Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Big 12 would be stupid to expand
Author Message
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,836
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 152
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #61
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 01:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 12:59 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  They said that, and in this particular year it did make a difference since everybody won. But some years that 13th game is going to result in a loss that knocks a team out. Upsets happen; the typical chance the best team wins in a CCG is only 60-70%, so most years there will be 1-2 upsets in championship games.

We are going in circles. I keep saying you it puts you in a position to wait for others to lose and you can't control your own destiny. You keep saying that's not true, then you circle around to upsets which... means you don't control your own destiny, which is what you are supposedly disagreeing with. Yet you are disagreeing, by.. agreeing. I don't get it?

This year, under these circumstances (a clear #1 team from every other conference that held serve, while the Big 12 was cross-cut between "best" and "most deserving"), the 13th game made a difference. But that doesn't mean that will be the case every year. You are extrapolating the results of one year to happening every year. It won't always be that 12-1> 11-1 and the extra game makes a difference. It depends on all the details that we've head all year long- quality wins, big nonconference wins, when the losses occured and to whom, etc.
12-09-2014 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #62
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 12:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 12:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  E.g., had FSU lost any of those close games to Miami, Florida, BC, or GT, do they get in ahead of Baylor or TCU? I don't think so. Do you?

To answer your last question, no to Georgia Tech or Flroida because they were so late in the year. One of the earlier ones? Maybe. But their issue wasn't a SOS issue, it was performance. In any event, you are escaping the point: the Big 12is relying on other teams losing, as opposed to being able to control their own destiny. Here is a better question: had TCU been able to play Baylor again, or Baylor able to be playing K State for the second time (likely matchups if a CCG exsited), do you think they are still in?

I don't think the Big 12 is relying on other teams losing. The Big 12 missed out because IMO, the way the committee evaluated Baylor, TCU, and OSU, was that first, they decided that Baylor was the "real" Big 12 champ (eliminating TCU), then, they evaluated Baylor versus OSU, and they found in favor of OSU, because Baylor played a softer schedule.

Now, would Baylor getting to play another game, a CCG, against TCU or Kansas State, have helped them move past OSU? Absolutely. But that's just because it's a game against a good team, not because it's a CCG. Baylor could have accomplished the same thing had it scheduled a good team OOC, like Oregon did in playing Michigan State. Baylor's problem was a weak overall schedule, and while a CCG could help with that, so can other things, like scheduling tougher OOC.

And it's not a "13th game" issue, as it is arbitrary to call the CCG game the "extra game". Kent State is Ohio State's "13th game" as much as Wisconsin was.

So your conclusion, that the committee has demonstrated that if everyone has 1 loss, the Big 12 champ is out, is not supported. If FSU had a loss, they are almost certainly out, and if Baylor had played a good OOC game (and won it), they probably get in over Ohio State.

We can't go crazy jumping to massive sweeping conclusions on the basis of a single, muddled year.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2014 01:41 PM by quo vadis.)
12-09-2014 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #63
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  So your conclusion, that the committee has demonstrated that if everyone has 1 loss, the Big 12 champ is out, is not supported.


Actually "my conclusion" IS SUPPORTED by the man in charge.

Jeff Long Interview Wrote:What lifted the Buckeyes to No. 4?

Long: "I think with the championship game, Ohio State demonstrated they were a total team and they did overcome replacing two quarterbacks and that's a tremendous statement about the quality of their team. And with a conference championship in the Big Ten, with a win over the western division champion Wisconsin, it was decisive for Ohio State to move into that four spot."

Since the Ohio State decision was "decisive," what changed about TCU's resume to drop them from No. 3 to No. 6?

Long: "TCU I think, once we saw the body of work, it was really about Ohio State's movement up. It was Ohio State's impression -- their performance on the field -- that made a difference to the committee to move them up. So it was really about Ohio State and not about TCU."

What impact did not having a Big 12 Championship Game have on the committee's thinking?

Long: "Well that's a great question, a natural question. I'll answer it this way: we really don't deal in hypotheticals. So they don't have that game, but again I'll go back and say that Ohio State's performance in a 13th game gave them a quality win against a highly ranked team that allowed them to move into that fourth spot."

Were TCU and Baylor impacted in any way by sharing a championship rather than having one of them declared an outright champion?

