Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'On The Field' started by Godz40acres, Jan 13, 2016.
UT's energy should be focused on getting out of this conference.
We keep going from bad to worse.
Well at least we would not have to play the Iowa St Cyclones every year.
For the first 9 years of the Big 12, the South team went 4-1 in games played in the state of Missouri, and the North team went 3-1 in games played in the state of Texas.
I'm sure Jerruh is right in the middle of this. As soon as he heard the news he probably popped a boner, pushed his wife aside, and chased the cat around the house for a little "celebration". Some visual, huh!
IIRC tOSU was outside looking in at #7 with a loss to VT and weak SOS in 2014 and both BU and TCU were ranked higher going into CCG weekend. B12 sat home and tOSU beat Wisc for the B10 CCG.
Perhaps in the rematch BU wins big or TCU wins big removing all doubt from close loss. But it would have happened on CCG weekend with all eyes watching.
The co champion thing caused CFP to decide and they chose outside of B12.
Rest is history.
Pecos, I have to disagree. You cannot simply rely on what the committee says. They were going to take Ohio State no matter what after Ohio State beat Wisconsin so badly. A Baylor-TCU rematch would not have made a difference.
This is not the BCS. This is a few biased people in a room. If you follow the playoff week to week, it's clear last week's poll has no bearing on the next week's poll. TCU being in front of tOSU the week before was MEANINGLESS.
The big 12 is underrepresented on the committee and will get left out in those circumstances every time regardless of a rematch game.
All eyes being on a rematch game DOESNT MATTER. It did under the BCS because there were so many voters spread out around the country. It does not matter for this tiny, biased committee. I will say, I would rather the BCS pick the top 4 than the committee because then bias is at least spread out among many voters and is diluted. Going to the 4 team playoff was the right move. Switching to a small biased committee from the BCS was dumb.
Again, what it more likely to happen is the Big 12 knocks itself out of the playoff.
If 11-0 Oklahoma beats 11-0 Oklahoma State on 11/30 56-3 in Norman, how does it help the Big 12 for 12-0 Oklahoma to play 11-1 Oklahoma State in Norman on 12/7? What if Oklahoma State wins 31-28? Are people going to but Oklahoma State wasnt "the same team" a week later? What if OU wins 31-28 but loses it's star QB and gets killed in the playoff? What if OU's QB has a bad game in the rematch and loses the Heisman?
Actually, since OU is pushing this idea, I hope #4 OU 10-1 beate #5 Oklahoma State 10-1 at the end of the year in Norman. Then 10-2 Oklahoma State beats #4 11-1 OU and knocks them out of the playoff. At least when the nation laughs at the Big 12 for unnecessarily knocking ourselves out of the title game with a pointless title game, the joke will be on the sooners.
Also, on the off chance iowa state and kansas state play twice in a row in the same stadium, the second game REALLY wont generate national buzz.
What's really troublesome is posters on this thread have given this more thought than the Big 12 officials, ADs or sportswriters that do this for a living.... of course they all probably just see "extra game means more $", do not really care about how this hurts us in the playoffs and are trying to sell their money grab as "helpful."
Per Max Olson, ESPN Staff Writer; Article About the Rule Change, 0/14/2016 [Portions]
"The Division I council adopted a proposal allowing FBS conferences with less than 12 members to hold conference title games between the top two teams in its standings, so long as the conference plays a full round-robin regular-season schedule.
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby said it is too early to speculate whether this vote means the Big 12 will resume playing conference title games as it did for its first 15 years of existence.
"I appreciate that what was acted upon today takes into account our unique 10-team, full round-robin scheduling model," Bowlsby said in a statement...."Our membership will continue to analyze its pros and cons, as we now know the requirements should we decide to go down that path."
Big 12 coaches have publicly been divided on the topic of reinstating a title game, because such a game would always be a rematch.
"I don't think a championship game is the answer unless we're going to divide up South/North, East/West, whatever we want to do," Oklahoma State coach Mike Gundy said last week. "This year we would have played OU again. I don't think that's productive. I don't see what you get out of that."
Full Article: http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/14564702/rule-change-allows-big-12-hold-title-game
Well, glad to see Mike Gundy is on the same page.
From the Max Olson article, it isn't a requirement that t he B12 have a CCG, but are allowed to. The B12 members will have to vote/approve a CCG. So it becomes a risk/reward analysis of the pros and cons of implementing such a game. That is where, the discussion of having the game will include many of the points brought up in the responses above.
I didn't believe the Div 1 council would ever approve, but if you think of it in terms of a pure rematch every year, they, the other conferences that is, may (note I did not say "DO") see it as an opportunity to allow the B12 to remove itself from consideration by having an undefeated or high ranked program lose to a team they already beat once. While this may not always happen, we as Longhorn fans have experienced this in the past...For a couple of examples, in 1999 we beat Nebraska in the regular season, but lost to them in the CCG, and again in 2001 against Colorado, a team we destroyed in the regular season, but collapsed against in the CCG.
Rematches are nothing new, but every year being a rematch? That's going to take some serious thought and analysis before approval by the Conference. Why run the risk of a clear champ from round robin play being eliminated from the already musical chairs game the playoffs are currently? I like the idea better of conference requiring all members to strengthen their schedules by playing P5 teams for OOC play, which is not a guarantee of a place at the dance, but lessens the probability of elimination due to a poor performance in a rematch.
Whatever happens with the CCG approach, the head honchos making the decision need to thoroughly discuss the issue and make a careful and critical examination of all the probabilities, pro and con, and not look solely at the money from such a game, thereby losing site of the bigger reward.
I agree BevoJoe. If you decide to play 3 creampuffs, then you need to own the consequences and not blame the Big 12 cough Baylor cough.
The only reason Jerry would push his wife aside would be to beat her to the plastic surgeon.
Back in the BCS days when B12 had 12 teams in 2 divisions we had a whole series of tiebreakers to determine the Division champion including the BCS ranking. Three one loss teams in a division and the highest BCS ranking got to play the other division champion. IIRC
Also even if they played in regular season they could meet again in CCG as Division Champs.
It would make all sorts of sense to play a CCG in a tiebreaker year but I think $20-$25 million to the B12 conference members would get quite a few Presidents and ADs to vote for an annual CCG.
Especially the schools that don't play in the RRS.
I think that was 100% irrelevant. The name was the issue. If Rutgers had had Ohio State's season and Texas had had Baylor's season, Texas would have been in and Rutgers would have been out. Plus, anyone who would change their vote based on a legacy title that was nothing at all but a label that didn't change one single snap of one single game, has no business making any decisions related to football whatsoever.
This is dumb 2014 CFP knee jerk
Now the undefeated sure fire 100% lock for the CFP B12 first place team will lose to the 2 loss second place team in the CCG rematch and get knocked out of the CFP when they would have otherwise gotten in anyway.
See Nebraska 1996, Kansas State 1998, Texas 2001, Oklahoma 2003, Missouri 2007 as to why this is a bad idea. The CCG will knock you out of the CFP more often than it will get you in. A deserving conference champion team would get in without it.
The story is embedded
"Ooooook..lahoma where the wind come blowing down the plains..."
So is it just this writer's flair for the dramatic, or does anyone really refer to the Power 5 conferences "the five families " ?
Imagine the havoc that would play out when one team loses the regular season matchup, then meets up with that team in the CCG, only to lose the re-match.
This kind of **** only laughs in the face of those saying we can't have a playoff b/c it is about academics and we don't want these 'kids' to have to play 1 more game that could lead to more head injuries, etc. At the same time it brings CFB one step closer to a 16 team playoff.