If the Big 12 were to expand, it has to go to 14 schools. Reasoning is, the number 12 is very hard. Who would you put in as your two schools? UH? Rice? Cincy? BYU? First of all, No other Texas schools period!!! I personally would add BYU, Cincy, UCF and USF. BYU is the best of the group. Cincy would make an ideal match up for WV and i know they would love the travel there. The Florida schools would be great for TV sets, recruits and my favorite, vacations. Make the conference into an East/West division. BYU, ISU, OK, OKst, TT, TCU and Kst. East will be TX, BU, USF, UCF, WV, Cincy and KU. Ok and TCU would be top dogs on the West division and TX and BU would be on the East. In bball the conference would be more competitive with the addition of BYU and Cincy. Allowing another school from tx would be a terrible move. There is nothing they would bring to make to conference goes WOW and i mean nothing. Can't say UH because UT is packed there along with the aggys, LSU, Arky and so on. UT recruit the Houston already. Let's recruit the state of Florida and other southern states for top quality kids. Everyone has to be reasonable to every school but at the same time, realistic. Money makes the world go round
Which (mid major) would add the most value to a (expanded) B12?
- Thread starter 12375CAT
- Start date
The problem is, i wouldn't want Texas in that shit stain of a conference. I'd rather see Texas move to the SEC than be associated with Conference USA II. And that is saying a lot, as I hate those redneck fools.
^^^ As i agree with you but there is no way in hell i would want to be associated with the sec, NO WAY. Maybe i am the minority here but heck no.
With the PAC sitting at 12, I'd rather see 4 teams go that direction. Although, Only if it included Texas, OU, Tech and Okie Lite.
If the Big 12 blows up, the SEC will pursue the two biggest, regardless of what Aggy thinks. If they were to land OU and Texas declined, that would suck. I think OU would jump at the chance to join the SEC if disbanding occurs. The B1G would likely try to snag Kansas and pressure ND one last time for all sports.
I'm curious as to which conference will be the first to 16 with the SEC and B1G already at 14 and the PAC at 12, they're all eyeing the Big 12.
The ACC is at 14 with ND as a partner. ND jumps and they snatch two of the former Big 12? Who would be hung out in the end?
If the Big 12 blows up, the SEC will pursue the two biggest, regardless of what Aggy thinks. If they were to land OU and Texas declined, that would suck. I think OU would jump at the chance to join the SEC if disbanding occurs. The B1G would likely try to snag Kansas and pressure ND one last time for all sports.
I'm curious as to which conference will be the first to 16 with the SEC and B1G already at 14 and the PAC at 12, they're all eyeing the Big 12.
The ACC is at 14 with ND as a partner. ND jumps and they snatch two of the former Big 12? Who would be hung out in the end?
Last edited:
It makes zero sense to me, but it certainly sounds as though Memphis and Cincy are extension candidates. Why? If they're gonna do it, ok... But, it certainly waters down an already diluted conference. I wish they would ride it out a little longer.
I see no need for expansion right now. Everyone's making good money and now that the geniuses running the conference have figured out you need a champion, it should be the easiest path to the playoffs.
I like the idea of BYU, Louisville would have been nice. This conference just needs 12 in order to stage a championship game. Now that we have deregulation implemented for the '16 season, it may not be necessary. The thing is, the committee members themselves said it was the 13th game (the 12th win) that put them over the top when they were splitting hairs between the Big 12 champ and any other P5 champs. So it doesnt matter how good our 11-1 champ is, it seems the committee more values a 12-1 or 13-0 conference champ over ours. So stage a CCG, that extra game , that's our ticket to fair evaluation for the playoff. We could do it with 10 teams, or 12.
Or our 11-1 champ could lose to a 9-3 team it blew out a month earlier and eliminate any chance of a playoff.
Having a CCG in a round robin league with no divisions sounds goofy to me.
Having a CCG in a round robin league with no divisions sounds goofy to me.
If you lose to a 9-3 team in the CCG do you really think you deserve to be in the playoff? On the same token, every other conference's top contenders go through the same gauntlet- why are we so special that we cant do it too? That's the risk you take, the other conference champs took that risk and it paid off well for them. Seems silly to me if you want to ignore what we have clearly proven to be the path to the playoff.
And I agree it does sound goofy, so either add 2 more teams, or have two 5 team divisions. The way it is set up now is not going to work. We have enough ties as it is, it sure would be nice to be able to play out a tie to it's logical conclusion.
And I agree it does sound goofy, so either add 2 more teams, or have two 5 team divisions. The way it is set up now is not going to work. We have enough ties as it is, it sure would be nice to be able to play out a tie to it's logical conclusion.
Clear path? It was the inaugural season.... Hard to say what the future holds. Had TCU or Baylor had a schedule anywhere close to the OU/Texas schedule and gone 11-1, they would have been ranked higher and likely got in. I'm not getting hung up on the CCG just yet...
Just don't see the value in adding teams who are located so far away. Means fewer games that your average Texas fan can't attend. When you combine air fare, hotel, and scalped tickets it becomes price prohibitive for even the die-hards. I never understood why aggy didn't consider their fan base and the difficulties they would have following the team to games in Ala., Fla., So.Car. & Tenn..
Is this an admission that OU getting into the 2003 national title game after getting steamrolled by KSU in the Big XII title game was a complete joke? I agree.
Maybe. OR we can go by what actual committee members have said, that the CCG, the 13th game, (and 12th win) was a significant factor in their decision. A 11-1 Big 12 champ wont get in if we have four 12 win P5 champs, that's pretty clear based on the results as well as what they have said. Maybe a 12-0 Big 12 champ has a chance, and maybe , MAYBE a 11-1 texas or OU can get in, which is fine for those two programs, but doesnt do much to help the conference as a whole considering we have lost our grip on all the other conference members lately. What good does a texas or OU name recognition do when they are going 6-7 and 8-5?
