Big XII votes for conference title game

[Scholz]

Of course you're still obsessed with Texas and the Big XII. Because your program will never accomplish anything. THAT'S what's happening now, bitter aggy.

You won the Big XII a single time in 16 years, lesser. Why do you feel entitled to talk it down? Are you really that stupid? Yes, yes you are. Heck I don't know why aggys talk about football at all. You've never done anything.

 

[topdecktiger]

It's no given that this will help a Big 12 team make the CFP, and it very well could hurt on average. It's amazing to me that the public at large is so scientifically and mathematically illiterate as to think that an analytics firm's statistical model on this question is by its very nature some sort of distillation of objective truth.

There's essentially no data to draw on (only two years of the CFP), and even if there were many more years, any model's results would still rely very heavily on the underlying assumptions the modeler makes. As it stands now, the assumptions are virtually everything. Here, the firm's premises basically assume the truth of its conclusion: for their model to show that adding a championship game improves the conference's chances of landing a team in the playoff, given the paucity of actual data, this firm had to assume from the outset that the CFP committee was far more likely to favor teams from conferences with CCGs than ones from conferences without. So the Big 12 basically paid gobs of cash to an analytics firm to engage in circular reasoning and produce correspondingly useless conclusions.

Here's a quick rundown on the stupidity of all of this: http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2016/5/17/11683756/big-12-expansion-championship-game-playoff-odds

The only thing our rematch-game CCG is guaranteed to do is provide a nice payday for the conference. (Of course, for the members most likely to make the playoffs, one loss that knocks a given team out of the CFP will probably end up reducing that program's revenue generation by an amount that offsets years of CCG payouts.)

The statistical models haven't sold me. However, the committee has made it clear that they value 13 data points over 12. I think that's the compelling factor. I would agree that it was pointless to hire a firm to tell them that. All they had to do was watch Jeff Long's interviews every week to figure it out.

If all teams are playing anyway, the only reason to split into divisions would be title game ($). Why not put all the decent teams in one division, to take the risk out playing a title game. Since they all play anyway.

South - texas, oklahoma, tech, baylor, tcu

North - kansas, ksu, wv, Iowa st, osu

South wins the game 9 out of 10, and you still get the extra game & $.

As stupid as this seems, it could be made ultra low risk, by rigging the game to be a joke.

They don't have to split into divisions. The Big 12 can have the title game without them. The reason for having the divisions is sort of what you are saying. Instead of just having the top two teams play, it will (maybe) be the two division winners, who may or may not be the top two teams.

 

[Texxxxas]

Cool..enjoy the road games to Memphis, Uconn, BYU, and UCF. I'm sure it's good to be a big dog in the midst of chihuahuas. Getting weaker and weaker. Truth still hurts you. What a conference. Hey, I guess when you play like you do you need some teams on your level.

Texas is still Texas, regardless of the conference, and we'll return to greatness...you're still an aggie and A&M is still trash, regardless of the conference. Y'all are most definitely, not on our level, which is why y'all tucked tail and ran. That truth hurts you.

 

[HornsRuleU]

They've run the numbers, and decided that having a 13th data point will tend to help the Big 12 get into the playoff. OU's entry in 2015 doesn't make that less true. Plus, they want more cash. Fine.

The big caveat is that it will be a rematch. Not just occasionally, or even usually, but in every single year it will be a rematch. Can you beat the 2nd best team (and its coaching staff) twice? Does it go the same way as the earlier game, or do they split?

So the bar to be Big 12 Champion gets a little higher (or lower, depending on the result).

If Texas and OkSU were the top two teams in 2015, or any other game decided by bad officiating, I'd LOVE to see a rematch on neutral turf, with a different set of refs.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

fact that has not been noticed - with 5 teams per division the only way you can only play divisional games for the last 5 week would be to have one team in each division on their open week. And since the conf. champ game take a week away - all teams only get one bye week. It is unfair to make two teams wait until week 13 go get its bye. (It was the same problem in major league baseball - that is why when interleague play started the Brewers went to the NL. Now that they play interleague play all season - the Astros went to the AL to make it 15 and 15.

 

[LonghornMM]

Yes that was many moons ago. What is happening now is that you are put with the likes of Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, and now wanting to add Memphis, Cincy, BYU, and UCF. You guys are trying to form a super conference with duds. You are too late to the party. Your stubbornness and arrogance cost you. You yourself said you were done with this mess. Awesome watching it spiral out of control.

