Stan's Blog

Kissing your sister

There's an old saying in sports that equates a tie to kissing your sister. While I've never understood the entire meaning of that statement, at least some of the sentiment being expressed is that of getting no satisfaction from an event that normally satisfies.

Knowing that ties don't satisfy, what is it that makes college football aficionados think a tiebreaker will?

I just watched the announcement of this week's BCS standings, in which Oklahoma slipped past Texas. According to Big 12 tiebreaker policy, today's announcement entitles Oklahoma to a spot in the conference championship game, which ultimately means the Sooners control their own destiny in the national championship picture.

Texas, which scored 15 unanswered points in the final eight minutes of a 45-35 win over OU in October, will sit at home next Saturday and watch the Big 12 title being decided by two teams they defeated this season. And they're not happy about it.

Longhorn supporters, following the lead of head coach Mack Brown, will tell you it's unfair. Head-to-head should be the determining factor, and UT's win over Oklahoma on a neutral field should trump all other considerations. Everything was settled on the field, they say.

I don't buy it.

Head-to-head works in Texas' favor when comparing only to OU, but that's not exactly the tie that is being broken. Texas wants you to think this is a decision between two teams, but Texas suffered defeat to a third team, and that blemish contributed to this tie atop the standings as much as anything else.

And since Mack Brown won't tell you, I will: this tie atop the standings is a three-way tie. OU, Texas and Texas Tech all finished with identical 7-1 records in conference play. As such, head-to-head can't be the top consideration because Texas beat OU, Tech topped Texas and OU obliterated Tech. Head-to-head among the three is a wash.

Big 12 tiebreaker policy, accounting for the difficulty in solving three-way ties, gives the advantage to the highest ranked team in the BCS standings.

Mack Brown wishes the Big 12 policy was different, but he knew the policy when the year began. And he'd be singing a different tune if his Longhorns were the higher-rated BCS team. Moreover, he wouldn't have to worry about disliking this policy if his team hadn't lost to open the door for a three-way tie.

Sure, you can make an argument for Texas. The Horns, rated No. 3 in the BCS standings, have played four teams ranked among the BCS Top 20, including wins over the teams ranked second, 14th and 20th. They lost to the team rated seventh.

But No. 2 Oklahoma counters that argument by playing five of the Top 14 teams, beating the teams ranked seventh, 11th, 13th and 14th by an average margin of nearly 30 points per game. They lost to the second-ranked team.

Texas Tech, ranked seventh, stands little chance of winning this debate, having played the fewest BCS Top 20 teams (three). They defeated the third and 14th ranked teams but suffered a significant defeat to the No. 2 team. Still, Tech remains part of the debate, just as the weakest link.

Again, we all know ties don't satisfy. How, then, can you expect a tie to be broken in a manner that satisfies everybody?

As it stands, Texas and Texas Tech are left on the outside looking in. Completely unsatisfied.

Just don't blame the tiebreaker. Blame the tie.

posted by Stan W @ 3:52 PM