I am probably in the minority but I think the B12 has themselves to blame by giving the committee an out. B12 mantra of One True Champion saying the don't need a CCG. Then instead of declaring Baylor the "One True Champion" they pull the Co-Champion BS.

Tune in later today for the answer.

(12-07-2014 08:51 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I am probably in the minority but I think the B12 has themselves to blame by giving the committee an out. B12 mantra of One True Champion saying the don't need a CCG. Then instead of declaring Baylor the "One True Champion" they pull the Co-Champion BS.

YES. B12 Commissioner stabbed Baylor in the back by saying the league would not declare a champion. After the “One True…” PR push it was a blatant grab for post season cash. Seemed that all down the stretch the ESPN hype train was about getting 4 large market/Brands on the field regardless of who beat who. The fact that Baylor beat TCU is still a fact, and they have identical win loss records, and they play everyone in their conference something NONE of the others do. To me it’s simple Baylor is “the one true Champion in the power 5”. How they would fare in the playoff is anyone’s guess but IMO the BIG is a joke of a conference.

I do.

Everyone is acting like this is unprecedented but just two years ago in 2012 KSU and OU were co-champs even though KSU won the H2H. As then the rule in the B12 is that identical record means identical champion even if it's as many as 3 or 4 teams.

Unless they change the rules then "One True Champ" is just a stupid marketing ploy that doesn't actually reflect their rules

(12-07-2014 09:51 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  Everyone is acting like this is unprecedented but just two years ago in 2012 KSU and OU were co-champs even though KSU won the H2H. As then the rule in the B12 is that identical record means identical champion even if it's as many as 3 or 4 teams.

Unless they change the rules then "One True Champ" is just a stupid marketing ploy that doesn't actually reflect their rules

Exactly. Nothing new about it except for the Big12's efforts to swerve CFB with their lame PR campaign.

No.

If they declared Baylor the champions it would obviously eliminate TCU. Then when comparing Baylor and Ohio St, they would say Baylor lost to unranked WV. Yes, ohio St lost to VaTech, but Ohio St and the B1G's clout would get them in the game over Baylor.

At least with TCU, they can say the only loss is to #6 Baylor which looks much better than Ohio St's loss to Va Tech.

Ohio St will get in because it represents a more national playoff. The committee doesn't want three Southern teams in the "national" playoff. They will also make Bama and FSU play each other on the semifinal game so that the championship is not an all Southern affair. Ratings and $$$ factor into the seeding. They will spin the message to get to that result.

(12-07-2014 09:58 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  No.

If they declared Baylor the champions it would obviously eliminate TCU. Then when comparing Baylor and Ohio St, they would say Baylor lost to unranked WV. Yes, ohio St lost to VaTech, but Ohio St and the B1G's clout would get them in the game over Baylor.

At least with TCU, they can say the only loss is to #6 Baylor which looks much better than Ohio St's loss to Va Tech.

You're missing the point. The Big12 opted to present both teams in an effort to get two teams in the mix, because they lack a CCG to compete with the other conferences that do have CCGs. I wouldn't care if they had picked just one team as their "champion". They're trying to push both to conceal what's obvious, that they should be playing a CCG like everyone else, instead of taking the easy/more profitable path. Lame.

(12-07-2014 10:04 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:58 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  No.

If they declared Baylor the champions it would obviously eliminate TCU. Then when comparing Baylor and Ohio St, they would say Baylor lost to unranked WV. Yes, ohio St lost to VaTech, but Ohio St and the B1G's clout would get them in the game over Baylor.

At least with TCU, they can say the only loss is to #6 Baylor which looks much better than Ohio St's loss to Va Tech.

You're missing the point. The Big12 opted to present both teams in an effort to get two teams in the mix, because they lack a CCG to compete with the other conferences that do have CCGs. I wouldn't care if they had picked just one team as their "champion". They're trying to push both to conceal what's obvious, that they should be playing a CCG like everyone else, instead of taking the easy/more profitable path. Lame.

Yes, but had they declared one champion, they would definitely be screwed because Baylor will not win the argument vs ohio St. They would then be completely left out.

(12-07-2014 09:35 AM)Football Junky Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 08:51 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I am probably in the minority but I think the B12 has themselves to blame by giving the committee an out. B12 mantra of One True Champion saying the don't need a CCG. Then instead of declaring Baylor the "One True Champion" they pull the Co-Champion BS.

YES. B12 Commissioner stabbed Baylor in the back by saying the league would not declare a champion. After the “One True…” PR push it was a blatant grab for post season cash. Seemed that all down the stretch the ESPN hype train was about getting 4 large market/Brands on the field regardless of who beat who. The fact that Baylor beat TCU is still a fact, and they have identical win loss records, and they play everyone in their conference something NONE of the others do. To me it’s simple Baylor is “the one true Champion in the power 5”. How they would fare in the playoff is anyone’s guess but IMO the BIG is a joke of a conference.

I'm sorry but today the only Major Conference that is a joke is the Big 12 and their "One True Champion". Congratulations, your conference is a joke. Your opinion on the Big Ten doesn't mean **** Baylor fan. Sour grapes.

