This benefits every conference: no more will forced yearly match-ups exist, just a short list of permanent rivals and equal alternation of the other conference foes.

(04-08-2015 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 09:36 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 08:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:22 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few random thoughts:
1. This will easily pass. These did not pass before because it was never even meant to apply at this level and you had to go through the NCAA. The power 5 are cordial enough with each other that with autonomy they are not going to try to stop the Big 12 and/or ACC from making these changes unless it negatively effects them in a significant way (it doesn't).

The hope of those who want to force B12 expansion seems to be that the other P5 will think "this isn't fair! We had to expand to 12 so why should the B12 be able to have a CCG with 10 teams!"? But they keep forgetting that we are now in the P5 autonomy era, and the whole point of getting autonomy was precisely to allow for more freedom for P5 members, to be able to do things like this. It would go against the whole spirit of autonomy for other P5 to reject this, and nobody wants to set a precedent that could bite their conference in the arse at a later date.

Plus, that question implies that the other P5 who expanded to 12 are somehow unhappy with the members they added such that they feel they have been weakened or diluted and therefore the Big 12 should have to suffer the same. But, that is only arguably true in the case of the PAC. The SEC and B1G have never added anyone they aren't thoroughly happy with, so are unlikely to have that spiteful kind of attitude.

So sans any really good reason to object, this will pass, and no P5 has a good reason to vote against it.

Do not blur the line of autonomy here. This legislation does not fall under those areas that have been defined in the current legislation and it would take a huge effort to include it as such.

Also, as He1nousOne indicates, a lot of this is puffery by Bowlsby. It has not passed, it has only been brought up again (by Bowlsby) as a potential agenda item for the Football Oversight Committee, which he chairs (but does not control). This is a long way from being enacted. Even if Bowlsby were to get this through his committee, it still has to go through the Council, which the P5 does not have a majority, even with their weighted voting. Plus, I am not sold that the P5 will act in concert on this issue. Bowlsby is a very arrogant and presumptuous guy and it wouldn't surprise me if he's making these sorts of statements simply to try to drum up support, where he may not actually have it.

All of that is possible. But, committee chairs are powerful, they can put things on agendas, and I don't see why we would necessarily conclude Bowlsby is engaging in puffery. I see the P5 as being united, and I'm not even sure why the other conferences might want to reject it either.

Well they might want to reject it because it goes against the "welfare of the student athlete" issues they are dealing with and it goes against the whole purpose the rule was created in the first place-to have a champion when there weren't enough games for a round robin. Everyone can have a round robin in their league or division now. There is absolute no need for this rule except solely for money.

No way do agree that the big 10 and SEC aren't in favor of a 2 game playoff of pod winners which would generate lots for money in house. IN fact, i think the big 10 and SEC might be laying a trap to get this passed, i.e. the only way deregulation passes is if a 2 game playoff is allowed for leagues with 3 or more pods.

(04-08-2015 09:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 09:36 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 08:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 10:22 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few random thoughts:
1. This will easily pass. These did not pass before because it was never even meant to apply at this level and you had to go through the NCAA. The power 5 are cordial enough with each other that with autonomy they are not going to try to stop the Big 12 and/or ACC from making these changes unless it negatively effects them in a significant way (it doesn't).

The hope of those who want to force B12 expansion seems to be that the other P5 will think "this isn't fair! We had to expand to 12 so why should the B12 be able to have a CCG with 10 teams!"? But they keep forgetting that we are now in the P5 autonomy era, and the whole point of getting autonomy was precisely to allow for more freedom for P5 members, to be able to do things like this. It would go against the whole spirit of autonomy for other P5 to reject this, and nobody wants to set a precedent that could bite their conference in the arse at a later date.

Plus, that question implies that the other P5 who expanded to 12 are somehow unhappy with the members they added such that they feel they have been weakened or diluted and therefore the Big 12 should have to suffer the same. But, that is only arguably true in the case of the PAC. The SEC and B1G have never added anyone they aren't thoroughly happy with, so are unlikely to have that spiteful kind of attitude.

So sans any really good reason to object, this will pass, and no P5 has a good reason to vote against it.

Do not blur the line of autonomy here. This legislation does not fall under those areas that have been defined in the current legislation and it would take a huge effort to include it as such.