Long: "Well again, we were faced with co-champions and that's what was given to us by the conference and we weighed that. The committee weighed that and we evaluated that and then again, I'll go back and say that it was really about Ohio State's performance that propelled them ahead of Baylor and TCU."


Your conclusion is not "supported." Whether it is valid or not can be debated, because it's not as though there is no validity to your statement or opinion. But in terms of "support" there is no debate which conclusion is "supported." Anything else is mincing words.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2014 01:46 PM by adcorbett.)
12-09-2014 01:46 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,012
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #64
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 01:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  So your conclusion, that the committee has demonstrated that if everyone has 1 loss, the Big 12 champ is out, is not supported.


Actually "my conclusion" IS SUPPORTED by the man in charge.

Jeff Long Interview Wrote:What lifted the Buckeyes to No. 4?

Long: "I think with the championship game, Ohio State demonstrated they were a total team and they did overcome replacing two quarterbacks and that's a tremendous statement about the quality of their team. And with a conference championship in the Big Ten, with a win over the western division champion Wisconsin, it was decisive for Ohio State to move into that four spot."

Since the Ohio State decision was "decisive," what changed about TCU's resume to drop them from No. 3 to No. 6?

Long: "TCU I think, once we saw the body of work, it was really about Ohio State's movement up. It was Ohio State's impression -- their performance on the field -- that made a difference to the committee to move them up. So it was really about Ohio State and not about TCU."

What impact did not having a Big 12 Championship Game have on the committee's thinking?

Long: "Well that's a great question, a natural question. I'll answer it this way: we really don't deal in hypotheticals. So they don't have that game, but again I'll go back and say that Ohio State's performance in a 13th game gave them a quality win against a highly ranked team that allowed them to move into that fourth spot."

Were TCU and Baylor impacted in any way by sharing a championship rather than having one of them declared an outright champion?

Long: "Well again, we were faced with co-champions and that's what was given to us by the conference and we weighed that. The committee weighed that and we evaluated that and then again, I'll go back and say that it was really about Ohio State's performance that propelled them ahead of Baylor and TCU."


Your conclusion is not "supported." Whether it is valid or not can be debated, because it's not as though there is no validity to your statement or opinion. But in terms of "support" there is no debate which conclusion is "supported." Anything else is mincing words.

Your conclusion is not supported. The Chair is talking about how impressive OSU was against Wisconsin. The CCG gave Ohio State a chance to shine against a ranked opponent and obviously that helped. But again, the committee is saying nothing to indicate that there is something about a CCG that is special in this regard.

Had Baylor played a tougher schedule, and had they 'shined' against a ranked OOC opponent, that would have served them equally well. The CCG is just one way a team can get a quality opponent on the schedule.

And the very fact that we all know had FSU lost a game, they almost surely don't get in, undermines it as well.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2014 01:52 PM by quo vadis.)
12-09-2014 01:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,836
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 152
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #65
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 01:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 01:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  So your conclusion, that the committee has demonstrated that if everyone has 1 loss, the Big 12 champ is out, is not supported.


Actually "my conclusion" IS SUPPORTED by the man in charge.

Jeff Long Interview Wrote:What lifted the Buckeyes to No. 4?

Long: "I think with the championship game, Ohio State demonstrated they were a total team and they did overcome replacing two quarterbacks and that's a tremendous statement about the quality of their team. And with a conference championship in the Big Ten, with a win over the western division champion Wisconsin, it was decisive for Ohio State to move into that four spot."

Since the Ohio State decision was "decisive," what changed about TCU's resume to drop them from No. 3 to No. 6?

Long: "TCU I think, once we saw the body of work, it was really about Ohio State's movement up. It was Ohio State's impression -- their performance on the field -- that made a difference to the committee to move them up. So it was really about Ohio State and not about TCU."

What impact did not having a Big 12 Championship Game have on the committee's thinking?

Long: "Well that's a great question, a natural question. I'll answer it this way: we really don't deal in hypotheticals. So they don't have that game, but again I'll go back and say that Ohio State's performance in a 13th game gave them a quality win against a highly ranked team that allowed them to move into that fourth spot."

Were TCU and Baylor impacted in any way by sharing a championship rather than having one of them declared an outright champion?