Gotta laugh at aggy talking trash to Texas. a&m didn't win squat in the Big 12 and hasn't won squat in the $EC, and never will. Just because a&m is in the $EC doesn't make them good by association. They're like the dork who gets picked last on the good team and then thinks they're good because they're on the team. aggy's are a breed of their own. Bunch of brainwashed, delusional wannabes.

 

[BringBackRoyal]

fact that has not been noticed - with 5 teams per division the only way you can only play divisional games for the last 5 week would be to have one team in each division on their open week.

Yes, but when the Big 12 previously had divisions, divisional games were never concentrated at the end of the season. The schedule will be mixed just as it always has been (and is in every other conference with divisions).

 

[BringBackRoyal]

If all teams are playing anyway, the only reason to split into divisions would be title game ($). Why not put all the decent teams in one division, to take the risk out playing a title game. Since they all play anyway.

South - texas, oklahoma, tech, baylor, tcu

North - kansas, ksu, wv, Iowa st, osu

South wins the game 9 out of 10, and you still get the extra game & $.

As stupid as this seems, it could be made ultra low risk, by rigging the game to be a joke.

This is the only way to make this dumb decision suck as little as possible.

 

[BringBackRoyal]

You guys are trying to form a super conference with duds.

We are? Have you read any of the news, sh*t-for-brains? Texas is against adding these mid-majors -- which means it very likely won't happen.

We're outrecruiting you (1) even while our on-field results have sucked for years, (2) even while we're in the Big 12, and (3) even before we've responded to all of your fancy facility upgrades with our own. Exactly what do you think is going to happen when our young talent grows up and we're winning a lot of games again (which will happen much sooner than you'd like)? Are you going to be over here thumping your chest about all of the prestigious names that are bending you over weekly?

 

[BringBackRoyal]

They've run the numbers, and decided that having a 13th data point will tend to help the Big 12 get into the playoff. OU's entry in 2015 doesn't make that less true.

Everyone agrees that the committee values a 13th data point. But the point is that it matters exactly how much they value it. It's possible for them to value it and for the benefit of the CCG to still fail to offset the risk of playing it.

 

[wadster]

What no one is pointing out is what this game does to the 2nd runner up. Say today you have 2 one loss teams. The winner of the matchup probably goes to the playoffs and the 2nd team gets a BCS or top tier bowl. Except now they play again and the runner up loses again. Now the runner up has to losses and go to a lesser game. Or the runner up has 2 losses and now they get 3. You see the problem.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

What no one is pointing out is what this game does to the 2nd runner up. Say today you have 2 one loss teams. The winner of the matchup probably goes to the playoffs and the 2nd team gets a BCS or top tier bowl. Except now they play again and the runner up loses again. Now the runner up has to losses and go to a lesser game. Or the runner up has 2 losses and now they get 3. You see the problem.

If a team goes to the playoff then the second place team goes to the Sugar Bowl. No change. Every third year when the Sugar is a semi final it might cost the conference a top tier game.

 

[BringBackRoyal]

If a team goes to the playoff then the second place team goes to the Sugar Bowl. No change. Every third year when the Sugar is a semi final it might cost the conference a top tier game.

His point is that the second-place team will often be bumped to a lesser game with the extra loss. If OU and OSU had met in a CCG last year, OSU likely leaves that game at 10-3. Last year's 10-2 OSU team went to the Sugar Bowl; a 10-3 OSU team would not have.

 

[wadster]

I'm not against the CCG if you have 12 teams. Just with 10 teams playing everyone, the CCG is stupid. I mean there's stupid and then this is beyond stupid. Baylor didn't go 2 years ago because 1) they are Baylor and 2) they play no one. If Texas beats ND and wins the conference, we are in. With our schedule, we don't need the CCG. We just need to win in non-conf and win the conference.

 

[Belldozer1]

I'm not against the CCG if you have 12 teams. Just with 10 teams playing everyone, the CCG is stupid. I mean there's stupid and then this is beyond stupid. Baylor didn't go 2 years ago because 1) they are Baylor and 2) they play no one. If Texas beats ND and wins the conference, we are in. With our schedule, we don't need the CCG. We just need to win in non-conf and win the conference.

Yeah maybe but you ever know. I was always complaining when The Big Tenhad an easy path to the BCS because they didn't have a CCG. I think everyone needs to have them or nobody does but if you don't play a ccg now, things hav to align just right to get in. I'd hate to get left out because of not playing in a ccg.

