Oh well, I am sure you don’t see things the same as I do and I at least admit that I can respect that and accept the fundamental differences.

But let’s get one thing straight… to you AND to Mr. Unbelievable. I find it very interesting how both of you went into such rants and attacked JRod when neither of you are smart enough to understand the point that he was trying to convey in the article in the first place.
The Homer accusations can be pointed toward me as I proudly admit to being a Texas fan but you both evidently do not read well or at least understand the comprehensive part of the English language Your relentless RANT of trying to justify why your sooners deserve the nod they received makes you look like the real biased OU Homer, here. Not to mention a little “paranoid” as well.

Here are some points and this is from your OWN statements:
1. “It’s nice to lose and not suffer the consequences”…referring to the Horn’s loss in Lubbock. I am still waiting for an explanation or rebuttal from you on that one? I noticed you didn’t mention it in your reply.

2. “We did the job that Mack Brown couldn’t do”, again referring to the Horns loss in Lubbock. My response is we did the job Bob Stoops couldn’t do…so that makes us Even.

3. “the Oklahoma team that Texas defeated in October is not the same now”. Well, we can just play them when they schedule them, sorry.

4. “In October, as you well know, Oklahoma was installing the No-Huddle Spread Offense, and they have improved considerably since then”. Refer to #3 response.

5. “Furthermore, I’ve heard many different arguments for why Texas should’ve been the recipient of a BCS “gift,” but not one argument in support of Oklahoma”. Refer to all 4 of your statements above!

And Unbelievable, I don’t want you to feel left out before responding to some of your comments:

1. “OU should be in a playoff at the end because they are playing their best and lost early in the season”. I don’t even know why they play that dang “Red River Rivalry” game, do you?

2. “Texas lost late, and therefore shows they have weaknesses”. You are really grasping at straws on that one…that is just funny, there!

Additionally, please understand I fully accept the rules and the decision that was made. We are big boys in Texas and can handle it.

All that said, and being careful not to offend anyone, these disharmonious attitudes, paranoid delusions and the excessive sensitivity in trying to justify your means make both of you come off as feeling a little threatened, guilty and ashamed. Please…don’t be…Really. It will all be OK! Please don’t be so suspicious of others. No one is going to overrule the verdict and take it away from you. There is no special agenda out here and we are not trying to harm or deceive you in any way.
Have a great weekend.

And, if I may take this one step further, your “senseless babbling” sentence went on to say “lends further proof of my original point and comment that you sooner fans choose to forget the game played on Oct. 11th.”

MF, hear this! I have not suggested anything even remotely associated with “the game played in Oct.” I will submit, however, since you broached the subject, that the Oklahoma team that Texas defeated in October is not the same team that “did the job that Mack Brown couldn’t do.” I think you know that’s true.

In October, as you well know, Oklahoma was installing the No-Huddle Spread Offense, and they have improved considerably since then, just as Texas has. “Once defeated forever vanquished” is not applicable in this case, and it rarely is.

The purpose of the BCS rules is to determine the best team “OF THE MOMENT” to play in championship games.

Furthermore, MF, I’ve yet to hear any Oklahoma fan suggest that Oklahoma deserves the rewards that have been so lavishly laid on. Neither is anyone saying that Texas is less deserving. I have, though, on several occasions pointed out that Oklahoma had nothing to do with any of it, and that Mack Brown certainly did have.

Brown had a vote in the Heisman award, as well as in determining which teams played in the Big 12 championship game. The classless ass has campaigned relentlessly, on ESPN and other sports networks, and his silly argument suggests that BCS rules could and should be junked midstream.

Do you hear what I’m saying? Oklahoma fans are NOT arguing with you. It’s even possible that some of us support your position. I certainly don’t, but even if I did, nothing can be done about it. The rules cannot be changed to suit the notions of powerful coaches and biased pundits.

Why don’t you look at the non-conference games. OU played 2 very good teams (#11, #12), one of which will win their conference and the other only losing to OU and an undefeated team. If Tech and Texas would schedule some teams besides the school for the blind in non-conference maybe they would have done better in the computer polls. Mack can politic and win the votes of his friends, but he can’t hide the facts from the computers. You and the horns also seem to point out the fact “at home” as if that’s all that matters. A win is a win and a loss is a loss, we didn’t lose “at home” despite what you think. The horns overlook their loss more so than OU. We know we lost but the horns refuse to admit to that, rather make excuses of “on the road” or “last second” or “hey, we beat OU head to head”. Face it… YOU LOST! Live with it, and the rules. Stop whining, something Mack can’t seem to do, stop hiring planes to fly over fields, stop going on shows and crying how you go screwed, stop writing articles about “gifts”. You have a great memory in October but have amnesia in November. It’s obvious who the homer is.

