Okay Rivalry Week is over. The scores are in. All that's left are the polls. Who do you think should be in the Championship Game and why? Make the case.

Personally I'm going for Florida and Texas. Florida had such an impressive game yesterday against FSU and Tebow really showed the poise of a national champion QB. Alabama has not been super impressive this year. I'm going for Florida over Alabama in Atlanta next week.

Texas is my choice over Oklahoma. 45-35 in the head to head. While OU looked great against OSU there are factors of the rest of the season. Texas lost to Tech after a grueling schedule which started with OU in Dallas in a neutral site. The loss to Tech was slim in Lubbock which accounts for a lot. OU beat Tech in Norman. So I think it boils down to head to head which Texas wins.

The rest are there for other reasons so there could be cases made for the rest. You make the case. Enjoy.

Despite having surgery today on his non-throwing hand, Graham Harrell will still lead Texas Tech to a Championship. That kid's got great tenacity.

The first computer poll (Sagarin) is out with OU in the #1 slot and Texas in the #2 slot. The margin is .31 between the two. Florida, USC and Tech round out the next five. Alabama is in 6th which shows that the coaches and writers have to continue to look like fools until the SEC championship game (they can't knock Alabama down in deference to any of the other teams since they've put them there).

The rest don't come out until the BCS comes out this afternoon.

Interesting issue there BigBlueCowboy. The only way Tech can get in is if OU or Texas (whichever one the BCS picks) totally flubs up the Big 12 championship. Then you have to make the case over the one left out. It's a long shot but it could happen. Since Graham's a senior this is his only shot.

Texas Tech can't get to the championship game IMO. If Texas or Oklahoma lose the Big 12 title game, the other will get the nod from the BCS. Tech will likely lose more ground in the polls today after that struggle against Baylor yesterday. And I think USC's chances dimmed a bit yesterday. That loss to Oregon State looks even worse now after the Beavs got slaughtered by Oregon yesterday.

I think that Texas deserves to go to the Big 12 title game by virtue of beating Oklahoma even though I believe that Oklahoma is a better team right now.

What time does the AP poll come out?

Just a comment on Utah: Nobody has taken them seriously as a contender for the NC, but I'm not convinced their resume to this point is that much less impressive than Alabama's. Utah has beaten 3 teams ranked in the AP (#11 TCU, #20 BYU and #25 Oregon St). Alabama has beaten two (#17 Georgia and #22 Mississippi).

But Alabama plays in the best conference in the country, right? Well...unless I've missed a game somewhere, the SEC went 4-6 against the much-maligned ACC. Worse, three of those wins were scored by Florida and Alabama, the rest of the conference went 1-6. It wasn't as though the ACC was feasting on the cellar dwellers either, Mississippi St accounts for only one of the losses. The rest were Georgia, Mississippi, Vanderbilt and South Carolina who all finished at least at par in the SEC. So I don't see much evidence that the SEC teams--other than Florida and Alabama--were very good at all. Yes, Mississippi scored the big upset over Florida, but they also lost to Wake. And Georgia's best win was over Vanderbilt or LSU, which is hardly exciting.

It looks like the computers will be picking between Texas and Oklahoma, since the AP and coaches poll split. Why couldn't the Big 12 come up with an objective tie-break rule to determine these things? A system where you can't figure out what you need to do to win the conference is stupid. The BCS has some excuse, since they have the impossible task of rank over a hundred teams that often have no common opponents, but within a conference, they should be able to come up with a rule.

JC that's why I put them in the mix. I figured we have gotten so BCS-trained that we seem to forget the non-BCS teams. Hopefully Utah will get an at-large BCS bid to help showcase the talent outside the BCS. Can we say Boise State against the Sooners?

Regarding the Big 12 I honestly don't think they ever thought they'd be here. The Big 12 South was an awesome division this year. The teams are some of the best in the nation and have provided us with some great football. I really think the Big 12 conference heads are kicking their butts for not thinking this far ahead. I hope they find a resolve for this type of situation before the start of the season next year. The trouble is you can't put a rule in at this point. Then it would look like you're making it up as you go which would REALLY piss off some people.