Long: "Well again, we were faced with co-champions and that's what was given to us by the conference and we weighed that. The committee weighed that and we evaluated that and then again, I'll go back and say that it was really about Ohio State's performance that propelled them ahead of Baylor and TCU."


Your conclusion is not "supported." Whether it is valid or not can be debated, because it's not as though there is no validity to your statement or opinion. But in terms of "support" there is no debate which conclusion is "supported." Anything else is mincing words.
I see the words "a chance at a quality win in a 13th game" differently than you do. Its not an absolute 12>11. If the 11 has more quality wins elsewhere, that will be a factor. For example, I think if TCU played Buffalo and Baylor played Minn and had a quality top 25 nonconference win, the committee would have put 11-1 Baylor in over 12-1 OSU. Baylor would have been the clear "best" and "most deserving" Big 12 team. Another example- if Oregon were in the Big 12 and beat Mich St and then went 9-0 in Big 12 conference play, I think 11-1 would have been better than 12-1.

The details are important. Every year is different. Every scenario is different. We can't over-extrapolate one year's events.
12-09-2014 01:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wavefan12 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,053
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 77
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 09:39 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(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.

Someone has to explain to me why the min is 12 teams? I don't understand the basis for said min?
12-09-2014 02:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,836
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 152
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 02:03 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 09:39 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 09:28 AM)Maize Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 06:56 AM)Maize Wrote:  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.

Someone has to explain to me why the min is 12 teams? I don't understand the basis for said min?

It was historical for some small conference who expanded a long time ago and petitioned the NCAA for an extra game so that they could crown a champ. The SEC later saw this rule as a chance to make so money and increase influence so they expanded to 12 in order to have a champ game.
12-09-2014 02:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 16,258
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 1202
I Root For: Olde Ironclad
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #68
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
How is it surprising that we have 5 conferences vying for 4 playoff spots and somebody's upset?
12-09-2014 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wavefan12 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,053
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 77
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #69
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 02:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:03 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 09:39 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 09:28 AM)Maize Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 09:20 AM)bullet Wrote:  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.

Someone has to explain to me why the min is 12 teams? I don't understand the basis for said min?

It was historical for some small conference who expanded a long time ago and petitioned the NCAA for an extra game so that they could crown a champ. The SEC later saw this rule as a chance to make so money and increase influence so they expanded to 12 in order to have a champ game.

My god, I feel like a crazy person. i don't need a history, I need to know why 12 (and not say ten) was the established minimum to hold a championship game. No one seems ot have an answer, it's like they just plucked it out of thin air? Thanks.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2014 02:27 PM by wavefan12.)
12-09-2014 02:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,836
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 152
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #70
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 02:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:03 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 09:39 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 09:28 AM)Maize Wrote:  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.

Someone has to explain to me why the min is 12 teams? I don't understand the basis for said min?

It was historical for some small conference who expanded a long time ago and petitioned the NCAA for an extra game so that they could crown a champ. The SEC later saw this rule as a chance to make so money and increase influence so they expanded to 12 in order to have a champ game.

My god, I feel like a crazy person. i don't need a history, I need to know why 12 (and not say ten) was the established minimum to hold a championship game. No one seems ot have an answer, it's like they just plucked it out of thin air? Thanks.

Yeah it is arbitrary. I suspect the league petitioning way back when had 12 teams.
12-09-2014 02:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wavefan12 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,053
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 77
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 02:36 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:03 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 09:39 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  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.

Someone has to explain to me why the min is 12 teams? I don't understand the basis for said min?

It was historical for some small conference who expanded a long time ago and petitioned the NCAA for an extra game so that they could crown a champ. The SEC later saw this rule as a chance to make so money and increase influence so they expanded to 12 in order to have a champ game.

My god, I feel like a crazy person. i don't need a history, I need to know why 12 (and not say ten) was the established minimum to hold a championship game. No one seems ot have an answer, it's like they just plucked it out of thin air? Thanks.

Yeah it is arbitrary. I suspect the league petitioning way back when had 12 teams.

