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.
Big XII votes for conference title game
- Thread starter Scholz
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
We should've waited to get more than 2 results of that question before making a mercenary, panicky decision.
Based on what? That's a guess and nothing more.
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.
Last edited:
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!"
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!"
Your point still doesn't hold up, because Stanford lost both games during the regular season, not in the CCG. If you are saying Stanford's road was harder, the only thing harder was the quality of the Pac 12 vs. the Big 12. Stanford went 10-2 over a 12 game schedule, and Oklahoma went 11-1 over 12 games. Having a CCG didn't affect that. The only way your argument would be relevant is if Stanford had lost in the CCG.
You are leaving out an important part of that point. You would go from one win vs. a Top 10 team to two wins vs. a Top 15 team. What you lose in quality you make up in quantity.
Wrong. Please tell me which P5 12 win team OU got in over? I wont even try to insult your intelligence by telling you about reading comprehension. You probably just misread, i am sure.
Without googling it, can you think of many off the top of your head? I can think of a couple, and there's been many dozens of these games played. That is quite the rarity if you ask me. But i'd be curious to see actual numbers. I am too lazy to research it but you are welcome to prove me wrong with something more than your personal conjecture. Or just call it what it is, conjecture.
I think they are setting the league up for more decisions to be made in the near future
[/QUOTE]
Based on what makes good common sense. It's a proven fact that it's very rare for the underdog to defeat the favorite in the CCG. The other part of it was the fact that there's also never been a 11 win conference champ sneaking in past a 12 win conference champ. Or to put it another way, every single 12 win conference champ has made the playoff. Though its only happened in one of the two years of existence, we have already seen 11 win champs get passed over by 12 win champs. Seems simple enough to me: all other factors the same 11 wins is not as impressive as 12 wins and that's an inherent disadvantage. Can you not at least capitulate that much ground?
So look, the best case scenario for getting a team into the playoffs is that the higher ranked team (and probably the team that won during the regular season since, generally speaking, for no apparent reason, who you lose to doesn't seem to matter to people as much as who you beat) wins. So you're telling me that there isn't a weakness to this whole thing in the scenario that everyone predicts that team will win again. And they very predictably do just that...? If there are some people who question how good the 2nd place team is, but have them ranked high because they are in fact the second place team... and then they do exactly what they think they'll do, and lose again... that helps take the shine off the first win too, even if it really is just that the champion is such a good team...
That definitely isn't an exciting end to the season or an exciting "13th data point". And there's something to be said for 1-loss teams. They get a lot higher consideration in general. Beating a 1-loss team is a HUGE deal. Beating a 2-loss team is ok, but it doesn't have the same weight to it. Beating a 3-loss team (if one of the teams in the Big 12 championship game came in with 2 losses, which is very realistic) is a LOT less impressive than beating a 2 loss. And so on.
At the end of the day 12 win conference champs have slightly less to prove than a 11 win conference champ, and for that alone that puts the big 12 at an inherent disadvantage. You need help at that point. But 12 win conference champs dont need help, they have always made it in the playoff. Unless we have five 12 win conference champs, you make the playoff with one loss and a conference championship. Luckily for the big 12, OU has two big time OOC matchups so put them over the hump come selection day, so no worries the big 12 will be in the playoff!
If you think that is the only disadvantage that the Big 12 currently has then you're not paying attention. There's a perception issue. There are statistical issues, because, yes... strength of schedule based on opponents win/loss records IS a regularly used statistic, and the Big 12's scheduling and membership are disadvantages. Unfortunately, if you rush to fix the scheduling and membership issues by adding teams you do damage to the perception issue. If you rely in the fact that, despite perceptions, the Big 12 is a strong conference... stronger, in the average year, than at least 2 or 3 of the other power conferences... then you still have a commonly used statistic that will usually work against the conference.
But yeah, Texas is right there with you as far as a bulked up the OOC slate. And we didn't rely on the chance that a mid-major was going to be a ranked team, but good timing on that Houston game!
What about Iowa? They were undefeated and in the playoffs until they lost their conference title game, ending up 12-1 and on the outside looking in.
Look, we only had 2 data points to look at. I still contend the Big XII had the easiest path to the playoffs without the extra hard game against a very good team while the other conferences were knocking each other off. But our leaders got greedy and/or were myopic or panicky.
Just off the top of my head, I think NU lost a Big 12 CC game as a favorite, oklahoma lost 1 as a fave... Texas has lost one as a favorite, K-state has as well..... as has Mizzou....
So that is 5 games off the top of my head that the fave lost in the CCG, and that is just the Big 12.... I can go double check to make sure... maybe I could go look up for other confeences too... but there IS a reason most coaches do NOT like the CCG aspect.... but yeah.
