Big XII votes for conference title game

[topdecktiger]

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.

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.

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!"

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.

 

[Heisennberg]

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

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.

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

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.

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

I think they are setting the league up for more decisions to be made in the near future

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

[/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?

 

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

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.

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.

 

[Heisennberg]

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!

 

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

... and for that alone that puts the big 12 at an inherent disadvantage...

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!

 

[Scholz]

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.

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.

 

[LonghornSoldier]

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

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.

 

[Scholz]

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.

Iowa. They were 5th. 12-1. Read the thread, illiterate.

 

[Scholz]

Based on what makes good common sense.

So it's good common sense to ignore what just happened 5 months ago? You're smart.

 

[Heisennberg]

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.

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!

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.

Iowa. They were 5th. 12-1. Read the thread, illiterate.

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.

 

[BringBackRoyal]

So you went from this:

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.

To this in the very same post:

It's a proven fact that it's very rare for the underdog to defeat the favorite in the CCG.

But his statements are the ones that are "personal conjecture."

You are stone-cold retarded, son.

 

[Heisennberg]

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.

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.

 

[Heisennberg]

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.

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?

 

[LonghornSoldier]

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.

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.

 

[Scholz]

So, get 12, win your conference, your playoff chances are as good as it gets.

...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.

 

[LonghornSoldier]

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.....

 

[BringBackRoyal]

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?

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.

 

[topdecktiger]

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.

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.

 

[Scholz]

Iowa still proves the point.

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.

 

[mm42]

...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.

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.

 

[topdecktiger]

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.

Yes, it absolutely proves my point. This issue is about conferences, not individual teams. The whole point is to get a team from the conference into the playoffs. That's the main goal. More times that not, a CCG helps more than it hurts.

The Big Ten would not have gotten two teams into the playoffs. You had Alabama, Clemson, and Oklahoma already in. There was only one spot left. Michigan St wasn't going to jump any of those teams (assuming no CCG against Iowa). The committee has clearly stated that conference champs will get the nod when it comes down to similar teams. You're forgetting that the Big Ten already had that situation anyway, because Ohio St was 11-1. They ended up even behind Stanford, who was 11-2.

The Big 12 didn't get hurt last year because Stanford had 2 losses. The issue is when an 11-1 Big 12 team comes up against another 12-1 P5 team.

 

[Scholz]

More times that not, a CCG helps more than it hurts.

It does huh. Based on what? Link? Purely conjecture. Like I said, we'll get to see a 3rd example this season. Making this move was about dollars. If it was truly to help the Big XII's chances of getting a team in the playoffs, it was premature and panicky.

The issue is when an 11-1 Big 12 team comes up against another 12-1 P5 team.

My point is it's not easy to go 12-1. An extra hard game, that "13th data point" against a very good team, will ensure that more times than not for at least one of the other 4 big conferences in my opinion (notice I'm clarifying that as opinion unlike you). It's easier to go 11-1 and get in and watch another 11-1 team end up 11-2.

 

[Steve91562]

This will be interesting to watch. I suspect that statistically it is difficult to the same team twice, if that other team is any good.

 

[Heisennberg]

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.

So why did every other conference go to this model, with approval from all the ADs and coaches to go along with it? why do none of the other conferences and their members seem to be complaining? It proves to be more good than bad, the favorite wins the vast majority of the time. 11 times in 15 years, thats good numbers. Besides big 12 would never have strayed away from the CCG if it were not for losing so many members.

 

[HornsRuleU]

Some fear making it through 12 games, and then losing in the CCG. Sorry, Scholz, but you're just plain wrong on this.

I'd much rather the Big 12 champ actually deserve to be in the CFB playoff, than to slip in without being worthy. Do you like having the "one true champion" embarrass the Big 12? I sure don't.

That's like your class valedictorian being a dunce compared to student(s) who cared more about learning than grades. It's kind of unjust, and you have to sit through a lame speech. This was our finest?! Embarrassing.

What are the playoff games -- and conference championship games, plus major bowls -- supposed to be about? Simply, this: Great teams matching up against other great teams. Great coaches trying to outfox one another. Colliding X's and O's, showing which strategy is supreme! The fanfare of opposing teams, their alumni, family members, etc. The natural dislike of rivals, and love of your own. That's what big CFB games are about, and my favorite conference is adding a good one. Sounds great to me...

