HP-TBDPITL
All American
![*](images/groupimages/allamerican.gif)
Posts: 3,495
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 82
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
|
RE: Big 12 holding off on title game push
(02-21-2013 12:08 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: (02-21-2013 11:40 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote: The push wouldn't matter anyway...its not going to be changed.
I'm sure the Big 12 understands basic math (although their conference name doesn't seem to indicate such). The reason for the "12" team champ rule is because with 12 teams not everyone can play each other...i.e...the need for a champ game to decide the title. With 10 teams everyone can play everyone so there is no need for a champ game.
If you don't believe me that it won't be changed, think about the fact that the Big Ten sat for like 20 years with 11 members and no champ game. Even though TV would have paid a pretty penny for it. I don't recall the Big Ten talking about changing a rule for their benefit....it's just not going to happen when other conferences have added members for the express purpose of getting that game and the additional revenue. The MWC will be at 12 now and the Big East is moving toward it by 2015.
I think you are making some assumptions here. There is a growing sentiment of deregulating the control of the NCAA on certain conference activities. That is where this is coming from.
Taking a step back, why would other conferences care if a league with 10 members hosts a championship game? Heck, I've heard the argument that not having a champ game is an advantage since it is one less chance a team can get upset and fall out of the top 2 or 4. Also, that one carrot of expansion (the money from hosting a champ game) would no longer be in play, which could add some stability on the expansion front.
Seems to me, there may be more motivation to allow the rule to be changed than there is to prevent it.
Back to the article (changing th esubjest), if I read the article correctly it doesn't say the Big 12 still won't push for the rule change, only that it won't have a championship game. The headline is kinda deceptive.
The arguments about changing the rule are just trying to rationalize their position. The rule was not put there for TV purposes and it was not put there to give someone a chance at a National title.
It was put there to settle the championship of THAT particular conference. If a conference has 12, they can have it, if they have less than 12 they can't. It's that simple, its about nothing else.
And then the internet folks add this whole paradigm shifting crap with the NCAA. Haven't seen it. NCAA still has jurisdiction over college athletics last I saw....never had it over the Bowls. The "conference" champ games are not Bowls, therefore they need NCAA approval.
I'm still waiting for the whole 4-16 team super conference stuff to happen that was blown out of proportion....the number will be 18 or even 20 when all is said and done. But everyone grabbed onto 16 because some idiot said it.
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2013 04:39 PM by HP-TBDPITL.)
|
|
02-21-2013 04:38 PM |
|
johnbragg
Five Minute Google Expert
![*](images/groupimages/mod.gif)
Posts: 16,430
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 1012
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
|
RE: Big 12 holding off on title game push
(02-21-2013 04:31 PM)RUScarlets Wrote: (02-21-2013 04:18 PM)johnbragg Wrote: Things change, though. A number of leagues would have reasons to favor letting conferences have CCGs if they want them, with whatever rules they want. 5-team divisions, straight top 2 in son-of-BCS rankings, some mix of conference record and BCS ranking, whatever the league picks.
The Big Ten and SEC could then go to 16 and still play everyone in the league in football every other year--4 divisions for 3 division games, play half of each division one year and the other half the next year. The two top-ranked teams square off in the CCG.
The Big XII (and the Sun Belt and the Aresco LEague) don't have to expand to get a CCG. And the ACC has the option of "going small" if they get raided, either staying at 10 if they lose 4 more, or adding one or two rather than having to go down the depth chart past UConn and Cincy just to get to 12.
If the Big Ten, SEC and Big XII decide they want something, and they have two "yes" votes from lower-FBS in their pockets, I think it probably happens. It's not something that the PAC or ACC (or MWC or MAC or CUSA) is going to fight hard to prevent, after all.
Why wouldn't the other conferences veto it though? If a Big 12 CCG increases the chances that their CC gets overlooked? Plus that makes their TV deal even bigger with only ten teams plus they take an extra prime time slot the last weekend of the year. The competition does not want that.
The B1G and SEC wouldn't veto it, because it makes 16 even more attractive for them. Any rivalry games that get lost with the move to 16 can still be played every other year, and no more 7-5 dogs in the CCG.
The Big XII wouldn't veto it because they're proposing it.
The ACC (probably) wouldn't veto it because A) it reduces the Big XII's incentive to try to raid the ACC (not a big deal, the problem is now the B1G) and B) if the ACC does get raided, it gives them the option to do what the Big XII is doing now, stay at 10 (or 9 or 11) teams instead of taking a weak program just to fill a spot.
The PAC can't exactly veto it. They can vote against it, but it's not like they can argue that this screws them somehow. They even get the option of changing their CCG rules from division winners to two-highest-rated.
We can count votes, but these things usually go by a consensus. A lot of leagues have a reason to make CCG a conference option rather than the current "2 divisions and a round-robin" rule.
|
|
02-21-2013 04:41 PM |
|
johnbragg
Five Minute Google Expert
![*](images/groupimages/mod.gif)
Posts: 16,430
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation: 1012
I Root For: St Johns
Location:
|
RE: Big 12 holding off on title game push
(02-21-2013 04:38 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote: The arguments about changing the rule are just trying to rationalize their position. The rule was not put there for TV purposes and it was not put there to give someone a chance at a National title.
It was put there to settle the championship of THAT particular conference. If a conference has 12, they can have it, if they have less than 12 they can't. It's that simple, its about nothing else.
And then the internet folks add this whole paradigm shifting crap with the NCAA. Haven't seen it. NCAA still has jurisdiction over college athletics last I saw....
