Agree. I think it's an overreaction to two years of sample data. 1 year it would have helped, and one year it would have done nothing. They could have let it play a little more.
SEC and Big 10 Blocking Big 12 championship game???
- Thread starter diadevic
- Start date
Agree. I think it's an overreaction to two years of sample data. 1 year it would have helped, and one year it would have done nothing. They could have let it play a little more.
I am not extrapolating anything. I just think sometimes it will help you and sometimes it could hurt you. If Texas goes 12-0 it definitely helps, but 11-1 it could potentially hurt. It probably wouldn't hurt you as much as Baylor because of OOC and the weight that comes with the Texas brand but it could potentially be used as a negative is all I'm saying.
It's going to be a coin flip from year to year. There will be years that a 12-0 team gets clipped by a 9-3 team and loses out on the playoff, and there will be a year where an 11-1 team wins and gets the push it needs at 12-1 to get into the playoff. Book it.
Aggie shouldn't talk about things they know nothing about. Like National Championships, Conference Titles, 12-0, or even 9-3.
Just saying.
Clob was referencing a big 12 championship game could end up costing an undefeated big 12 team a playoff bid if they were to lose the CC game to a 9-3 team. Not that a 9-3 conference champion would be in the playoffs.
Looks like per Boren comments yesterday OU has one foot out the door. Last year proved you don't need a title game because of the round robin. Lets be honest if 2 years ago it was OU and UT not BU and TCU either one of those teams get in before the luck eyes. OU and UT are the only 2 teams in the Big 12 that have any credit and it will take BU and TCU a very long time before they can be on OU and UT level.
Let's see if he grows a pair and makes the leap so we can blow this thing up! Dude likes to talk...
OU certainly doesn't help the conferences cause by continually losing when they represent in BCS games. I can only think of one win OU has had in like the last decade in a big bowl game. The rest have been mostly embarrassing losses. That doesn't help BU or TCU or UT or anyone.
1) You didn't answer my question concerning your criticisms of the Big XII regardless of circumstances.
2) You guys already tried to leave to the PAC before and they said no.
3) In case you've forgotten, you've granted your media rights to the conference until 2025 so good luck with all of that.
4) What is Boren's deal?
See, with all the talk about a "13th data point" though... the question is, what are the data points that are being looked at already. Since our "lurkers" here are SEC fans (maybe more so than A&M fans at times), let's look at what each conference's schedules look like. The SEC has 8 conference games (6 against their divisional opponents, 1 against a permanent cross-divisional opponent, and 1 against one of the other 6 teams in the other division). They also have a requirement to play 1 game against a Power-5 team, Notre Dame, BYU, or... er... Army (which, to the SEC's credit, I don't know if a team has chosen to use that "easy out", but it's still a little weird to consider it an option). So that's 9 games against power-5 level competition (assuming they don't play Army to fulfill this requirement). The other 3 games can be filled as the schools see fit, though almost every one of them fills at least one with an FCS foe, so that is generally not going to be much of a valuable data point... unless the SEC team loses, of course. And, with a few notable exceptions (South Carolina and Florida seem to avoid this, for example), the other two remaining ones are generally set up to be strongly one-sided affairs. So, in most years, most SEC teams are going to play no more than 9 opponents that are in the same range with them as far as resources, facilities, tradition, recruiting, etc. If they win their division, they play a 10th game against that level of competition. So, we'll sum that up by saying there are 10 significant data points, 2 additional points, and (for most teams) 1 inconsequential data point, for the teams that win a conference championship.
Meanwhile, in the Big 12, the conference slate consists of 9 games, and the conference has now instated a rule that they must play at least one game against a power-5 opponent or Notre Dame. No mention of Army (or even BYU) at this point. I'm not entirely clear on the timeline on when this will be enforced is, but even Baylor has decided to put Utah (in addition to already having Duke) on future slates, so maybe the plan is to not force them to cancel previously scheduled games and to just make it happen moving forward? Or who knows. Either way, I'm not going to stick up for Baylor's scheduling very much until it actually changes overall. Still, this new requirement (and a pattern that MOST Big 12 teams already stick to anyway) brings the total number of required significant data points for EVERY team in the conference to 10. Now, granted, several Big 12 teams go the route of making one of the 2 other spots an "inconsequential" data point, but even that's not as consistently true. Texas and OU don't have any FCS opponents on their future schedules and haven't for some time. Oklahoma State's future schedules seem to hint that they may start doing away with that kind of opponent as well, but who knows. AND Texas in particular (as well as OU and others occasionally) are actually scheduling an 11th power-5 level opponent right now. So basically... whenever the strength of schedule requirement kicks in for the Big 12, EVERY team in the conference, from top to bottom, will be required to play the same number of power-5 opponents as the SEC teams that play in the championship game (assuming that those teams don't use the "Army" option). And Texas in particular, will play MORE power-5 opponents every year (as long as they stick to the current scheduling format) than the SEC conference champ, unless someone like Florida or South Carolina wins the conference on a year where they have both their OOC rival game AND another power-5 team.
