Football Realignment & The Big 12

[jsto60]

Not according to the Big 12's research. It says that simply adding a CCG will increase the Big 12's odds of making the playoffs by 5%. I'm not sold on their research methods, but that's the figure they came up with..

The two aren't mutually exclusive. The BigXII is correct. Adding a CC game very well should increase the odds.

And adding 12 teams and a CC game, increases those odds even more. Simple math equation. According to the BigXII and anyones research. And that was my point.

You said adding a CC game/13th data point fixes our problem. I said it helps, but our problems are bigger. And 12 teams solves more than just the 13th data point problem.



Look. I don't love UH. I don't even think they are one of the top options. I'm just saying I don't think they are as bad as some here do. I don't hate the idea of UH. Simple as that. You are certainly entitled to disagree.

 

[jsto60]

I'll go back to my point. If the whole system collapses, you won't need anything to "lean on." The entire world of college sports will be in the same boat, so everyone will be reforming conference alliances. It won't be anything unique to the Big 12. There is no benefit to setting up your conference for a scenario that isn't even happening. If/when that ever does happen, Houston will still be there. You can easily reform a geographic conference whenever that happens, without screwing yourself in the present.

No. I'd argue that we would be better in the interim.

Furthermore, I am not a fan of "well the world is going to melt in to the sun at some point....so I should just sit around and do nothing until it does".

Bottom line, I think the conf needs to be proactive instead of reactive. ADs and conf Pres being reactive and sitting on their collective butts, got us in this mess. And it won't get us out of it. I'm not saying UH is the absolute right answer. They obviously aren't. I just don't hate it.

 

[LonghornSoldier]

Your trash lol but nice try kid

No true rebuttal or defense of anything I said? I saw this reply coming from you long long ago.. lmao... enjoy your life in the cellar when it comes to athletics at Houston junior college. You should enjoy the fact that teams like ISU and Kansas have more value than you that allowed them in to a P5 conference. Now enjoy your time away junior, and maybe stay gone... it was getting embarrassing for you to be here.

 

[Son of Wasatch]

You know what I think will increase the conferences chances of getting a team into the playoffs?

Winning all your games. If you do that and are still kept out, then we can talk about SOS. If you are undefeated and have a strong SOS then we have a problem.

Until those two things are always met, I don't care if we have a team in the playoffs.

 

[diadevic]

You know what I think will increase the conferences chances of getting a team into the playoffs?

Winning all your games. If you do that and are still kept out, then we can talk about SOS. If you are undefeated and have a strong SOS then we have a problem.

Until those two things are always met, I don't care if we have a team in the playoffs.

With Cal and Notre Dame on the OOS, UT is in with 1 loss. I whole heartedly agree -- spruce up the nonconference schedule and go win.

 

[CaptainZigZag]

This year to year bullshyte is getting beyond old. There just aren't two candidates out there that move the needle. I'm beginning to lean to the "stay put and bolt" when the GOR expires. Our champion will be in the mix and if they are undefeated , hard to imagine them getting snubbed. Whoring the conference out every year isn't going to solve the "money gap" , so why dilute our product?

 

[topdecktiger]

No. I'd argue that we would be better in the interim.

Furthermore, I am not a fan of "well the world is going to melt in to the sun at some point....so I should just sit around and do nothing until it does".

Bottom line, I think the conf needs to be proactive instead of reactive. ADs and conf Pres being reactive and sitting on their collective butts, got us in this mess. And it won't get us out of it. I'm not saying UH is the absolute right answer. They obviously aren't. I just don't hate it.

There has to be some substance for being proactive. Doing something just for the sake of doing it isn't the answer. The bottom line is that Houston simply doesn't fix any of the (perceived) problems with the Big 12. If a course of action doesn't improve the situation, you don't do something just to be doing it.

 

[Heisennberg]

Unless you have a really strong OOC schedule/victories a 1 loss big 12 team needs luck to get in to the playoff. It's too easy for a CCG against a ranked opponent get a big 10,sec,acc,pac 12 team over a big 12 champ with one less victory. I mean even a 2 loss stanford was nipping at their heels behind an iowa team who was 5th despite losing the previous week to the big 10 champ with the same record. it's crazy if you ask me. I dont like being at a distinct disadvantage. The big 12 champ with a 13th datapoint would also stand to get a better seeding in the playoff as well. I bet OU would have been very well likely playing in Dallas if they had a CCG victory.

 

[Scholz]

...despite ou getting in with 1 loss last year.

