Did the BCS Computers Give the Horns the Hook?

I should mention from the outset that I'm not a University of Texas football fan; my sister's four years in Aggieland pretty much prevented that from happening (though, as a matter of state pride, I will root for them against Oklahoma every year during the State Fair, which shows that I'm not an OU fan either). So I really don't have a dog in this hunt, as we allegedly say all the time here in Texas. But it sure seems to me that UT got hosed by the BCS computers yesterday when they picked Oklahoma to represent the Big 12 South in the conference championship game (over the Horns, who beat OU back in October).

It was an unusual situation all around: Texas, OU and Texas Tech all finished at 11-1, and each one's only loss came to one of the other two. UT beat OU by ten points, Tech barely beat Texas on a last-minute touchdown, and OU demolished Tech a few weeks later. If you're a UT fan, it will certainly be rough to see OU and Missouri--both of which lost to UT this year--play in the conference championship game. (And while this might beg the question of whether the division of the Big 12 into North and South divisions--when the South is considerably stronger--is the best idea, I'll save that discussion for later.) But do we really want BCS computers breaking ties in the conference standings in the first place? Shouldn't this be decided on the field as much as possible?

Here are several views from across the nation:

• Fox Sports Don Borst says the computers really blew it, especially when they vaulted 11-1 OU over 12-0 Alabama.


• The Dallas Morning News' Tim Cowlishaw says that it's the Big 12's tiebreaker method, not the BCS, that's hosing the Horns.


• Meanwhile, Cowlishaw's DMN colleague Kevin Sherrington notes that it's not correct to say that the BCS computers are "unbiased", since they're programmed by humans.


• And Justin Potts of The Bleacher Report says that this situation should be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back as far as the BCS is concerned--because it basically rewarded Oklahoma for running up the score.

So what do you think? Does this call for a playoff, or does the Big 12 simply need to come up with a more sensible tiebreaker that places more value on head-to-head competition? (Longtime readers may recall that I offered up my own fix almost five years ago,, and I still think such an idea would work, though I'm also open to an eight-game playoff that incorporates the bowls.)

And in the meantime, I bet a lot of people in Burnt Orange Nation have become Missouri fans for this week...