At this point the B12 would need the support of the other P5's as the NCAA will just do whatever the rich guys tell them to do, not sure if they will provide support out of spite because they had to conform to it and may not want to give the B12 another revenue source and/or outlet to get a team in teh playoff. It's all so dumb. I'd love the B12 to just hold the game and not care what the NCAA has to say.
12-09-2014 02:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #72
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 01:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Your conclusion is not supported. The Chair is talking about how impressive OSU was against Wisconsin. The CCG gave Ohio State a chance to shine against a ranked opponent and obviously that helped. But again, the committee is saying nothing to indicate that there is something about a CCG that is special in this regard.

We all know that being wrong will not stop you from repeating the same thing over and over (And you will again), but the words are right there. It is supported. Your conclusion is not. Whether that means in the end one is right or wrong is still to be seen, but there is absolutely no question which conclusion is supported with evidence from the people who make such decisions, no matter how you want to spin it.

(12-09-2014 01:55 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I see the words "a chance at a quality win in a 13th game" differently than you do. Its not an absolute 12>11. If the 11 has more quality wins elsewhere, that will be a factor. For example, I think if TCU played Buffalo and Baylor played Minn and had a quality top 25 nonconference win, the committee would have put 11-1 Baylor in over 12-1 OSU. Baylor would have been the clear "best" and "most deserving" Big 12 team. Another example- if Oregon were in the Big 12 and beat Mich St and then went 9-0 in Big 12 conference play, I think 11-1 would have been better than 12-1.

The details are important. Every year is different. Every scenario is different. We can't over-extrapolate one year's events.

The difference is I am using what he actually said (and this was one statement on it, it was not the only one). You are trying to use information that was not stated to justify it. As I said to quo, in the end, your conclusion may end up being correct. But in terms of which one is "supported" there is no debate. None at all. In fact he also all but said that not only did the 13th game help OSU, but the lack of one hurt Baylor and TCU. He danced around (hence the "all but said it), but he hinted at it very strongly.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2014 02:48 PM by adcorbett.)
12-09-2014 02:46 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wavefan12 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,053
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 77
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #73
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 02:46 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 01:50 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Your conclusion is not supported. The Chair is talking about how impressive OSU was against Wisconsin. The CCG gave Ohio State a chance to shine against a ranked opponent and obviously that helped. But again, the committee is saying nothing to indicate that there is something about a CCG that is special in this regard.

We all know that being wrong will not stop you from repeating the same thing over and over (And you will again), but the words are right there. It is supported. Your conclusion is not. Whether that means in the end one is right or wrong is still to be seen, but there is absolutely no question which conclusion is supported with evidence from the people who make such decisions, no matter how you want to spin it.

(12-09-2014 01:55 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I see the words "a chance at a quality win in a 13th game" differently than you do. Its not an absolute 12>11. If the 11 has more quality wins elsewhere, that will be a factor. For example, I think if TCU played Buffalo and Baylor played Minn and had a quality top 25 nonconference win, the committee would have put 11-1 Baylor in over 12-1 OSU. Baylor would have been the clear "best" and "most deserving" Big 12 team. Another example- if Oregon were in the Big 12 and beat Mich St and then went 9-0 in Big 12 conference play, I think 11-1 would have been better than 12-1.

The details are important. Every year is different. Every scenario is different. We can't over-extrapolate one year's events.

The difference is I am using what he actually said (and this was one statement on it, it was not the only one). You are trying to use information that was not stated to justify it. As I said to quo, in the end, your conclusion may end up being correct. But in terms of which one is "supported" there is no debate. None at all. In fact he also all but said that not only did the 13th game help OSU, but the lack of one hurt Baylor and TCU. He danced around (hence the "all but said it), but he hinted at it very strongly.

Seriously, no one is saying that simply putting the title of CCG on the game elevates it, the point is that it provides a guarantee that two solid teams will meet to bolster their resume. tOSU probably thought VT would be their normal self, things happen, but the CCG provides another virtually guaranteed resume boost at a time when the slimmest or margins separates #3 - #5. This isn't rocket science, jeez.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2014 02:51 PM by wavefan12.)
12-09-2014 02:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #74
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 02:36 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:03 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Someone has to explain to me why the min is 12 teams? I don't understand the basis for said min?

It was historical for some small conference who expanded a long time ago and petitioned the NCAA for an extra game so that they could crown a champ. The SEC later saw this rule as a chance to make so money and increase influence so they expanded to 12 in order to have a champ game.

