(12-09-2014 06:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 05:47 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  so everyone assuming ncaa says no to a champ game with 10?

Well Chip Brown on Sirius from the ppl he spoke with don't think it will happen.

Bowlsby doesn't sound pessimistic about it. And he's been really down the last couple of days.

(12-09-2014 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 06:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 05:47 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  so everyone assuming ncaa says no to a champ game with 10?

Well Chip Brown on Sirius from the ppl he spoke with don't think it will happen.

Bowlsby doesn't sound pessimistic about it. And he's been really down the last couple of days.

We will see....but that is their first choice...if it is passed will they go down to 8 games and make it mandatory to play a OOC P5 Opponent...

(12-09-2014 09:28 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 06:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 05:47 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  so everyone assuming ncaa says no to a champ game with 10?

Well Chip Brown on Sirius from the ppl he spoke with don't think it will happen.

Bowlsby doesn't sound pessimistic about it. And he's been really down the last couple of days.

We will see....but that is their first choice...if it is passed will they go down to 8 games and make it mandatory to play a OOC P5 Opponent...

The required divsion setup will go away, but not the requirement of needing 12 teams to hold the CCG.

If they are adament about playing a CCG with 10 teams then I'd make the requirement they drop the number conference games from 9 to 7.

Adding two teams pretty much adds 20 million in revenue without even considering the tv sets they bring. It also ensures that most years the champion will play a strong opponent in the last week of the season.

People always say "well x teams is not worth anything!"

May I remind you all the same things were said about Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, TCU, and people even made remarks about flipping Texas A&M and Missouri.

The fact is G5 schools are under a handicap and if you remove that handicap they become just as powerful as any other overage P5 program.

You think Memphis seriously would not become a power program in a talent rich state if someone the next day said. "Here is 20 million extra $$$ a year. spend that on a coach, invest in top of the line facilities, and here are some opponents that people hear about all the time and will want to see you play even if they are not really a fan."

Yes, it's pretty stupid not to expand if they do not allow ten team conference championships.

Bowlsby said that expanding for the purposes of the playoff would be a bad reason to expand, and I agree. First off, I really don't think the lack of a CCG is always going to be a negative with the current model. Some years it will be, others it won't. This year was a bit of a perfect storm. But more importantly, it is likely the model will change after some period of time. Most think that expansion to 8 is in the future. The lack of a championship game will almost certainly help with an 8 team playoff, as one of your top 2 teams isn't guaranteed a loss in the penultimate week.

The decision to expand or not will be for other reasons that mostly relate to revenue streams. If a team or teams expands the per team revenue potential, then it will happen. If it doesn't, it won't.

(12-09-2014 08:50 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I don't think the XII is going to expand either. I think the playoff is going to expand and all of the power conference champions will be guaranteed a spot. That makes more sense than anything.

Then they also need to expand the G5 Access bowl to 2 schools.

(12-09-2014 09:46 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Bowlsby said that expanding for the purposes of the playoff would be a bad reason to expand, and I agree. First off, I really don't think the lack of a CCG is always going to be a negative with the current model. Some years it will be, others it won't. This year was a bit of a perfect storm. But more importantly, it is likely the model will change after some period of time. Most think that expansion to 8 is in the future. The lack of a championship game will almost certainly help with an 8 team playoff, as one of your top 2 teams isn't guaranteed a loss in the penultimate week.

The decision to expand or not will be for other reasons that mostly relate to revenue streams. If a team or teams expands the per team revenue potential, then it will happen. If it doesn't, it won't.

That is probably the case...but it just me I think that CCG became much more valuable...maybe I am wrong...

(12-09-2014 12:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Here's why:

1) Nobody available is worth anything like $35 million yearly in CFP and media money.

2) In all probability, the Big 12 did NOT get left out of the CFP because they lacked a CCG. The following are far more likely reasons:

a) Since there are 5 major conferences and only 4 playoff spots, SOMEBODY has to get left out every year. It's inevitable.

In this case, one can make a rational argument for Ohio State > Baylor, whom the committee clearly considered to be the "real" Big 12 champ despite the formal designation. Evaluating Baylor and Ohio State, both teams lost a game but Baylor played the softer schedule. When two teams have the same record, SOS is a rational reason for picking between them, so the committee cannot be faulted for putting OSU > Baylor. Baylor was also inferior to each of the other P5 champs, so they were, objectively, the 5th best of the 5 major champs.