BTW, we've had a lot of lurkers but few voters on this thing. I'd really like to see what Outsports thinks about this situation. The football board has been kinda boring this year. Time to mix it up towards the end.

The answer is in and OU has the slot. Personally Switzer's arguments are sick and stupid. So yea, OU beats other teams with better margins but did the dumb Okie forget 45-35? Does he need a Texan to do the math for him? Texas beat OU by 10 points on a neutral field. Yea, I'm sore but its fresh right now.

Of course I'm not a happy camper right now. Head to head means nothing apparently. You can throw Tech out of the argument as they were not ranked high enough for consideration and the Texas win over OU ends up meaning notta? That's like leaving 'Bama # 1 if they lose to Florida next week. A loss is a loss whether it's October or December when it comes to head-to-head IMHO.

I would think the BIG 12 changes their tiebreakers pronto for future debacles.

Go Mizzou!!!

Yeah, that's just unbelievable....
what a crappy way to pick a champion....

You can pretty much bet they are going to figure this out for next year. They had no clue they'd be in this pickle at the start of the season and thought the Big 12 championship game would save their butts. I'm sure the rest of the nation is looking at this and thinking - Are you really that dumb to use this sort of situation?

Expect changes next year, either in the system or in the leadership.

There are good arguments on both sides. "Head to head" as the main fallback doesn't work unless you leave Texas Tech out of the Big 12 South discussion completely, which doesn't make sense IMO. Like it or not, they beat Texas, which beat Oklahoma, which beat Texas Tech, and so on. That's why they have tiebreakers. Now watch Missouri beat Oklahoma...

I would have voted for UT though. At the very least the Big 12 NEEDS to get rid of the BCS ranking as a tiebreaking criterion. This is the kind of sloppy circular, arbitrary reasoning that makes college football fans go crazy--and that the BCS was designed to avoid.

Great point golfer 25. While we Longhorns would love to keep the head to head argument it only works for us WITH the BCS rankings which is what we're lamenting. I really can't think of a decent system that might fix the division issue. I really feel the Big 12 was sitting in back rooms hoping for a way out of this mess.

On a better note for us Longhorn, Raider, Cowboy, Aggie, Bear and yes, Sooner fans. We had the best ride this year during the conference play that we've ever had. Every week was full of fun and excitement. The games were awesome with some powerful play. We got to enjoy in divisional play what most conferences would beg for. I would love to have the BCS Championship Game but I can honestly say that I can walk away from an awesome college football year.

The QB1s were some of the best also. Let's see the Heisman go to someone other than a Big 12 QB. Tebow, you're play is lame compared to these boys.

Golfer, you have a point with the circular argument involving Tech, but they played TWO Division 1-AA teams this year and didn't deserve to be ranked any higher than they were. Yes, Texas lost to them in Lubbock with 1 second on the clock, but you'll never convince me they are a better team. Texas played horrible in the first half and still should have won the game. I believe the SEC and ACC uses the BCS rankings to eliminate the third place team and then goes to head-to-head. That's logic I can understand. With the current Divisional tiebreakers the Big 12 uses, they might as well pick the two highest ranked teams to play for the championship which would be a re-match of Texas and OU.

As it stands, Texas has beaten both teams playing in the Big 12 Championship game by double-digits and has an equal or far superior record as well. It would be nice to see the stars align, Mizzou beats OU and Texas backs into the National Championship game. I don't have great hope of that happening based on the Tigers defense. I can live with the Sooners winning the conference, but won't be happy if they managed a NC out of this debacle.

Hornfan let's not stretch that OU win out THAT far. Yes the number ten is two digits but it's the bottom end of the scale. I think we, McCoy included, will all look back at those last seconds in Lubbock with "coulda, shoulda, woulda" thoughts.

I'd be okay with OU winning the National Championship. I will be pissed if they blow it knowing Texas could have possibly done a better job and it all came down to .13 points in a poll.