Likewise, I never said my allegiance was to OU, but I won’t deny the fact that it’s certainly not to texas. Regardless, Tech DID beat texas, texas beat OU and OU beat Tech. 3way tie… so you can’t say one win is better than any other. Live with it, and stop whining.

With that logic I guess you need to be reminded that Mack DID do the job that Bob Stoops couldn’t! Oh NO, WAIT… That game didn’t matter, right?

I’ll remind you of your very own statement that “It’s nice to lose and not suffer the consequences”… maybe you didn’t look that statement over very well after typing it? I will wait to hear your rebuttle on what you really meant by that sentence on your reply, ok? Because, really? That was just hilarious!!!!

As for the rules, I will agree that they are what they are and I accept them. Under the current system, only one team can go and to reiterate the original message I think JRod was trying to point out, even Tech would deserve a gripe at the way things turned out.

Congrats on the great season OU has had and the year Sam Bradford has had… but in the famous words of one Colonel Nathan R Jessep “I would rather you just say THANK YOU…and went on your way”.

(1) Oklahoma didn’t receive a “gift,” not from the BCS or anyone else. Oklahoma was selected by established rules, rules that Mack Brown helped make, voted on, and signed his name to.

Furthermore, I’ve heard many different arguments for why Texas should’ve been the recipient of a BCS “gift,” but not one argument in support of Oklahoma. Even Mack Brown put his 4 million dollar two-cents worth in, even though Texas lost to a team much less capable than Oklahoma.

Nobody noticed that Mack Brown stayed uber-quiet until the Sooners did the job he couldn’t do. Mr. Brown stayed quiet because he knew he hadn’t earned the chance to play in the Big 12 or national championship games.

But, when Oklahoma, by the rules, earned the right to play in both games, Mack Brown and his biased media followers started ranting about how “Texas beat Oklahoma,” and chose to forget all about their own loss to Texas Tech. How forking convenient. It’s nice to lose and not suffer the consequences.

(2) Mack Brown had a big hand in determining the rules by which Big 12 conference ties would broken. He and Texas’ Athletic Director signed off on the tiebreaker rules, and neither one said a word about fairness until the rules they signed their names to worked against them.

Bob Stoops didn’t have a vote in determining either the Heisman trophy winner or the teams that would play in the Big 12 Championship. Mack brown had a vote in both decisions, and we all know who he voted for. Oklahoma beat him anyway, and didn’t have a thing to do with it.

So, MF, if what I’ve said doesn’t ring true to you, perhaps you should examine the bases for your feelings. Your sense of fairness need not be sanctioned by slanted sports writers and biased ESPN sports casters. Think for yourself. You know truth when you hear it ring.

However, I feel as if you only looked at the pretty picture at the top and did not read the entire article.

This is copied verbatim from my post above:

And here’s the really sad thing: I know a lot of people are reading this and chomping at the bit to get the comments and tell me I’m an idiot for arguing about Texas and ignoring Texas Tech. Well guess what? That is even more proof for my point!

Unfortunately, that is college football.

So apparently I am not a “Texas homer” and did not “forget that Tech beat UT.”

For the rest of my reply, I will just refer below to the comments of MavsFan.

Why do sooner fans try to justify their BCS “gift” by skirting the head to head battles of ALL 3 teams? It is just hilarious to hear them forget about the Texas beat down of OU and only acknowledge Tech’s win over the Horns. You also state “OU lost early in the season but should be in a playoff at the end of the season because they are playing their best and Texas lost late, and therefore shows they have weaknesses”. That is just funny!

Consider all 3 team’s losses and remember you got the nod even though you didn’t earn it on the field.
Now just consider it a “gift” and don’t embarress the Big 12 by laying another post season egg!

And with that outta the way, onward to the bone of your contention, provocative to be sure.

The first step in the scientific method of problem solving is, of course, “understand the problem.” However, there are two kinds of problems. There’s the Technical problem, which is soluble, then there’s the People problem. People problems do not have solutions, and that just about says it all.
People Problems are parasites that thrive on Monkey Wrenches.

“As dry leaves before the wild hurricane fly, when met with an obstacle, mount to the sky.”