IOW's, there's nothing about the committee's decision that necessarily suggests that a lack of a CCG hurt the Big 12. Baylor's SOS was sunk by their poor OOC schedule. Had they played Minnesota, like TCU did, they probably move past Ohio State. That problem can't be solved by a CCG.

b) TV Politics: Ohio State is a blue-chip name, TCU and Baylor are not. Had the Big 12 champ been a big name, like Oklahoma or Texas, chances are they don't get jumped by Ohio State.

c) Bowlsby stupidly lacked the guts to name Baylor the champ. You don't need a CCG to have a clear-cut champ, just a valid tie-breaker procedure, and H2H was the obvious one. But by not doing this, Bowlsby made it easy for the committee to punt on both them and TCU in favor of a clear-cut champ, OSU. As i noted above, the committee almost certainly went ahead and regarded Baylor as the champ anyway, but Bowlsby's failure to formally name them made the committee's job easier as they knew it would provide them with cover in the media.

None of these problems would be resolved by adding two teams and playing a CCG.

I'll bite for one moment, and take you seriously...which raises this question:

IF what you are saying is accurate, THEN how does it feel to be a TCU or Baylor fan and know that your own conference has thrown you under the bus? Because seriously, if this logic is true, then the B12 has written off anyone without the name "University of Texas" or "The University of Oklahoma." And if your own Conference Commissioner isn't going to stand up and assert the equality of TCU, Baylor, (and presumably Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, etc...) but instead will hold to the line of "Well, our teams got aced out purely because of their lack of glamour..." then y'all are screwed.

(12-09-2014 09:56 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Here's why:

1) Nobody available is worth anything like $35 million yearly in CFP and media money.

2) In all probability, the Big 12 did NOT get left out of the CFP because they lacked a CCG. The following are far more likely reasons:

a) Since there are 5 major conferences and only 4 playoff spots, SOMEBODY has to get left out every year. It's inevitable.

In this case, one can make a rational argument for Ohio State > Baylor, whom the committee clearly considered to be the "real" Big 12 champ despite the formal designation. Evaluating Baylor and Ohio State, both teams lost a game but Baylor played the softer schedule. When two teams have the same record, SOS is a rational reason for picking between them, so the committee cannot be faulted for putting OSU > Baylor. Baylor was also inferior to each of the other P5 champs, so they were, objectively, the 5th best of the 5 major champs.

IOW's, there's nothing about the committee's decision that necessarily suggests that a lack of a CCG hurt the Big 12. Baylor's SOS was sunk by their poor OOC schedule. Had they played Minnesota, like TCU did, they probably move past Ohio State. That problem can't be solved by a CCG.

b) TV Politics: Ohio State is a blue-chip name, TCU and Baylor are not. Had the Big 12 champ been a big name, like Oklahoma or Texas, chances are they don't get jumped by Ohio State.

c) Bowlsby stupidly lacked the guts to name Baylor the champ. You don't need a CCG to have a clear-cut champ, just a valid tie-breaker procedure, and H2H was the obvious one. But by not doing this, Bowlsby made it easy for the committee to punt on both them and TCU in favor of a clear-cut champ, OSU. As i noted above, the committee almost certainly went ahead and regarded Baylor as the champ anyway, but Bowlsby's failure to formally name them made the committee's job easier as they knew it would provide them with cover in the media.

None of these problems would be resolved by adding two teams and playing a CCG.

I'll bite for one moment, and take you seriously...which raises this question:

IF what you are saying is accurate, THEN how does it feel to be a TCU or Baylor fan and know that your own conference has thrown you under the bus? Because seriously, if this logic is true, then the B12 has written off anyone without the name "University of Texas" or "The University of Oklahoma." And if your own Conference Commissioner isn't going to stand up and assert the equality of TCU, Baylor, (and presumably Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, etc...) but instead will hold to the line of "Well, our teams got aced out purely because of their lack of glamour..." then y'all are screwed.

