(07-25-2012 02:09 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 01:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 01:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:35 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:26 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I actually think the sec should require the big 12 to have a champ game if its willing to play in the champ bowl. First, not playing a title game could give the big 12 a advantage since they only play 12 games. Second, if somehow the big 12 could pull in FSU, that greatly helps the sec try to land va/nc acc school's. The sec really has nothing to lose in demanding the big 12 have a champ game but it does have a possibility of something to gain if the big 12 holds such a game. Also, this isn't a lifetime contract, if after 5 years the sec doesn't like the deal, they could partner with the acc or even big 10, they ko their pac 12 hookup, in such a set up.

So much wrong with one conference forcing another to hold a CCG. I would think if that were truly a condition that the SEC would stipulate, they would not have announced the agreement to move forward with the bowl plans months ago. There are risks both ways (of having a CCG and not having a CCG), and remember this, it's also possible the SEC's CCG participants may both be in the playoff or the next highest ranked team in the conference could also not be a participant in the CCG, meaning the SEC's participant in the SEC/XII bowl would also not have been in a CCG and therefore only played 12 games. Seems absurd to me to require a CCG when it's possible that a team may not be involved in the CCG could be in the bowl.

Plus, I guess you haven't noticed, but all the major bowl deals are being signed for 12 years, not 5.

I think that the Big 12 should demand that the SEC contract to ten teams and not hold a conference championship game as a condition for playing that Cotton ("Champions") Bowl game.

What is wrong with that? It should work both ways, right? The Big 12 is one of the "Big 4 power conferences".

Why should they let the SEC push them around and tell them what to do in their back yard?

(See, the proposition is equally ludicrous in either direction).

What happens to perception if the SEC just goes ahead and signs a deal with the ACC if this one with the Big 12 falls through?

Then I guess all of the Big 12 fans will have to endure all of the "stuff" that has been dished out to the ACC fans for the last several months.
BTW if Florida State leaves the ACC for either the SEC or the Big 12, it won't "free up" any school in NC or Va.

Yes, I wouldn't want to be a Big 12 fan on this board should that day come.

As far as FSU leaving not freeing up anyone, I am going to respond using the scenario I used in the OP. If FSU leaves it is with friends. If that includes Clemson, Georgia Tech with possibles of Miami or even Maryland then that leaves a huge dent in the ACC. I guess we would have to agree to disagree that such a loss won't drastically damage the ACC's potential. That is going to make V Tech's conference schedule rating get even worse.

You are right, it doesn't necessarily mean it Will free them up but I think you are being a bit too absolute in saying that it Won't free them up either. It may or it may not free any others up. We just don't know all the ramifications of something that big happening.

(07-25-2012 01:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 01:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:35 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:26 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I actually think the sec should require the big 12 to have a champ game if its willing to play in the champ bowl. First, not playing a title game could give the big 12 a advantage since they only play 12 games. Second, if somehow the big 12 could pull in FSU, that greatly helps the sec try to land va/nc acc school's. The sec really has nothing to lose in demanding the big 12 have a champ game but it does have a possibility of something to gain if the big 12 holds such a game. Also, this isn't a lifetime contract, if after 5 years the sec doesn't like the deal, they could partner with the acc or even big 10, they ko their pac 12 hookup, in such a set up.

So much wrong with one conference forcing another to hold a CCG. I would think if that were truly a condition that the SEC would stipulate, they would not have announced the agreement to move forward with the bowl plans months ago. There are risks both ways (of having a CCG and not having a CCG), and remember this, it's also possible the SEC's CCG participants may both be in the playoff or the next highest ranked team in the conference could also not be a participant in the CCG, meaning the SEC's participant in the SEC/XII bowl would also not have been in a CCG and therefore only played 12 games. Seems absurd to me to require a CCG when it's possible that a team may not be involved in the CCG could be in the bowl.

Plus, I guess you haven't noticed, but all the major bowl deals are being signed for 12 years, not 5.

I think that the Big 12 should demand that the SEC contract to ten teams and not hold a conference championship game as a condition for playing that Cotton ("Champions") Bowl game.

What is wrong with that? It should work both ways, right? The Big 12 is one of the "Big 4 power conferences".

Why should they let the SEC push them around and tell them what to do in their back yard?

(See, the proposition is equally ludicrous in either direction).

What happens to perception if the SEC just goes ahead and signs a deal with the ACC if this one with the Big 12 falls through?

I don't give a damn either way.

But, I haven't believed for one second that the SEC could or would do this.

