Big XII votes for conference title game

[Heisennberg]

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.

In 2012 we had two 12 win P5 champs. In 2013 we had three 12 win P5 champs.

In 2014 there were three 12 win P5 champions. It's been iterated how important Ohio State's victory in their CCG was that bumped them over the big 12 teams. Sure its possible naming a champ would have helped, but its not like the committee was obligated to only award conference champs.

In 2015 there were three 12 win P5 champions. OU got in over Stanford, a 11 win P5 champ, but barely. If stanford beats Oregon and is 12-1 instead of 11-2, they sneak in over OU. Same with ND. We needed help to get in, help they wouldnt have needed had they played a likely ranked opponent in a CCG. Can you concede OU needed outside help inspite of their 11-1 record to get into the playoff? We know bama and msu were in regardless, they just had to keep winning.

Seems like a pattern of often seeing 2 and more likely three 12 win P5 champs. Thus making a 11 win big 12 champ at a disadvantage pretty often.

 

[Scholz]

Seems like a pattern of often seeing 2 and more likely three 12 win P5 champs. Thus making a 11 win big 12 champ at a disadvantage pretty often.

? There are 4 playoff spots, correct? If there were 4 12-win teams, I would get your argument.

My point has been that in the other 4 P5 conferences, at least one of them is going to falter. Which is supported by your data.

 

[Heisennberg]

Youre assuming the 11 win big 12 champ would be the automatic number 4 (by the way being #4 every year because they are 11 wins instead of 12 is a disadvantage in and of itself because they're never getting the advantage of getting the better bowl site). They'd also have to have a better resume than the other P5 champ, probably 11 wins, and they just won a CCG, most likely, for that 11th win on a day where the big 12 champ isnt on tv, fresh on the minds of voters.

 

[Scholz]

So now the P5 teams that went 11-2 are somehow over the 11-1 Big XII champ? Is that what you're saying? I thought you guys were arguing that the whole benefit is to get to 12-1. If there are never 4 teams with 12 wins, your argument goes away.

 

[Heisennberg]

So now the P5 teams that went 11-2 are somehow over the 11-1 Big XII champ? Is that what you're saying? I thought you guys were arguing that the whole benefit is to get to 12-1. If there are never 4 teams with 12 wins, your argument goes away.

Not necessarily, but stanford was pretty close to inching in with 2 losses. I guess if i can just broadstroke this with a bottom line- any 11 win big 12 champ will always be at an inherent disadvantage to any 12 win P5 champ. Or to put it another way, any 1 loss big 12 champ will be at an inherent disadvantage to any 1 loss P5 champ by virtue of having one less victory. With that said, they'd need outside help in order to be placed above a team with more victories. That's what my problem is. Clearly we know the committee argues and splits hairs about who is more deserving, and i can totally see a 11 win conference champ getting snubbed by 12 win champs, every single time. And this doesnt even get into playoff seeding. Even if the 11 win big 12 champ gets in every year, if there are a couple 12-1 teams above them, how will they ever get the benefit of the preferred bowl site? If OU had a CCG and got that 12th win last year, I bet they'd have played in Dallas. who knows how much of a difference that would have made for them.

 

[Scholz]

Not necessarily, but stanford was pretty close to inching in with 2 losses.

No they weren't. They were in 6th place at 11-2. Iowa was 5th at 12-1.

 

[Heisennberg]

No they weren't. They were in 6th place at 11-2. Iowa was 5th at 12-1.

So, 6th isnt close to 4th? Would have been a very serious debate keeping Stanford out if iowa didnt win their conference. Also comes to show that they absolutely would have bumped OU out if they were just a 1 loss team.

 

[misterTeasyEmalcomXf'inAkicksome]

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.

I'm all for a challenging schedule. I don't really like the "easiest path" arguments. I don't, however, feel like replaying a game again for no apparent reason really does that for me. Improve OOC slates? Sure! Add challenging conference members if they're available and make sense? Great! Heck, push for a 13th game so that we can play another challenging OOC game? Weird and unlikely, but that'd be more than fine by me. And yeah, if you have a conference where every team doesn't play each other, then having a championship game just makes sense. But I like the "are you good enough to impress through the season, start to finish?" model that college football has always had. As much as it can suck, I like that sometimes a team is playing really well by the end of the year, but wasn't ready at the beginning... and those beginning games still matter. I felt like the SEC national championship rematch was a sham. And I feel like a Big 12 championship rematch is just a smaller version of the same. Scholz might have different reasons for disliking it. For me, I think the statistics that will come out of the situation are precarious at best, and a potential major disadvantage at worst (since it just adds more losses to teams within the conference, further weakening the conference profile as a whole) and even if they create artificial divisions for the conference, there won't REALLY be divisions, so a rematch, to me, feels like it could lead to a "series split" as much to me. And if that's what happens, what's the real rationale for that making the team who lost first but won later the champ over the team they split the series with?

