Jason Whitlock threw in his two cents this morning on the three way tie scenario that plagued the South. His take was, basically, UT beat OU head to head on a neutral field. Case closed. Yada, yada, yada. Blah, blah, blah. Notwithstanding Whitlock and his mental challenged compatriots like Lee Corso, Kirk Herbstreit, Craig James, et al., and Mack Brown’s whining, there is no (as in ZERO) justification for throwing out Texas Tech (a flukey team, according to Whitlock) and comparing only the other two head to head. Even in the case of a two way tie, head to head is not a logical way of breaking the tie. It is merely a convenient way.
The question that gets lost in the shuffle is: Why is Team A (Texas in this case) only tied for the lead if it won the head to head game with team B (OU)?
The answer, of course, is that, the rest of the time, it was losing more games. In this case, Texas was 6-1 in other conference games, 4-1 in games vs. common opponents (the South plus KU), and 3-1 vs. the South. Meanwhile, OU was better in all comparisons: 7-0, 5-0, and 4-0. What the head-to-headers insist on is that OU beat Texas by two games (8-0 to 6-2) or stay home because they lost the wrong one.
Not saying that OU is necessarily more deserving than UT. Just saying that the argument that UT should be given preference because they beat OU head to head—a questionable argument even in a two team situation--is ludicrous in a three way.
And, no, the fact that Tech lost much (if not all) of its credibility by losing a game by 44 points does not mean they should be removed from the equation, reducing the argument to two teams to then be decided by the outcome of the game between those two. UT did not make Tech irrelevant. Indeed, it was UT that made Tech relevant by losing to them. It was OU that is totally responsible for Tech’s fall from grace. The Sooners should be punished for being too good?
In a way, however, it is good that Texas is the team left out in the cold (barring a Mizzou upset of OU). Teams like Georgia, KU, and Auburn getting screwed will never lead to change in the system.
As they say in Austin, “Money Talks.” A few more of the big boys getting screwed will eventually lead to a decent playoff format involving teams and conferences throughout the country. Not this year, for sure. Maybe not in the next few years. But the more teams like UT, Ohio St, Southern Cal, and other blue (or should I say green) bloods get the short end of the BCS stick, the more likely a REAL playoff system becomes.
As a certain playoff proponent would declare: “Yes, We Can!”
A friend of PB has noted that KU is UT's only road win against a team with a winning record, while OU beat a better OSU team and TT beat both KU and 7-5 Nevada. OU also scheduled a non-conference road game against a BCS opponent (Washington, which admittedly sucked this year), while UT didn't even leave their home state to play at UTEP. Further, OU beat two BCS top 15 schools in non-conference play (TCU and Cincinnati), while UT didn't play anyone in the top 25, so OU is 4-1 vs. the BCS top 15 (all wins by at least 20 points), while UT is only 2-1 (neither win by more than 10 points.) Against the whole BCS top 25 UT is 3-1. OU can move to 5-1 by beating MU on Saturday.