I also don't think that the Big 12 would/should react any way other than to tell the SEC to kiss their ass.

I have seen nothing to suggest that this is anything but some guy's fantasy repeated again and again on the internet.

But, if so, I would love to see the Big 12 and the ACC to sign this deal if the SEC were trying to dictate membership demands on another conference.

That would be fun........

(07-25-2012 02:35 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 01:57 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 01:45 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:35 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 12:26 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I actually think the sec should require the big 12 to have a champ game if its willing to play in the champ bowl. First, not playing a title game could give the big 12 a advantage since they only play 12 games. Second, if somehow the big 12 could pull in FSU, that greatly helps the sec try to land va/nc acc school's. The sec really has nothing to lose in demanding the big 12 have a champ game but it does have a possibility of something to gain if the big 12 holds such a game. Also, this isn't a lifetime contract, if after 5 years the sec doesn't like the deal, they could partner with the acc or even big 10, they ko their pac 12 hookup, in such a set up.

So much wrong with one conference forcing another to hold a CCG. I would think if that were truly a condition that the SEC would stipulate, they would not have announced the agreement to move forward with the bowl plans months ago. There are risks both ways (of having a CCG and not having a CCG), and remember this, it's also possible the SEC's CCG participants may both be in the playoff or the next highest ranked team in the conference could also not be a participant in the CCG, meaning the SEC's participant in the SEC/XII bowl would also not have been in a CCG and therefore only played 12 games. Seems absurd to me to require a CCG when it's possible that a team may not be involved in the CCG could be in the bowl.

Plus, I guess you haven't noticed, but all the major bowl deals are being signed for 12 years, not 5.

I think that the Big 12 should demand that the SEC contract to ten teams and not hold a conference championship game as a condition for playing that Cotton ("Champions") Bowl game.

What is wrong with that? It should work both ways, right? The Big 12 is one of the "Big 4 power conferences".

Why should they let the SEC push them around and tell them what to do in their back yard?

(See, the proposition is equally ludicrous in either direction).

What happens to perception if the SEC just goes ahead and signs a deal with the ACC if this one with the Big 12 falls through?

I don't give a damn either way.

But, I haven't believed for one second that the SEC could or would do this.

I also don't think that the Big 12 would/should react any way other than to tell the SEC to kiss their ass.

I have seen nothing to suggest that this is anything but some guy's fantasy repeated again and again on the internet.

But, if so, I would love to see the Big 12 and the ACC to sign this deal if the SEC were trying to dictate membership demands on another conference.

That would be fun........

If that were the case, why would the ACC sign with the Big 12, when the SEC would be available? If as some think it's going towards 4 main conferences, why wouldn't you hitch your wagon to the SEC?

Only if the SEC wants 'em, stever...

(07-25-2012 02:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Only if the SEC wants 'em, stever...

If this clause is real(and I'm not sure one way or the other)- and Big 12 told the SEC to f off, why wouldn't the SEC want the ACC?

See, in my imaginary scenario, the SEC is trying to tell other conferences what their make up should be, what schools they should have as members, and how many (kind of thinking they are ESPN, or sumthin').

In that scenario, both the ACC and the Big 12 would tell the SEC to fork off, just to spite them and piss them off.

I know that is an imaginary response, but the whole thing is imaginary anyway.

(07-25-2012 11:36 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 11:23 AM)bullet Wrote:  But the idea that the champion's bowl contract includes a requirement for the Big 12 to go to 12 teams seems ridiculous. Neinas said it wasn't true. At MOST, there might be some clause on splitting revenues between the Big 12 and SEC that makes it financially beneficial to have 12 teams instead of 10.

Can you post a link to Nienas saying it wasn't true(hadn't seen that on the internet)

I don't remember where I saw that. I think it was someone's tweet. McMurphy maybe?

(07-25-2012 11:50 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 11:18 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 11:05 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 11:01 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I don't know why a CCG is seen as a risk compared to a full round-robin. It's not as though you can hide in a weak division for the bulk of the year and then face one tough foe for an unexpected knockout. Anybody who's good enough to be a division champion (and thus good enough to knock you out of a playoff spot) is already on your schedule. I suppose there's always the "it's hard to beat someone twice in one year" angle, but while the round robin ensures that you'll play all the creampuffs in your conference, it also ensures that you'll play all of the big dogs, too.

Well, 2 things...
1- it's an extra game. More fatigue(both mental and physical). More chances for injuries. An extra chance for team to lose.
2- as you alude to, the tough to beat a good team twice angle.