Barely, in the case of FBS. If the big FBS conferences want something, they probably get it. Especially if it doesn't have any effect on the small fry.
Quote:never had it over the Bowls. The "conference" champ games are not Bowls, therefore they need NCAA approval.
Sure. But the NCAA is governed by the conferences. So if the Big Ten, SEC and Big XII agree, who exactly is going to jump up and down and yell "HELL NO" on this issue?
Probably not the ACC--after they get raided, they could be the ones wanting to stay at 10 rather than (further) reduce their TV payout. Probably not the PAC--they could change their rules to just match their top two teams instead of having a 6-6 or 7-5 dog stink up the game.
Not the lower-FBS conferences--some of them will like the idea, some will be lukewarm. Not the FCS or non-football conference--they don't give a crap.
|
|
02-21-2013 04:55 PM |
|
Frog in the Kitchen Sink
All American
![*](images/groupimages/allamerican.gif)
Posts: 3,839
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 154
I Root For: TCU
Location:
|
RE: Big 12 holding off on title game push
(02-21-2013 04:41 PM)johnbragg Wrote: (02-21-2013 04:31 PM)RUScarlets Wrote: (02-21-2013 04:18 PM)johnbragg Wrote: Things change, though. A number of leagues would have reasons to favor letting conferences have CCGs if they want them, with whatever rules they want. 5-team divisions, straight top 2 in son-of-BCS rankings, some mix of conference record and BCS ranking, whatever the league picks.
The Big Ten and SEC could then go to 16 and still play everyone in the league in football every other year--4 divisions for 3 division games, play half of each division one year and the other half the next year. The two top-ranked teams square off in the CCG.
The Big XII (and the Sun Belt and the Aresco LEague) don't have to expand to get a CCG. And the ACC has the option of "going small" if they get raided, either staying at 10 if they lose 4 more, or adding one or two rather than having to go down the depth chart past UConn and Cincy just to get to 12.
If the Big Ten, SEC and Big XII decide they want something, and they have two "yes" votes from lower-FBS in their pockets, I think it probably happens. It's not something that the PAC or ACC (or MWC or MAC or CUSA) is going to fight hard to prevent, after all.
Why wouldn't the other conferences veto it though? If a Big 12 CCG increases the chances that their CC gets overlooked? Plus that makes their TV deal even bigger with only ten teams plus they take an extra prime time slot the last weekend of the year. The competition does not want that.
The B1G and SEC wouldn't veto it, because it makes 16 even more attractive for them. Any rivalry games that get lost with the move to 16 can still be played every other year, and no more 7-5 dogs in the CCG.
The Big XII wouldn't veto it because they're proposing it.
The ACC (probably) wouldn't veto it because A) it reduces the Big XII's incentive to try to raid the ACC (not a big deal, the problem is now the B1G) and B) if the ACC does get raided, it gives them the option to do what the Big XII is doing now, stay at 10 (or 9 or 11) teams instead of taking a weak program just to fill a spot.
The PAC can't exactly veto it. They can vote against it, but it's not like they can argue that this screws them somehow. They even get the option of changing their CCG rules from division winners to two-highest-rated.
We can count votes, but these things usually go by a consensus. A lot of leagues have a reason to make CCG a conference option rather than the current "2 divisions and a round-robin" rule.
And I think the consensus is that the conferences want more autonomy. With the Big 12, they probably don't even stage a championship game even if it approved. They just want the autonomy to make that call. When Bowlsby frames this as part of "deregulation", it's pretty clear he is appealing to the sentiment of the other conferences. Seems to me, that suggests this (deregulation of the NCAA) is something being talked about behind the scenes.
|
|
02-21-2013 05:06 PM |
|
SMUmustangs
All American
![*](images/groupimages/allamerican.gif)
Posts: 3,186
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 71
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: Big 12 holding off on title game push
(02-21-2013 04:09 PM)RUScarlets Wrote: (02-21-2013 03:43 PM)LSUtah Wrote: The problem is less about the playoff and more about keeping up with the changing paradigm of FBS. If every other conference expands to 12, 14 , 16, etc....except the Big-12...it is foolish to think they are not boxing themselves in to a lose-lose situation long term. Sure, the $$ per school are great today, but that is only half the picture.
Every other conference is gobbling up markets and flagship unviersities, while the Big-12 has the contrarion strategy of staying in a 5 state footprint? Ok.
Yeah I'm not seeing the long term strategy here. They maximized profits coming off a reccession by taking the quick buck now. It's not a viable long term strategy. """""""They have no markets outside of Texas"""""""""""". I really don't know what the vision is there, other than that fat bottom line that looks pretty today.
I don't think there is reason to panic just yet. I just think the ACC and Big 12 need to work something out long term in terms of scheduling. Since the ACC championship game has basically been a failure since its inception, maybe they could schedule a game between the two conferences the final weekend. """"With the winner and runner up going to the Sugar/Orange Bowl"""". Just to buff the schedule. As of now it is near impossible for the ACC champ to qualify for the final four, outside of an FSU and maybe Clemson, since they play Fla/USC every year.
Markets are highly overrated. Rice has the Houston market, but what good does it do them, since they do not deliver the market.
On the other hand teams like Oklahoma, Nebraska, Boise deliver large TV audiences. Look at Notre Dame they deliver huge TV audiences that have nothing to do with South Bend or Chicago for that matter.
As for the bowl comment, the Big12 champ is locked into the Sugar Bowl with the SEC with a $80 million contract.
(This post was last modified: 02-21-2013 07:54 PM by SMUmustangs.)
|
|
02-21-2013 07:49 PM |
|