1.) Pining for other conference rules? Then join another conference. I’m sure there’s lots that would love you.

2.) Playing in the Big XII championship game is a risk. This has been discussed many times before. If Oklahoma loses to Missouri, where will Texas be? If Oklahoma wins against Missouri, where will Texas be? The answer to both is: a BCS game; an added bonus is if OU loses, Texas likely will be in the NC game. (At least that is what it looks like to me.)

…that even the curse of Ron Prince wouldn’t have been enough to beat Texas this year. Then again, we didn’t appear to have any business beating them in 2006 or 2007, either.

Perceptions from the ‘outside’ should not come into play in the conference’s business.

…but what’s better than what we have now? By the time we get down to the fifth tiebreaker, pretty much every possible conference angle has been exhausted. Head-to-head? All three teams are 1-1. Record within the division? Each team is 4-1. Record against the next-highest team in the division? They’re all undefeated against every other team in the South. Record against all common conference opponents? That only adds KU, and each team beat the chickens. At this point, where do you go? Do you look at point differential against common opponents? That would encourage running up the score, although that’s not something I’m necessarily against. Sagarin’s strength of schedule? Maybe, but non-con games are scheduled years in advance, with no guarantee that the teams scheduled will be good or bad when the game arrives; UT found that out with Arkansas this season. The point is, by the time you reach the fifth tiebreaker, you’ve really entered the realm of moral tragedy. If you have to go that far to separate nearly indistinguishable teams, there is no good solution.

This isn’t (entirely) about schadenfreude. It’s about preventing the conference gorilla from throwing its weight around and getting its way once again, especially when I don’t believe the proposed solution (an SEC-style tiebreaker) is any better than the current system. As I said, I’m open to suggestions, but until I hear of something better than the current system, I see no reason for change other than the fact that Mack Brown and a lot of UT alums and fans are unhappy that they weren’t chosen by the agreed system.

Personally, I don’t like anything (like point differentials) that encourages and rewards poor sportsmanship (running up the score) like the BCS system does.

YES!!! I do understand the viewpoint of “if you don’t want to lose by a bunch of points, play better”, but I do feel there is such a thing as sportsmanship and that it is best practiced in sports. If there was a playoff, it would not matter whether you one by 1 point or 51, just that you won the game. (Of course, there is the whole matter of seeding that might prove contrary to my point.)

There’s a rule actually, that you shouldn’t like another team in your conference when they regularly beat your team and/or are usually better than your team. That team is between your team and success. You can respect them, grudgingly, but there’s no such thing as a lovable number two when we’re all fighting for the same meal.

…respectful and intelligent fans of all schools are welcome here. You and learned hand have done a fine job of debating the merits of this issue without resorting to name-calling or other cheap insults. Also, I think I managed to avoid any sweeping generalizations and unnecessary potshots at UT fans in the post. I have been to three sporting events in Austin, two involving my Cats (one football, one basketball) and one as a semi-neutral observer. I love going to games in Austin. The city is phenomenal and, for the most part, I’ve never had a problem with the fans.

My post was not intended as an indictment of UT fans, but rather a criticism of the argument that the Big 12’s fifth tiebreaker is flawed and must be changed. As with anything, I’m open to arguments that will show me something is better, and learned hand presents interesting arguments for other possibilities (such as time with a two-score lead). I do not believe an SEC-style tiebreaker is any better than what we have right now, and the mere fact that most other conferences use such a system is similarly unconvincing. On the merits, I do not consider it a suprior method of breaking a three-way tie.

Finally, to revisit my alleged hatred of UT fans, no, I really do not hate UT fans. Have I had unpleasant encounters with UT fans? Sure. I’ve also had unpleasant encounters with KU, Mizzou, Nebraska, Colorado and Oklahoma fans. Let me disclose that I live in Texas, in Houston to be exact. I have more interactions with Texas fans than most fans of North schools. Do I sometimes find UT fans a little arrogant? On occasion. Being asked if I was in awe when Vince Young drove by us in a golf cart in Austin last year was a little annoying, considering that I’ve talked to a top-5 NFL draft pick who graduated from K-State. Do I get annoyed by so-called “t-shirt” fans of UT, who make asinine and uninformed statements about UT’s superiority after admitting that they didn’t know if K-State was the Jayhawks or the Wildcats and that they weren’t even sure Iowa State was a member of the Big 12? Yeah. But every school has ignorant fans. Hell, if it meant we were winning regularly, I could live with a few more “t-shirt” fans. The point is, I don’t judge fanbases based on the actions of a few of their members, and this post was not intended as an embodiment of my hatred for UT fans. It was intended to express my disagreement with their position in this situation and my frustration with UT as an institution and its willingness to throw its weight around to obtain favorable conference policies. Actually, I have quite a few good friends who are UT fans, including people on SB Nation such as PB and TXHNY. We may not agree on the merits of this situation, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t good people. It means we disagree.

Stop by anytime.

