During the month of October, America was consumed with the Presidential election. It dominated the news, the internet, and conversations around the country. Then, on November 4th, it all came crashing down.

Image Credit: Billy A

Obama won. The race was over.

Without suspenseful tales of election maneuvering, I’ve noticed that the news has become much more boring in the last month or so. There are auto makers begging for money, and they’ll probably get it and I probably won’t care. Obama is picking a cabinet filled with people who will probably do some kind of a job in the new administration. That’s nice. Various places around the world are still violent, deadly, and unlikely to get a visit from many travelers.

It’s time to turn our attention to the subject that really should dominate October and November: College Football.

International readers and non-sports fans, you may now stop reading. I won’t take it personally.

In the Big XII South, Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech all finished 11-1. Texas beat OU, Texas Tech beat Texas, and OU clobbered Texas Tech. Because head-to-head competition could not be used to break a three-way tie, and because other tiebreaking options had been exhausted, the BCS standings were used to determine the winner. Oklahoma edged Texas, and they will play Missouri on Saturday in Kansas City for the Big XII championship and a likely bid to the National Championship game.

There are a couple of ways at looking at this result.

The Three Team Paradigm

According to this line of thinking, all three teams have identical records and common losses, so each team deserves equal consideration. Factors such as strength of schedule, margin of victory and who’s playing better now should inform the choice of the South champion.

Oklahoma played ranked TCU (10-2) and Cincinnati (10-2) early in the year, and beat both of them by 25 and 26 respectively. Texas’s strongest non-conference opponent were Arkansas, a 5-7 SEC team, and Rice (9-3). Texas won both games by 42. Texas Tech stopped just short of scheduling St Mary’s School for the Blind. Their best opponent was Nevada (7-5) and they only won by 16.

On the other hand, Texas has already played and defeated Big XII North champion Missouri, (who lost 40-37 to arch-rival Kansas last Saturday), while Oklahoma and Texas Tech have not. According to the Sagarin ratings, Texas played the 12th hardest schedule, Oklahoma played the 17th, and Texas Tech played the 26th. Of course, all of those numbers are elevated because the teams had to play each other.

If you look at margin of victory, “‘in the round robin between the three 11-1 teams, OU was a plus-34, Texas was a plus-4, Texas Tech was minus-38. In Big 12 games, OU was a plus-195, Texas a plus-149 and Texas Tech a plus-101.”

In their last games, Texas beat a weak Texas A&M team 49-9 and Texas Tech limped past Baylor 35-28. On the other hand, Oklahoma went on the road and defeated ranked Oklahoma State 61-41 on national television. Texas and Texas Tech had each beaten Oklahoma State earlier in the year.

If you look at strength of non-conference schedule, margin of victory and who’s playing best now, Oklahoma has the edge, and it is this advantage that supporters point to when they justify Oklahoma’s victory in the BCS, and particularly in the computer systems that form a part of the BCS calculation.

The Two Team Paradigm

There is another way to compare the three teams. First, you try to eliminate one of the teams from consideration, and then compare the two remaining teams head-to-head. Of the three teams, it is easiest to throw out Texas Tech. While OU lost to Texas by 10 and Texas lost to Tech by 6, Texas Tech lost to Oklahoma by 44 points, 65-21. While Texas and Oklahoma cruised in their last games, Tech had to come back from a 28-14 deficit in the second half to slip by Baylor 35-28. Texas and OU at least tried to schedule respectable teams in non-conference play; Tech played nobody. Texas and OU have long traditions and national followings, Tech does not. Texas and Oklahoma are each ranked in the top 4 in the BCS and AP polls, Texas Tech is around 7th.

By this comparison, it is fairly easy to throw Texas Tech out of consideration. I’ve not heard anyone (other than Texas Tech coach Mike Leach, who suggests a tie-breaker based on graduation rates, which Texas Tech would win) seriously arguing that Texas Tech should go to the Big XII Championship game.

With Texas Tech gone, how can we compare the remaining two teams? Their strength of schedule is close, their margins of victory are similar, their computer rankings are . . .

Oh wait. They played.

Texas won.

After all the talk about the importance of deciding things on the field, how is it that this simple fact is overlooked: Texas and Oklahoma played, on a neutral field, and Texas won, 45-35?

Imagine this scenario. The four best teams are Florida, Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas. If there was a playoff, the winner of Florida-Alabama (playing on Saturday) and the winner of OU-Texas (played in October) would meet to determine the National Champion. Only in this case, it’s the winner of UF-ALA versus the loser of Oklahoma-Texas. How does this kind of playoff make any sense at all? Why not have the loser of UF-ALA play the winner of OU-Texas, and declare that winner the champion. Why not have the loser of each game play for the title?

Sometimes the simple answer is the best one. Oklahoma fans can cite all the statistics they want, but the simple fact is that when they played Texas, they lost. If the decision comes down to Texas and Oklahoma, the only result that should matter is the one on the field.

Interestingly enough, the SEC has a tiebreaker clause to that effect.

Of course, the only rational solution is to have the best teams meet in a 12 team playoff. I thought about holding my breath until that happens, but then I wouldn’t have the oxygen needed to argue endlessly about sports.

And until there is a playoff, arguing, not actually playing football, will be what it’s all about.