(07-05-2014 03:35 PM)slowknight Wrote:  So much better not having a CCG, so many teams have choked away a title game appearance! (Ohio St last year, WV vs Pitt and others)

First, it was a good thing that Ohio State lost the Big Ten CCG last year. It certainly proved that Ohio State did not deserve a bid to the BCS national championship game. But just as important, it helped prove that Ohio State was not really the best team in the Big Ten and that Michigan State actually deserved the Big Ten's BCS bowl automatic invite to the Rose Bowl. And if the same thing would have happened this year, it would have proved that Michigan State would deserve a spot in the CFP over Ohio State. (except I know OSU and MSU are in the same division this year, but you get the point)

Summary. The Big Ten CCG did its job.

second, the West Virginia vs. Pitt game is an example of how teams can choke away a nation championship opportunity in its last game of the season, even if a conference does not have a CCG, which is the opposite of the point you are trying to make, I believe.

Third, the Big 12 is full of crap with this 1 true champion BS. It is much harder to win a conference championship with 14 teams & CCG vs. 10 teams and without a CCG. it blows my mind they try to argue otherwise.

(07-05-2014 04:50 PM)goofus Wrote:  Third, the Big 12 is full of crap with this 1 true champion BS. It is much harder to win a conference championship with 14 teams & CCG vs. 10 teams and without a CCG. it blows my mind they try to argue otherwise.

Disagree. One extra game doesn't mean crap if a team lucks into playing the cupcakes from the other division in the regular season. Considering two of the leagues with 14 teams play one fewer league game than we do it diminshes the argument further.

In a 10 team round robin you have to face EVERYONE. No breaks.

(07-05-2014 05:04 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:50 PM)goofus Wrote:  Third, the Big 12 is full of crap with this 1 true champion BS. It is much harder to win a conference championship with 14 teams & CCG vs. 10 teams and without a CCG. it blows my mind they try to argue otherwise.

Disagree. One extra game doesn't mean crap if a team lucks into playing the cupcakes from the other division in the regular season. Considering two of the leagues with 14 teams play one fewer league game than we do it diminshes the argument further.

In a 10 team round robin you have to face EVERYONE. No breaks.

What's the difference between playing every team in a 7-team division and playing everyone in a 10-team conference? In the end, you still have to play and beat everyone inside and outside your group, whether it is loaded with top ten teams or has a bunch of cupcakes.

The difference, at least for the conference champion, is with a CCG, you not only have to be the best of 7 teams in your own division, you then have to beat the best team in the other division. Ultimately you have to be the best of 14 teams. Odds are the champion of a 14-team conference more often will be better than the 10-team conference.

(07-05-2014 05:04 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:50 PM)goofus Wrote:  Third, the Big 12 is full of crap with this 1 true champion BS. It is much harder to win a conference championship with 14 teams & CCG vs. 10 teams and without a CCG. it blows my mind they try to argue otherwise.

Disagree. One extra game doesn't mean crap if a team lucks into playing the cupcakes from the other division in the regular season. Considering two of the leagues with 14 teams play one fewer league game than we do it diminshes the argument further.

In a 10 team round robin you have to face EVERYONE. No breaks.

Leaving aside the title game issue, the fact that one league has 14 teams and the other has 10 means it's much harder to win the Big 10 or SEC. You have more competition.

Stated another way, the average Big 10 team should win the title once every 14 years, and the average Big 12 team should win once every 10 years.

Imagine if Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri were still in the Big 12, making it a 14 team league with TCU and West Va. Imagine how much harder that league would be to win.

(07-05-2014 05:04 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Disagree. One extra game doesn't mean crap if a team lucks into playing the cupcakes from the other division in the regular season. Considering two of the leagues with 14 teams play one fewer league game than we do it diminshes the argument further.

In a 10 team round robin you have to face EVERYONE. No breaks.

Two points......

1. The extra game kept the Big 12 champion out of the national title game more than once so the extra game meant something those seasons. The extra game also means you play an extra game against one of the best teams in the conference.

2. A 10 team round robin has it's stinker games like any other schedule. Last years one true champion played 4 teams in conference with losing records. Florida State, the one true BCS champion, only played 3 teams in conference with losing records.

The reality is the Big 12 is terrible at marketing. This campaign opens them up to a lot of criticism from the media talking heads.
CJ

(07-06-2014 08:13 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 05:04 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  Disagree. One extra game doesn't mean crap if a team lucks into playing the cupcakes from the other division in the regular season. Considering two of the leagues with 14 teams play one fewer league game than we do it diminshes the argument further.

In a 10 team round robin you have to face EVERYONE. No breaks.

Two points......

1. The extra game kept the Big 12 champion out of the national title game more than once so the extra game meant something those seasons. The extra game also means you play an extra game against one of the best teams in the conference.