Maybe I'll be proven wrong on the statistics thing, but the little bit I've tinkered with the numbers make it look like a potential disadvantage to me more than an advantage, and I'm not getting paid enough (or at all) to spend a lot more time doing that to see if I'm right in more circumstances.

 

[Heisennberg]

I'm all for a challenging schedule. I don't really like the "easiest path" arguments. I don't, however, feel like replaying a game again for no apparent reason really does that for me. Improve OOC slates? Sure! Add challenging conference members if they're available and make sense? Great! Heck, push for a 13th game so that we can play another challenging OOC game? Weird and unlikely, but that'd be more than fine by me. And yeah, if you have a conference where every team doesn't play each other, then having a championship game just makes sense. But I like the "are you good enough to impress through the season, start to finish?" model that college football has always had. As much as it can suck, I like that sometimes a team is playing really well by the end of the year, but wasn't ready at the beginning... and those beginning games still matter. I felt like the SEC national championship rematch was a sham. And I feel like a Big 12 championship rematch is just a smaller version of the same. Scholz might have different reasons for disliking it. For me, I think the statistics that will come out of the situation are precarious at best, and a potential major disadvantage at worst (since it just adds more losses to teams within the conference, further weakening the conference profile as a whole) and even if they create artificial divisions for the conference, there won't REALLY be divisions, so a rematch, to me, feels like it could lead to a "series split" as much to me. And if that's what happens, what's the real rationale for that making the team who lost first but won later the champ over the team they split the series with?

Maybe I'll be proven wrong on the statistics thing, but the little bit I've tinkered with the numbers make it look like a potential disadvantage to me more than an advantage, and I'm not getting paid enough (or at all) to spend a lot more time doing that to see if I'm right in more circumstances.

One consideration here is the PAC 12 , 4 years in a row now they have had a rematch in their CCG. Seems to be working out for them. ON the flip side, can the conference champ not earn some redemption in the CCG if lets say their only loss was to their CCG opponent? That also has happened in the PAC 12. CRazy scenarios happen all the time, especially in the big 12. One year we had a 3 way tie for the south and a 2 way tie for the north.

 

[Scholz]

So, 6th isnt close to 4th? Would have been a very serious debate keeping Stanford out if iowa didnt win their conference. Also comes to show that they absolutely would have bumped OU out if they were just a 1 loss team.

No, 6th place isn't "inching close" to getting in the playoffs. No, a 2-loss team won't bump a 1-loss Big XII champ. And Iowa didn't win their conference. Yes, a 12-win Stanford team would've bumped an 11-win ou squad. Not the discussion.

Dude, you're displaying cognitive dissonance here (that means you can't keep consistent thoughts). In this thread, you're arguing tooth and nail how disadvantaged the Big XII is and will get jumped by everyone (including 2-loss teams now apparently to make your argument since you yourself showed that there are never 4 12-win teams to fill up the playoff spots). And in the 'Winning the Big XII thread' you're absolutely convinced that a loss won't hurt your squad getting into the playoffs this year at all. You're just arguing to argue and can't even pick a side.

 

[topdecktiger]

I'm all for a challenging schedule. I don't really like the "easiest path" arguments. I don't, however, feel like replaying a game again for no apparent reason really does that for me. Improve OOC slates? Sure! Add challenging conference members if they're available and make sense? Great! Heck, push for a 13th game so that we can play another challenging OOC game? Weird and unlikely, but that'd be more than fine by me. And yeah, if you have a conference where every team doesn't play each other, then having a championship game just makes sense. But I like the "are you good enough to impress through the season, start to finish?" model that college football has always had. As much as it can suck, I like that sometimes a team is playing really well by the end of the year, but wasn't ready at the beginning... and those beginning games still matter. I felt like the SEC national championship rematch was a sham. And I feel like a Big 12 championship rematch is just a smaller version of the same. Scholz might have different reasons for disliking it. For me, I think the statistics that will come out of the situation are precarious at best, and a potential major disadvantage at worst (since it just adds more losses to teams within the conference, further weakening the conference profile as a whole) and even if they create artificial divisions for the conference, there won't REALLY be divisions, so a rematch, to me, feels like it could lead to a "series split" as much to me. And if that's what happens, what's the real rationale for that making the team who lost first but won later the champ over the team they split the series with?