Hey, if you can't beat #2 twice, then you don't deserve to be in a 4-way playoff, period! Even if you absolutely pounded them just a week ago. Go find an Alamo or Holiday Bowl or something.

Who wants to slip in, undeserved??? C'mon!

Besides, it's already happened (unanimously), so embrace it.

 

[Steve91562]

This was all about putting a little money in the pockets of the schools not named Texas.

To increase the chances of getting into the playoffs, all the B12 schools had to do is toughen up their OOC schedules. Baylor and TCU didn't get in a few years back because they had weak OOC schedules.

At least that's what it looks like from an outsider perspective.

 

[Scholz]

So why did every other conference go to this model...

$$$. Oh and none of them had a 10-team round robin format. So we're different. We had an advantage that we just squandered away for money. Just remember to scream "13th Data Point! 13th Data Point!" the next time the CCG keeps you out of the playoffs.

 

[Scholz]

Some fear making it through 12 games, and then losing in the CCG. Sorry, Scholz, but you're just plain wrong on this.

You're welcome to your opinion. I feel we had the easiest path to get to the playoffs and now we don't. I don't find that to be a character flaw. Say goodbye to good (or even decent for that matter) OOC games again after the current slate is over btw. That'll be great. Bring on UTEP and North Texas. Yay.

 

[LonghornSoldier]

So why did every other conference go to this model, with approval from all the ADs and coaches to go along with it? why do none of the other conferences and their members seem to be complaining? It proves to be more good than bad, the favorite wins the vast majority of the time. 11 times in 15 years, thats good numbers. Besides big 12 would never have strayed away from the CCG if it were not for losing so many members.

Short answer? $$$$ everyones pockets get fatter.

 

[LonghornSoldier]

This was all about putting a little money in the pockets of the schools not named Texas.

To increase the chances of getting into the playoffs, all the B12 schools had to do is toughen up their OOC schedules. Baylor and TCU didn't get in a few years back because they had weak OOC schedules.

At least that's what it looks like from an outsider perspective.

Someone gets it.

 

[topdecktiger]

It does huh. Based on what? Link? Purely conjecture. Like I said, we'll get to see a 3rd example this season. Making this move was about dollars. If it was truly to help the Big XII's chances of getting a team in the playoffs, it was premature and panicky.

Based on two things. The results of the study the Big 12 commissioned indicated that the odds of the Big 12 getting increased with a title game. The CFP committee has also flatly said that the 13th data point is preferable to 12. Along with that, a title game also boosts the strength of schedule, and is usually against a ranked team, which is another metric the committee has specifically mentioned.

So no, it's not based on conjecture or opinion. Whether or not you agree with the Navigate Research study or not, that was still an attempt at statistical analysis. Whether or not you agree with the CFP committee's methods, that's still a statement from the committee who chooses the teams. These are not opinions.

My point is it's not easy to go 12-1. An extra hard game, that "13th data point" against a very good team, will ensure that more times than not for at least one of the other 4 big conferences in my opinion (notice I'm clarifying that as opinion unlike you). It's easier to go 11-1 and get in and watch another 11-1 team end up 11-2.

It's not easy to go 11-1 either. It's also not easier to sit around and hope another team loses a game. The Big 12 was simply at a disadvantage by having fewer games and fewer chances to improve its metrics. Keep in mind, the Big 12 did not move to a round-robin because they wanted to. They moved to a round robin because there really wasn't another good option after Nebraska and Colorado left. Had that not happened, the Big 12 would still be playing a CCG, and this discussion never would have come up to begin with. Also keep in mind, after Nebraska and Colorado left, the Big 12 didn't put a team into the BCS title game, so it's not like the round robin was doing so well beforehand.

 

[Scholz]

The results of the study the Big 12 commissioned indicated that the odds of the Big 12 getting increased with a title game.

Link? The "consultants" showed how much more $ would be made. I'd like to see the proof of these odds increasing. Otherwise you're just making definitive statements once again with no backup. Such as your made up "more times than not, a CCG helps..." statement. Still waiting for support for that one btw.

The CFP committee has also flatly said that the 13th data point is preferable to 12.

The committee stated that the Big XII not naming a champ year before last had a big impact. So if we had named "one true champ", we would've made it both years without a CCG.

 

[topdecktiger]

Link? The "consultants" showed how much more $ would be made. I'd like to see the proof of these odds increasing. Otherwise you're just making definitive statements once again with no backup. Such as your made up "more times than not, a CCG helps..." statement. Still waiting for support for that one btw.