I don't think Texas is out of it yet. If OU loses, voters could put the Longhorns in the championship game. The argument that "they didn't win their own division" doesn't work when so many people believe that Texas got jobbed out of the division title.

Well 10 points IS a double-digit win Rbear and Texas did it with two 75+ yard drives in the 4th quarter on OU. And NO, an OU national championship would not be a good thing for the Texas program considering the majority (you check the number, but I'm sure "majority" is technically correct) of OU players are recruited out of the state of Texas. This stinks!!!

Glad it worked out right... that's all.

LOL, probably the most you should inject at this point. Good luck in KC and Miami dude.

Here's a good analysis from the NY Times on why OU pulled ahead of Texas. The out-of-conference appeared to have helped OU's case. It also has some quotes from some of the coaches who voted in the poll.

If those coaches are so deadset on head-to-head, do they have Texas Tech ranked above Texas - a game that was played in more recent history than the OU-Texas game?

You cannot simply ignore that game.

Actually the head to head is more complex in this setting. Golfer 25 did a good job laying out the case on that one. Head to head really applies if you take the top two in the mix. You can't do head to head in a three way tie. You have to take the top two in other stats and then apply head to head. In that case UT would win.

I think the NY Times really lays out the case for why OU over UT, primarily due to out of conference play (Cinn and TCU). In the end, the Texas-Tech game will come back so many times to haunt the Horns in this situation.

But you can ignore the Texas win over OU apparently because it happened SO very long ago. Makes sense.

At a minimum, I would like the Coaches Poll votes revealed throughout the season.....enough of the secret ballot crap. Bo Pellini (Stoops childhoold friend) voted OU higher than Texas "because his team played OU, but he had not seen Texas play this year" (paraphrasing).

No, trust me, I get that it's more than just head-to-head... but look at what those coaches say...





So then, Coach Martin, Texas Tech MUST be ranked above Texas, right? Since it's the defining deal...

That's my biggest issue with the "case" that Mack Brown was making. It was as if he completely ignored the fact that they lost to Tech.

Now, is the system good? No. I don't think basing ANYTHING on the BCS is smart... and why the conferences have decided it's a great second tiebreaker in the case of a three-way tie, I'll never know. My state's high school athletics association does it better...



Perfect? No. But better than this mess.

So when I say that it got it right... it got it right under this flawed system. People and computers shouldn't be making these decisions. Whether or not I or anyone else thinks Oklahoma isn't ten points worse than Texas shouldn't have any bearing on it.

Not to say I don't agree that Oklahoma is clearly the better team right now... because it's hard to argue with the domination of Tech... or the solid victory on the road against a tough State team... and hard to argue with the tough non-conference schedule (that'd be even tougher had Stockstill's MTSU team not backed out on OU at the last minute making them schedule a D-I Championship Subdivision team)... at least that's how I see it.

Mack Brown, Texas, Longhorn fans, nor myself are ignoring the loss to Tech. Tech's ranking was inferior to OU and Texas based on the ENTIRE season, which leaves two teams left to consider. Seems head-to-head is the best way to settle the issue in MOST sports....that's why they play the games, right? So no, I don't think they got it right (and Sooner would be on here saying the exact same thing if the tables were turned). It's supposed to be about W's and L's. It came down to Texas and OU and the losing team won out in the end.

Aside from the BCS #'s, the Big 12 screwed the pooch with their tiebreaker rules and one can hope they'll correct that for future seasons. In MOST BCS conferences, Texas would be advancing to the championship game based on their tiebreaker rules.

And yes, the system is flawed with politics and idiots. Idiots like Pellini.



Just wow.

You realize, I hope, that the only system that makes this true is one of subjective rankings... the one about which you are complaining. Otherwise, what you have is three teams with identical records with each beating the other. In no other system can you dismiss Texas Tech because of their season. They won 11 of their games, right? Only when you add subjectivity to it can you dismiss that.