 

[wadster]

Belldozer1. But you didn't get left out. You are 1 for 1. Baylor didn't make it for obvious reasons. Why not see how this plays out a bit before making a quick decision. Oh wait... the decision has nothing to do with a football reason. Decision was made for $$$.

 

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

This is dumb. The Big 12 already has a disadvantage due to the biases that are built into the fairly standard practice in college football of using opponents' win/loss records to determine strength of schedule. Every conference that plays a 9-game conference slate has it harder, in that respect, than the conference that is clinging to their 8-game conference slate, but when the situation is a round-robin schedule and there are only 10 teams in the conference, there are less teams to spread those losses around with. Now, you're basically setting it up so that the second best team in the conference (or one of the next best teams if they're really doing this stupid "divisions" thing too) will have an extra loss, potentially further weakening the champ's strength of schedule depending on what that record is. I understand the appeal of the 13th data point (but that too is simply based on the biases of how the committee considers thing and could easily be fixed by saying "you know what? that doesn't matter to us anymore".), and the money from the game is nice, but this, plus the fact that the best team in the conference could always lose their rematch... will ultimately be problematic for playoff hopes I think.

 

[topdecktiger]

His point is that the second-place team will often be bumped to a lesser game with the extra loss. If OU and OSU had met in a CCG last year, OSU likely leaves that game at 10-3. Last year's 10-2 OSU team went to the Sugar Bowl; a 10-3 OSU team would not have.

The only way Oklahoma St would have gotten bumped from the Sugar Bowl is if they decided to take TCU or Baylor instead. From the conference point of view, it makes no difference.

 

[BringBackRoyal]

The only way Oklahoma St would have gotten bumped from the Sugar Bowl is if they decided to take TCU or Baylor instead. From the conference point of view, it makes no difference.

You're right. Wasn't thinking very clearly when I wrote that, obviously.

 

[DocAg]

Gotta laugh at aggy talking trash to Texas. a&m didn't win squat in the Big 12 and hasn't won squat in the $EC, and never will. Just because a&m is in the $EC doesn't make them good by association. They're like the dork who gets picked last on the good team and then thinks they're good because they're on the team. aggy's are a breed of their own. Bunch of brainwashed, delusional wannabes.

So by association are you speaking solely on football? We have only been in the SEC 4 years. Basketball has a conference championship. Baseball has done very well, and all other sports besides football have done extremely well. They aren't just good by association, they actually are doing well in all sports besides football. They have a top 5 finish and Heisman trophy, won all their bowls except 1 during that time. If football is your measuring stick, then I guess we have just been average 2 years and really good 1 year and pretty good one year. Every other sport has pulled its weight.

 

[Scholz]

Football, basketball, baseball. You won't ever see a national title in these major men's sports in your lifetime.

1939. 4 generations of complete aggy losers. Now go get your shinebox.

 

[Heisennberg]

It has to have happened more than twice in the Big 12... I know for sure Texas was in 2 of them that were remaches from the regular season.. once with Nebraska and once with Colorado.... thinking there are more than that.....

Probably, just going by the 9 or 10 trips OU has made to the ccg, i cant recall a rematch, but im sure it's happened. It's just interesting how it happens so often in the pac 12. I personally dont think a rematch is all that big of a deal. Especially if it really does pit the two best teams in the ccg. IMO a round robin with no divisions and playing top 2, that could work. Maybe better than divisions because divisions dont necessarily guarantee the top 2 teams.

 

[Heisennberg]

They've run the numbers, and decided that having a 13th data point will tend to help the Big 12 get into the playoff. OU's entry in 2015 doesn't make that less true. Plus, they want more cash. Fine.

The big caveat is that it will be a rematch. Not just occasionally, or even usually, but in every single year it will be a rematch. Can you beat the 2nd best team (and its coaching staff) twice? Does it go the same way as the earlier game, or do they split?

So the bar to be Big 12 Champion gets a little higher (or lower, depending on the result).

If Texas and OkSU were the top two teams in 2015, or any other game decided by bad officiating, I'd LOVE to see a rematch on neutral turf, with a different set of refs.

Interestingly pac 12 has had rematches in each of the last 4 years and it seemed to work out for them. They were this close to a 2 loss champion looking at playoff positioning.

 

[Heisennberg]

Cool..enjoy the road games to Memphis, Uconn, BYU, and UCF. I'm sure it's good to be a big dog in the midst of chihuahuas. Getting weaker and weaker. Truth still hurts you. What a conference. Hey, I guess when you play like you do you need some teams on your level.