Maybe I'll be proven wrong on the statistics thing, but the little bit I've tinkered with the numbers make it look like a potential disadvantage to me more than an advantage, and I'm not getting paid enough (or at all) to spend a lot more time doing that to see if I'm right in more circumstances.

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.

 

[Heisennberg]

No, 6th place isn't "inching close" to getting in the playoffs. No, a 2-loss team won't bump a 1-loss Big XII champ. And Iowa didn't win their conference. Yes, a 12-win Stanford team would've bumped an 11-win ou squad. Not the discussion.

Dude, you're displaying cognitive dissonance here (that means you can't keep consistent thoughts). In this thread, you're arguing tooth and nail how disadvantaged the Big XII is and will get jumped by everyone (including 2-loss teams now apparently to make your argument since you yourself showed that there are never 4 12-win teams to fill up the playoff spots). And in the 'Winning the Big XII thread' you're absolutely convinced that a loss won't hurt your squad getting into the playoffs this year at all. You're just arguing to argue and can't even pick a side.

I am not absolutely convinced, but I do believe OU could absorb a loss before november and still be in the thick of the playoff hunt. The disadvantage I speak of is in the event the big 12 champ has 1 loss it's an uphill battle to get in over any other 1 loss P5 champ. Compared to the rest of the big 12 OU probably has the best 1 loss scenario which puts them in better position but my whole point is the disadvantage is inherent. I contend that something extraordinary or special must happen for a 11 win big 12 champ to get in the playoff. It is not easy to convince people why a 11 win champ is more deserving than a 12 win champ. So we have to hope that we dont have 4 other 12 win P5 champs, and that ND also isnt a 1 loss team. Hell or even an undefeated midmajor with a huge ooc victory over a P5 contender. 6th is inching close if you ask me, but that's just my opinion. Considering places 1-6 had just 1 loss or less 2 seasons ago. There's another scenario, 6 teams with 1 loss, 4 of them are P5 champs who just played a CCG. where does the big 12 champ fall here? Even if big 12 named a champ, im not sure they get in over ohio state. Anyway this will always be an argument until things change. the big 12 champ will just have one less feather in their cap on their playoff resume this year. Unless it's OU due to their ooc. or i mean unless texas is good lol. dont want to get too far head of ourselves here

 

[Scholz]

nm

 

[BringBackRoyal]

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.

You're overlooking a pretty important fact here: the Big 12's two marquee brands have been down compared to the first decade of the 2000s -- Texas obviously far more so than OU, but OU definitely hasn't been its 2000-08 self from 2009 to the present. The small-market teams that have risen as Texas and OU have, to differing degrees, have not consistently performed at a level that makes up for the lost production -- and their insignificant brand power is a handicap even with their strongest teams.

Given these differences in the overall condition of the conference, the comparison of BCS/CFP outcomes between the 12-team and 10-team iterations of the Big 12 is minimally instructive at best on the question of which schedule format is most favorable for the conference.

In any case, I believe the poster you're responding to has already argued on several occasions that the nine-game round-robin schedule makes things more difficult. But we're not talking about going back to the type of schedule we had with 12 teams. Absent expansion, which is unlikely at this point, we're still talking about a nine-game round-robin schedule -- just with the added obstacle of the CCG.

 

[topdecktiger]

You're overlooking a pretty important fact here: the Big 12's two marquee brands have been down compared to the first decade of the 2000s -- Texas obviously far more so than OU, but OU definitely hasn't been its 2000-08 self from 2009 to the present. The small-market teams that have risen as Texas and OU have, to differing degrees, have not consistently performed at a level that makes up for the lost production -- and their insignificant brand power is a handicap even with their strongest teams.

Given these differences in the overall condition of the conference, the comparison of BCS/CFP outcomes between the 12-team and 10-team iterations of the Big 12 is minimally instructive at best on the question of which schedule format is most favorable for the conference.

In any case, I believe the poster you're responding to has already argued on several occasions that the nine-game round-robin schedule makes things more difficult. But we're not talking about going back to the type of schedule we had with 12 teams. Absent expansion, which is unlikely at this point, we're still talking about a nine-game round-robin schedule -- just with the added obstacle of the CCG.

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.

 

[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.