So, truthfully, to balance the scheduling formats, the Big 12 should be looking for a way to add a 13th cupcake game, rather than a 13th (repeat) championship game.
Now, I get it... perception counts. For as much as everyone wants to say the playoff committee is better than the BCS system, it's still all about biases and opinions, not anything definitive. And yeah, the Big 12 has a perception deficit to overcome. But that, in theory, should be able to be made up for by scheduling 1 or 2 decent OOC opponents (and having an extra bye week during the season, because let's be honest... that's more-or-less what the SEC games against FCS opponents generally are). The only really problematic part is the way it forces the Big 12 to try to guess which games will be big games so they can schedule several of them for the final week of the season (and, obviously, that cant include Texas/OU).
If anyone goes through a schedule like Texas has from now through 2018 and gets only 1 loss, there's no reason in the world that they should be overlooked for not having a forced faux championship game at the end of the year. Baylor last year, with the embarrassing OOC slate, was a completely different situation.
I wish there was a way to push "like" twice on this. Well said.
Here's the answer to your question. The committee doesn't make as big of a differentiation between FCS and G5 as you do. Reason being, whether it's an FCS team or a MAC team, either one is really a buy-a-win game for most P5 teams. Beating UMass vs. beating The Citadel isn't really going to impress the committee either way. What they will look at is how relatively good that school is. For example, the committee would probably look a little more favorably on a win over Charleston Southern (10-2) vs. a win over UMass (3-9).
By the same token, they aren't going to look more favorably on a win over Iowa St (3-9) than they would a win over Navy (11-2). To some extent, the number of P5 teams on the schedule matters, but not to the extent you are making it out to be. A crappy P5 team is still a crappy team. You don't really get "extra points" just because the are P5.
What the committee looks at is the actual strength of each team on the schedule, not the perceived strength. One good example is strength of schedule. The way the committee calculates SOS is that they take the winning percentage of all your opponents, then the percentages of all the teams your opponents played. They add all that together, average it, and that's your SOS. That's why Alabama has the best SOS every year, because most of the teams they play have good records. One reason is that the SEC doesn't play a round robin, so they don't give each other as many losses. Whether it's fair or not, that's the way the SOS is calculated, and that's one reason the Big 12 gets hurt in this area.
Point being, the committee doesn't parse out the schedules in the way you have, so the 13th data point is considered to be "extra," as opposed to the way you have sort of equalized it out.
Ok, but look, even if you equate FCS schools with Sunbelt, MAC, and some CUSA schools, the same thing applies. The Big 12 teams (and particularly someone like Texas who is playing Notre Dame AND Cal, or USC AND Maryland in their 3 game OOC slate) are still playing fewer of those weak teams.
And the SOS calculation, you have to admit, is a bit problematic. I mean, look, if a conference plays 9 conference games, SOME of them are going to have more losses no matter what than a conference that has 3 gimme games per team per season. There's are reasons that the SEC doesn't want to add another conference game, and at least one of those reasons is that, as it stands, with 8 conference games, and most teams playing 3 automatic win games... their strength of schedule is going to be automatically better. They play more teams that won more easy games. Yes, the easy games may not help as much, but those aren't the teams EVERYONE in a division plays. The teams everyone in the division plays... are the other teams in their division. Who almost all had 3 wins that didn't take any real effort to get. So again, there's at least one data point more the vast majority of the SEC gets that "counts" that isn't really worth much if you look at what it actually means. I mean, if you can play as few conference games as possible, play as many different weak OOC games as possible against separate opponents (i.e., don't double up and weaken any of them unnecessarily), and if you can focus most of the conference losses within the conference to only a few teams...? That's a ticket for an awesome SOS calculation... even if the schedule still had more weak games than others.
