Big XII votes for conference title game

[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.

 

[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.