2. A 10 team round robin has it's stinker games like any other schedule. Last years one true champion played 4 teams in conference with losing records. Florida State, the one true BCS champion, only played 3 teams in conference with losing records.

The reality is the Big 12 is terrible at marketing. This campaign opens them up to a lot of criticism from the media talking heads.
CJ

FSU also played no tough noncon foes, had a weaker SOS, and after that title game played the same number of league games.

(07-06-2014 08:01 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 05:04 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:50 PM)goofus Wrote:  Third, the Big 12 is full of crap with this 1 true champion BS. It is much harder to win a conference championship with 14 teams & CCG vs. 10 teams and without a CCG. it blows my mind they try to argue otherwise.

Disagree. One extra game doesn't mean crap if a team lucks into playing the cupcakes from the other division in the regular season. Considering two of the leagues with 14 teams play one fewer league game than we do it diminshes the argument further.

In a 10 team round robin you have to face EVERYONE. No breaks.

Leaving aside the title game issue, the fact that one league has 14 teams and the other has 10 means it's much harder to win the Big 10 or SEC. You have more competition.

In terms of SOS is can become easier if your division is down and you get a favorable cross divisional draw. 2012 SEC comes to mind where both Bama and UGA got schedule breaks.

Blanket statements like the one I responded to initially lose sight of the fact that teams and resumes need to be evaluated individually: sometimes the 14 team champ went a tougher road and sometimes they don't.

Quote:Stated another way, the average Big 10 team should win the title once every 14 years, and the average Big 12 team should win once every 10 years.

Imagine if Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri were still in the Big 12, making it a 14 team league with TCU and West Va. Imagine how much harder that league would be to win.

Another point is that it isn't a fair fight SOS wise even within the league.

2007- Kansas played none of UT or OU. Iowa State played both. Had ISU gone 10-2 defeating KU who went 11-1 against an easier schedule how is that fair?

Schedule breaks can make it worlds easier than a round robin and that doesn't even include the possibility of a team that didn't run the gauntlet all year pulling an upset. (1996 tx who had 5 losses comes to mind)

Sometimes a 14 team champ played a tougher slate, sometimes they don't. Evaluate it based on the team itself.

You could argue 2000 OU may have played a tougher schedule than the 2011-2013 B12 round robin champs but if a team like 2007 KU won out it would not be the case. Same concept applies here.

And seven of the Big 12 teams have an advantage every year because they only play 4 conference road games.

Baylor, Tech, OU and Texas have played a 4-4-1 schedule (although I think Tech and Baylor are discontinuing their Arlington game).

Iowa St, Kansas, K State, Ok St, TCU and West Va rotate between a 5-4 and 4-5 schedule. In 2011, however, Kansas and Missouri played a neutral game.

Regarding that 9th game, it's easier to win if it's at home or on a neutral field compared to a true road game. To wit, 14 teams have finished with a winning record in Big 12 play over 2011-13. Only two of those 14 played five true conference road games.

Bottom line, every conference has its scheduling vagaries depending on the year. Reduced to absurdity, your argument suggests that a 3-team conference is just as hard to win as an 18-team conference. Because hey, the 3-team conference plays each other! Not gonna fly.

Now, that doesn't mean the Big 12 can't be stronger than say the ACC in certain years. In fact, it has been. I'm not trying to compare conferences. Rather, I am gauging the relative difficulty over time of Team A to win Conference B vs. Team C to win Conference D. The number of teams competing matters.

(07-06-2014 11:12 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  And seven of the Big 12 teams have an advantage every year because they only play 4 conference road games.

Baylor, Tech, OU and Texas have played a 4-4-1 schedule (although I think Tech and Baylor are discontinuing their Arlington game).

Iowa St, Kansas, K State, Ok St, TCU and West Va rotate between a 5-4 and 4-5 schedule. In 2011, however, Kansas and Missouri played a neutral game.

Regarding that 9th game, it's easier to win if it's at home or on a neutral field compared to a true road game. To wit, 14 teams have finished with a winning record in Big 12 play over 2011-13. Only two of those 14 played five true conference road games.

Getting one different home game isn't nearly the advantage or disadvantage that a cross divisional team that dodges the top 3 teams in the other division gets. Sorry but implying otherwise is just absurd.

Quote:Bottom line, every conference has its scheduling vagaries depending on the year. Reduced to absurdity, your argument suggests that a 3-team conference is just as hard to win as an 18-team conference. Because hey, the 3-team conference plays each other! Not gonna fly.

A 3 team league wouldn't play roughly the same number of games which obviously invalidates that. As you said, it's absurdity.