KSU's upset loss in 1998 knocked them out of the BCS title game
Texas's upset loss in 2001 knocked them out of the BCS title game
OU's upset loss in 2003 almost knocked them out of the BCS title game
Missouri's upset loss in 2007 knocked them out of the BCS title game.

So there's 4 things in 15 years. And Nebraska's upset loss in 1996 would have knocked them out of a 4 team playoff as they would have been #3 with a win. And Texas nearly got knocked out of the BCS title game in 2009 when the QB almost blew the last few seconds.

I certainly agree that there's a history of that in the Big 12. But at the same time, it shows how those teams which were upset in the CCG hadn't played key opponents in the regular season due to the divisional setup. For example, in 1998 K-State only played Texas, Oklahoma State, and Baylor from the south during the regular season - they couldn't have played aTm until the CCG. 2001 Texas played a tough Colorado in the regular season as well, but not a tough Nebraska team, getting Kansas and Missouri instead. 2003 Oklahoma didn't play KSU until the CCG, nor did they play a ranked Nebraska team. The 2007 Missouri team did beat OU earlier in the year, but they didn't have to play a tough Texas team.

Minor correction-Missouri actually lost to OU twice in 2007, but OU had lost other games and so was the underdog to #1 Missouri. Texas beat CU 41-7 earlier in the season, but lost by 2 in the ccg. Didn't really matter, UT, CU, NU, Oregon all would have lost to that Miami team.

I agree the Big-12 is simply being short-sighted on this. So the argument is that they (Texas, Oklahoma) are NOT entertaining 12 teams so they (Texas, Oklahoma) do not risk losing in a championship game? Um, how about man up and win a freakin' game that matters! And please, stop standing behind the "we like the round robin" nonsense that the PAC and B1G just abandoned.

I still suggest that if the Big-12 would have had a championship game last year, Okie State would have had the opportunity to showcase another meaningful game and would have leapfrogged Bama to #2. You can't simply mimic a conference championship game environment by scheduling a regular season game the same week everyone else is playing a ranked conference opponent. The voters did not care....and I'm willing to forecast that neither will a selection committee.

(07-25-2012 04:59 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I agree the Big-12 is simply being short-sighted on this. So the argument is that they (Texas, Oklahoma) are NOT entertaining 12 teams so they (Texas, Oklahoma) do not risk losing in a championship game? Um, how about man up and win a freakin' game that matters! And please, stop standing behind the "we like the round robin" nonsense that the PAC and B1G just abandoned.

I still suggest that if the Big-12 would have had a championship game last year, Okie State would have had the opportunity to showcase another meaningful game and would have leapfrogged Bama to #2. You can't simply mimic a conference championship game environment by scheduling a regular season game the same week everyone else is playing a ranked conference opponent. The voters did not care....and I'm willing to forecast that neither will a selection committee.

Ok St won convincingly that weekend over OU, the #2 team in a conference. They couldn't have done much more.

(07-25-2012 10:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-25-2012 04:59 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  I agree the Big-12 is simply being short-sighted on this. So the argument is that they (Texas, Oklahoma) are NOT entertaining 12 teams so they (Texas, Oklahoma) do not risk losing in a championship game? Um, how about man up and win a freakin' game that matters! And please, stop standing behind the "we like the round robin" nonsense that the PAC and B1G just abandoned.

I still suggest that if the Big-12 would have had a championship game last year, Okie State would have had the opportunity to showcase another meaningful game and would have leapfrogged Bama to #2. You can't simply mimic a conference championship game environment by scheduling a regular season game the same week everyone else is playing a ranked conference opponent. The voters did not care....and I'm willing to forecast that neither will a selection committee.

Ok St won convincingly that weekend over OU, the #2 team in a conference. They couldn't have done much more.

I don't think that there's anything OSU could have done to convince the pollsters last year. But that's history now. I still think that having to play every team in the conference as part of your regular season (and thus never missing out on playing tough teams by luck of divisional setup and/or the scheduling draw) is no less legitimate than having a CCG. That's not to say that there can't be a down year in a conference where that full schedule isn't tough - but if a conference is down overall, it wouldn't matter if there were round robin play or divisional + CCG play.

A 10 conference league also ensures that you play the bottom feeders every year.

That's true - but no league has a division full of only big dogs (although the SEC West in particular is pretty damned formidable), and there's also the chance for cross-divisional play against lesser teams. My point is not to denigrate the divisional + CCG structure, but just to point out that there are also challenges in playing the round robin format.

(07-26-2012 09:26 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  A 10 conference league also ensures that you play the bottom feeders every year.