Some of his logic is flawed, especially b and c. But a is pretty close- someone is going to be left out and the team the committee regarded as our "champ" had a weaker body of work than the "best" team in the conference did. If Baylor has a nonconference win over a .500+ P5 team, I think they are in. Plus OSU had the ultimate season ending "eye test".

It was a perfect storm against the Big 12 this year.

(12-09-2014 07:03 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 06:51 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:44 AM)canewton Wrote:  points A and B are the exact reason the Big 12 has to expand. Without a conference championship, teams like Baylor and TCU won't make it to the college playoff because they don't have the 'pedigree'. Throw in a conference championship and 1-loss teams like Baylor and TCU have a strong enough schedule so as not to be dropped 3 places while winning their last game in a blow-out victory.

I don't think so. There's no evidence of stigma against the Big 12. Had the situation been reversed, and had the Big 12 champ been Texas, there's little chance a smaller-name B1G team, say a Minnesota, that won the B1G championship game, gets jumped over Texas.

IOW's, if Texas had TCU or Baylor resume and Minnesota had Ohio State's, no way Texas gets bumped out. The B1G champ game wouldn't have made a difference.

It just so happened that this year, the Big 12 had the "small name" champs. That can happen to any conference.

1. They don't want to expand but it is out their they want and the way it appears they need a Championship Game...it has been set that basically if you're 11-1 amd the other P5 Champions are 12-1 you're out...if it is true that it costing you to lose $14 Million a year you can leave that on the table.

I don't think that has been said. I think the Big 12 lost out because objectively, its champ had the weakest overall resume of the five champs, and because it had the "smallest name" from a TV point of view.

A conference title game doesn't address either of those.

As for the value of the CCG, surely the Big 12 was already aware of that and had decided it doesn't need it, that the costs of adding two outweigh the benefits of those CCG dollars.

(12-09-2014 09:04 AM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  This "Stupid to expand" rationale is very similar to the Big East before the football conference was destroyed. They didn't want to split the money more ways, they didn't want to expand into new markets, and they wanted to keep the BCS bid.

Look what happened - they got picked over, the most valuable properties left, they no longer had the power to get the teams they wanted, and the Big East football conference is now gone.

As a USF fan, I lived through all that, and I disagree. E.g., do you really think that if in 2009 the Big East had added ECU, UCF, Memphis, and Temple to become a 12-team football conference, that this would have prevented Pitt and Cuse and WVU from leaving when the Big 12 and ACC came calling?

Of course not. Those teams leave anyway.

(12-09-2014 09:05 AM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Here's why:

1) Nobody available is worth anything like $35 million yearly in CFP and media money.

2) In all probability, the Big 12 did NOT get left out of the CFP because they lacked a CCG. The following are far more likely reasons:

a) Since there are 5 major conferences and only 4 playoff spots, SOMEBODY has to get left out every year. It's inevitable.

In this case, one can make a rational argument for Ohio State > Baylor, whom the committee clearly considered to be the "real" Big 12 champ despite the formal designation. Evaluating Baylor and Ohio State, both teams lost a game but Baylor played the softer schedule. When two teams have the same record, SOS is a rational reason for picking between them, so the committee cannot be faulted for putting OSU > Baylor. Baylor was also inferior to each of the other P5 champs, so they were, objectively, the 5th best of the 5 major champs.

IOW's, there's nothing about the committee's decision that necessarily suggests that a lack of a CCG hurt the Big 12. Baylor's SOS was sunk by their poor OOC schedule. Had they played Minnesota, like TCU did, they probably move past Ohio State. That problem can't be solved by a CCG.

b) TV Politics: Ohio State is a blue-chip name, TCU and Baylor are not. Had the Big 12 champ been a big name, like Oklahoma or Texas, chances are they don't get jumped by Ohio State.

c) Bowlsby stupidly lacked the guts to name Baylor the champ. You don't need a CCG to have a clear-cut champ, just a valid tie-breaker procedure, and H2H was the obvious one. But by not doing this, Bowlsby made it easy for the committee to punt on both them and TCU in favor of a clear-cut champ, OSU. As i noted above, the committee almost certainly went ahead and regarded Baylor as the champ anyway, but Bowlsby's failure to formally name them made the committee's job easier as they knew it would provide them with cover in the media.