I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

You can't say that the system is screwing you (I might be putting words into your mouth there... but no doubt there are Texas fans out there saying this) and then use that system to show why it is screwing you.

I would vote... but I want to know why Penn State is not in the poll of "others?"

My bad. I missed them when I was putting it together and pressed enter a little too soon. You're right. They should have been in the "Others" section. Darn polls. You can't edit them when you put them in. That's why there's a dup entry in the list. I hit enter too soon. It wasn't meant to be an sleight. Sorry.

Along those lines, make the case. Actually that's what I wanted people to do. However we're a little overweighted with the Big 12 in here now (me included).

Sooner, I'm not sure how I can make this clear for you. I realize there was a 3-way tie with identical records in and out of conference. I'm not ignoring anything or trying to have it both ways, I'm trying to be realistic. I don't think you'll find many people outside of Lubbock that doesn't believe Tech is the 3rd best team of those three based on the entire season. It's not like they were ranked 2, 3 & 4.

But the facts are that it came down to Texas and OU and head-to-head was ignored. You think that is the correct order, I disagree. Texas was ahead of OU last week and both teams won this week.....Tech was never really in the picture. So the identical records did not change and you want to ignore that this week. Now, who's having it both ways?

Let me make this clear as well. If the final two would have been Tech and Texas, I believe Tech earned the right to be crowned Division champs. If had come down to Tech and OU, OU won the right to advance. Those are not emotional opinions on who I REALLY think is the best team, but based on what happened on the playing field.

My opinions are now well known, so I'm probably done with this subject and ready to move on to the futile efforts of rooting for Mizzou to win the Big 12 Championship even though they deserve it less than OU, Texas or Texas Tech.

Texas is poised to play Utah in the Fiesta Bowl and I'm sure a good time will be had by all and the Utes will certainly feel they have something to prove much like Boise State has in the past.

Hornfan all I've really heard from you is the head to head argument. Understand I'm a Longhorn fan as much as others (except when they play Arkansas). However I haven't heard any defense against the strength of schedule. Very honestly Texas played a cream puff schedule until they hit conference play. OU at least played Cinncy and TCU, both ranked teams now. Shouldn't that count in the mix as well? From what I understand that's where the computers pulled OU ahead of Texas. It was only by .13 of a point in the final. If Texas had played someone other than a cream puff at the beginning this argument would probably be mute at this point. They didn't just like they screwed up at the end of the Tech game.

Give me something more than head to head to continue to make this case. I know how you feel when you've pushed the argument about as far as you want but I'm willing to go to bat if there's more than head to head at this point (as if that would make any difference with the BCS - just don't think you and I have enough pull buddy).

Rbear, the SOS between OU and Texas was extremely close in the College football world....Tech was not in the same realm. Schedules are made years ahead. If Arky had played like a "real" SEC team this year, Texas would have had the upper hand in the SOS. If you want to talk schedules, take a gander at OU's and tell me at what part of their season did they even come close to having to run a gauntet the likes that both Texas and Texas Tech had to run with tough games on the road at the end of those guantlets. The order of games and locations play a role just as much as the strength of the opponents.

I just don't see going into all the other if's and but's when we have "head to head" on a neutral field in the books. Who knew Washington would be SO bad this year on OU's schedule? I'm confident Texas could have defeated TCU and Cincy, but that doesn't have anything to do with reality.

To me, it ultimately came down to two teams and you know very well what I think should be looked at when that happens....head to head. It's just that simple. I saw it on the scoreboard in October. The Big 12 Championship game is being referred to as the "Can't Beat Texas Bowl".

I just saw a teaser on ESPN referring to the "controversy" in the BCS today, so I'm pretty sure I'm not operating in a vacuum here. Again, I think I'm done (for real this time). It's too pathetic to talk about, so I'll just hang up and listen.

Coach Stoops on this matter sums up exactly how I feel, too...

f**k ou


that is all!

What a great contribution.


