Pbbtht! to the Longhorns
Dec. 2nd, 2008 02:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blairprovenceAhh, it's good to be in Big 12 country, where the college football is crazy and the fans are a)smug or b)hopping mad or c)enjoying the chaos. That'd be a) Sooner fans, b)Longhorn fans and c) sad ol' me, the Texas Aggie fan, who, frankly, had very little to cheer about this season.
But I am enjoying the "I hate the BCS" rhetoric, especially since it's not the BCS's fault that the Big 12 decided to use their standings as the fifth tiebreaker should a three-way tie happen in a division of their league. What do you want to bet no one in the history of the Big 12 had even read the fifth tiebreaker rules until late this season? I bet an intern wrote them.
It's funny to me that many of the folks who are arguing for a playoff still aren't arguing to get rid of the BCS - they're arguing that the top 8 teams of the BCS would then be in a playoff. This, to me, makes marginally more sense than the other playoff argument, which involves the conference winners and a few extra teams. Because, some of the conferences? Are TERRIBLE at football. The Big 12 South was a monster this year, and would still probably only get Texas and Oklahoma into a playoff, and I'd put OSU and Texas Tech up against the winners of a lot of the conferences any day.
The arguing is quite fun, though. The sports stations must be thanking the sports gods for all the controversy.
And A&M? Yeah, TOTALLY not going to a bowl. We got beaten by Baylor!
But I am enjoying the "I hate the BCS" rhetoric, especially since it's not the BCS's fault that the Big 12 decided to use their standings as the fifth tiebreaker should a three-way tie happen in a division of their league. What do you want to bet no one in the history of the Big 12 had even read the fifth tiebreaker rules until late this season? I bet an intern wrote them.
It's funny to me that many of the folks who are arguing for a playoff still aren't arguing to get rid of the BCS - they're arguing that the top 8 teams of the BCS would then be in a playoff. This, to me, makes marginally more sense than the other playoff argument, which involves the conference winners and a few extra teams. Because, some of the conferences? Are TERRIBLE at football. The Big 12 South was a monster this year, and would still probably only get Texas and Oklahoma into a playoff, and I'd put OSU and Texas Tech up against the winners of a lot of the conferences any day.
The arguing is quite fun, though. The sports stations must be thanking the sports gods for all the controversy.
And A&M? Yeah, TOTALLY not going to a bowl. We got beaten by Baylor!