None of these problems would be resolved by adding two teams and playing a CCG.

Question: if Florida State had lost one game this season, would they have been included in the playoffs this year? If not, does that mean that the ACC champ has to go undefeated to get a seat?

Answer: Not a chance. If FSU had a loss, no way do they beat out TCU or Baylor for the final playoff spot.

I don't think the ACC champ has to go unbeaten to get a seat. Last year's FSU team, for example, could have weathered a loss, because they played a tougher schedule and they dominated people.

But this year's FSU team played a softer schedule, and barely eeked by bad teams, so yes, they needed to be unbeaten.

(12-09-2014 07:07 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Want to know WHY the Big XII doesn't have a team in the CFP?

12-1>11-1.

It's really that simple. There's no complicated conspiracy.

12-1>11-1.

Not so, and here's why: Does FSU get the 4th playoff spot if they lose a game this year? Not a chance.

FSU needed to be unbeaten to get past TCU and Baylor. Had FSU lost any of those close games - to ND, Miami, the Ville, Georgia Tech, you name it - they are sitting on the outside looking in at Baylor, even though they would be 12-1 and Baylor 11-1. That's because FSU's schedule, despite the CCG, was weak, and because they barely beat teams.

So obviously, having a CCG wasn't decisive. What was decisive were things I mentioned.

(12-09-2014 10:02 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 09:56 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Here's why:

1) Nobody available is worth anything like $35 million yearly in CFP and media money.

2) In all probability, the Big 12 did NOT get left out of the CFP because they lacked a CCG. The following are far more likely reasons:

a) Since there are 5 major conferences and only 4 playoff spots, SOMEBODY has to get left out every year. It's inevitable.

In this case, one can make a rational argument for Ohio State > Baylor, whom the committee clearly considered to be the "real" Big 12 champ despite the formal designation. Evaluating Baylor and Ohio State, both teams lost a game but Baylor played the softer schedule. When two teams have the same record, SOS is a rational reason for picking between them, so the committee cannot be faulted for putting OSU > Baylor. Baylor was also inferior to each of the other P5 champs, so they were, objectively, the 5th best of the 5 major champs.

IOW's, there's nothing about the committee's decision that necessarily suggests that a lack of a CCG hurt the Big 12. Baylor's SOS was sunk by their poor OOC schedule. Had they played Minnesota, like TCU did, they probably move past Ohio State. That problem can't be solved by a CCG.

b) TV Politics: Ohio State is a blue-chip name, TCU and Baylor are not. Had the Big 12 champ been a big name, like Oklahoma or Texas, chances are they don't get jumped by Ohio State.

c) Bowlsby stupidly lacked the guts to name Baylor the champ. You don't need a CCG to have a clear-cut champ, just a valid tie-breaker procedure, and H2H was the obvious one. But by not doing this, Bowlsby made it easy for the committee to punt on both them and TCU in favor of a clear-cut champ, OSU. As i noted above, the committee almost certainly went ahead and regarded Baylor as the champ anyway, but Bowlsby's failure to formally name them made the committee's job easier as they knew it would provide them with cover in the media.

None of these problems would be resolved by adding two teams and playing a CCG.

I'll bite for one moment, and take you seriously...which raises this question:

IF what you are saying is accurate, THEN how does it feel to be a TCU or Baylor fan and know that your own conference has thrown you under the bus? Because seriously, if this logic is true, then the B12 has written off anyone without the name "University of Texas" or "The University of Oklahoma." And if your own Conference Commissioner isn't going to stand up and assert the equality of TCU, Baylor, (and presumably Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, etc...) but instead will hold to the line of "Well, our teams got aced out purely because of their lack of glamour..." then y'all are screwed.

Some of his logic is flawed, especially b and c. But a is pretty close- someone is going to be left out and the team the committee regarded as our "champ" had a weaker body of work than the "best" team in the conference did. If Baylor has a nonconference win over a .500+ P5 team, I think they are in. Plus OSU had the ultimate season ending "eye test".

It was a perfect storm against the Big 12 this year.

One of many to follow.

(12-09-2014 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 07:07 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Want to know WHY the Big XII doesn't have a team in the CFP?

12-1>11-1.

It's really that simple. There's no complicated conspiracy.

