In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 391
Online now 357 Record: 4487 (2/14/2012)
The place for the most trusted source for reliable, accurate information on OU Sports
Men's & women's basketball, baseball, softball and other OU sports
The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners
The place to buy, sell or trade tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
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....
Nobody has mentioned major league sports besides you. We are simply talking about college football. Do I have any suggestions for it no, but if your 8-4 with 3 conference loses and you beat a team that's 12-0 with zero conference loses then your still not the conference champion IMO.
"With Nebraska trying to leave, we felt like we needed to send them out with a loss, and we did." -Ryan Broyles-
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.
But the same thing can happen in major league or even other college sports. That's why I brought it up.
What makes it different for a college football conference championship game?
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.
I'm not that worried about TCU's offense (where have I said that before). Texas handled them pretty well. TCU does have a stout defense, they made the Texas offense look inept, pretty much like OU did.
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?
In 1976, we had a 3 way tie for the Big 8 Title. In 1984 I believe we were tied with Nebraska for the Big 8. We no longer have a championship game that determines an outright champ. I understand the head to head loss to KST, but they lost to a team we beat and we both have one loss.
Should we not claim the National Title for 1974 since USC claimed the UPI title that year and we won the AP?
This isn't anything like OSU or UT claiming to be co-champs of the south division. This is for the conference. title and it is nothing to be hanging your head about for being a co-champion.
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.
NO - it's the same thing the lame brains make fun of. There is no ubiquitous WE here!
Would you feel the same way if we had beaten KSU and lost to Baylor? Would that somehow make the co-championship more pallatable? They're both co champions and two years ago there were tri-champions because the top 3 all beat each other.
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.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports