The BigXII shot itself in the foot yesterday with the round-robin setup. 4 of the 5 P5 conferences have a championship game. The higher seed in each of those games got into the playoffs...whether those are the 4 top teams or not. I don't think FSU or OSU are a top 4 team...but that's for another thread.
The Big12 is going to be relying on the lower seed to win one of these championship games from her on out if they choose not to have a B12 CCG. IMO, that isn't a good way to get your conference represented in the playoffs...
The round-robin is cute...but until they expand to 8 teams. The B12 could find themselves in this situation more often than Not.
The Baylor vs KSU was the championship argument is flawed as is the B12 could have had 2 teams in the playoffs...
So....to get the B12 back to....12 teams, what two teams would you add?
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
I don't understand why anyone would unless it was the only way the league could stay afloat financially. On Shaggybevo, there are all kind of threads talking about moving to the PAC. They invariably turn to discussions on how the league can be configured so that they wouldn't lose any of their influence over the conference compared to what they have in the Big 12.
The Longhorns are like locusts.
Your posts are like a gift that keeps on giving. Either Texas runs everything that is Big 12 all day, everyday... or they're a whisper in the wind compared to the powerhouse "parochial" schools that have made the Longhorns their bitch.
Originally Posted by Bambi:
Your posts are like a gift that keeps on giving. Either Texas runs everything that is Big 12 all day, everyday... or they're a whisper in the wind compared to the powerhouse "parochial" schools that have made the Longhorns their bitch.
Make up your mind man.
I'm pretty sure that everyone else is smart enough to understand that Texas, despite being not much more than mediocre athletically, has a wildly disproportionate amount of I fluency over the Big 12. These two facts are in no way mutually exclusive.
This isn't even a controversial statement. Only the willfully ignorant would deny it.
And said parochial schools certainly aren't powerhouses. We saw what happened when Baylor played the AAC champion last year. They were run out of the building, and that was Baylor's most successful season in history. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
I don't understand why anyone would unless it was the only way the league could stay afloat financially. On Shaggybevo, there are all kind of threads talking about moving to the PAC. They invariably turn to discussions on how the league can be configured so that they wouldn't lose any of their influence over the conference compared to what they have in the Big 12.
The Longhorns are like locusts.
Because they will have USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, and UW against them. The Cali schools like to fight a lot but they will band together if need be. Going to 16 actually solves a lot of problems with scheduling as the Pac12 is configured now since the four Cali schools want to play each other every year. You go with the old Pac 8 (USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, UW, and WSU) and then the newcomers (Ariz, ASU, Col, Utah and the four former Big 12 schools). [Reply]
Boise state and BYU. And it's not even close. Should have kept Nebraska and Missouri. Adding WV was dumb as they are a much better fit in the ACC [Reply]
Originally Posted by ILChief:
Boise state and BYU. And it's not even close. Should have kept Nebraska and Missouri. Adding WV was dumb as they are a much better fit in the ACC
Actually, would of been a very good fit in the B10. Morgantown is very close to Ohio. Big10 should of grabbed WVU and Pitt instead of Rutgers and Maryland. [Reply]
Originally Posted by GloucesterChief:
Actually, would of been a very good fit in the B10. Morgantown is very close to Ohio. Big10 should of grabbed WVU and Pitt instead of Rutgers and Maryland.
That too. I was thinking of them following miami, vt, etc from the big east to the acc [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
Lastly, I think people are not fully appreciating how a round robin schedule puts Big 12 teams at an inherent disadvantage... Round robins have the dual disadvantage of ensuring that the Big 12's best teams absolutely pound each other while also taking away a non-conference game that could bolster the Big 12's team standing in January.
The other end of that also hurts you. The fact that the best team in the conference will never miss Iowa State or Kansas or Texas Tech (etc) on their schedule means their strength of schedule will always be taking a hit. Beating bad teams doesn't do anything for your standing with the selection committee. In a conference with two divisions you'd miss half the bad teams ceteris paribus [Reply]
Originally Posted by Cochise:
The other end of that also hurts you. The fact that the best team in the conference will never miss Iowa State or Kansas or Texas Tech (etc) on their schedule means their strength of schedule will always be taking a hit. Beating bad teams doesn't do anything for your standing with the selection committee. In a conference with two divisions you'd miss half the bad teams ceteris paribus
I don't know about that. The Big10 is full of bad teams and didn't seem to hurt Ohio State. They lost to VT in Columbus after all. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ILChief:
Boise state and BYU. And it's not even close. Should have kept Nebraska and Missouri. Adding WV was dumb as they are a much better fit in the ACC
Originally Posted by GloucesterChief:
Actually, would of been a very good fit in the B10. Morgantown is very close to Ohio. Big10 should of grabbed WVU and Pitt instead of Rutgers and Maryland.
West Virginia in the ACC or B1G? Never in a million years. The B1G had to hold their noses to allow Nebraska in. West Virginia makes Nebraska look like MIT. [Reply]
Originally Posted by GloucesterChief:
I don't know about that. The Big10 is full of bad teams and didn't seem to hurt Ohio State. They lost to VT in Columbus after all.
Ohio State is a conference champion and beat 3 teams that finished the season ranked. Their SOS is marginally better than Baylor's, as well.
Baylor is a conference co-champion with 2 wins against ranked teams. It's close between the two, but you take Ohio State based on the quantifiables, not some vague notion that "the B1G is shitty". Baylor's schedule doesn't help them in comparison to OSU's.
TCU is a conference runner-up that only beat 1 ranked team and lost to the conference "winner", which puts them right out. [Reply]