…and then having you show up. I’ve been paying attention to your track record at other SB Nation sites, and consider yourself warned here.

I’ll address the “merits” of your argument. Look back at the records and let me know how good the big schools like UT, TAMU and OU were back when the Big 12 was formed. TAMU was 6-6 in the Big 12’s first year. Texas was 8-5 (and won the CCG…go figure). Tech was 7-5.

By contrast, the three best teams in the North were Nebraska at 11-2, K-State at 9-3, and Colorado at 10-2. So don’t tell me the old SWC schools brought anything the other eight schools were lacking from a competitiveness standpoint. The point is, the Big 8 had plenty of firepower to get an automatic bid without the new schools from Texas. Hell, OU sucked the first few years of the Big 12, and they were one of the most stories programs in CFB. If you want to argue seriously that the Big 12 teams from the original Big 8 conference were lacking anything other than some TV sets, I’m afraid I can’t aid you in your quest to leave ignorance behind.

I’m not going to get into an economics argument regarding the state of Kansas, because that’s completely irrelevant to this discussion. That K-State does not have nearly as much money to spend on athletics as UT, TAMU, OU or NU is not a secret. However, to say that those schools and the formation of the Big 12 was a lifeline that saved K-State is among the most asinine arguments I’ve ever read. And while the North is mired in mediocrity right now, it wasn’t always that way, and it wouldn’t be that way if we hadn’t caved to UT when the conference was formed.

By the way, being an A&M fan, I’d think you’d know better than to chide another school for bad football. You’ve got plenty of that in College Station.

will the smaller schools get a kiss after bending over and taking it from the larger ones?

I don’t see why we can not advocate on behalf of the smaller schools.

…because it’s a Big 12 problem, and I’m a fan of a Big 12 school. It’s just as much our conference as it is your conference. This tiebreaker, and the proposed “solution,” has the potential to affect every school in the conference. I am fully aware of K-State’s struggles at this point, and realize we are a long way from returning to the point where we contended for division and conference titles. However, if we are ever to return to that point, these rules do affect us. This being a blog for K-State fans, I’ll write about anything I damn well please that affects the Big 12 conference and, by extension, K-State.

Why is it that the Big 12’s tiebreaker doesn’t work, because it relies on the BCS, while the SEC’s tiebreaker, which relies on the BCS, is somehow better? At least learned hand suggested creative alternatives, all you can suggest is a different way to use a system you claim is flawed because it happens to suit your interests in this situation.

Finally, the fact that you assume that K-State, of all schools in the Big 12, doesn’t know what it’s like to get screwed by the BCS is simply astounding to me. Does your memory go back to 1998? If it does, you wouldn’t make such a completely unfounded statement. I have no doubt that you hate OU and that’s the reason you’re so angry. I’m not saying I wouldn’t be angry, too, if this situation involved K-State and Nebraska or KU. I noted in the post that UT has reasons to feel left out. But you’re taking it to a whole new level when you suggest that, because you, the University of Texas, got left out, the rule needs to be changed.

when a conference member becomes too influential in conference operations. Eventually, this leads to more advantages of the one at the expense of the others.

Conference matters should be decided by conference members on mutually agreed upon standards, rules, norms, etc. Majority rule is fine, rule by one is not.

Texas being ‘screwed’ in this matter does not hold a candle to what K-State went through upon losing in overtime to Texas A&M in 1998. Don’t tell us we don’t know how it feels…our skins have grown a bit thicker after that experience, thank you very much.

…explain why the SEC’s system is unfair to schools like Texas Tech and K-State. Re-read my post. I’ll give you a hint, it’s in the eighth paragraph.

I realize there is a process for changing conference rules such as this. Toward that end, perhaps I should have titled this “open letter to all Big 12 coaches, athletic directors, university presidents, and the Big 12 administration.” But that would be long and cumbersome. It was written in response to the above-linked post on Burnt Orange Nation, which advocated writing letters to the Big 12 commissioner to argue for a change in the tiebreaker system. Toward that end, it’s accurate enough for our purposes.

and mutually agreeing on the best option to benefit our member institutions.

I think the point of the post was to say that you shouldn’t change something based on one problem with one school. If the University of Texas has such a problem with this tiebreaking system (along with all the other media sources, teams, etc.), why bring it up now after you got “screwed” by it? It sure seemed fine when it was originally implemented.

We were all tabbed as whiners as well. I’ll be happy to pass the badge onto my fellow Longhorn fans.

Bring on the playoff.

You have presented nothing that convinces me that what I wrote above is incorrect. Similarly, I can see that no amount of argument on my part is going to convince you of my position. I suggest we leave it at that.

:)

if the tiebreaker rules change, aided by a large push by UT, TB (and myself included) hopes that the new rule will leave UT out again even if they think they deserve to be in the title game. The icing on the cake would be if the old (current) rule would have allowed UT to make it into the game.

saying how would KSU feel if they were in the same situation – it’s all a bunch of what-ifs. Oh course you (and us) say that IF that were to happen we’d be ok with it.