B12 slated to host a title game with 10 teams

[Ty Webb]

Originally posted by cubuffsdoug:

Originally posted by Ty Webb:

Originally posted by cubuffsdoug:
The only place I've seen this info being reported is on CBSsports.com by Dennis Dodd and if you believe him, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Even on a SU site they doubt what Dodd is reporting. Why would the other power 5 conference give in so easily after they have worked hard to expand their conferencs for a championship? It must be a slow team of the year for college football news.

The better question is why the hell would the other conferences even care at this point? The Big 12 having 10 teams and a conference champ game isn't costing the other conferences money. So why the heck would or should they care?

And again, people have to stop with the idea that conferences expanded only for pure competitive reasons to have a champ game. They expanded for money. Plain and simple.

It's all about money, but the rules were established back in the late 80s by the lower divisions to hold a conference championship game. It must be a conference of at least 12 teams to hold a game. For 20+ years every level within the NCAA has followed that rule without a problem to reach their desired results. So now why shouldn't those conferences have problem with the same 2 conferences (B12 & ACC) for always trying to beat the system in order to survive their lack of foresight about expansion and fear of another raid. The conference championship now plays a big role in deciding the playoff teams and that's why the other power 5 could have a problem with it.

This sentence makes no sense at all. If anything, the other 5 power conference teams should absolutely want the BIG 12 to have a conference title game, even with 10 teams, because it helps limit the chances that two Big 12 teams could get in or an additional champ game could result in a situation where a worthwhile Big 12 team gets bounced from the playoffs. For all intents and purposes, a conference champ game loser is out, regardless of the record.

People can't whine both ways. First it was it was unfair that the Big 12 and ND don't have to play an extra game and that gives them an advantage in the playoff world. Now the Big 12 might want to have a conference champ game and people are bitching that's unfair the Big 12 can have a champ game now.

The 12 member rule, if you listen to most people especially those around when the thing went into place 20+ years ago say it's a pretty meaningless rule at this point and misapplied today by Div 1 teams. And logically, no one has given one solid reason why the rule is good. The argument that the other conferences followed the rule therefore it's a good rule is about as weak as it gets.

So I'll ask again why is it bad that the Big 12 could possibly host a champ game with only 10 teams?




This post was edited on 4/9 1:24 PM by Ty Webb

 

[Scarlet16E]

If the B12 wants to ensure that it's champion has a good shot of getting selected into the current 4-team playoff setup, holding a championship will help (it represents one additional game versus a good team), but the schools must also step up their OOC schedules. Baylor's OOC is not one that should ever merit a playoff selection, unless they are undefeated.

 

[sherrane]

Originally posted by bac2therac:
So what if things are biased toward power 5...newsflash Rutgers is powet 5 people need to stop worrying about the little guy

I cannot agree with this sentiment. "I got mine. Screw everyone else" is a statement that Gordon Gecko could love. If the P5 is as good and powerful as they think they are, they don't need additional rules to protect themselves. If the G5 are second class citizens, then make a formal break and create a new official division.

FCS (1AA)
FBS (Group of 5)
FPS (Power 5 / Playoff Group)

FPS can then treat FBS as the FCS is treated now and FCS are no longer sanctioned. That means each FPS team plays 11 or 12 games against other FPS and can schedule one FBS opponent that count in the standings. Doing that would give the playoff committee much better data to choose from.

 

[sherrane]

Originally posted by huskersalways:
Bill Hancock is on XM right now saying that they may change the rule but that doesn't mean the Big 12 will have a CCG. Hmmmm. Why change the rule then?

This is a petition the ACC filed and the Big 12 later joined. Initially the ACC wanted the freedom to match their two highest ranked teams in the championship game instead of having to match the division winners.

2013 #1 Florida State vs #13 Clemson instead of #20 Duke.
2012 #12 Florida State vs #13 Clemson instead of unranked Georgia Tech

Last year, after the petition was filed, they likely saw the same thing happening again. Instead, Georgia Tech finished with wins over Clemson and Georgia to finish with a higher ranking than Clemson.