Quote:Now, that doesn't mean the Big 12 can't be stronger than say the ACC in certain years. In fact, it has been. I'm not trying to compare conferences. Rather, I am gauging the relative difficulty over time of Team A to win Conference B vs. Team C to win Conference D. The number of teams competing matters.

It's one factor of several that matters and with only 8 league games allows the 14 team conferences to avoid having their best play each other as often leading to schedules that might be as tough or might not be.

The scheduling format matters just as much and theirs is one that also carries the side benefit of artificially boosting their spot in the polls as the top teams take fewer losses due to missing each other more than a round robin would.

1. Huh? First, I just proved where that extra game is played makes a huge difference. Second, you can't dodge the best team in the other division when you have a championship game.

2. You thought I meant a 3-team conference that plays 2 total games? Perhaps I was unclear. I meant a 3-team conference that plays each other 4 times (8 games).

Just so we are crystal clear, you believe that:

1) an average school in a 3-team conference that plays each other four times (or a 4-team conference that plays each other three times)

will win its conference title on the same number of times every 100 years as:

2) an average school in an 18-team conference with two divisions where each division plays each other with zero cross division games, and then the two division winners meet in a title game.

Ummmmmmmmm, no.

Look, I know you are defensive because Baylor didn't win the Big 12 until it became a smaller 10-team league. Not until after Nebraska, A&M, Colorado and Missouri left and were replaced with two schools that clearly did not have the talent base to compete right away for the Big 12 title.

So you don't want to admit that Baylor's championship was easier to obtain as a result. I get why this is difficult for you.

But you can't argue in the face of logic. You are simply wrong on this issue. Bigger conferences are harder to win. Smaller conferences are easier to win.

(07-06-2014 07:25 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  1. Huh? First, I just proved where that extra game is played makes a huge difference. Second, you can't dodge the best team in the other division when you have a championship game.

In 2012 both SEC title participants missed the top THREE in the opposite division. Do either make it thee with a different schedule?

You isolate the title game as the exception but what about the other teams? Also without even schedules it's less than clear if those two are really the best two in some cases.

Quote:2. You thought I meant a 3-team conference that plays 2 total games? Perhaps I was unclear. I meant a 3-team conference that plays each other 4 times (8 games).

Just so we are crystal clear, you believe that:

1) an average school in a 3-team conference that plays each other four times (or a 4-team conference that plays each other three times)

will win its conference title on the same number of times every 100 years as:

2) an average school in an 18-team conference with two divisions where each division plays each other with zero cross division games, and then the two division winners meet in a title game.

Ummmmmmmmm, no.

That isn't my argument. My argument is that which format is tougher depends on the teams being compared and who they specifically had to play.

An extreme example of that is how the 10 team big 12 will be a pretty good bet to be tougher than the 14 team CUSA. To a lesser degree the same comparisons happen in the P5.

There were years when the 10 team Pac10 may have been tougher than some or all the 12 team leagues.

Quote:Look, I know you are defensive because Baylor didn't win the Big 12 until it became a smaller 10-team league. Not until after Nebraska, A&M, Colorado and Missouri left and were replaced with two schools that clearly did not have the talent base to compete right away for the Big 12 title.

So you don't want to admit that Baylor's championship was easier to obtain as a result. I get why this is difficult for you.

Whether we would have won before or not isn't an issue I even thought on. At the time we were so disjointed in handling our own business it's impossible to know how we'd do with the better coaching, facilities, recruiting, and admin we have now. When you have the bad run we did it's about much more than league scheduling formats.

We beat some good teams in 2013 (ask Bama, Asu, ND, and Michigan) and managed to win it while losing several key players down the stretch. I frankly don't care how we'd do under the old format. Some years we'd stand a good chance and others probably less. Too many variables such as injuries and other factors.

Also holding up Colorado (seen them lately?) as evidence of a better team than the replacements is funny.

Besides it's technically easier for a non-power to win the league in the old format- be the lesser record team to qualify for the title game and pull an upset. I believe USM did that to you guys in 2011 and it's how Texas got the first Big 12 title with a 9-5 record over the Huskers. In the old format you could lose 3 or more games in league play and still luck your way into a title with one key upset paired with favorable schedule help in the standings taking out your competition- not so now.

Quote:But you can't argue in the face of logic. You are simply wrong on this issue. Bigger conferences are harder to win. Smaller conferences are easier to win.

My argument is that it depends on the team and the year as it always does. Neither format is inherently tougher.

The 2012 season of the 10 team Big 12 was tougher to win than the 2006 12 team league due to the depth (everyone but KU could realistically take out a top 30 team and went to a bowl where 2006 was a down year across the board) and weaker years in the 10 team model would not top how tough a year 2008 was where you had 3+ teams in either division that were really good and could challenge in most years.

