It’s funny you bring up the suggestion by learned hand, as when I was browsing through the comments the other day, I was intrigued by his 2 touchdown dominance rule. (% of time a team is up by 2 td’s or more). At first I thought, "that’s an intriguing idea," however, then I started wondering about the freakish things that could happen to favor one team over another.

For instance, let’s pretend for a second that somebody in the Big XII knows how to play defense. This imaginary team could have won a majority of their games by shutting out their opponent, giving up less than 150 yards of total offense. At the same time, maybe they only scored 7-10 points.

Then take the huge leap of faith and think of a Big XII team that scores in bunches and plays very little D. This team could have a "dominant" 2 touchdown lead over a similar team with the final score being 69 to 55.

Who’s to say which one of these two teams is more deserving?

But then I told myself to quit worrying about a 3-team, 5th tie breaker for division champs. Because I had just wasted time that I could never get back.

1. IMHO this is an issue that fans of all Big 12 schools should be examining. The three schools which were impacted this time almost certainly won’t be the same three impacted next time. Frankly, I would expect the best input to come from the schools and fans whose interest is only prospective, rather than the three teams with a built in bias.

2. I agree that suggestions coming from UT fans advocating the SEC system should be met with some skepticism, if for no other reason that they likely started from the outcome they desired and worked backwards to find a palatable solution. However, I find a system which relies on the BCS to be wholly unpalatable for separate reasons.

3. My primary issue with the use of the BCS system, is the heavy reliance on input from parties who may or may not even be informed. Further, the ambiguous nature of “style points” ensures that the players and coaches don’t know how to effectuate their own success. Will voters be more impressed by a 63-35 pasting or a 28-0 shutout? Is it better to just get a shutout, even if you only score a little, or score a lot even if you give up almost as much?

4. There are three rationals behind the two TD lead (h/t to BON contributor BoddickerisClutch for coming up with the idea that started me this way). First, that wins by 2 scores preclude a last second “fluke” comeback (I.e. UT-Tech, either way you want to look at it). I prefer TD’s as an additional discriminator vs. a touchdown+fieldgoal. The secondary rational is that it puts a requirement on both the offense and the defense to do their job creates a bright line test so each side knows how to achieve success (as opposed to “style points”). I.e. Get up on your opponents early, and don’t let them back in the game. The third rational is that by crediting coaches for time rather than raw MOV, they are rewarded for running out the clock against an outmatched opponents, rather than purely running up the score.

I certainly don’t believe that this is the ideal solution, or necessarily even a better than average solution, however, I think it does illustrate some considerations in creating an objective tie breaker in the best interest of 18-23 year old players.

I can see the rationale behind the two TD lead, but have to wonder about the standard. Would not a 9 point lead be equally fluke-proof? Wouldn’t 14 still be vulnerable to TD+onside+TD? If that’s the concern, wouldn’t the right number be 17?

And if the two TD spread counts for something, then won’t we see losing teams changing their strategy to avoid being beat by the two TD rather than taking a shot at winning? Do we really want teams that are 10 behind tanking?

Finally, let me agree that the SEC tiebreaker is no better than what we use now. The whole idea of letting voters outside the Big 12 and games played against opponents outside the Big 12 seems to defeat the whole idea of selecting a Big 12 champion. We need a system that is self contained and fair to all (even KSU).