The Big 12 joined the petition expressly for the purpose of holding a conference championship game with less than 12 teams. They are not forced to crown the conference winner based on season results and could allow the playoff committee to select their champion if they choose. When they had a 3-way tie for the South in 2008 between Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech, the selected Oklahoma due to their BCS rankings (which is how the Big East selected their BCS rep in a 3-way tie). It might be the B12 is getting some brush back with this and are in damage control.

 

[RUfinal4]

I like this idea from the ACC perspective. They have more than 12 teams and can host a championship game. They are trying to get their 2 best teams involved vs. sometimes the best team vs. the 3rd or 4th best team because the other division is weaker.

An ACC 15 team football conference would make sense with 3 divisions of 5 plus ND.
- each team plays 4 division games
- each team plays 3 teams from of the other 2 divisions
- the 8th game will be a locked rivalry game (if no rivalry is exists outside of the divisions then a 4th game will be added to the prior line)
- the 9th game will be vs. Notre Dame or an extra game vs. the other divisions

For the B12 they should not be allowed a championship game with less than 12 teams.

For the SEC and B10 they can follow the ACC's lead on a 3rd division

For the P12 they can also look into 3 divisions of 4 teams

 

[Ty Webb]

Originally posted by RUfinal4:
I like this idea from the ACC perspective. They have more than 12 teams and can host a championship game. They are trying to get their 2 best teams involved vs. sometimes the best team vs. the 3rd or 4th best team because the other division is weaker.

An ACC 15 team football conference would make sense with 3 divisions of 5 plus ND.
- each team plays 4 division games
- each team plays 3 teams from of the other 2 divisions
- the 8th game will be a locked rivalry game (if no rivalry is exists outside of the divisions then a 4th game will be added to the prior line)
- the 9th game will be vs. Notre Dame or an extra game vs. the other divisions

For the B12 they should not be allowed a championship game with less than 12 teams.

For the SEC and B10 they can follow the ACC's lead on a 3rd division

For the P12 they can also look into 3 divisions of 4 teams

Why? I am looking for reasoning beyond the, "Well the other conferences have more than 12" angle people keep trying to play.




In other words, what advantage is the Big 12 getting by being able to have a champ game with only 10 teams and/or what disadvantage are the other 4 conferences facing by allowing this?

This post was edited on 4/9 2:04 PM by Ty Webb

 

[krup]

Originally posted by Ty Webb:

Originally posted by cubuffsdoug:




It's all about money, but the rules were established back in the late 80s by the lower divisions to hold a conference championship game. It must be a conference of at least 12 teams to hold a game. For 20+ years every level within the NCAA has followed that rule without a problem to reach their desired results. So now why shouldn't those conferences have problem with the same 2 conferences (B12 & ACC) for always trying to beat the system in order to survive their lack of foresight about expansion and fear of another raid. The conference championship now plays a big role in deciding the playoff teams and that's why the other power 5 could have a problem with it.

This sentence makes no sense at all. If anything, the other 5 power conference teams should absolutely want the BIG 12 to have a conference title game, even with 10 teams, because it helps limit the chances that two Big 12 teams could get in or an additional champ game could result in a situation where a worthwhile Big 12 team gets bounced from the playoffs. For all intents and purposes, a conference champ game loser is out, regardless of the record.

People can't whine both ways. First it was it was unfair that the Big 12 and ND don't have to play an extra game and that gives them an advantage in the playoff world. Now the Big 12 might want to have a conference champ game and people are bitching that's unfair the Big 12 can have a champ game now.

The 12 member rule, if you listen to most people especially those around when the thing went into place 20+ years ago say it's a pretty meaningless rule at this point and misapplied today by Div 1 teams. And logically, no one has given one solid reason why the rule is good. The argument that the other conferences followed the rule therefore it's a good rule is about as weak as it gets.

So I'll ask again why is it bad that the Big 12 could possibly host a champ game with only 10 teams?




This post was edited on 4/9 1:24 PM by Ty Webb

I will play's devil's advocate for this one. Why is it bad that the Big 12 could possibly host a champ game with only 10 teams?