And yes, ok, point out Iowa State. Fine. Iowa State played 9 conference games, a game against a power-5 opponent in OOC games (that, coincidentally didn't lose a regular season game... Iowa)... and played Toledo, who was one of the best group of 5 teams this season (and, who, as you may recall, also beat Arkansas). They had ONE game that could be considered an "auto win" game. They had 2 games that weren't Power-5 opponents. And they ended up with the same record as South Carolina, who coincidentally is one of the only SEC teams that ever plays more than one power-5 team in OOC play. So... yeah, they had the same record as one of the SEC teams that played 10 power-5 games. And they played 10 power-5 games. Had they played a schedule that follows the format that most SEC teams follow they probably would have won 5 games... 3 "auto-win games" and 2 conference games. If you want to say that, well, an SEC team might have accidentally scheduled a challenge in Toledo like Arkansas did... ok, fine. Then 4 games. They'd still have won an extra game because they would have been encouraged by the conference to play, say, Iowa, Northern Iowa, Toledo (oops, try to get someone weaker next time... maybe a nice FAU, ULM, NMSU, or something) and then Troy or South Alabama. BAM. The team didn't need to be better to increase the win total (or OU's strength of schedule, as a result!).
In general, getting a bunch of teams with 3-5 or 2-6 conference records into bowl games ends up being a lot easier when you can line up 3 OOC gimme games. It's tougher when, by the requirements of your conference, you can only really, at most, line up 2 gimme games.
And yes, you can point to Iowa State or Kansas being down. But ultimately that's cyclical for any conference, just like South Carolina, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Auburn, and Kentucky were all pretty bad this year too. The reason that scheduling a certain number of power-5 teams is significant is that those schools are closer in various areas of advantage, like facilities, recruiting, money, etc. No, they're not all equal, but that's always the case, whether it's a from-season-to-season thing or a longer trend.
... and if one of the Big 12's problems is that they already play more games against their own teams and, therefor, give their own teams more losses... why should it help to add yet another game against their own teams to give another team in their conference yet another loss...?
Here's the point you are missing. I'm not trying to argue with you whether it's right or wrong. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. That's the way the committee looks it, and that's all that matters. You have to deal with the situation as it actually is, not how you wish it to be. The simple fact is, the committee simply sees the CCG as an "extra" data point, and they don't cancel it out due to the SEC (or whoever) having one more G5/FBS team. The only thing you can do is adapt to that reality.
This is why the Big 12 has a problem. There isn't a good solution. The only real solution is to do what the other leagues do. Add more teams have divisions. That's the only effective answer.
I don't know, again, I tend to doubt that if Texas were back at a level where they could go 12-0, 11-1, or... I mean, on the right year, even 10-2... with a schedule like they're playing (9 conference games, plus a marquee level game and another power-5 level game) that they'd get in for their record, their wins, and the conference championship they won. And all along, I've been saying that the Big 12 teams that consider themselves elite or in contention should make similar scheduling adjustments. As it is, my team has other issues as far as getting into the playoffs, but I don't think that any of those reasons are a need for expansion, a conference championship game, or anything of the sort. I do, ultimately, think that the conference will split up... by the end of the current contracts if it doesn't happen before. But if teams (*ahem*, Baylor) took control of their own scheduling... they'd be fine.
If Texas was going 11-1 then yeah, it would be fine. The issue from a conference standpoint is that's putting all your eggs in one basket.
Well, I'd tend to say that a schedule like OU's next year (Ohio State, Houston at NRG, ULM) has the same effect. Unbeaten is automatic, 1-loss (particularly if Houston is anywhere near as good as they were this year) is almost definite (unless all the other power conferences have unbeaten champs), and 2-loss is in the mix if it comes down to other 2-loss teams.
But yeah, any Big 12 team that plays one strong team, and one moderately strong team in their OOC schedule should be fine. And if ALL the Big 12 teams start scheduling at least 1 big OOC opponent and the conference is winning consistently, the second power-5 team would probably become less important (though, as a fan, I still like it).
But yeah, if the conference shows to actually have a long term problem (i.e., not just based on one odd year and one year where a Big 12 team actually made it in with a loss and only one OOC power-5 game since that kind of goes against the theory that the Big 12 has a problem), then I think the teams that are most concerned with the issue will either adapt to fix it... or pull the trigger to go to a different conference. A auto-replay conference championship game seems as problematic as it seems helpful. Expansion would be tricky to do and have a positive effect since everything would have to work out perfectly. But let's be honest... Baylor and TCU are still new money so they're not at a point where they're going to rock the boat too much. Kansas has some stature as far as a desirable school to conferences, but isn't in a position where they are going to have to worry about missing getting into the playoffs anytime in the immediate future. Oklahoma State and Texas Tech both could push for something but ultimately... it seems likely that Texas or OU (or both) will be the schools that see a problem with things and make the move... and they're also the ones whose schedules are generally better to overcome the situation.