So it's good common sense to ignore what just happened 5 months ago? You're smart.
No, but it doesnt help that you only responded to the first part of my post instead of the explanation for the part you did respond to.
I never once said that was the only disadvantage the big 12 currently has. I said that that one fact alone puts them at an inherent disadvantage. It is one of many. How much damage can the big 12 take by adding more teams? You cant dilute the talent and coaching that exists at the other member schools. OU, tx, TCU, Osu will they all suddenly just start slinking off and playing badly becuase we have more teams? A victory over a good tx or tcu or whoever will still matter. All i know is something needs to change, the status quo isnt cutting it. IMO the big 12 as it stands today is living on borrowed time.
As far as 'relying' on the chance a mid major was going to be good - You cant and you dont do that in scheduling. You try to schedule a good upper tier name brand program, like an ohio state, a medium or so mid major or so-so P5 program who might be competitive, then some doorstop like louisiana monroe, ulm or utep. It's nice that Houston is good but i doubt OU was banking on that fact, especially in the same non con schedule that calls for ohio state.
I mean a conference champion. It makes perfect sense for a 12 win team who arent conference champs to be over taken by a 11 win conference champ, that's very believable. Msu had equal number of 12 wins and slid right in over OU. Because it was a conference championship. Every single 12 win conference champ has made it in the playoff. In any given season it's extremely rare to have more than 4 of these. So, get 12, win your conference, your playoff chances are as good as it gets.
So you went from this:
To this in the very same post:
But his statements are the ones that are "personal conjecture."
You are stone-cold retarded, son.
To this in the very same post:
But his statements are the ones that are "personal conjecture."
You are stone-cold retarded, son.
there has been some, yes. You do have to play good to win. In 15 seasons the underdog has won 4 times. In 2007 #1 missouri was actually the underdog against OU. So in the last 9 big 12 conference championship games, the favorite has won 8 of them. I'd say that's good percentages for the favorite.
Those two statements complement eachohter, there was no change of position or point of view. I admit to thinking of a few instances of the underdog winning, and I also said it's very rare that they do win. No conjecture about facts. It is indeed rare. What's the problem?
I think you missed the point... that is just a small cross section of data, for the fairly young Big 12 conference. If you start to research other CCG upsets etc aross the country you will see it happens enough for most coaches etc to not like CCG at all.... so while it may seem good with this limited data, in the long run it is still an issue that causes unrest about playing a CCG in any conference when it comes to the possibility to play fora NC.
...and harder. We had it the easiest. We don't anymore. I submit an 11-win Big XII champ was going to be in very favorable position every time due to the other guys knocking each other off. The first year we didn't get one in because dumbass Bowlsby wouldn't name a champ. Guess we have 1 more year to test this theory. I think our guys got greedy and panicky. Dumb if you ask me.
Seeing as how we are discussing CCG etc, I found a funny quote from Bob Stoops about why his team should have played for the NC in 2007 - "You all voted them [Missouri] No. 1 and we beat them ... for the second time on a neutral field," Stoops said. "No one else played the No. 1 team in the country"
Valid points..... but I find it funny that he brought up a win vs a high ranked opponent on a nuetral field as a reason the deserved to go, even though they werent ranked high enough at that point.... imagine that, feeling you belong in a spot over another team bc you beat a highly ranked team soundly on a neutral field..... at least when Texas made that argument a year later they actually had valid reasoning behind their argument.....
Valid points..... but I find it funny that he brought up a win vs a high ranked opponent on a nuetral field as a reason the deserved to go, even though they werent ranked high enough at that point.... imagine that, feeling you belong in a spot over another team bc you beat a highly ranked team soundly on a neutral field..... at least when Texas made that argument a year later they actually had valid reasoning behind their argument.....
Your incomplete memory alone does not suffice to call your statement "proven fact" and someone else's "personal conjecture," dumbass -- especially since you can only think of "a couple" of instances when there have been several more than a couple.
Iowa still proves the point. Iowa lost, and the Big Ten still got Michigan St into the playoffs. The CCG didn't hurt the conference.
OK. A CCG game that kept a previously undefeated playoff bound team out of the playoffs proves your point that a CCG doesn't hurt. Gotcha.
Yes, Michigan State got in the playoffs. The Big 10 could've had 2 teams in without a title game possibly but Iowa got left out because of it. It hurt Iowa.
And not having a title game didn't hurt the Big XII if we're talking conferences.
If you add two directional schools and split the divisions correctly, it could be easier. Put all the good teams in the South, dilute the competition in conference & play a weak team in the championship game. Really all you would have to do is win your division.
Not that I think it is a great idea, but it could actually make it easier if that is the goal.
Similar threads