It was a significant factor in their decision for the 2014 Playoff. You completely whiffed on what I said... They would have had a lot more to think about had TCU or Baylor completed a season at 11-1 with a schedule like Texas (OU had Tennessee). Had TCU or Baylor gone 11-1 beating UCLA and BYU versus the OOC they played, they would have been ranked higher to begin with.
Hence the reason Baylor is all the sudden willing to reschedule their OOC.
I see the value quite clearly- respect for our champion. We had two teams go 11-1, two teams clearly good enough to represent in the playoff. Even TCU had the best loss of all the playoff contenders too. No respect for them in the final voting. Why? Didnt win enough games (Baylor's embarrassing OOC schedule didndt help their case). 11 wins is not as good as 12 wins and that was the final straw. Tcu and baylor don't have the clout to overcome that. OU and texas do, but we suck until proven otherwise. this may be a moot issue once deregulation kicks in, then the big 12 can decide if they want to add a CCG with 10 teams.
I think it takes a few years of being good before you get that respect. I believe both of those teams are there now though but we'll see. I'm glad our conference leaders were able to hold their water in the face of those panicking after a single year though.
I understand your position and dont deny the possibility, but again, what difference would it have made in reality? TCU was #3 going into the final game, won by 52 points, then slid down to #6. Their OOC didnt keep them out of the top 3 going into the final game of the season, and wasnt a sudden factor a week later; No, its a lack of name recognition AND a 12th win. I heard committee members saying the 12th game was the factor, I didnt find much verbiage on the OOC schedule being the determining factor. But i am welcome to be swayed.
It's not just a single year though. How many times have we had a tie for the Big 12 championship since we went to the round robin format? It's going to often come down to subjectivity, so this is going to happen a lot on our end. Anyway, when i see committee members saying stuff like the 12th win being a very significant factor, It seems pretty clear to me what they are looking for. It seems very relevant to appeal to them, and a CCG clearly appeals to them.
Two ridiculous co-champ situations: you guys in '12 and TCU in '14. You "co-champs" lost H2H to the real champs those years. There's no subjectivity about it. Doesn't matter if there's a tie in a round robin. It's actually very simple. Personally I think Baylor would've gotten into the Final 4 last year if Bowlsby had correctly put them up as the rightful champ they were.
There won't be anymore ties and the committee blasted OOC long before the season came to an end, hence the reason Baylor was ranked below TCU even though BU had the H2H. Then folks whined for weeks about that and the committee suddenly puts Baylor one spot in front of TCU due to H2H. It's flawed human decision making... They new TCU was the better team.
Regardless, they got it right with Ohio and the worst team in the playoff was FSU.
I think a title game is great, but not with 10 teams and I don't care to add teams that due very little to bolster the conference.
They failed when Louisville was there for the taking. Had they added Louidville and Cincy, I would have been satisfied with a new North and South Big 12.
Regardless, they got it right with Ohio and the worst team in the playoff was FSU.
I think a title game is great, but not with 10 teams and I don't care to add teams that due very little to bolster the conference.
They failed when Louisville was there for the taking. Had they added Louidville and Cincy, I would have been satisfied with a new North and South Big 12.
The committee did not need the Big 12 to tell them who to favor; they already favored Baylor over TCU and the H2H result was the reason cited. They were not seen on even ground, tcu was at a disadvantage due to their loss to baylor. They also cited the CCG giving osu a quality 13th opponent as to why they were favored over Baylor. Based on the comments by the committee chairman it seems to me that the 13th game was more of a factor than the fact that the big 12 presented them as co champs. it's not like they voted them 5a and 5b, it was 5 and 6.
There wont be any more ties thankfully, but it still doesnt solve the problem of the 13th game, something all the other P5 champs will have over the big 12 champ. It's hard to say 11-1 is more worth consideration than 12-1, these are the things they debate.
Personally I think we need 6 or 8 team playoff, but that's my pipedream.
Then go 12-0... I think it should have started as an 8 team playoff. It will get there.
If an 11-1 TCU or an 11-1 Baylor wins our conference this year and gets left out again, I'll agree. I think waiting for more than a 1-year sample size might be prudent though given the opinion held by many that not having a conference title game is an easier path to the playoffs. But we shall see.
I'm totally with you, go 12-0 and youre in. It's just that now you have 0 margin for error. It would be nice to be able to survive a speed bump in the road later on because you have an extra game to make up for the loss. All the other P5 conference have that protection and we do not. Unless maybe OU or Texas happens to be having an on year. I mean if we can go back to those days, and if tcu, osu, kstate, baylor are no slouches, then maybe the champ would get more respect. meh it wont matter after next year anyway probably with deregulation.
I'm fine with waiting a year to see if anything different happens, I just dont want to do the same thing and expect a different result because that seems like insanity. If a 11-1 tcu or baylor gets shunned for a 12-1 usc who beat a ranked team in their CCG, dont say I didnt tell you so. Personally I'm with you, but when it comes to the decision makers, i'm seeing that preference that we share isnt going to work. If all factors are the same . Say perhaps they play and defeat a marquee ranked opponent in the OOC, that's another egg in the basket that could possibly override a loss.
I don't think you can survive a speed bump later on down the road, late loss, good luck climbing back in, CCG loss, you're out. Early losses have always been the easier recovery. It's not like tOSU lost late in the year and neither did Bama or Oregon. There are five top conferences and in some years, two could easily be left out with this current format.
Last edited:
