CSNbbs

Full Version: Anyone find it silly that conferences without divisions...
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
How silly is it conferences without divisions are holding conference championship games? Or, I suppose that the Big 12 is since it's the only one with less than 12 members holding one?
I still don't know why they didn't add a few schools...not a very well run conference
(12-02-2017 03:07 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]How silly is it conferences without divisions are holding conference championship games? Or, I suppose that the Big 12 is since it's the only one with less than 12 members holding one?

There's a logic to it. Teams don't play home and home so a single game doesn't necessarily prove who is most deserving.
(12-02-2017 03:23 PM)EvilVodka Wrote: [ -> ]I still don't know why they didn't add a few schools...not a very well run conference

Because most of the value of the media contract is concentrated in the super-elite programs--Texas, Oklahoma. More schools don't grow the pie, they shrink everyone else's slice.
@ quo

True but they do play round robin, which is more than fair. Football conferences have never been double round robin except in the very old days with much smaller conferences. Imagine a scenario where Team A beats Team B by 50 but loses to them by 1 in the CCG. It's one thing in two division conferences but ridiculous in single division conferences.
I say BS on the elite name schools. They are old school, and most of them have falling to second fiddle like Miami florida. The hot name teams are in the G5, and adding any schools from the G5 would bring excitement to the conference. There are P5 schools that do not belong in P5 anymore while G5 schools who attract more of a tv following are getting the shaft. Schools should be paid for on tv performance in ratings instead of name brand.
A tiebreaker game is one thing if you want to ignore head-to-head for reasons like you brought up but a CCG with no divisions is silly.
(12-02-2017 03:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]I say BS on the elite name schools. They are old school, and most of them have falling to second fiddle like Miami florida. The hot name teams are in the G5, and adding any schools from the G5 would bring excitement to the conference. There are P5 schools that do not belong in P5 anymore while G5 schools who attract more of a tv following are getting the shaft. Schools should be paid for on tv performance in ratings instead of name brand.

What? I'm guessing you're in the wrong thread.
(12-02-2017 04:01 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-02-2017 03:57 PM)DavidSt Wrote: [ -> ]I say BS on the elite name schools. They are old school, and most of them have falling to second fiddle like Miami florida. The hot name teams are in the G5, and adding any schools from the G5 would bring excitement to the conference. There are P5 schools that do not belong in P5 anymore while G5 schools who attract more of a tv following are getting the shaft. Schools should be paid for on tv performance in ratings instead of name brand.

What? I'm guessing you're in the wrong thread.

I am responding to JohnBragg about elite schools.
If it bothers you in football, does it bother you in other sports? Why should a conference that plays double round-robin in basketball even bother with a tournament?
Well this year at least, it paid off for the Big 12. Big crowd, and OU's emphatic win erases all doubt about the playoffs, they are in.
(12-02-2017 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Well this year at least, it paid off for the Big 12. Big crowd, and OU's emphatic win erases all doubt about the playoffs, they are in.

It was well attended and it cemented OU’s spot in the playoffs. But regardless of what the Big XII does is damn if they do, damn if they don’t.
Quote:If it bothers you in football, does it bother you in other sports? Why should a conference that plays double round-robin in basketball even bother with a tournament?

Totally different setup. The "its" aren't the same.

In basketball, a conference tournament is all the teams playing against each other.

In football, a conference championship is just the Top 2 against each other.

Can't compare one to the other as an analogy.
(12-02-2017 04:11 PM)chargeradio Wrote: [ -> ]If it bothers you in football, does it bother you in other sports? Why should a conference that plays double round-robin in basketball even bother with a tournament?

That's actually a very legit question. There's nothing inherently wrong with conference tournaments but they do provide an unfair advantage to the lower half of the bracket, especially in 1-bid conferences where the best teams from the season may not come close to winning it and earning an NCAA Tournament bid.
(12-02-2017 04:41 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]
(12-02-2017 04:11 PM)chargeradio Wrote: [ -> ]If it bothers you in football, does it bother you in other sports? Why should a conference that plays double round-robin in basketball even bother with a tournament?

That's actually a very legit question. There's nothing inherently wrong with conference tournaments but they do provide an unfair advantage to the lower half of the bracket, especially in 1-bid conferences where the best teams from the season may not come close to winning it and earning an NCAA Tournament bid.

Well, the flip side is that in a one-bid league, since everyone knows it's a one-bid league, the teams know the purpose of the regular season is to prepare for the conference tournament.
(12-02-2017 04:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Well this year at least, it paid off for the Big 12. Big crowd, and OU's emphatic win erases all doubt about the playoffs, they are in.

Yep. It was a big success for the big 12. Sealed tbe deal for Ok to be in the playoffs. Otherwise they could be left out with the CCG's this year.
(12-02-2017 03:07 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]How silly is it conferences without divisions are holding conference championship games? Or, I suppose that the Big 12 is since it's the only one with less than 12 members holding one?

Frankly, I think any conference should be able to define the way their conference champ is crowned (as long as they play no more games than anyone else). If it works for the schools in the conference, then it should be of no concern to anyone else including the NCAA. If you want 5 4-team divisions and the top two division champs per Massey move on to the CCG---why should anyone else have any say over that?
Well of course I have no say in it. It doesn't make it any less silly.
(12-02-2017 06:46 PM)_C2_ Wrote: [ -> ]Well of course I have no say in it. It doesn't make it any less silly.

Well like i said, conceptually it is defensible, because unlike in hoops, the teams don't play home and away, which gives one team an advantage.

E.g., three years ago, everyone said Baylor was the rightful Big 12 champ over TCU, because even though they had the same conference record, Baylor won H2H. But, Baylor's H2H win was a skin of the teeth win by 3 points at home, which is hardly decisive. A CCG between them on a neutral field would have been the best way to settle it.

Now i agree, sometimes it might not be as justifiable. E.g., imagine a situation where team X is 9-0 and second place team Y is 7-2, and team X beat team Y at team Y during the season. In that case, team X has clearly proven itself best and it would be an injustice for Y to get to beat them in one game and be the champs. But that just means that either way, there's no perfect standard solution in a situation where so few games are played.
There could be a three way tie as well, in which case you'd have to remove a team based on point differentials or whatever the tie breaker is.

I don't like H2H either because the winning team may have had homefield advantage in that regular season game.

It's better having a game, but they'd be better off adding at least one more team and two teams and two divisions and go to an 8 game conference schedule. More quality OOC games is better.
Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's