My point has been that it depends on the specific year and teams involved.

Really the only mathematical thing you can say is that the round robin puts the B12 at a disadvantage in qualifying. Forcing the league to absorb extra losses due to everyone playing everyone drops the good teams in the polls compared to divisional formats which prevents as many big on big matchups and the built in losses that go with them.

I disagree with the concept that a 14 team conference with a CCG is necessarily harder or easier to win the a 10 team round robin with no CCG.

It really depends on schedules.

For example, Wisconsin has a very easy B1G schedule this year, avoiding Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State. It's very likely that the two best teams from the B1G (potentially MSU, Ohio St) will be in the East Division. However, Wisconsin will likely make the CCG as the West Division participant and, in a single CCG, they may just win the B1G title despite avoiding (potentially) three of the top 4 teams from the conference as a whole.

Everyone playing everyone is, to me, an obvious "best case scenario" because the winner didn't avoid any of the other potentially worthy teams. But this schedule, too, has it's problems with three way ties, etc.

In the end, there is no doubt that the "one true champion" stuff is nothing more than PR but I don't find it misguided or malintended.

I wonder if the BIG 12 launched this with or without knowledge of what the result/ruling of the NCAA on CCG is going to be? Nice website, they make their case....

(07-06-2014 08:01 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 05:04 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:50 PM)goofus Wrote:  Third, the Big 12 is full of crap with this 1 true champion BS. It is much harder to win a conference championship with 14 teams & CCG vs. 10 teams and without a CCG. it blows my mind they try to argue otherwise.

Disagree. One extra game doesn't mean crap if a team lucks into playing the cupcakes from the other division in the regular season. Considering two of the leagues with 14 teams play one fewer league game than we do it diminshes the argument further.

In a 10 team round robin you have to face EVERYONE. No breaks.

Leaving aside the title game issue, the fact that one league has 14 teams and the other has 10 means it's much harder to win the Big 10 or SEC. You have more competition.

Stated another way, the average Big 10 team should win the title once every 14 years, and the average Big 12 team should win once every 10 years.

Imagine if Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri were still in the Big 12, making it a 14 team league with TCU and West Va. Imagine how much harder that league would be to win.

This is an excellent point that many B12 fans will refuse to accept. Moreover, having less competition is one reason why the B12 should be last in the playoff pecking order....

(07-14-2014 11:51 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(07-06-2014 08:01 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 05:04 PM)1845 Bear Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 04:50 PM)goofus Wrote:  Third, the Big 12 is full of crap with this 1 true champion BS. It is much harder to win a conference championship with 14 teams & CCG vs. 10 teams and without a CCG. it blows my mind they try to argue otherwise.

Disagree. One extra game doesn't mean crap if a team lucks into playing the cupcakes from the other division in the regular season. Considering two of the leagues with 14 teams play one fewer league game than we do it diminshes the argument further.

In a 10 team round robin you have to face EVERYONE. No breaks.

Leaving aside the title game issue, the fact that one league has 14 teams and the other has 10 means it's much harder to win the Big 10 or SEC. You have more competition.

Stated another way, the average Big 10 team should win the title once every 14 years, and the average Big 12 team should win once every 10 years.

Imagine if Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri were still in the Big 12, making it a 14 team league with TCU and West Va. Imagine how much harder that league would be to win.

This is an excellent point that many B12 fans will refuse to accept. Moreover, having less competition is one reason why the B12 should be last in the playoff pecking order....

Less competition? A bunch of teams you don't have to play is less competition. If there is somebody good in the Big 12 you can't luck into not playing them. Also any Big 12 team will have played the same number of league opponents as a participant in a title game. Hard to say it's less competition unless the larger leagues are running round robins which they aren't.

Fact is no league format is inherently going to be tougher or easier due to number of teams. It depends on which teams are on your schedule and how good they are individually.

If a team plays in the weaker division of a 14 team league, plays only one cross division foe and it's a weak one, and has a cupcake non-con schedule it's probably not going to have played as tough of a road as a team that played everyone in a good league and played an additional league game even if the 14 teamer had a tough opponent in the title game.

It depends on the teams in question and who ACTUALLY ended up playing them.

(07-05-2014 03:35 PM)slowknight Wrote:  So much better not having a CCG, so many teams have choked away a title game appearance! (Ohio St last year, WV vs Pitt and others)

Then they're not really champions. Champions perform and win, operate under pressure and win, and don't shy from competition.

(07-01-2014 08:46 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  The Big 12 has just launched a website touting it's "10 teams, 9 games, 1 true champion" set up.

Clearly, they don't spend that kind of money or launch that kind of campaign if expansion is a front burner issue.

Never mind expansion, they just flushed their money down the toilet with this campaign simply due to the possibility of co-champions.