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 Valiant:
None... they will not add and hurt their money stream by diluting.
Also, **** the big 12.. They were a horrible conference this year. Missouri could of went undefeated in it, and not deserved to go to the bowl championship playoff series.. It was made worse with the backtracking and having co-champions.. Baylor was the champion of the conference, how the **** are you going to take TCU over the champion?? They deserved to get dropped for that reason alone..
First of all, no, they weren't a horrible conference this year, they just weren't as top heavy.
Missouri lost to frickin' Indiana. Any team that loses to frickin' Indiana isn't going undefeated in any conference, no matter how bad the division is (SEC EAST)
They didn't backtrack into co-champions, that is how it has always been done in this conference except for years football had enough members to stage a conference championship. That's walking in your tracks, not backtracking. Remember when KU got selected over MU for the Orange Bowl? Who won the head to head then?
They deserved to get dropped because they didn't have a final extra game to weight their resume. They didn't have a title game where the "other opponent" laid down for the other team to guarantee the rest of the conference their payday (come on Wisconsin, you at least have to make it last until the 5th round, every fix knows that) nor did they have a fraud of a weaker division to demolish (feels just like the old Big XII North, eh Mizzou?).
That's why. The b12 tried to play a game of high risk/high reward and came out with the risk end. If GT could have held on they get one in. If Wisconsin sent their Varsity squawd, they may have gotten two in and benefited from the lack of a championship game.
The real issue for the B12 is do they want to continue to play this dangerous roulette game of backing into the Playoffs. I guarantee you, if Wisconsin and GT had won ad the B12 sent two teams to the playoffs, it would not have been long for the playoffs to expand to 6 or 8. But, now that the "older conferences" got to shut the B12 out and make them look foolish in the process, it will probably delay that sentiment. The B12 has to realize the committee meant what it said, they are not giving strength of conference much credence. They get no bonus consideration for winning a tough round robin. They don't care. The other conferences besides the PAC play 8 conference games and 4 OOC. Saying the B12 is a bad conference is really ignorant and not at all consistent with the actual problem. Their problem is they are (outside of KU and ISU) and above average conference forced into a game of attrition that is rewarded by no one. [Reply]
BYU is the best choice but they have problems. The next would be Connecticut, solid national brand and exposure in the Northeast. Their football sucks but they have a top notch athletic program overall. Cincinnati would be the 3rd best and fill the gap between the Plains and West Virginia.
So what happens when ND finishes the season with 1 loss? They given that handicap just because they are ND or are they left out too since they didn't win a confrence championship game? [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
First of all, no, they weren't a horrible conference this year, they just weren't as top heavy.
Missouri lost to frickin' Indiana. Any team that loses to frickin' Indiana isn't going undefeated in any conference, no matter how bad the division is (SEC EAST)
They didn't backtrack into co-champions, that is how it has always been done in this conference except for years football had enough members to stage a conference championship. That's walking in your tracks, not backtracking. Remember when KU got selected over MU for the Orange Bowl? Who won the head to head then?
They deserved to get dropped because they didn't have a final extra game to weight their resume. They didn't have a title game where the "other opponent" laid down for the other team to guarantee the rest of the conference their payday (come on Wisconsin, you at least have to make it last until the 5th round, every fix knows that) nor did they have a fraud of a weaker division to demolish (feels just like the old Big XII North, eh Mizzou?).
That's why. The b12 tried to play a game of high risk/high reward and came out with the risk end. If GT could have held on they get one in. If Wisconsin sent their Varsity squawd, they may have gotten two in and benefited from the lack of a championship game.
The real issue for the B12 is do they want to continue to play this dangerous roulette game of backing into the Playoffs. I guarantee you, if Wisconsin and GT had won ad the B12 sent two teams to the playoffs, it would not have been long for the playoffs to expand to 6 or 8. But, now that the "older conferences" got to shut the B12 out and make them look foolish in the process, it will probably delay that sentiment. The B12 has to realize the committee meant what it said, they are not giving strength of conference much credence. They get no bonus consideration for winning a tough round robin. They don't care. The other conferences besides the PAC play 8 conference games and 4 OOC. Saying the B12 is a bad conference is really ignorant and not at all consistent with the actual problem. Their problem is they are (outside of KU and ISU) and above average conference forced into a game of attrition that is rewarded by no one.
NCAA rules say you have to have 12 to have a conference championship game.
If I am TCU's or Baylor's coach though here is what I do: I smoke my bowl opponent, try to drop a hundred on them. Once I am done with that go to the presser and answer the inevitable question of my team trying to score a hundred points a message to the committee saying that yes it was and that you don't consider the winner of the four team playoff as a legitimate national champion because your team was denied the chance to compete.
