls should judge the entire season weighted equally, imo.

The Texas, OU, Tech nonsense gives me tired head. As a Texas fan, the only thing that REALLY frustrates me is the BCS rankings used as a tiebreaker. Why not conference or division point differential? That takes out the opinions of the incapable coaches who think Texas Tech should be ranked ahead of the team that beat them by more than 40 points about 10 days ago and an undefeated SEC team (despite their weak schedule). Also, Bob Stoops is a great big, fat person.