For what it's worth, I actually wonder... if TCU had beaten Baylor and not the other way around last year... would we even be having this conversation? TCU's OOC schedule and wins might actually have trumped Ohio State's bad Virginia Tech home loss in a clearer way if the head-to-head winner hadn't had such a crappy OOC schedule. Until there are more examples, I'm not sure that anyone involved with the Big 12 should overreact. But they SHOULD prepare. Step 1) put a power-5 opponent on the OOC schedule... which is now required. Try to base that match up on how good you feel you are (i.e., who that team should be would be different between Baylor/TCU... and Kansas right now). Step 2) consider cutting down on the bottom-of-the-barrel teams in OOC games, whether that is eliminating FCS teams or playing a middle-to-high CUSA/Sunbelt/MAC team rather than a low one if that's what you choose to schedule. Step 3) consider playing a strong second team if you really feel like you're a contender in a given period. Cut down on the doubt that you're good. Will you win those games every year? Nah, but the years you do will be the years you're contending anyway.
Will it be fair given what other conferences might get away with? Nah. But it would work. And over time, if it does work, then it would become less important to prove.
If TCU had beaten Baylor, that would make them 12-0, so then it's a moot point.
That said, going on the point you were getting at, here is the problem TCU and Baylor had last year. The SOS for the playoff teams (again, the committee's SOS) were as follows: Alabama #13, Ohio St #44, Florida St #54, Oregon #57. TCU was #67 and Baylor was #80. So both teams, especially Baylor were behind the other four, and were particularly behind Ohio St. Also, Ohio St, Florida St, Oregon each had 3 wins over ranked teams last year. (Alabama had 5). TCU and Baylor only had 2 each. That's because Oklahoma lost to Oklahoma St in the last week, and dropped from the committee rankings. That took away a ranked win from both Baylor and TCU and put them behind in that metric as well. The other problem was that Baylor and TCU were co-champs, whereas the other four teams were outright champions. So what happened was that Baylor and TCU were behind Ohio St (and the other schools) in three key metrics, which is what kept them out. Now, if TCU was 12-0, then they would have gotten in over Ohio St, no problem. Since they were basically tied, Ohio St getting to play the extra game against Wisconsin helped tip the scales in their favor.
I meant, if TCU had beaten Baylor, but lost to someone else on the road (like Baylor did). Basically if you'd swapped the two situations, giving the team with the better OOC schedule 1 road loss, and the head-to-head win between the two teams.
But those OOC games are EARLY. The conference championship games are late. That makes a HUGE difference also. There again, that 13th game at the END of the season will sometimes, if not often tip the scales in the direction of the team with the CCG if all other factors are equal.
Meh, it's another thing I think is kind of a sham. I feel like teams should be rewarded for how the perform over the course of the season. The idea that a team can lose bad games early to me just says "maybe next year" as opposed to "time to fix things". I mean, yes, all else being equal, an early loss is better, but if it's a bad loss, who cares when it is? An early bad loss, to me, is worse than a later highly-ranked loss.
The Big 12 is at the bottom and is waiting to get plucked, OU is just ahead of the game. Tell what team would add value to the Big 12 right now?
You really think that Texas hasn't looked into their options for if/when things change or if/when there's a clear reason to make a move? Just because they're not whining about it at every opportunity doesn't mean there isn't a plan in the "in case of emergency, break glass" box. Actually, I'd imagine that at least 3 or 4 Big 12 schools have a "plan A, plan B, plan C" kind of situation in mind for if and when things happened.
I'm sure that if enough teams in the conference decided they didn't want the conference to exist anymore the contracts wouldn't matter anymore. The trick is that, first... OU would need all of the likely teams that would be up for leaving on board (so yeah, being "ahead of the game" wouldn't matter very much, since they'd basically need Texas on board... as well as... probably Kansas who'd be one of the other schools who'd be grabbed up first... along with whoever thought they could ride coattails, like Tech and OSU possibly). Even then they'd likely have to have some other schools join in who, at least on the surface, don't have as good of a landing spot, so it would get pretty tricky, I'd think. I mean, I don't know how many members would have to agree on it, but for other really major decisions in the past hasn't it had to be 7 or 8?