Now if two first round games are blowouts (I am sure at least one will ie Bama vs. OSU) the heat is suddenly on the committee for not actually doing its proper research. [Reply]
Originally Posted by GloucesterChief:
NCAA rules say you have to have 12 to have a conference championship game.
If I am TCU's or Baylor's coach though here is what I do: I smoke my bowl opponent, try to drop a hundred on them. Once I am done with that go to the presser and answer the inevitable question of my team trying to score a hundred points a message to the committee saying that yes it was and that you don't consider the winner of the four team playoff as a legitimate national champion because your team was denied the chance to compete.
Now if two first round games are blowouts (I am sure at least one will ie Bama vs. OSU) the heat is suddenly on the committee for not actually doing its proper research.
That's true, but our Bowl record has been spotty. If the B12 goes out and wins the vast majority of their games and does it convincingly, it'll have some sentiment, but I don't know it will be enough to change the format because most of the population resides in non-B12 states. So you won't get this huge groundswell of support that you would if money interests in the B1G, SEC or PAC were the ones needing to make the statement. They represent the lion's share of the wealth and the ACC resides in more populous areas. That is the reality. [Reply]
If TCU and/or Baylor blow out their opponent, and OSU/FSU get blown out... They might have a slightly different thought process next year. Especially with so many people already calling them out this year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Cochise:
"open up the Florida recruiting pipelines" :-)
I am sure top flight recruits would love to go to Manhattan, KS when they have their choice of Florida, FSU, Miami, Georgia, and Alabama practically on their doorstep. Add in the tier 2 programs like GT, Miss St, Auburn, and Ole Miss being not that far away either and Kansas is a hard sell. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KChiefs1:
Mike DeArmond weighs in:
That the Big 12 Conference continues a recent tradition of not being able to get out of its own way, and to make short-sighted decisions that may ultimately doom that league to falling apart.
When Colorado, Nebraska, Texas A&M and Missouri left, the Big 12 (which is really just a 10-team league with the additions of West Virginia and TCU on board) chose to keep high its payments to each member of the conference. Fine for the short term, but not for the long term or even, as has been shown this week, for the present term.
Without the requisite 12 teams to have divisions, and thereby to stage a league championship game, the Big 12 gave the selection committee one less game - read victory - to compare it to the champions of the SEC, the Pac 12 and the Big 10. That seemed to make a difference in the selection of Ohio State, which allegedly trailed TCU going into the final Selection Sunday.
That seems millions of dollars wise considering the eight oldest Big 12 schools got $23 million each in league payouts last year (TCU and West Virginia received only $14 million). But with the Big 12's exclusion from the football final four, that's an extra $6 million of foolish loss, and more when you consider the probable extra endorsement and alumni payments that would have come to a school making the gang of four.
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby has said the Big 12 might ask for special permission to have divisions with only 10 teams, but no member of the SEC, the Big 10, the ACC or the Pac 12 is likely to vote for that. Why help out the competition? College athletics is NOT a collegial world, no matter what you may have heard.
What the Big 12 could do is decide to force its members to schedule non conference teams with a heartbeat. Baylor ranked last in major college football with a non-conference schedule of SMU, Northwestern State and Buffalo. That was an albatross the Bears could not shake when being compared to Ohio State. And because Baylor beat TCU, the Frogs wound up carrying that weight as well in any comparison to the Buckeyes. Hey, you guys lost only one, but it was to a team that padded up on patsies!
Hey Baylor, better start buying out those games in 2015 versus SMU, Lamar and Rice.
Because it allowed Texas, and in a smaller way Oklahoma, to dictate league policy in the Big 12 to the detriment of everybody else, Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M bolted. That was one mistake. The bigger one was replacing only half of the departing teams in the double wave of expansion that rocked the college athletic world.
Now, there simply are not any viable candidates to be added to restore the Big 12's former luster. Cincinnati and BYU? Okay, not bad. But you're not going to make many headlines with those additions. Memphis? As Kansas found out, explansion is about football, not basketball. Houston? Rice? Utep? SMU? Hey, they could officially call it the Big Texas, which is pretty much what the Big 12 became anyway.
Or, the Big 12 could cross its fingers and toes, its legs, its arms and its eyes, and hope that Texas or Oklahoma don't get fed up and jump to either the SEC or the Pac 12 and thereby erase the Big 12 from all but memory.
MU fans "journalists" still trying to take shots at Kansas.
Good god man, let it go...
You're mediocre in another league, enjoy it. [Reply]