Did you ever consider that having one less game you might lose makes being in the Big XII the EASIEST path to the playoffs?

 

[Scholz]

I would also submit that with ou's OOC schedule this season (2 top 10 teams early), it will be no problem for your team making the playoffs even with one loss.

 

[Belldozer1]

It's almost hard to believe, but I think Cougar High fans have a view of their sh*tty school and insignificant football program that makes even your average aggy's take look sober and balanced.

HAha yes their "new Money" attitude attributed to their very recent football success is very indicative of their previous mostly lackluster 70 years of football. .541powerhouse

 

[Heisennberg]

I did consider that possibility. However I believe it is more likely that the champ of the remaining 4 power 5 conferences having quality victories in a 13th dataset being a distinct advantage, all other things equal. Besides, OU still needed things to fall their way to get in to that #4 spot. Both Stanford and ND losing late were HUGE for OU's chances at the end of the season. At any rate, not that a 1 loss big 12 champ cant get in, but that it seems they cant do it without some help. In OU's case this year having two top 10 victories in the OOC would give them a shoe in to the playoff if they are a 1 loss team at the end of the season. But that's a tall task just to make up for not having a CCG.

 

[Scholz]

Every one loss team requires help. Except Bama.

 

[Heisennberg]

That's only partially true really- clemson had no issue getting in and msu didnt need any more help than the help they gave themselves by beating iowa. It certainly helped that clemson played a top 10 team in their CCG. Certainly beating #4 helped MSU a lot. OU had to hope they wouldnt get jumped by teams playing CCGs against really good teams. As it turns out they did but they could have just as easily put in Iowa at 4 if they really wanted to and we got lucky ND lost to stanford and Stanford lost 2. IMO we need a CCG to give us an even chance.

 

[Scholz]

IMO a CCG makes it harder. IMO the reason we didn't get a Big XII rep the year before last is because our genius commissioner wouldn't name "1 true champion". I think the Big XII has the easiest path *.

* as long as the OOC schedule isn't dog crap...Baylor cough...

 

[topdecktiger]

IMO a CCG makes it harder. IMO the reason we didn't get a Big XII rep the year before last is because our genius commissioner wouldn't name "1 true champion". I think the Big XII has the easiest path *.

* as long as the OOC schedule isn't dog crap...Baylor cough...

Baylor and TCU didn't get in because their metrics were behind the other teams. They had lower strength-of-schedule, fewer wins over Top 25 teams, etc.

 

[bubba2023]

As long as humans are involved a one loss Ohio State will get the nod over a one loss Baylor or TCU. That's just the way it is. Metrics are what they are, comparing one loss teams you can make the case for either based off metrics. The human element is going to side with the blue blood. I am not making a case for that being right or wrong.

 

[littleton tiger]

Bubba you are 100% correct. Blue bloods get the nod and that is as it should be.

 

[Scholz]

Baylor and TCU didn't get in because their metrics were behind the other teams. They had lower strength-of-schedule, fewer wins over Top 25 teams, etc.

That's fair except the people choosing the 4 teams that year actually said the Big XII not naming one champ was a deciding factor in their decisions.

 

[Heisennberg]

IMO a CCG makes it harder. IMO the reason we didn't get a Big XII rep the year before last is because our genius commissioner wouldn't name "1 true champion". I think the Big XII has the easiest path *.

* as long as the OOC schedule isn't dog crap...Baylor cough...

True, there are times when a CCG would make it harder no denying it. To expand on that, I may submit, so what? Did MSU not have to beat #4 , and did Clemson not beat #10 to get in? In other words, you have to beat the best to be the best, and if all of our P5 peers have a CCG to win, I dont frankly see why us getting on even footing is a bad thing. Perhaps when you see a 11-1 texas being ranked #5 because 12-1 PAC champ and 12-1 B1G champ having victories over ranked CCG opponents getting them in the playoff instead, you may change your opinion. The lack of a conference also puts ND at a disadvantage, though I think they get a reputation boost just by being ND so that may negate that. At any rate, in terms of all other factors being equal, the big 12 champ having 12 games is a disadvantage to other P5 champs who have 13 games, and that is also very much a factor. No denying that either. But for example lets imagine ND didnt lose late season to Stanford. It was looking precisely like that they were in line to get that #4 slot over us until they lost. If that happened then it makes sense that #3 would have still went to the B1G champ after their CCG over a top 5 team. Does it not make sense that we can potentially lose some favor when all the P5 conferences are having games on championship saturday? say we're #4 solid, but #5 has a huge game over #8 in their CCG, they beat them 38-0. Pretty easy to see committee rewarding them.