Enjoy being a perennial loser in the sec. Oh wait, aggie got used to that by being a member of the big 12. Yawn. Have fun with Trevor Knight this year.

 

[Heisennberg]

Does anyone really think a BU/TCU rematch 2 years ago would've gotten either in? And for last year - OU would merely be setting itself up for failure by playing a rematch with OSU/TCU/BU or however this would work. This is high risk, low reward. Next announcement I expect from Bowlsby is that the game will be played in Kansas City.

I think the reward is the 13th data point which the committee loves so much. I feel the risk of just hoping your 11-1 big 12 champ doesnt get beaten out by a 12-1 P5 champ because they won their ccg on championship saturday where the big 12 champ is the only one sitting at home doing nothing. Now 12-1 looks a load better than 11-1, especially if the other p5 champs just finished defeating a highly ranked opponent. To me there's a bigger risk in that scenario than the underdog defeating the favorite in the big 12 ccg. It's rare that it happens ,but even if so, all the other conference champs had taken the same risk. Makes us look like sissies whining about the same risk they all take. OU needed help to get into the playoff, if ND and stanford hadnt both had late season losses, OU probably doesnt get in. Now playing the final game of the season on championship saturday is extremely helpful to stay in the mind of the voters.

 

[Belldozer1]

I think the reward is the 13th data point which the committee loves so much. I feel the risk of just hoping your 11-1 big 12 champ doesnt get beaten out by a 12-1 P5 champ because they won their ccg on championship saturday where the big 12 champ is the only one sitting at home doing nothing. Now 12-1 looks a load better than 11-1, especially if the other p5 champs just finished defeating a highly ranked opponent. To me there's a bigger risk in that scenario than the underdog defeating the favorite in the big 12 ccg. It's rare that it happens ,but even if so, all the other conference champs had taken the same risk. Makes us look like sissies whining about the same risk they all take. OU needed help to get into the playoff, if ND and stanford hadnt both had late season losses, OU probably doesnt get in. Now playing the final game of the season on championship saturday is extremely helpful to stay in the mind of the voters.

Exactly. OU got in because others lost late in the season. If those others hadn't lost and OU did not win the conference by playing in a ccg then I don't believe OU. Would have advanced.

 

[diadevic]

I think the reward is the 13th data point which the committee loves so much. I feel the risk of just hoping your 11-1 big 12 champ doesnt get beaten out by a 12-1 P5 champ because they won their ccg on championship saturday where the big 12 champ is the only one sitting at home doing nothing. Now 12-1 looks a load better than 11-1, especially if the other p5 champs just finished defeating a highly ranked opponent. To me there's a bigger risk in that scenario than the underdog defeating the favorite in the big 12 ccg. It's rare that it happens ,but even if so, all the other conference champs had taken the same risk. Makes us look like sissies whining about the same risk they all take. OU needed help to get into the playoff, if ND and stanford hadnt both had late season losses, OU probably doesnt get in. Now playing the final game of the season on championship saturday is extremely helpful to stay in the mind of the voters.

I understand your point. I just don't think pounding Okie St. (or any team a 2nd time) again would've given you any brownie points. Pound Ohio St. in a nonconference game and then you have your talking point.

 

[Heisennberg]

I understand your point. I just don't think pounding Okie St. (or any team a 2nd time) again would've given you any brownie points. Pound Ohio St. in a nonconference game and then you have your talking point.

True, but I'd like to use actual history to help illustrate my point. Though your point is well received, I contend it will do more good than bad, unless they lose of course. You will never lose brownie points for beating the same team twice, especially if theyre highly ranked and/or are the next best team in your conference.

But looking at past history, lets use Oregon. They were in the very first playoff championship after the 2014 season. Their lone loss was to arizona, the same arizona who they beat in the pac 12 championship game. They got in as the #2 team, ahead of an undefeated fsu. Seems to have worked out really well for them in the eyes of the committee. I still cant believe tcu dropped from #3 after a 52 point victory. But, then again , it wasnt a championship game. Maybe it helped to beat the only team that beat them, but IMO they'd have been in just as good position had they beaten az twice.

 

[Scholz]

I contend it will do more good than bad...

It won't. It will make more $ and that's it. It will actually make it harder to get to the playoffs. Dumb logic.

 

[Heisennberg]

It won't. It will make more $ and that's it. It will actually make it harder to get to the playoffs. Dumb logic.

