quote:

---

Some of you are living in a fantasy world where you think we can weasel are way into the game based upon wording that's obviously not meant to be taken the way some of you are taking it.

---

It's written as it's written in plain English. May not be what it's intended, but so what. I once got about $1,500 off of a lease contract because of some confusing wording in the lease. It may not have been what was intended, but it was what was written.

I'm so glad some of us pointed this out THREE WEEKS AGO!

Germans bombs moons etc...

quote:

---

What does the parole evidence rule have to do with this? We don't need to introduce oral evidence to have the league enforce the rule the way it's written.

---

I meant that if we tried to force the big 12 to enforce it in our favor (i.e. as it's written), the big 12 would introduce outside evidence to show that our interpretation wasn't the one that all the conference members (ourselves included most likely) intended at the time of formation.

quote:

---

We wouldnt get owned by parole evidence if the rule was found to be ambiguous- unless maybe conferene rules prevented parole evidence from being submitted in its dispute resolution process.

---

I think if it was found to be ambiguous and it went to debate, there'd be 11 schools saying it was intended to be the way we all know it is and 1 school saying 10, 14, 15 sends 14 to the championship game.

Hah maybe we could demand they do it our way or we'll start beeching about our 20 million again. Or we'll start talking with Silve.

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=106181&SPID=13139&ATCLID=205035231&DB_OEM_ID=10410

Tiebreaking Scenarios

quote:

---

South Division
Should Texas A&M defeat Texas on Thursday and Oklahoma defeat Oklahoma State on Saturday, the South will finish in a three-way tie as the Aggies, the Sooners and the Cowboys would each be 6-2. In this case, Big 12 rules state that the BCS Standings would be used to break a three-way tie.

The BCS Standings released Nov. 28, this Sunday, would be used to break the three-way tie and decide the South Division representative in the Big 12 Championship game. The team ranked highest in the BCS Standings would be the South Division representative.

However, there is a change to the tiebreaker rule (that was adopted before this season) that could bring in head-to-head results. If separated by one place in the BCS Standings, the Big 12 team ranked second could become Division representative in the championship game if it won the regular-season head-to-head meeting with the team ranked higher in the BCS Standings.

---

quote:

---

Texas A&M
Would finish 6-2 with a victory at Texas on Thursday. If Oklahoma beats Oklahoma State, that would create a three-way tie in the South Division that would be broken as outlined above.

---

quote:

---

Big 12 three-way tie-breaker rule: If three or more teams are tied, steps 1 through 7 will be followed until a determination is made. If only two teams remain tied after any step, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative.
1. The records of the three teams will be compared against each other
2. The records of the three teams will be compared within their division
3. The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5 and 6)
4. The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents.
5. The highest ranked team in the first Bowl Championship Series poll following the completion of Big 12 regular season conference play shall be the representative in the Big 12 Championship Game, unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the Big 12 Championship Game.
6. The team with the best overall winning percentage (excluding exempted games) shall be the representative.
7. The representative will be chosen by draw.

---

Even with this interpretation, if we are within one spot of OSU, using head to head OSU beats us, so I still do not see how we would go based on what Ashton said.

Quit living in fantasyland. The rule doesn't mean what OP claims

?

I agree that this would not happen. But the wording of it states that it would. Absolutes dreadful wording of the rule.

Only got through page 1, but can someone explain to me how the process goes past step 1?

quote:

---

If only two teams remain tied after any step, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative.

1. The records of the three teams will be compared against each other

---

If OU wins, they will be 10-2, okie lite will be 10-2, and we will be 9-3. This leaves a tie between two of the teams, decided by the h-t-h, which is OU in this scenario. Right?

If cowboys win, they go 11-1 and have the best record.

Step one is how you did against the other two teams

Example: if our two losses were to mizzou and tech, we would be south champs because wins over osu & ou

oh ok it's talking about conference record until step 6

[This message has been edited by lurkerag00 (edited 3/11/2012 9:43p).]

I think we can all agree that the wording is bad. But for all of you saying that the intention of the rule is different than its wording, be careful. Interpretation of written rules outside of their literal meaning borders on a political debate (U.S. Constitution). I feel that it is not our fault the wording of the rule benefits us just like it was not tu's fault the rule did not benefit them in 2008.

it has nothing to do with the constitution. the Big XII is not the government.

i think they wrote it as they intended it. by stating that any of the 3 teams rather than just the top two should be within a pt of another helps balance a very subjective ranking system. if all 3 teams are tied and any of the teams are within one point even the bottom two, then it should be decided by the top two's head to head comparison. this keeps the rankings in check...i.e. if a team is coming on strong late in the season and didn't start off ranked very high but is still just as every bit as good as any of the teams that it tied with...they deserve a fair shot...i think this rule is not a typo or poorly written...it helps balance out the rankings with the reality that the 3 teams are equal regardless of their rankings...it's their attempt to send the best of the 3 equal teams...i still think that strength of schedule should play a bigger part...but at least they are attempting to not let rankings decide who represents a division...