As far as why we didnt have a representative the previous season, that was most certainly a factor. Though I may suggest that a CCG would have resolved that (if they played eachother). Also, committee is not obligated to choose a conference champ but they weigh that status heavily. There's no conclusive way to say CCG will definitely get us in, but I can say that it gives us a much better chance, provided we win of course. And if you cant win your CCG maybe you arent ready for the playoff.

 

[Scholz]

...you have to beat the best to be the best...

We'll see how it plays out. We've only got 2 years of data.

 

[diadevic]

Though I may suggest that a CCG would have resolved that (if they played eachother).

They had already played each other. A conference championship game in a round robin league is suicide. If BU beat TCU again 2 years ago, no one would've given any credit. Its a high risk with no reward.

 

[diadevic]

IMO a CCG makes it harder. IMO the reason we didn't get a Big XII rep the year before last is because our genius commissioner wouldn't name "1 true champion". I think the Big XII has the easiest path *.

* as long as the OOC schedule isn't dog crap...Baylor cough...

I couldn't agree more. For those of you my age ---- OU and Nebraska played in the crap Big 8. Every year, they rolled through the regular season, and every year their end of the year game was for the conference championship. Every single year. And every year, the winner went to the Orange Bowl. And 9 times out of 10 that game impacted the national title. UT and OU need to get their sh*t together and dominate this conference like OU and Nebraska did 30 years ago. Undefeated OU/UT are going to get in the tournament every single time due to their histories. 1 loss OU/UT are going to get in 99 times out of 100. A conference championship game in a round robin conference will be stupid; adding 2 nondescript teams and dividing the conference will just water down/weaken the schedule. Do like UT (and OU) are doing this year - schedule solid nonconference opponents, and win them all.

 

[bubba2023]

I just don't understand how after two years of data, one where the 1 loss team got snubbed and one where they got in, there are strong opinions that changes are needed.

Changes may very well be proven to be necessary in the future but there is nothing in that data that suggests that now.

 

[Heisennberg]

They had already played each other. A conference championship game in a round robin league is suicide. If BU beat TCU again 2 years ago, no one would've given any credit. Its a high risk with no reward.

In general, yes, that would be stupid. Which is why i am in full favor of adding more teams, to make a CCG more feasible. IMO we are at too distinct of a disadvantage otherwise. I believe we got lucky last year. Things fell our way when Stanford and ND lost and it sure was nice that Osu was good too.

I couldn't agree more. For those of you my age ---- OU and Nebraska played in the crap Big 8. Every year, they rolled through the regular season, and every year their end of the year game was for the conference championship. Every single year. And every year, the winner went to the Orange Bowl. And 9 times out of 10 that game impacted the national title. UT and OU need to get their sh*t together and dominate this conference like OU and Nebraska did 30 years ago. Undefeated OU/UT are going to get in the tournament every single time due to their histories. 1 loss OU/UT are going to get in 99 times out of 100. A conference championship game in a round robin conference will be stupid; adding 2 nondescript teams and dividing the conference will just water down/weaken the schedule. Do like UT (and OU) are doing this year - schedule solid nonconference opponents, and win them all.

You cant always schedule a tough noncon, teams are up and down and they are planned years in advance. Plus, you have to actually find a team to play when you can play them. I dont believe 2 other teams would water the conference down at all- they'll all make their money since people bitch about money, it'll be there. And its not like every other conference doesnt already have bottom feeders in football- Even the sec has kentucky and vanderbilt. pac has colorado, wsu, washington etc.

I just don't understand how after two years of data, one where the 1 loss team got snubbed and one where they got in, there are strong opinions that changes are needed.

Changes may very well be proven to be necessary in the future but there is nothing in that data that suggests that now.

I think comments like this suggest it now, to me. Jeff Long's comments suggest, to me, there is very much significance in that 13th game.

"What lifted the Buckeyes to No. 4?"

Long: "I think with the championship game, Ohio State demonstrated they were a total team and they did overcome replacing two quarterbacks and that's a tremendous statement about the quality of their team. And with a conference championship in the Big Ten, with a win over the western division champion Wisconsin, it was decisive for Ohio State to move into that four spot."

Since the Ohio State decision was "decisive," what changed about TCU's resume to drop them from No. 3 to No. 6?