12-1>11-1.

Not so, and here's why: Does FSU get the 4th playoff spot if they lose a game this year? Not a chance.

FSU needed to be unbeaten to get past TCU and Baylor. Had FSU lost any of those close games - to ND, Miami, the Ville, Georgia Tech, you name it - they are sitting on the outside looking in at Baylor, even though they would be 12-1 and Baylor 11-1. That's because FSU's schedule, despite the CCG, was weak, and because they barely beat teams.

So obviously, having a CCG wasn't decisive. What was decisive were things I mentioned.

Well....you can argue when FSU lost that one game...Ohio State lost at home early and they had a weaker SoS according to the CFP....Virginia Tech which went 6-6 beat Ohio State early yet the Buckeyes still got in with 12 wins and they played 11 P5 opponents and both Ohio State and Florida State played 3 schools that finished in the Final CFP Top 25 and they played 12 P5 Opponents...Baylor beat Two Top 25 Ranked Schools and TCU only 1 with one few win at 11 in regards to Alabama, Oregon, Florida State and Ohio State...

(12-09-2014 10:24 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 10:02 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 09:56 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 12:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Here's why:

1) Nobody available is worth anything like $35 million yearly in CFP and media money.

2) In all probability, the Big 12 did NOT get left out of the CFP because they lacked a CCG. The following are far more likely reasons:

a) Since there are 5 major conferences and only 4 playoff spots, SOMEBODY has to get left out every year. It's inevitable.

In this case, one can make a rational argument for Ohio State > Baylor, whom the committee clearly considered to be the "real" Big 12 champ despite the formal designation. Evaluating Baylor and Ohio State, both teams lost a game but Baylor played the softer schedule. When two teams have the same record, SOS is a rational reason for picking between them, so the committee cannot be faulted for putting OSU > Baylor. Baylor was also inferior to each of the other P5 champs, so they were, objectively, the 5th best of the 5 major champs.

IOW's, there's nothing about the committee's decision that necessarily suggests that a lack of a CCG hurt the Big 12. Baylor's SOS was sunk by their poor OOC schedule. Had they played Minnesota, like TCU did, they probably move past Ohio State. That problem can't be solved by a CCG.

b) TV Politics: Ohio State is a blue-chip name, TCU and Baylor are not. Had the Big 12 champ been a big name, like Oklahoma or Texas, chances are they don't get jumped by Ohio State.

c) Bowlsby stupidly lacked the guts to name Baylor the champ. You don't need a CCG to have a clear-cut champ, just a valid tie-breaker procedure, and H2H was the obvious one. But by not doing this, Bowlsby made it easy for the committee to punt on both them and TCU in favor of a clear-cut champ, OSU. As i noted above, the committee almost certainly went ahead and regarded Baylor as the champ anyway, but Bowlsby's failure to formally name them made the committee's job easier as they knew it would provide them with cover in the media.

None of these problems would be resolved by adding two teams and playing a CCG.

I'll bite for one moment, and take you seriously...which raises this question:

IF what you are saying is accurate, THEN how does it feel to be a TCU or Baylor fan and know that your own conference has thrown you under the bus? Because seriously, if this logic is true, then the B12 has written off anyone without the name "University of Texas" or "The University of Oklahoma." And if your own Conference Commissioner isn't going to stand up and assert the equality of TCU, Baylor, (and presumably Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, etc...) but instead will hold to the line of "Well, our teams got aced out purely because of their lack of glamour..." then y'all are screwed.

Some of his logic is flawed, especially b and c. But a is pretty close- someone is going to be left out and the team the committee regarded as our "champ" had a weaker body of work than the "best" team in the conference did. If Baylor has a nonconference win over a .500+ P5 team, I think they are in. Plus OSU had the ultimate season ending "eye test".

It was a perfect storm against the Big 12 this year.

One of many to follow.

Unless they get that waiver to have a Title Game with 10 schools or expand I agree.

(12-09-2014 10:28 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 07:07 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Want to know WHY the Big XII doesn't have a team in the CFP?

12-1>11-1.

It's really that simple. There's no complicated conspiracy.

12-1>11-1.

Not so, and here's why: Does FSU get the 4th playoff spot if they lose a game this year? Not a chance.