The question is: is it OK for the Big XII officials to interpret the intent of the rule or should the rule be followed as written, no matter what the consequences? I personally think the rules should be followed to the letter to teach people a lesson about precision of language.

With regard to the political comment, all I'm saying is that it looks like arguments about interpretation of the Constitution (literal vs intent). I wasn't trying to say Big XII rules were law.

Dang, no need to be so argumentative about it. It is what it is - poorly-worded, and it was a good observation in the first place about the poor wording, because we all know what the intent was, assumed it was saying that, but upon closer examination we see that the tie-breaker that Mack clamored for was idiotic. Why should it matter if some other team should squeeze in between two ranked teams?

this isn't what Mack was clamoring for. he argued for an SEC type system that says:

quote:

---

The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game.

---

I dont think we would make it. but I love that it would show how stupid the conference leadership is.

You bring up a good point. If, say OU is #10, A&M is #13 and OSU is #14, then A&M should certainly argue that it should go onto a head-to-head with OU (in which we win), based on the verbiage of the rule.

lurkerag is exactly right. They could've used the same language regarding the "top two ranked" teams in the first sentence that determines when head-to-head comes into play, but they chose not to.

So you're telling me there's a chance . . . . . .

Aston: you are setting yourself up for great disappointment.

Huh! Well I'll be a monkey's uncle...

quote:

---

Yes, it would fall to BCS Standings (all three would be 1-1 against each other with a loss to a North Division team). In which case it would be highest ranked team in Standings, unless the top two are within one place of one another in the Standings. If that were to occur, it would still go to highest ranked team, unless the team ranked one-spot behind won head-to-head match up.

---

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/21893/bcs-relevance-lies-in-big-12-south

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
thats how most are interpreting it, but thats not what the rule says.

Straight from David Ubben: "The only chance for Texas A&M to win the South is if they somehow climb within a spot of Oklahoma. Because of a new addition to Big 12 rules this season, if two teams are within a spot of each other in the BCS standings, the lower-ranked team can advance to the title game via head-to-head tiebreaker, which Texas A&M holds over Oklahoma."

Assume A&M's win over t.u. does NOTHING for our BCS ranking, we're looking for OSU to drop 8 spots after being beat by OU (ranked 4 spots lower with a BCS rating difference of .1774).

For comparison, NU lost to A&M (ranked 11 spots lower with a BCS rating difference of .4415) and only dropped 7 spots.

Somehow OU and OSU would need to have a zero-zero game go into 10 OT's and be won by a safety for the voters to put either of them lower than us AND the Ags win 98-0 with t.u. ending up with negative yardage and no 1st downs.

The reporters are ASSUMING the rule says "top two" ... it clearly says no such thing.

If two of the three tied teams are within a BCS place of each other, then head-to-head results of the two highest determine the representative

We have two chances: OU beats OSU and A&M is either:
a. Within one BCS place of OU; or
b. Within one BCS place of OSU.

This is a mathematical equation in words and not ambiguous; "intent" has no place here

quote:

---

"intent" has no place here

---

I hope you don't really believe that, otherwise you're in for a letdown.

okay, mh

show me the language where "top two" tied teams are being considered, as opposed to what's clearly and unambiguously written

I bet you don't talk about "intent" when you place a bet and take a team and the points ... clear is clear, "intent" doesn't get to raise it's little ol head

quote:

---

I bet you don't talk about "intent" when you place a bet and take a team and the points ... clear is clear, "intent" doesn't get to raise it's little ol head

---

If a clear "bad line" is posted (eg. its +3 everywhere but a book has +30), then the bet will not be valid and refunded.

I agree with you with how it is worded.

But it was definitely not their INTENT to have say, the #18 BCS team go to the title game over the #6 BCS team just because a third team was ranked #17 in the BCS.

No that is not the case here, but if you applied the rule based on how it is written then that would happen.

And you aren't going to see it happen if it comes to that. This isn't a computer program, there's actually people that will make the final decision no matter what the "rules" say.

Let this go people. This is why we get made fun of by outsiders... because we are arguing a ridiculous theory that would never, NEVER, N-E-V-E-R play out like you are hoping it would.

quote:

---

This is a mathematical equation in words and not ambiguous; "intent" has no place here

---

This is not a mathematical formula and its not the government so the "its not ambiguous so intent doesn't matter" rule is inapplicable.

Lets say it ends up:

OU-8
A&M-15
OSU-16

do you REALLY think our school is going to try to claim we should be in the title game?

No, Don't let this go....Especially if Arkansas wins against LSU....

If OU beats OSU at home, they will do it by a small margin. It won't be a beatdown.

If we beat texas by a wide margin we could end up moving up five or six in a week.

So we could end up being ranked only within a few positions of OU and we would have beaten them.

I think the "intent" based on language during the discussions at the time was if a team was within five or so....if you want to take by the letter of the wording....we should win there too.

So, yes, I would take it to the lawyers. Absolutely, you know Texas would. And we very well may have an SEC hole opening up, with Auburn stuff going on....so the Big12 would listen....

It could happen, if we are within 4 positions of OU, I think we should make a stink over this...