My god, I feel like a crazy person. i don't need a history, I need to know why 12 (and not say ten) was the established minimum to hold a championship game. No one seems ot have an answer, it's like they just plucked it out of thin air? Thanks.

Yeah it is arbitrary. I suspect the league petitioning way back when had 12 teams.


To be fair it wasn't really arbitrary. You have to remember, the conference championship game was NEVER meant for football. It was meant for other sports, in conferences that were so big that everyone could not play each other (at the time, there were no conferences with more than 11 teams). when the SEC first found the loophole, the NCAA was actually opposed to the CCG but could not really do anything about it (I am not sure why they were, just remember reading they were). But that is where the number 12 came from: that was a number larger than any conference was at the time, and made to support other sports who had associate members.
12-09-2014 02:52 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #75
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 02:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:36 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:03 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Someone has to explain to me why the min is 12 teams? I don't understand the basis for said min?

It was historical for some small conference who expanded a long time ago and petitioned the NCAA for an extra game so that they could crown a champ. The SEC later saw this rule as a chance to make so money and increase influence so they expanded to 12 in order to have a champ game.

My god, I feel like a crazy person. i don't need a history, I need to know why 12 (and not say ten) was the established minimum to hold a championship game. No one seems ot have an answer, it's like they just plucked it out of thin air? Thanks.

Yeah it is arbitrary. I suspect the league petitioning way back when had 12 teams.


To be fair it wasn't really arbitrary. You have to remember, the conference championship game was NEVER meant for football. It was meant for other sports, in conferences that were so big that everyone could not play each other (at the time, there were no conferences with more than 11 teams). when the SEC first found the loophole, the NCAA was actually opposed to the CCG but could not really do anything about it (I am not sure why they were, just remember reading they were). But that is where the number 12 came from: that was a number larger than any conference was at the time, and made to support other sports who had associate members.

The rule was originally meant for football. A large I-AA conference asked the NCAA for the rule. Roy Kramer (or someone on his staff) looked at it and realized that as written, the rule could be used by I-A (now FBS) conferences as well.
12-09-2014 02:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wavefan12 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,053
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 77
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 02:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:36 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:03 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Someone has to explain to me why the min is 12 teams? I don't understand the basis for said min?

It was historical for some small conference who expanded a long time ago and petitioned the NCAA for an extra game so that they could crown a champ. The SEC later saw this rule as a chance to make so money and increase influence so they expanded to 12 in order to have a champ game.

My god, I feel like a crazy person. i don't need a history, I need to know why 12 (and not say ten) was the established minimum to hold a championship game. No one seems ot have an answer, it's like they just plucked it out of thin air? Thanks.

Yeah it is arbitrary. I suspect the league petitioning way back when had 12 teams.


To be fair it wasn't really arbitrary. You have to remember, the conference championship game was NEVER meant for football. It was meant for other sports, in conferences that were so big that everyone could not play each other (at the time, there were no conferences with more than 11 teams). when the SEC first found the loophole, the NCAA was actually opposed to the CCG but could not really do anything about it (I am not sure why they were, just remember reading they were). But that is where the number 12 came from: that was a number larger than any conference was at the time, and made to support other sports who had associate members.

Ok, that makes some sense, but now that all the conferences have a CCG, the 10 number is in fact arbitrary. Even to say years ago, "hey we don't like it, so we will establish an larger arbitrary number to keep leagues from having one" is so NCAA that it hurts.

Now that all the leagues have one, can someone provide a compelling reason why a ten team B12 should not be allowed to have a CCG? Oh, and "that's just how it has been" is not compelling.
12-09-2014 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #77
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 02:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:52 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:36 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:27 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 02:16 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  It was historical for some small conference who expanded a long time ago and petitioned the NCAA for an extra game so that they could crown a champ. The SEC later saw this rule as a chance to make so money and increase influence so they expanded to 12 in order to have a champ game.

My god, I feel like a crazy person. i don't need a history, I need to know why 12 (and not say ten) was the established minimum to hold a championship game. No one seems ot have an answer, it's like they just plucked it out of thin air? Thanks.

Yeah it is arbitrary. I suspect the league petitioning way back when had 12 teams.


