- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
There is no objective correct way to break the 3 way tie
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:37 am
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:37 am
like UT-OU-TT are in. There just isn't a fair way to do it. The point of playing football is to win games, that's all coaches are tying to do and its the only common goal they have. They all employ different methodology in trying to do so, and therefor once you use all possible tie breakers that involve wins by the teams involved, EVERY other alternative isn't objective or fair. Using BCS standing in any way, shape or form is definitely fricked up. Margin of victory, ppg, scoring defense, TO, OOC games, the hotness of your student body and many others can all factor in to winning a game. But they are just several different ways or methods to win. I just want to go on the record and say, THERE IS NO FAIR OBJECTIVE WAY TO SAY ONE TEAM SHOULD GO TO THE CHAMPIONSHIP GAME AHEAD OF ANOTHER IN THIS TYPE OF SCENARIO.
5
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:39 am to barry
quote:
the hotness of your student body
i just want to say that texas would win this hands down imo
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:50 am to barry
I think it can be objective. If they were tied with 2 losses each and one of the teams had beaten BOTH of the other teams, that would be objective. If the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th tie-breakers had decided the tie, that would have been objective. I think that the Big 12 didn't think ahead enough on this BCS idea. I think that their rule should stipulate something to this effect: if all other tie-breakers still result in a 3-way tie, then the final tie-breaker would be the head to head result of the 2 highest ranked BCS teams. That's not the rule though, and you can't change the rule in the middle of the season.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:52 am to barry
i think y look at the season objectively (like Team I, Team II, Team III v opponents a, b, c, etc for each), you will find OU had the best season
but you can also look at it this way. TT was blown out, so they have no claim
then you evaluate UT v OU. UT beat OU on a neutral field
it just depends on how you want to look at it
but you can also look at it this way. TT was blown out, so they have no claim
then you evaluate UT v OU. UT beat OU on a neutral field
it just depends on how you want to look at it
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:54 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
That's not the rule though, and you can't change the rule in the middle of the season.
The SEC did, if I'm not mistaken.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
TT was blown out, so they have no claim
Blown out by Oklahoma gives OU lots of credibility.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:56 am to MrKennedy
quote:
The SEC did, if I'm not mistaken
Yep, 2003. Georgia,Tennessee and Florida.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:57 am to MrKennedy
quote:
The SEC did, if I'm not mistaken.
Not sure about that. I vaguely remember something about HAVING to come up with something because certain rules weren't in place. But I don't think they actually changed any rules.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it just depends on how you want to look at it
Exactly if it were objective way to do it, there would be only one way. All the tie breakers that lead up to BCS tie breaker are objective and completely logical.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 10:59 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
But I don't think they actually changed any rules.
Maybe not changed them, but added them in. The SEC tiebreakers used currently were NOT in place going into the 2003 season, which is when they came up.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:01 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
I think that the Big 12 didn't think ahead enough on this BCS idea.
The BCS idea was brilliant. This is a very odd case where OU and Texas are almost identical and either would make the NC game. But what if OU was #2, USC #3, and Texas #4? Taking OU ensures them of a NC birth, while taking UT could leave them out in the cold.
The original poster was right. There is nothing fair or correct to break this tie. They are in fact tied. Might as well take OU who had the stronger OOC schedule
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:04 am to MrKennedy
quote:
Maybe not changed them, but added them in. The SEC tiebreakers used currently were NOT in place going into the 2003 season, which is when they came up.
Correct. The SEC basically found itself in an "oh shite!" situation and had to do something. And if I remember correctly, it had the stipulation that I listed above, something about a head to head of the 2 higher ranked BCS teams, IF they were both "x" number of spots ahead of the 3rd team in question. Whatever the stupulation, it would qualify in the current Big 12 situation, and Texas would be in.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:12 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
The SEC's rule is to take the highest ranked team in the BCS, unless the second-highest is within 5 spots. In that case, the head-to-head winner of the top two BCS teams goes.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:14 am to MrKennedy
quote:
The SEC's rule is to take the highest ranked team in the BCS, unless the second-highest is within 5 spots. In that case, the head-to-head winner of the top two BCS teams goes.
Yeah, thanks for the clarification, I knew it was something like that. So if the Big 12 had the same rule, Texas would be in. Not sure how I feel about that rule. I like the head to head idea of it, of course. But as for the conference, wouldn't you want the highest ranked team possible? Give your conference the best chance to have a team in the NC Game?
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:15 am to barry
the way i've looked it is that:
OU beat TT at HOME
TT beat UT at HOME
UT beat OU on a NEUTRAL FIELD
OU beat TT at HOME
TT beat UT at HOME
UT beat OU on a NEUTRAL FIELD
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:18 am to CHEEEEESE
quote:
UT beat OU on a NEUTRAL FIELD
I think the conferences shouldn't allow games on neutral fields.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:19 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
But as for the conference, wouldn't you want the highest ranked team possible?
Yeah... when the SEC created the rule it was to ensure the best possible opponent for LSU, which was the only Championship contender. UF was 8-4 despite being 6-2 in conference, and UT and UGA were 10-2.
UGA killed UT that season, so it was a way to eliminate UF and then take the head-to-head winner.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:22 am to CHEEEEESE
quote:
the way i've looked it is that:
OU beat TT at HOME
TT beat UT at HOME
UT beat OU on a NEUTRAL FIELD
What does any of this have to do with anything? Do you really think that a conference is going to make rules for deciding tie-breakers that has anything to do with what you just said? 3 way tie-breakers are tricky, especially when you're talking about having only 1 loss. Look into the 3 way tie-breakers that the NFL uses.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:24 am to SouthEndzoneTiger
quote:
Look into the 3 way tie-breakers that the NFL uses.
Notice that one of the earlier ones is strength of schedule, which is what put OU in over UT in the Big 12.
Posted on 12/1/08 at 11:29 am to MrKennedy
An objective way, like say.. a playoff?
Hmm.
Hmm.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News