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?
I'd go with teams with huge enrollments. Cincinnati and Central Florida. Central Florida has one of the largest enrollments in the United States. It is a sleeping giant if they can just get momentum to build a football program. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
ZERO TEAMS FROM TEXAS
I'd go with teams with huge enrollments. Cincinnati and Central Florida. Central Florida has one of the largest enrollments in the United States. It is a sleeping giant if they can just get momentum to build a football program.
This.
I still love Memphis though....I think there is a lot of potential as well. [Reply]
I'm actually tired of everyone dogging on the Big 12 for the co-champions thing. If the committee can't think for themselves, then what good is it? Them crowing a co-champion or not should have absolutely no bearing on the selection process. None.
And, think about this. Every other conference plays EIGHT games. EVERYONE in the Big 12 plays NINE. AND, if it was split into divisions like every other conference, it would have set K-State vs Baylor for the championship game, which Baylor won anyway. So I don't quite understand the backlash against Bowlsby and the B12. People on the committee are paid to do critical thinking and see these things. If they can't, the committee has failed CFF. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
ZERO TEAMS FROM TEXAS
I'd go with teams with huge enrollments. Cincinnati and Central Florida. Central Florida has one of the largest enrollments in the United States. It is a sleeping giant if they can just get momentum to build a football program.
UCF's got a huge enrollment, but it's a commuter school...more of a community college feel to it. Cincy is similar in some ways, but they have much more university pride from their alums.
Neither would be a bad choice given the available options. BYU and Memphis would be the other two that would be worth at least considering. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
21,000 students, very regional school. Bad academics. Terrible football program.
Love it for basketball, hate it for anything else. I would rather have BYU or Colorado State before Memfizz.
Sounds a little bit like South Carolina when the SEC picked them up. Memphis also has Fed-Ex money...not quite Nike at Oregon, but similar to T. Boone and Oklahoma State. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
I'm actually tired of everyone dogging on the Big 12 for the co-champions thing. If the committee can't think for themselves, then what good is it? Them crowing a co-champion or not should have absolutely no bearing on the selection process. None.
And, think about this. Every other conference plays EIGHT games. EVERYONE in the Big 12 plays NINE. AND, if it was split into divisions like every other conference, it would have set K-State vs Baylor for the championship game, which Baylor won anyway. So I don't quite understand the backlash against Bowlsby and the B12. People on the committee are paid to do critical thinking and see these things. If they can't, the committee has failed CFF.
Bowlsby went on record saying that head to head would determine the champion. Then, when he thought he could sneak two teams in, he flipped and said there would be co-champions. He tried to have it both ways. Smallest conference, twice as many "champions", duck a CCG, and get an extra off week... The committee isn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why should they? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
Bowlsby went on record saying that head to head would determine the champion. Then, when he thought he could sneak two teams in, he flipped and said there would be co-champions. He tried to have it both ways. Smallest conference, twice as many "champions", duck a CCG, and get an extra off week... The committee isn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why should they?
Why should the committee take into account if they have a little crown or star next to their name? Like I said, IT SHOULD NOT MATTER to the committee. THey should look at it as two 11-1 teams, look at the resume, that is it. The committee shouldn't give any shits about who is TECHNICALLY crowned conference champion. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
I'm actually tired of everyone dogging on the Big 12 for the co-champions thing. If the committee can't think for themselves, then what good is it? Them crowing a co-champion or not should have absolutely no bearing on the selection process. None.
And, think about this. Every other conference plays EIGHT games. EVERYONE in the Big 12 plays NINE. AND, if it was split into divisions like every other conference, it would have set K-State vs Baylor for the championship game, which Baylor won anyway. So I don't quite understand the backlash against Bowlsby and the B12. People on the committee are paid to do critical thinking and see these things. If they can't, the committee has failed CFF.
PAC12 plays nine conference games and IIRC they were the first to do it back when it was the PAC10. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
ZERO TEAMS FROM TEXAS
I'd go with teams with huge enrollments. Cincinnati and Central Florida. Central Florida has one of the largest enrollments in the United States. It is a sleeping giant if they can just get momentum to build a football program.
Good luck with that. ASU is similar (in fact has a larger enrollment) and while they have had some very good teams they have been unable to supplant USC, UCLA, or now Oregon as the dominant teams in the conference. [Reply]