FSU needed to be unbeaten to get past TCU and Baylor. Had FSU lost any of those close games - to ND, Miami, the Ville, Georgia Tech, you name it - they are sitting on the outside looking in at Baylor, even though they would be 12-1 and Baylor 11-1. That's because FSU's schedule, despite the CCG, was weak, and because they barely beat teams.

So obviously, having a CCG wasn't decisive. What was decisive were things I mentioned.

Well....you can argue when FSU lost that one game...Ohio State lost at home early and they had a weaker SoS according to the CFP....Virginia Tech which went 6-6 beat Ohio State early yet the Buckeyes still got in with 12 wins and they played 11 P5 opponents and both Ohio State and Florida State played 3 schools that finished in the Final CFP Top 25 and they played 12 P5 Opponents...Baylor beat Two Top 25 Ranked Schools and TCU only 1 with one few win at 11 in regards to Alabama, Oregon, Florida State and Ohio State...

FSU was unbeaten and STILL ranked 3/4 by the committee over the last few weeks. They got little respect because of the constant need for miracle comebacks. I don't think there's any doubt that had FSU lost at any time this year, they don't get in.

Big East comparisons are wrong for two giant, glaring reasons: the XII has a contract bowl (the Big East never did) and their spot in the new NCAA governance structure. The 12-year contract with the Sugar Bowl and that spot in the P5 governance will keep the XII around (along with the GOR) for at least another 8-10 years. They may lack vision by not adding teams, but with a GOR and a slew of individual Tier 3 deals, it's going to be tough for anyone to leave. They can afford to wait until someone proves to be worthy. There's truly no need to be hasty.

Expansion has always been about value, not PR. The bottom line is that nobody left brings the value at the moment. There's a few programs with potential, but some of that potential needs to be realized. Fair or not, largely subsidized athletic budgets aren't viewed as sustainable. Fan support (not just attendance, but financial) must increase for those programs before they will get an invitation, if at all.

I honestly don't believe the CCG issue is the one that drives expansion.

(12-09-2014 11:09 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 10:28 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 10:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-09-2014 07:07 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  Want to know WHY the Big XII doesn't have a team in the CFP?

12-1>11-1.

It's really that simple. There's no complicated conspiracy.

12-1>11-1.

Not so, and here's why: Does FSU get the 4th playoff spot if they lose a game this year? Not a chance.

FSU needed to be unbeaten to get past TCU and Baylor. Had FSU lost any of those close games - to ND, Miami, the Ville, Georgia Tech, you name it - they are sitting on the outside looking in at Baylor, even though they would be 12-1 and Baylor 11-1. That's because FSU's schedule, despite the CCG, was weak, and because they barely beat teams.

So obviously, having a CCG wasn't decisive. What was decisive were things I mentioned.

Well....you can argue when FSU lost that one game...Ohio State lost at home early and they had a weaker SoS according to the CFP....Virginia Tech which went 6-6 beat Ohio State early yet the Buckeyes still got in with 12 wins and they played 11 P5 opponents and both Ohio State and Florida State played 3 schools that finished in the Final CFP Top 25 and they played 12 P5 Opponents...Baylor beat Two Top 25 Ranked Schools and TCU only 1 with one few win at 11 in regards to Alabama, Oregon, Florida State and Ohio State...

FSU was unbeaten and STILL ranked 3/4 by the committee over the last few weeks. They got little respect because of the constant need for miracle comebacks. I don't think there's any doubt that had FSU lost at any time this year, they don't get in.

That is just your opinion...many thought and the initial Rankings from the CFP suggested that Ohio State was done after losing at Home to Virginia Tech...remember these are the same folks that dropped TCU 3 spots after they won by 50 points....But we have an idea on what the issue with the Big XII and if media reports are correct they are working hard to fix their issue...quite sure Oliver Luck is giving them guidance ....

(12-09-2014 07:31 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  I expect the Big12 to maintain their current course for a couple reasons:

1 - Pride/Ego
2 - Lack of vision

#1 is evident in that the Big12 wants to get the other conference commissioners to give them a 10-game CCG. IT WON'T HAPPEN!

Not sure why it won't. ACC is on board and it would provide stability for G5s.