No, sorry. You're wrong. Here's the link:

Analytics from Navigate Research are expected to show the Big 12 has at least a 10-15 percent better chance of reaching the CFP in any given year if it expands as opposed to staying in its 10-team configuration.

That percentage at least doubles than the “4-5 percent” improvement commissioner Bob Bowlsby spoke about in Phoenix on Monday. That smaller figure discussed by Bowlsby only included the addition of a conference championship game, CBS Sports has learned.
http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...ove-big-12s-playoff-chances-by-10-15-percent/

So no, you're wrong. Navigate Research did not only calculate the money from a title game. They also calculate the odds, and determined that a championship game alone increases the odds of the Big 12 making the playoffs.

This is one of your problems. If someone says something you don't like or don't believe, you simply claim the other person is "making it up." You don't take into consideration that YOU might actually be wrong.

The committee stated that the Big XII not naming a champ year before last had a big impact. So if we had named "one true champ", we would've made it both years without a CCG.

Again, I'm not basing this on conjecture.

A week before backtracking at the Big 12 meetings, commissioner Bob Bowlsby said, "All things equal, 13 data points were better than 12 data points," when speaking about a potential conference title game. His source for that belief, he said, was selection committee chair Jeff Long.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/12867323/all-conferences-operate-same-format

 

[Scholz]

This is one of your problems. If someone says something you don't like or don't believe, you simply claim the other person is "making it up." You don't take into consideration that YOU might actually be wrong.

That's incorrect. I simply asked for support to your statement. I didn't say you were making it up. Thank you for providing. I stand corrected on the odds although 4-5% isn't much of a bump. I'd say $$$ was still the driving factor on this decision.

I will concede on the 12-1 vs 11-1 comparison. All things remaining equal, the 12-win team goes. I stand by my assertion that there won't be a slew of 12-1 teams every year though.

 

[Heisennberg]

This was all about putting a little money in the pockets of the schools not named Texas.

To increase the chances of getting into the playoffs, all the B12 schools had to do is toughen up their OOC schedules. Baylor and TCU didn't get in a few years back because they had weak OOC schedules.

At least that's what it looks like from an outsider perspective.

You cant always just have great OOC schedules. Not when you have to plan years in advance, no telling who will be good a number of years in the future. WIth that in mind then you have to find open dates for the program you want to play against, it apparently isnt as easy as just wanting to. With that said, yeah it would be helpful, i'm with you there, but again, that's not to say that the other champions of the P5 conferences dont also have a nice OOC to go with their CCG. And that CCG is often against a ranked team, which is more of a sure thing than your top OOC opponent being as well ranked.

$$$. Oh and none of them had a 10-team round robin format. So we're different. We had an advantage that we just squandered away for money. Just remember to scream "13th Data Point! 13th Data Point!" the next time the CCG keeps you out of the playoffs.

It may have started out as a money issue, but as it appears now, the fans and the committee voters are big fans of the CCG. Money comes from the fans and their tv subscriptions and game attendance, and the whole wanting to impress committee members is pretty obvious. Big 12 is in a round robin out of necessity, not because they wanted it. Hey the ccg makes less sense with 10 teams in a round robin but there's no better way to stage a clearly desired CCG outside expansion. I disagree that we squandered an advantage though, or that it's necessarily about money. I believe we will achieve equal footing compared to all other P5 champs. And if the big 12 favorite loses the CCG, tough luck chuck, maybe you werent playoff material.

I am personally disenfranchised about all the money chasing, like its all money money money for everyone. I dont see any of this money, you dont, the players dont. I couldnt give two craps about all the money being the driver for decisions. you dont like how you feel it's the reason for the CCG in '17, and I dont like how it seems to be the driving factor in texas not dropping the lhn so the big 12 can have a network- another factor I feel is making this conference a shit show. You think the 20 mil or so from a big 12 ccg isnt worth staging one--- but I wonder if you feel the 15 mil from the lhn is worth the hindrance on the rest of the conference. Considering they were literally the most profitable program in the nation, I cant frankly fully understand why the lhn income is so important to them and why they cant live without it. Pretty sure big 12 network income would do well to subsidize that loss.

Short answer? $$$$ everyones pockets get fatter.

Yours? Mine? The players? CCG is exciting, everyone knows that, the fans love it, the committee clearly also loves it. Seems like a win/win situation to me. CCGs and championship saturday are awesome.