Creating a larger conference doesn't allow you to avoid the bottom feeders either. You'll miss some. But you miss some top teams as well. So it's the same either way...

(07-26-2012 09:26 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  A 10 conference league also ensures that you play the bottom feeders every year.

A 12 team league means you have unbalanced schedules and often miss the best teams from the other division.

For example, last year neither Alabama or LSU played the two best teams in the east, Georgia and South Carolina. Alabama, despite playing in the SEC, only played LSU and Arkansas among teams ranked in the final AP poll. Oklahoma St. played 4 teams-and won all 4 games, OU, Baylor, Kansas St. and Stanford, who were ranked in the final AP Poll, in addition to Texas and Missouri who were in the BCS top 25.

(07-26-2012 11:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 09:26 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  A 10 conference league also ensures that you play the bottom feeders every year.

A 12 team league means you have unbalanced schedules and often miss the best teams from the other division.

For example, last year neither Alabama or LSU played the two best teams in the east, Georgia and South Carolina. Alabama, despite playing in the SEC, only played LSU and Arkansas among teams ranked in the final AP poll. Oklahoma St. played 4 teams-and won all 4 games, OU, Baylor, Kansas St. and Stanford, who were ranked in the final AP Poll, in addition to Texas and Missouri who were in the BCS top 25.

Another example, Georgia didn't have to play Bama, LSU, or Arkansas last year and don't have to play them this year either if my memory serves me correctly.

(07-26-2012 11:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 09:26 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  A 10 conference league also ensures that you play the bottom feeders every year.

A 12 team league means you have unbalanced schedules and often miss the best teams from the other division.

For example, last year neither Alabama or LSU played the two best teams in the east, Georgia and South Carolina. Alabama, despite playing in the SEC, only played LSU and Arkansas among teams ranked in the final AP poll. Oklahoma St. played 4 teams-and won all 4 games, OU, Baylor, Kansas St. and Stanford, who were ranked in the final AP Poll, in addition to Texas and Missouri who were in the BCS top 25.

Which are you going to use, the final AP poll or the final BCS ranking?

If you are counting Okie St's bowl game, then you have to count that Bama and LSU played twice. And LSU did play Georgia, in the conference title game.

If you count bowl games and the final BCS ranking, then

Alabama's games vs. ranked teams (with final BCS ranking): LSU (1), LSU (1), Arkansas (6), Penn State (22), Auburn (25)

LSU's games vs. ranked teams: Bama (2), Bama (2), Oregon (5), Arkansas (6), Georgia (16), West Virginia (23), Auburn (25)

Okla St's games vs. ranked teams: Stanford (4), K-State (8), Baylor (12), Oklahoma (14), Texas (24)

If you use the post-bowl AP poll instead of the final BCS rankings, then omit Auburn, Texas, and Penn State.

This thread reminds of me of...

(07-26-2012 11:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 09:26 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  A 10 conference league also ensures that you play the bottom feeders every year.

A 12 team league means you have unbalanced schedules and often miss the best teams from the other division.

For example, last year neither Alabama or LSU played the two best teams in the east, Georgia and South Carolina. Alabama, despite playing in the SEC, only played LSU and Arkansas among teams ranked in the final AP poll. Oklahoma St. played 4 teams-and won all 4 games, OU, Baylor, Kansas St. and Stanford, who were ranked in the final AP Poll, in addition to Texas and Missouri who were in the BCS top 25.

lswho plays the bottom feeders yearly. Excuse me miss and the leghumpers are in the west.

(07-26-2012 09:19 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 11:27 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-26-2012 09:26 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  A 10 conference league also ensures that you play the bottom feeders every year.

A 12 team league means you have unbalanced schedules and often miss the best teams from the other division.

For example, last year neither Alabama or LSU played the two best teams in the east, Georgia and South Carolina. Alabama, despite playing in the SEC, only played LSU and Arkansas among teams ranked in the final AP poll. Oklahoma St. played 4 teams-and won all 4 games, OU, Baylor, Kansas St. and Stanford, who were ranked in the final AP Poll, in addition to Texas and Missouri who were in the BCS top 25.

lswho plays the bottom feeders yearly. Excuse me miss and the leghumpers are in the west.

That made me laugh...never heard Miss State referred to as the "leghumpers" before! It all balances out....LSU also does not get to play Kentucky or Vandy every year either.

I guess it's a good thing the Big-12 has their revolutionary vision with a round-robin format, that way OU won't lose a wayward game to Texas Tech or Okie St won't lose that game to Iowa State.....!