-Because a conference without divisions will have the advantage of getting the two best teams and will not be stuck with two division winners. For example, in a "no-division" SEC last year there was no way that Missouri is in the championship game.

-In a similar vein, a three division ACC would have an advantage because they would be able to dump the weakest division winner and make the best matchup.

The P5 conferences have to worry more about their champ being outside of the top 4 than they do the small chance that the no championship game advantage for the B12 will get them two teams in.

 

[Virginiarufan]

The ACC has the Big Twelve's back on this because they don't want the Big Twelve to raid them.

Ensuring the B12 can have a conference championship with only ten members, means the B12 won't go after FSU and Clemson.

This is why they are supporting them, they aren't actually planning on going to 3 divisions.

 

[krup]

Originally posted by Ty Webb:
Why? I am looking for reasoning beyond the, "Well the other conferences have more than 12" angle people keep trying to play.




In other words, what advantage is the Big 12 getting by being able to have a champ game with only 10 teams and/or what disadvantage are the other 4 conferences facing by allowing this?
This post was edited on 4/9 2:04 PM by Ty Webb

The answer is staring you in the face from as recently as last year.

If the B12 had divisions TCU and Baylor would be in the same one and they couldn't meet in a champ game. Since they don't have divisions with only 10 teams, the B12 would have been able to match them up in a championship game. The winner of that game would have made the playoff over OSU no matter how bad OSU beat an improving Wisconsin team.

The ability to match-up your two best teams instead of your two division winners is a HUGE advantage in a system where one P5 champion stays home.

 

[Ty Webb]

Originally posted by krup:

Originally posted by Ty Webb:


Why? I am looking for reasoning beyond the, "Well the other conferences have more than 12" angle people keep trying to play.






In other words, what advantage is the Big 12 getting by being able to have a champ game with only 10 teams and/or what disadvantage are the other 4 conferences facing by allowing this?


This post was edited on 4/9 2:04 PM by Ty Webb

The answer is staring you in the face from as recently as last year.

If the B12 had divisions TCU and Baylor would be in the same one and they couldn't meet in a champ game. Since they don't have divisions with only 10 teams, the B12 would have been able to match them up in a championship game. The winner of that game would have made the playoff over OSU no matter how bad OSU beat an improving Wisconsin team.

The ability to match-up your two best teams instead of your two division winners is a HUGE advantage in a system where one P5 champion stays home.

It also can be a disadvantage. Let's use your example but let's say Baylor is 12-0 and TCU is 10-2.

In the Big Ten, 12-0 OSU is playing 8-4 Iowa in the Big Ten title game.

In both cases, the undefeated team is out with a loss. But OSU would appear to have the weaker opponent and the easier game to get to the playoffs.

Again it gets back to the premise that people bitched that it wasn't fair the Big 12 didnt have to play an extra game, now it's unfair if they do. Plus, if it's such a big advantage for the Big 12, the other conferences could drop the two division system themselves and pair the top 2 teams, or go to 3 divisions like the ACC. So again, there isn't any solid arguments against this IMO.
This post was edited on 4/9 2:31 PM by Ty Webb

 

[krup]

Originally posted by Ty Webb:

Originally posted by krup:

Originally posted by Ty Webb:

Why? I am looking for reasoning beyond the, "Well the other conferences have more than 12" angle people keep trying to play.





In other words, what advantage is the Big 12 getting by being able to have a champ game with only 10 teams and/or what disadvantage are the other 4 conferences facing by allowing this?

This post was edited on 4/9 2:04 PM by Ty Webb

The answer is staring you in the face from as recently as last year.

If the B12 had divisions TCU and Baylor would be in the same one and they couldn't meet in a champ game. Since they don't have divisions with only 10 teams, the B12 would have been able to match them up in a championship game. The winner of that game would have made the playoff over OSU no matter how bad OSU beat an improving Wisconsin team.

The ability to match-up your two best teams instead of your two division winners is a HUGE advantage in a system where one P5 champion stays home.