(12-07-2014 10:04 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:58 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  No.

If they declared Baylor the champions it would obviously eliminate TCU. Then when comparing Baylor and Ohio St, they would say Baylor lost to unranked WV. Yes, ohio St lost to VaTech, but Ohio St and the B1G's clout would get them in the game over Baylor.

At least with TCU, they can say the only loss is to #6 Baylor which looks much better than Ohio St's loss to Va Tech.

You're missing the point. The Big12 opted to present both teams in an effort to get two teams in the mix, because they lack a CCG to compete with the other conferences that do have CCGs. I wouldn't care if they had picked just one team as their "champion". They're trying to push both to conceal what's obvious, that they should be playing a CCG like everyone else, instead of taking the easy/more profitable path. Lame.

Exactly, all these people actually defending the way the Big 12 acted in such a hollow way for a cash grab, they are cut of the same cloth it seems.

(12-07-2014 10:09 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:04 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:58 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  No.

If they declared Baylor the champions it would obviously eliminate TCU. Then when comparing Baylor and Ohio St, they would say Baylor lost to unranked WV. Yes, ohio St lost to VaTech, but Ohio St and the B1G's clout would get them in the game over Baylor.

At least with TCU, they can say the only loss is to #6 Baylor which looks much better than Ohio St's loss to Va Tech.

You're missing the point. The Big12 opted to present both teams in an effort to get two teams in the mix, because they lack a CCG to compete with the other conferences that do have CCGs. I wouldn't care if they had picked just one team as their "champion". They're trying to push both to conceal what's obvious, that they should be playing a CCG like everyone else, instead of taking the easy/more profitable path. Lame.

Yes, but had they declared one champion, they would definitely be screwed because Baylor will not win the argument vs ohio St. They would then be completely left out.

Which is exactly what they deserve. That's letting the results speak for themselves, without manipulation. Something the Big12 doesn't want, because their lack of a CCG would exclude them, as it should. BTW, look at my profile and you'll see i'm an OU alum/fan, so I'm a Big12 fan, but i'm not a mark for everything they do. They're just flat out wrong about this.

(12-07-2014 10:24 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:09 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:04 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:58 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  No.

If they declared Baylor the champions it would obviously eliminate TCU. Then when comparing Baylor and Ohio St, they would say Baylor lost to unranked WV. Yes, ohio St lost to VaTech, but Ohio St and the B1G's clout would get them in the game over Baylor.

At least with TCU, they can say the only loss is to #6 Baylor which looks much better than Ohio St's loss to Va Tech.

You're missing the point. The Big12 opted to present both teams in an effort to get two teams in the mix, because they lack a CCG to compete with the other conferences that do have CCGs. I wouldn't care if they had picked just one team as their "champion". They're trying to push both to conceal what's obvious, that they should be playing a CCG like everyone else, instead of taking the easy/more profitable path. Lame.

Yes, but had they declared one champion, they would definitely be screwed because Baylor will not win the argument vs ohio St. They would then be completely left out.

Which is exactly what they deserve. That's letting the results speak for themselves, without manipulation. Something the Big12 doesn't want, because their lack of a CCG would exclude them, as it should. BTW, look at my profile and you'll see i'm an OU alum/fan, so I'm a Big12 fan, but i'm not a mark for everything they do. They're just flat out wrong about this.

I agree. I went to grad school at OU, my dad has become a big sooner supporter since moving out there and talks with some of the coaches, and Barry Trammel somewhat regularly. I just can't get on the Sooner bandwagon.--except for their wrestling program. The Big 12 under Bob BOWELsby is making a lot of faces sour in Big 12 country right now. They need to add 2 teams and they need a CCG after they do it. Bowelsby actually contradicted himself recently with his push for deregulation of CCG's and then saying he's not even favor of them anyway. What a tool.

(12-07-2014 10:24 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:09 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 10:04 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 09:58 AM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  No.

If they declared Baylor the champions it would obviously eliminate TCU. Then when comparing Baylor and Ohio St, they would say Baylor lost to unranked WV. Yes, ohio St lost to VaTech, but Ohio St and the B1G's clout would get them in the game over Baylor.

At least with TCU, they can say the only loss is to #6 Baylor which looks much better than Ohio St's loss to Va Tech.

You're missing the point. The Big12 opted to present both teams in an effort to get two teams in the mix, because they lack a CCG to compete with the other conferences that do have CCGs. I wouldn't care if they had picked just one team as their "champion". They're trying to push both to conceal what's obvious, that they should be playing a CCG like everyone else, instead of taking the easy/more profitable path. Lame.

Yes, but had they declared one champion, they would definitely be screwed because Baylor will not win the argument vs ohio St. They would then be completely left out.

Which is exactly what they deserve. That's letting the results speak for themselves, without manipulation. Something the Big12 doesn't want, because their lack of a CCG would exclude them, as it should. BTW, look at my profile and you'll see i'm an OU alum/fan, so I'm a Big12 fan, but i'm not a mark for everything they do. They're just flat out wrong about this.