Long: "TCU I think, once we saw the body of work, it was really about Ohio State's movement up. It was Ohio State's impression -- their performance on the field -- that made a difference to the committee to move them up. So it was really about Ohio State and not about TCU."

"What impact did not having a Big 12 Championship Game have on the committee's thinking?"

Long: "Well that's a great question, a natural question. I'll answer it this way: we really don't deal in hypotheticals. So they don't have that game, but again I'll go back and say that Ohio State's performance in a 13th game gave them a quality win against a highly ranked team that allowed them to move into that fourth spot."

If you're evaluating bodies of work, how did so much change in one week for TCU to drop three spots?

Long: "Well in our view, it really didn't change much. I know it looks like a long drop from three to six, but they were really 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D. I mean, they were that close. They were paper thin, razor thin, all those cliches you want to use. We tried to share that last week, in that three through six were very, very close and a number of teams had an opportunity to earn their way into that spot."

Those teams who had an opportunity to earn their way up were playing in a CCG while Baylor and TCU were at home.
If you read between the lines i think we know what he's saying.

Anyway when things affect texas negatively, they make a lot of whiny noises, and it gets heard. Perhaps if texas is the #5 team looking out that they'll be inclined to want this to change.

 

[diadevic]

In general, yes, that would be stupid. Which is why i am in full favor of adding more teams, to make a CCG more feasible. IMO we are at too distinct of a disadvantage otherwise. I believe we got lucky last year. Things fell our way when Stanford and ND lost and it sure was nice that Osu was good too.



You cant always schedule a tough noncon, teams are up and down and they are planned years in advance. Plus, you have to actually find a team to play when you can play them. I dont believe 2 other teams would water the conference down at all- they'll all make their money since people bitch about money, it'll be there. And its not like every other conference doesnt already have bottom feeders in football- Even the sec has kentucky and vanderbilt. pac has colorado, wsu, washington etc.


I think comments like this suggest it now, to me. Jeff Long's comments suggest, to me, there is very much significance in that 13th game.

"What lifted the Buckeyes to No. 4?"

Long: "I think with the championship game, Ohio State demonstrated they were a total team and they did overcome replacing two quarterbacks and that's a tremendous statement about the quality of their team. And with a conference championship in the Big Ten, with a win over the western division champion Wisconsin, it was decisive for Ohio State to move into that four spot."

Since the Ohio State decision was "decisive," what changed about TCU's resume to drop them from No. 3 to No. 6?

Long: "TCU I think, once we saw the body of work, it was really about Ohio State's movement up. It was Ohio State's impression -- their performance on the field -- that made a difference to the committee to move them up. So it was really about Ohio State and not about TCU."

"What impact did not having a Big 12 Championship Game have on the committee's thinking?"

Long: "Well that's a great question, a natural question. I'll answer it this way: we really don't deal in hypotheticals. So they don't have that game, but again I'll go back and say that Ohio State's performance in a 13th game gave them a quality win against a highly ranked team that allowed them to move into that fourth spot."

If you're evaluating bodies of work, how did so much change in one week for TCU to drop three spots?

Long: "Well in our view, it really didn't change much. I know it looks like a long drop from three to six, but they were really 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D. I mean, they were that close. They were paper thin, razor thin, all those cliches you want to use. We tried to share that last week, in that three through six were very, very close and a number of teams had an opportunity to earn their way into that spot."

Those teams who had an opportunity to earn their way up were playing in a CCG while Baylor and TCU were at home.
If you read between the lines i think we know what he's saying.

Anyway when things affect texas negatively, they make a lot of whiny noises, and it gets heard. Perhaps if texas is the #5 team looking out that they'll be inclined to want this to change.

I get what you're saying. BUT - Mr. Long has spent the last 2 years making up his list of important factors to justify rankings, then contradicting his list in succeeding weeks. He was just making it up as he went along. If UT or OU had been No. 4, and tOSU no. 6 -- tOSU would've been left out. Instead, it was Baylor and TCU vs. Ohio State - that's a bigger mismatch than Bautista vs. Odor.

 

[Heisennberg]

I get what you're saying. BUT - Mr. Long has spent the last 2 years making up his list of important factors to justify rankings, then contradicting his list in succeeding weeks. He was just making it up as he went along. If UT or OU had been No. 4, and tOSU no. 6 -- tOSU would've been left out. Instead, it was Baylor and TCU vs. Ohio State - that's a bigger mismatch than Bautista vs. Odor.

I think historical reputation shouldnt matter in these rankings but since humans are involved it naturally does have a sort of unwritten factor.