It also can be a disadvantage. Let's use your example but let's say Baylor is 12-0 and TCU is 10-2.

In the Big Ten, 12-0 OSU is playing 8-4 Iowa in the Big Ten title game.

In both cases, the undefeated team is out with a loss. But OSU would appear to have the weaker opponent and the easier game to get to the playoffs.

Again it gets back to the premise that people bitched that it wasn't fair the Big 12 didnt have to play an extra game, now it's unfair if they do.

More often than not, the 12-0 teams are going to win the championship game. When they do, the B12 has an advantage because they were able to create the best matchup.

You can cite the exceptions that will happen infrequently if you want, but in this 4 team playoff setup the worst thing that can happen to a P5 conference is that its best team wins its championship and still doesn't get into the playoff.

If OSU didn't make the playoff last year because they lost to Wisc, that would have been their fault. If they beat Wisc and didn't make the playoff, that would be humiliating for them and the B1G.

 

[Ty Webb]

Originally posted by krup:

Originally posted by Ty Webb:

Originally posted by krup:

Originally posted by Ty Webb:


Why? I am looking for reasoning beyond the, "Well the other conferences have more than 12" angle people keep trying to play.






In other words, what advantage is the Big 12 getting by being able to have a champ game with only 10 teams and/or what disadvantage are the other 4 conferences facing by allowing this?

This post was edited on 4/9 2:04 PM by Ty Webb

The answer is staring you in the face from as recently as last year.

If the B12 had divisions TCU and Baylor would be in the same one and they couldn't meet in a champ game. Since they don't have divisions with only 10 teams, the B12 would have been able to match them up in a championship game. The winner of that game would have made the playoff over OSU no matter how bad OSU beat an improving Wisconsin team.

The ability to match-up your two best teams instead of your two division winners is a HUGE advantage in a system where one P5 champion stays home.

It also can be a disadvantage. Let's use your example but let's say Baylor is 12-0 and TCU is 10-2.

In the Big Ten, 12-0 OSU is playing 8-4 Iowa in the Big Ten title game.

In both cases, the undefeated team is out with a loss. But OSU would appear to have the weaker opponent and the easier game to get to the playoffs.

Again it gets back to the premise that people bitched that it wasn't fair the Big 12 didnt have to play an extra game, now it's unfair if they do.

More often than not, the 12-0 teams are going to win the championship game. When they do, the B12 has an advantage because they were able to create the best matchup.

You can cite the exceptions that will happen infrequently if you want, but in this 4 team playoff setup the worst thing that can happen to a P5 conference is that its best team wins its championship and still doesn't get into the playoff.

If OSU didn't make the playoff last year because they lost to Wisc, that would have been their fault. If they beat Wisc and didn't make the playoff, that would be humiliating for them and the B1G.

Their resume would have been weaker than TCU's or Baylor's though. For example, if TCU had beaten Baylor in a champ game and gone 13-1............. they would have been justified in getting a bid over OSU. TCU's only loss would have been to a highly ranked Baylor team earlier in the year............ OSU would have lost to a shit VT team.

Again, this is just some BIG fans IMO bitching for bitching sake. All last year, when it looked like TCU might get the bid over OSU, they complained that TCU should have to play in a champ game. Now that the Big 12 might get a champ game, let's bitch about that.

Plus, as I said in my edit, nothing is stopping the BIG from changing how they handle their champ game to give them a better advantage, if there is indeed this huge advantage you claim there is.

 

[MozRU]

Originally posted by Virginiarufan:
The ACC has the Big Twelve's back on this because they don't want the Big Twelve to raid them.

Ensuring the B12 can have a conference championship with only ten members, means the B12 won't go after FSU and Clemson.

This is why they are supporting them, they aren't actually planning on going to 3 divisions.

This, I agree with.

As the B12 is thinking (Keep the enemy close. They won't see us strike. The irony).

ACC are chumps. I can't wait for them to go down. We (the BE FBall) were a good FBall conference.



This post was edited on 4/9 4:27 PM by MozRU