To be fair it wasn't really arbitrary. You have to remember, the conference championship game was NEVER meant for football. It was meant for other sports, in conferences that were so big that everyone could not play each other (at the time, there were no conferences with more than 11 teams). when the SEC first found the loophole, the NCAA was actually opposed to the CCG but could not really do anything about it (I am not sure why they were, just remember reading they were). But that is where the number 12 came from: that was a number larger than any conference was at the time, and made to support other sports who had associate members.

The rule was originally meant for football. A large I-AA conference asked the NCAA for the rule. Roy Kramer (or someone on his staff) looked at it and realized that as written, the rule could be used by I-A (now FBS) conferences as well.

I am going by a story I read (on memory) a few years back from an SEC site (it was SEC propaganda mind you) showing the "genius" of how the SEC outsmarted the NCAA. I remember it was due to arule for "other" sports and large conferences due to associate members. Which sport I don't remember. Then again, SEC fans are egotistical enough to refer to 1AA football as "other" sport in one of their articles.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2014 03:00 PM by adcorbett.)
12-09-2014 02:59 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HawkeyeCoug Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 453
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 14
I Root For: BYU
Location: Virginia
Post: #78
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(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.

I don't think the Big East made their mistake in 2009, they made it in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1995, 1990, and any year in between, or even before. Instead of trying to get the best teams available and compile it into a conference, they tried to limit their number to maximize per-team distributions. If they had a 12 or 14 team conference the losses would not have been so devastating and they would have generated much more revenue in the long run through TV contracts.
12-09-2014 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
adcorbett Offline
This F'n Guy
*

Posts: 14,325
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 368
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Cybertron
Post: #79
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 02:58 PM)wavefan12 Wrote:  Now that all the leagues have one, can someone provide a compelling reason why a ten team B12 should not be allowed to have a CCG? Oh, and "that's just how it has been" is not compelling.

The NCAA rule must be changed. It's not so much "that's just how it's been" as much as current rules simply do not allow it. So they have to convince the NCAA to change it. And they would have to convince other conferences to support it, all of whom don't, since they all had to expand to get one. I also think many feel a ten team conference gives those teams unfair access to the championship as beating out nine teams is easier than beating out eleven or thirteen (not a conference basis, but per team) so the other conferences are in no hurry to give them the advantage they have over the Big 12 for free I would imagine. The latter parts are theory: why the other conferences don't support it. But the first part is fact: the rule must be changed, and the Big 12 doesn't have a lot of support at this time, with only the ACC also wanting the rule changed - and the ACC was about choosing which teams play, not the number of schools: remember their petition was turned down 11 years ago and they had to add Boston College after their request was turned down.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2014 03:07 PM by adcorbett.)
12-09-2014 03:03 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #80
RE: Big 12 would be stupid to expand
(12-09-2014 03:01 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  
(12-09-2014 10:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(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.

I don't think the Big East made their mistake in 2009, they made it in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1995, 1990, and any year in between, or even before. Instead of trying to get the best teams available and compile it into a conference, they tried to limit their number to maximize per-team distributions. If they had a 12 or 14 team conference the losses would not have been so devastating and they would have generated much more revenue in the long run through TV contracts.

The Big East no-football schools wanted as few football-playing schools in their league as possible. The football league was Tranghese's idea to keep Syracuse, Pitt, and BC from leaving the Big East. When they started it, Miami was the only new school that was invited to join for all sports. Rutgers, Temple, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia got football-only invitations. That's a result of the same no-football mentality that led the Big East to reject Penn State several years before that.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-02...e-big-east
Quote:Rutgers, Temple, Virginia Tech and West Virginia officially were welcomed into an eight-team Big East football league that will begin play next fall. The schools will join Boston College, Miami, Pittsburgh and Syracuse.

Yesterday's action, announced during a news conference in Providence, R.I., ends the 30-year saga to place the Eastern college football independents in one league. Penn State's planned move to the Big Ten was the catalyst for college football's realignment rush, providing the final push for the Big East to branch out into football.

"This is a historic day for the Big East," said commissioner Mike Tranghese. "We have an excellent group of institutions that are steeped in tradition. We're going to be aggressive."

What makes the Big East's football league unique is that the new conference schools are officially listed as "associate members" and will not participate in the Big East's other sports.
(This post was last modified: 12-09-2014 03:11 PM by Wedge.)
12-09-2014 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.