OUInsider - Owen Field

This is not like texas/t-aggies/okie-lite claiming a Big XII Championship when all they did is tie for the Big XII South Division. This is actually a tie of records between teams FOR the Big XII Championship. We have to win against TCU for this to even be considered....

No it isn't the same thing. Co champs are co champs and its based only on record. When we beat TCU, we will be Big Twelve champs or co champs depending on KState and Texas.

We need to worry about TCU before we start worrying about conference championship semantics. I can assure you, TCU is and will be a formidable opponent.

KSU does not get to consider themselves sole champs with an equal record as OU and a loss to Baylor. They don't get that reward after losing to Baylor. They get reward for head to head as the BCS participant which is deserved since only one can get the automatic bid.

In round robin formats, tie records are considered a tie.

You guys make zero sense. They no longer have a championship game in the B12. When UT claimed a co-Big 12 South title, we all laughed b/c they never even had to play in the B12 title game.

Do you see the difference?

All I am is saying that is that the conference winner should have the best conference record! Giving an inferior team with a inferior record a winner takes all platform only benefits the inferior team. It's like playing school yard basketball and your up by 10 and recess is about over so somebody says next point wins. If its the team down by 10 did they really win? I think that a championship game should only be played if it is needed to determine a winner of the conference! Meaning both teams have equal conference records or could have after the game. If the conference record is still in favor of one team whether they win or lose it then they are still the best team in the conference and no championship game is needed. The current Big 12 setup is actually the best way to determine a true conference champion as everyone plays everyone and the winner rises to the top via head to head.

I understand your point, but I'm surprised you don't see mine.

Look at the St Louis Cardinals two years ago.

Or the New York Giants last year.

Neither were close to the best records in their league/conference - but both were ultimately crowned world champions. Do you think their championships are not legitimate because of their overall records?

And with the big 12, while its true that the teams all play each other, and it's certainly as fair as it can be, it's still not a perfectly fair schedule. Depending on when bye weeks fall, how the teams line up (as in someone having to play the three top teams in subsequent weeks), neutral field games (Texas and OU never have to venture into the others stadium), etc - a totally 100% pure equal schedule is not possible.

I'm not advocating a championship game for a 10 team league, but I miss it under the scenario of 12 or more teams with two divisions. Everyone knows going in that you have to win that game to be crowned champion, and you have to win your "half" of the league to make that game.

I prefer it that way, thus I do believe that the Cardinals and Giants were legit champs.

You don't seem to agree, that's cool.