As People Problems before honest inquiry do flinch, when met with truth, toss a Monkey Wrench.

Truth; Texas Tech defeated the team that defeated Oklahoma.

Monkey Wrench #1; “But . . ., but . . ., we’re Texas.”

Where did I see that revealing statement? Quickly, toss another Monkey wrench.

Monkey Wrench #2; But . . ., but . . ., Oklahoma thoroughly trounced Texas Tech.

WTF does that have to do with anything. Toss another Monkey Wrench, and make it a good one this time.

Monkey Wrench #3; Since Oklahoma defeated Texas Tech . . ., and, uh, where am I? Oh yeah, and Texas defeated Oklahoma, then Texas should’ve defeated Texas Tech.

Boy howdy! That’s a dandy Monkey Wrench.

Truth #2; Texas should’a would’a could’a defeated Texas Tech, but they didn’t.

Truth #3; I’ll never forget the thrill, the magic, the grace and skill of two athletes, one black, one white, on a cold night in Lubbock Texas with only one second remaining in a bloody-nose fight between two undefeated teams, a spiraling orb of hope found its way between two defenders and brought mighty Texas down.

How may time must Texas Tech Defeat Texas before the football world will finally say, TEXAS TECH DEFEATED TEXAS, and By God, don’t you ever forget it.

Texas Tech did beat Texas, but Tech also got thrashed by OU. In my OPINION, the three teams, in order, go OU, Texas, Texas Tech. I realize that this seems to contradict my argument, but not the big picture of what I was arguing. THE SYSTEM is what is broken. Instead of having to argue about OU v Texas v Texas Tech, and seeing OU get to the championship game despite losing to Texas, WE SHOULD SEE IT SETTLED ON THE FIELD.

That is my frustration, and why I can understand why Texas and T Tech fans are frustrated. They all had legit claim to the Big 12 crown, but obviously only one team could go. But with respect to the national championship, there has to be a better way than votes and computers trumping the logic of what happens on the field. All three of these teams should be able to play for a shot at being champions. As it is, I do think the best team (again, in my opinion) is the one playing. But that team lost to Texas. And Texas lost to Tech. Which brings me back to my point: what does the play on the field mean? Not as much as voting and computers, and that is wrong.

Your confusion is understandable. Hell, I was a little confused writing the post. I just new that seeing Texas lose out for the NC game, and lose out for the Heisman, despite beating OU on the field, something didn’t feel right. And then you throw Tech into the mix and something REALLY didn’t feel right. I fully admit that I may not have explained my point very well, and perhaps focused on the Texas side of it more — it was a visceral reaction to watching the Heisman.

But the main point is that a system that could lead to such a post, and to such argument, is horribly broken. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I know there is a better way to determine champions than how college football does it now. And it frustrates me more and more every season.

Thanks for taking me to task and making me explain more. Hopefully this clears it up somewhat.

First you say, “nothing is more important than what happens on the field.” Ergo, in your thinking, Texas should be Big 12 South champions because Texas defeated Oklahoma on the field. Right?

Then you go on to say, “Texas Tech beat Texas . . .,” and here’s where you lost me. You follow it all up with the statement, “I would rate Texas Tech 3rd,” behind both Texas and Oklahoma, even though TEXAS TECH DEFEATED TEXAS ON THE FIELD.

Keeping in mind your assertion that “nothing is more important than what happens on the field,” why should Texas Tech not be Big 12 South Champions because “nothing is more important than what happens on the field.”

Did you forget that Texas Tech defeated Texas on the field? What happened to “nothing is more important than what happens on the field?”

I watched the Texas / Texas Tech game, Sir, sitting in my easy chair. Texas Tech defeated Texas on the field. Ergo, then, something IS more important than what what happens on the field.

What could that be? What on earth could be more important than what happens on the field, especially since “NOTHING is more important than what happens on the field?”

So, to sum it all up. In your mind, Texas should be Big 12 south champions because Texas beat Oklahoma on the field. But, Texas Tech should NOT be Big 12 South Champions because Texas Tech beat Texas on the field. How does that work?

Furthermore, you make Texas Tech the #3 team in the Big 12 South, which, by your own words, means that the # 3 team in the Big 12 South defeated the # 1 Team in the Big 12 South, yet the # 1 team should remain #1, and the # 3 team should NOT be Big 12 South champions by virtue of defeating the # 1 team on the field.

Would you please straighten all this out for me?