Big XII votes for conference title game

[BringBackRoyal]

I understand that, but you still have to look at the numbers. From 1996-2010, the Big 12 made the NC game 8 out of 15 years. That's over half the time. Having a title game didn't hinder Big 12 teams from making to the NC game back then. They made it on a routine basis. In fact, in 2003, Oklahoma lost the CCG to Kansas St, and still made the NC game vs. LSU. That belies the notion that having a CCG is going to make it harder for the Big 12 to make the playoffs. Having no CCG certainly hasn't helped, whether we're talking about Texas and Oklahoma or Baylor and TCU.

Well, one could certainly argue that it did hinder the Big 12 back then. You point out the case of 2003, but look at 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2007. The CCG outcome cost the conference a representative in the championship game in each of those years. In no year did it put a team over the hump and into the title game that wouldn't have made it anyway.

You can look at the numbers, as you say, but I don't think they tell you much of anything useful, considering their divergent contexts. The Big 12 had a powerful Nebraska from 1996 to 2001 and Texas and OU programs consistently performing at a higher level for most of the 2000s than what conference members have managed lately. KSU had some strong to very strong teams from 1997 to 2003 as well. The conference has not produced elite teams in the last few years at anywhere near the frequency that it once did.

 

[topdecktiger]

Well, one could certainly argue that it did hinder the Big 12 back then. You point out the case of 2003, but look at 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2007. The CCG outcome cost the conference a representative in the championship game in each of those years. In no year did it put a team over the hump and into the title game that wouldn't have made it anyway.

You can look at the numbers, as you say, but I don't think they tell you much of anything useful, considering their divergent contexts. The Big 12 had a powerful Nebraska from 1996 to 2001 and Texas and OU programs consistently performing at a higher level for most of the 2000s than what conference members have managed lately. KSU had some strong to very strong teams from 1997 to 2003 as well. The conference has not produced elite teams in the last few years at anywhere near the frequency that it once did.

They tell you plenty useful. The Big 12 got into the title game over half the time from 96-2010, all with a CCG. You're right, that the context is different now, with the CFP. All the more reason to have one, since the committee values the extra data point and the extra quality win.

I'd also have to argue with the elite team theory.

2011 Oklahoma St 12-1 (really could have used the CCG there)
2012 Kansas St 11-2
2013 Baylor 11-2, Oklahoma St 11-2
2014 Baylor 11-2, TCU 12-1 (again, a CCG would have helped)
2015 Oklahoma 11-2, TCU 11-2

 

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

I question your tinkering with the numbers. Since the Big 12 went to 10 teams in 2011, the Big 12 is the only conference not to put a team in the NC game (BCS or CFP). My point is, if the round-robin is so much better, why hasn't it produced better results? The Big 12 made numerous NC appearances before with a CCG. It looks to me like the results of the round robin are worse, not better.

I didn't say that the round robin scheduling was ideal. I actually said that was a disadvantage already. Having 10 teams to spread the losses out instead of a nice, broad, soft bottom layer like the SEC has where they all get to get a win or two against each other and still get some level of respect (even though they're actually not very good) is a disadvantage. So is 9 conference games over 8. That's why the SEC, despite being a very good conference already, also benefits from an inflated strength of schedule every year. But adding more losses to teams you're already playing within the conference (particularly one of the best teams in the bunch) makes it worse as far as I can tell.

 

[topdecktiger]

I didn't say that the round robin scheduling was ideal. I actually said that was a disadvantage already. Having 10 teams to spread the losses out instead of a nice, broad, soft bottom layer like the SEC has where they all get to get a win or two against each other and still get some level of respect (even though they're actually not very good) is a disadvantage. So is 9 conference games over 8. That's why the SEC, despite being a very good conference already, also benefits from an inflated strength of schedule every year. But adding more losses to teams you're already playing within the conference (particularly one of the best teams in the bunch) makes it worse as far as I can tell.

That's the thing. It doesn't make it worse. You're saying that without providing examples to demonstrate it.

 

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

That's the thing. It doesn't make it worse. You're saying that without providing examples to demonstrate it.

I'm saying that, yes, when I've tried putting together the most widely used SOS format, it does make it worse. But that's a really long process to do by hand, and I don't get paid for doing it so I've only tried a few examples.

A 13th game against another strong opponent that hasn't already been part of the losses in an already smaller, 9-conference game slate would DEFINITELY benefit a team. But this situation, it seems to work out either as a wash at best, or a negative.

 

[topdecktiger]

I'm saying that, yes, when I've tried putting together the most widely used SOS format, it does make it worse. But that's a really long process to do by hand, and I don't get paid for doing it so I've only tried a few examples.

A 13th game against another strong opponent that hasn't already been part of the losses in an already smaller, 9-conference game slate would DEFINITELY benefit a team. But this situation, it seems to work out either as a wash at best, or a negative.

Ok, that's the problem. The only SOS that matters is the one the committee uses. Here is what they do. They add up the win/loss record of all your opponents. Then, they add up the win/loss record of the teams your opponents played. They combine all of that together for an overall percentage, and that's your SOS. So, if you play a 10-2 team TWICE, then yeah, it will boost up your SOS.