We should remember that the real villain in all this is the Big 12. It makes no sense not to have a self-contained tiebreaking system--the fact that almost every possible iteration would have resulted in a division title for Texas is beside the point. And not only did they let an outside factor make the final decision, they gave that power to one of the most unpopular institutions in American life. I bet even Congress has a higher approval rating than the BCS.

We should also note that lots of hanky-panky went on in the polling booth. Texas did nothing to deserve the huge bump that it received in the Harris and coaches' polls.

Of course, my favorite proposal is Mike Leach's suggestion to break the tie with graduation rates...

Good points on the schedule setting. However, UTEP and Florida Atlantic? Give me a break. Regarding the Hawgs I agree on having a decent draw from the SEC could have helped some.

On the "head to head" I probably wasn't clear. I don't disagree with you on using it, just not this year. You can't change the rules of the game midstream. I read in the Arkansas Dem-Gaz today that if the Big 12 had adopted the SEC process Texas would be in. Maybe that's the change we get for next year. It's just not this year's rules. Big 12 commissioners are a joke anyway. They can't think on their own and have to copy the SEC for everything.

Well, the Sooners struggled so much with State on Saturday night while Texas easily handled A&M...

Honestly, all this does is show the need for a freakin' playoff. Probably an 8 team playoff. Yeah, sucks to be #9, but no matter what number you pick, someone will get left out. Besides, by limiting the number of teams in the playoff, it preserves the meaning of the regular season. We shouldn't have to be "making the case" for any of the top 8-10 teams.

I like the tradition of the bowls, etc. but this is ridiculous. If you want to make the bowls the first round of the playoff, fine. Let the alumni buy the tickets, spend a week in a nice location, etc., do the usual bowl trip things. No need to change anything. After that, the remaining games are played in whatever location(s) the NCAA awards them to. There's no reason this can't work. Most of the people buying the tickets for those "playoff" games probably won't be alums of the school, but that's the way it is at the NCAA men's basketball tourney anyway. Set aside X amount for students and alums, to be released for sale after the bowl games, and advance sale the rest. Trust me, people would buy tickets to these games, even if they don't know who will be playing.

As for strength of schedule... to some degree, it's irrelevant. Even if you try to schedule good teams in the non conference portion, because schedules are set in advance, things change. Who knew Notre Dame would be this horrible 4 years ago? Or Michigan? Gee, we could have scheduled a game against LSU, and last year we would have gotten credit for it, and this year... well, not so much. And you can't control how the other teams in your conference play. If most of them have off years, is that your fault? Does that mean that you aren't any good? I admit, sometimes I'm guilty of the "who have they played" game, but you have to be careful with that. Just because the teams you played were weaker, doesn't mean you are weaker. You might have had an easier road, but other than testing your team, it doesn't directly determine how good you are. Really... throw Florida, Texas, USC, Oklahoma, Penn State, Alabama, Utah together... do we really know who would beat who?

Alabama is undefeated... yet some question how good they are because of their schedule. Penn State gets knocked because a completely different team, in completely different years, laid an egg in championship games, and because of a "weak" schedule. USC is criticized for a soft schedule, yet at the same time the press still acts like they are practically a pro team, they are "so good." So, USC=weak schedule=God's gift to football but not BCS Championship, Penn State=weak schedule=pretender, Alabama=weak schedule=questionable team, but deserve to be there because undefeated. Huh?

People are splitting hairs between Oklahoma and Texas, talking about relative strength of schedule. What? One beat the other on a neutral field, end of story. If Oklahoma were the better team, they should have won the game. Texas has a point here. Just because Oklahoma's schedule is perhaps a little more difficult, doesn't make them better. And yes, I realize the better team doesn't always win. The winner of the NCAA basketball tourney isn't always the best team. But they are the National Champion because they won the tournament, at the end of the year, with the best teams participating. That's what a National Champion is in every sport.. the team that wins the tournament, not always the best team. Yet, in football, without the teams playing each other, we try to crown a "National Champion" based on opinions, and we call that team the best team. Completely ridiculous.

Sorry for rambling, but this really is a stupid way to do things.