In some situations harder, in others easier. I frankly dont have any issue playing a CCG considering everyone else has to do it. I like the reward of a 13th data point much more than I want to hope, pray and wish the committee favors a 11 win big 12 champ over a 12 win P5 champ.

Honestly what is really more likely to happen? Favorite loses the CCG or committee spurning a 11 win team in favor of a 12 win team who played a CCG, likely against another ranked opponent.

To me the answer is clear. Yes if b12 champ is undefeated this changes things, but what's more likely , and what actually does happen is the champs having 1 loss, and then we're sitting here splitting hairs and trying to convince the committee an 11 win team is more deserving than 12 win team who just won their ccg while the big12 champ was sitting at home relaxing.

 

[Scholz]

In I like the reward of a 13th data point much more than I want to hope, pray and wish the committee favors a 11 win big 12 champ over a 12 win P5 champ.

Yeah, such a long shot. That'll never happen. Oh wait, it did 5 months ago.

Favorites lose in conference title games all the time. That's why we had it the easiest. Had.

Honestly what is really more likely to happen? Favorite loses the CCG or committee spurning a 11 win team in favor of a 12 win team who played a CCG, likely against another ranked opponent.

We should've waited to get more than 2 results of that question before making a mercenary, panicky decision.

To me the answer is clear.

Based on what? That's a guess and nothing more.

 

[LonghornSoldier]

Probably, just going by the 9 or 10 trips OU has made to the ccg, i cant recall a rematch, but im sure it's happened. It's just interesting how it happens so often in the pac 12. I personally dont think a rematch is all that big of a deal. Especially if it really does pit the two best teams in the ccg. IMO a round robin with no divisions and playing top 2, that could work. Maybe better than divisions because divisions dont necessarily guarantee the top 2 teams.

Ou vs Mizzou in 2008 was a rematch..... im sure there are others as well.

 

[topdecktiger]

Yeah, such a long shot. That'll never happen. Oh wait, it did 5 months ago.

Favorites lose in conference title games all the time. That's why we had it the easiest. Had.

That didn't happen 5 months ago. Oklahoma was 11-1 and Stanford was 11-2. It wasn't a 12 win vs. 11 win scenario.

 

[Scholz]

That didn't happen 5 months ago. Oklahoma was 11-1 and Stanford was 11-2. It wasn't a 12 win vs. 11 win scenario.

Iowa was 12-1 and 5th in the playoff rankings. OU was 11-1 and 4th. But Iowa wasn't champ, I understand that. My point is it wasn't a miracle that Stanford went 11-2. They had a harder road. A CCG makes you play another tough game. The Big XII had it easiest was my point.

 

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

I still say this is trouble. There's a very good chance that this will mean that the Big 12 champ's best win will go from being against, for example, a top 10 team to, to being against a top 15-20 team. In other conferences that's always a possibility with the championship game. With the Big 12 it will almost be a certainty that there will be a significant drop for one of the teams since between the two best teams, there will have to be at least 2 losses, not just 1.

Like I said, the SEC already has an advantage in that they have 14 members, which means the lower half can divide up the losses among themselves more AND they get to dole out more losses to OOC teams with 4 OOC games and most teams playing 3 really easy ones. The strength of schedule in the Big 12 is at a complete disadvantage already because you only have 10 conference teams to divvy up the losses to, and 9 conference games. It's probably a clearer way to determine the best team in the conference, but the statistics aren't going to look as good. It doesn't help, either, when so many Big 12 teams have the stubborn habit of scheduling some of the same OOC opponents in the same season (though, luckily we didn't do nearly as bad with that this year, with only SMU being on the Big 12 OOC slate twice. Even still, that means that, best case scenario, one of our OOC opponents has 2 losses from us before they even start their conference play, when an ideal situation would be for the to get 1 from us and then win as many other games as they can). Strength of schedule, based purely on opponents' wins and losses is a fairly standard thing to use (even though there are plenty of arguments about why it doesn't make sense when you consider the different levels of competition for said opponents, and, like I said, things like round-robin schedules and smaller conferences). It doesn't work in the Big 12's favor at all right now.

It will be made even worse if one of the best teams that the champ played suddenly isn't just a 1 loss team, but a 2 loss team. Or not a 2 loss team, but a 3 loss team. And so on. And opponents' rankings suffer as a result as well. "Their best win was against the #6 team in the country!" sounds a lot better than "their best win was against the #14 team in the country!"