This ^^^^.... It would be equivalent to 65 people participating in a 13 mile race but 10 of them stop at the 12 mile mark and proclaim 2 winners…..

(12-07-2014 09:35 AM)Football Junky Wrote:  

(12-07-2014 08:51 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I am probably in the minority but I think the B12 has themselves to blame by giving the committee an out. B12 mantra of One True Champion saying the don't need a CCG. Then instead of declaring Baylor the "One True Champion" they pull the Co-Champion BS.

YES. B12 Commissioner stabbed Baylor in the back by saying the league would not declare a champion. After the “One True…” PR push it was a blatant grab for post season cash. Seemed that all down the stretch the ESPN hype train was about getting 4 large market/Brands on the field regardless of who beat who. The fact that Baylor beat TCU is still a fact, and they have identical win loss records, and they play everyone in their conference something NONE of the others do. To me it’s simple Baylor is “the one true Champion in the power 5”. How they would fare in the playoff is anyone’s guess but IMO the BIG is a joke of a conference.

Lol

I don't think that for second and don't think the evidence points to it either. Remember the week before the final week, these were the rankings:

3. TCU
5. Ohio State
6. Baylor

Baylor was not rising above Ohio State after what Ohio State did to Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game. The real question was TCU. I think the problem there was that with Baylor's victory over Kansas State, things came close enough they had to use head to head and that meant Baylor had to be higher than TCU.

Beyond that, everyone seems to forget, this is how conferences have always done it in the traditional set-up. You had tie-breakers for bowl spots, but you always had anyone who finished at the top declared champion. That's true in every conference that I am aware of.

(01-04-2015 10:07 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I don't think that for second and don't think the evidence points to it either. Remember the week before the final week, these were the rankings:

3. TCU
5. Ohio State
6. Baylor

Baylor was not rising above Ohio State after what Ohio State did to Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game. The real question was TCU. I think the problem there was that with Baylor's victory over Kansas State, things came close enough they had to use head to head and that meant Baylor had to be higher than TCU.

It seems like the committee assumed that Kansas St would beat Baylor, thus allowing them to take TCU. When that didn't happen, they just decided that Ohio State was better than Baylor (which bowl results seem to support).

Could've saved themselves a lot of embarrassment if they had this going into championship week:

1. Alabama 2. Oregon 3. Florida St 4. Ohio St 5. TCU 6. Baylor

That way they only have to flip TCU above Ohio St if Baylor lost (no one would've screamed about that, IMO).

(01-04-2015 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 10:07 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I don't think that for second and don't think the evidence points to it either. Remember the week before the final week, these were the rankings:

3. TCU
5. Ohio State
6. Baylor

Baylor was not rising above Ohio State after what Ohio State did to Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game. The real question was TCU. I think the problem there was that with Baylor's victory over Kansas State, things came close enough they had to use head to head and that meant Baylor had to be higher than TCU.

It seems like the committee assumed that Kansas St would beat Baylor, thus allowing them to take TCU. When that didn't happen, they just decided that Ohio State was better than Baylor (which bowl results seem to support).

Could've saved themselves a lot of embarrassment if they had this going into championship week:

1. Alabama 2. Oregon 3. Florida St 4. Ohio St 5. TCU 6. Baylor

That way they only have to flip TCU above Ohio St if Baylor lost (no one would've screamed about that, IMO).

I don't think they are embarrassed at all. It isn't their problem that other people cant accept what happened. If Ohio State hadn't been selected after crushing Wisconsin in a Neutral Site Championship game, which is what the playoff games are, then there would have been just as loud of a call for the system to be changed.

It was inevitable that not everyone would be happy. The way it went down though, the Committee has Nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed of. Sorry Big 12, you should have had an extra game. That is the statement made, period.

(01-04-2015 11:24 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 10:40 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 10:07 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I don't think that for second and don't think the evidence points to it either. Remember the week before the final week, these were the rankings:

3. TCU
5. Ohio State
6. Baylor

Baylor was not rising above Ohio State after what Ohio State did to Wisconsin in the Big Ten title game. The real question was TCU. I think the problem there was that with Baylor's victory over Kansas State, things came close enough they had to use head to head and that meant Baylor had to be higher than TCU.

It seems like the committee assumed that Kansas St would beat Baylor, thus allowing them to take TCU. When that didn't happen, they just decided that Ohio State was better than Baylor (which bowl results seem to support).

Could've saved themselves a lot of embarrassment if they had this going into championship week:

1. Alabama 2. Oregon 3. Florida St 4. Ohio St 5. TCU 6. Baylor

That way they only have to flip TCU above Ohio St if Baylor lost (no one would've screamed about that, IMO).

I don't think they are embarrassed at all. It isn't their problem that other people cant accept what happened. If Ohio State hadn't been selected after crushing Wisconsin in a Neutral Site Championship game, which is what the playoff games are, then there would have been just as loud of a call for the system to be changed.

It was inevitable that not everyone would be happy. The way it went down though, the Committee has Nothing to be ashamed or embarrassed of. Sorry Big 12, you should have had an extra game. That is the statement made, period.

There would have been an even louder call had 2 representatives been chosen from any of the power conferences.