Also, as He1nousOne indicates, a lot of this is puffery by Bowlsby. It has not passed, it has only been brought up again (by Bowlsby) as a potential agenda item for the Football Oversight Committee, which he chairs (but does not control). This is a long way from being enacted. Even if Bowlsby were to get this through his committee, it still has to go through the Council, which the P5 does not have a majority, even with their weighted voting. Plus, I am not sold that the P5 will act in concert on this issue. Bowlsby is a very arrogant and presumptuous guy and it wouldn't surprise me if he's making these sorts of statements simply to try to drum up support, where he may not actually have it.

All of that is possible. But, committee chairs are powerful, they can put things on agendas, and I don't see why we would necessarily conclude Bowlsby is engaging in puffery. I see the P5 as being united, and I'm not even sure why the other conferences might want to reject it either.

I conclude that because he is the only one speaking on the issue (in this article). And as someone pointed out from Heather Dinich's twitter:

Quote:Heather Dinich @CFBHeather · 5h 5 hours ago
Bowlsby said "whether the votes will be there to change it is anybody's guess."

So if he doesn't have the votes or even has a clue whether or not he has the votes, how can he be certain it will pass?

And chairs can be powerful to a point. They cannot change anyone's votes. If the chair is supportive of a measure, but the rest of the committee is not, then it won't pass. That's not to say that it won't pass, but rather that certainty of passage can be questioned.

As for P5 solidarity, don't be so sure. Even the measures that passed in January had dissenting votes. It's not all lock-step. Granted, I agree that passage of this hurts nobody and I don't think bad feelings about having to expand exist (or really any grudge against the XII for not having as many members as the rest). Nobody forced those conferences to expand. They did it of their own free will and monetary advantage. That is all. The XII was able to get the networks to actually increase their TV deal while they lost members and a CCG. I doubt anyone feels they got the shaft or that they are in an advantaged (or disadvantaged) situation because of that. And I really don't think anyone is going to force the XII to expand just for the sake of expansion. That kind of move has really only been done in the G5 level, and there is even some hesitation to do that there.

(04-07-2015 04:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the Big 12 realizes the lack of a title game hurt them in the CFP selection this past year. Also, a CCG will bring in more money. No brainer ...

The unfortunate reality of the XII last year is that its best team lost to its second best team and its second best team didn't play anyone in non-conference.

They were always going to be the P5 that got screwed out.

Agree with the first statement- the Big 12 did get "cross-cut".

Disagree with the second, at least without the disclaimer "if the favorites all won in the champ games". All that had to happen was one upset and the Big 12 would have been in. Two upsets and the Big 12 probably would have had two teams in.

…which is why your lying commissioner proclaimed “co-champions” after running a season long “One True Champion” SCAM-paign . Obviously, the conference still doesn’t want to move in the right direction after ESPN stuck its foot in the B12’s @$$ (using the committee to do the dirty work) so that it will take its hand off the Pause button and press Forward. Instead, the myopic B12 is trying to use the Rewind button so the past can be undone with this rule change. The other conferences have progressed except for the SBC (due to raids), so the B12 wants everyone to agree with rules regression….

There is no way the SEC, B10, and PAC 12 will allow this nonsense to pass. In addition to this, the aforementioned conferences have an advantage over the B12 (CCG) that I don’t see being relinquished unless—these conferences decide to have more than two divisions, which has been mentioned in this thread. Simi-final games aired on “their own networks” while played on “their own home fields” mean more $$$ for these conferences and will still give them an advantage over the B12 (a 14th game)….

(04-08-2015 10:18 AM)bluesox Wrote:  No way do agree that the big 10 and SEC aren't in favor of a 2 game playoff of pod winners which would generate lots for money in house. IN fact, i think the big 10 and SEC might be laying a trap to get this passed, i.e. the only way deregulation passes is if a 2 game playoff is allowed for leagues with 3 or more pods.

I don't think this proposed legislation has the power to add any more games to the season length. That would be a HUGE deal and would have alot of resistance. This legislation is simply designed to eliminate the round robin requirement for divisional play, allow multiple divisions, eliminate the 12 team requirement, and allow each conference the freedom to define the criteria by which the two CCG teams will be chosen on a conference by conference basis.

(04-08-2015 10:28 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the Big 12 realizes the lack of a title game hurt them in the CFP selection this past year. Also, a CCG will bring in more money. No brainer ...

The unfortunate reality of the XII last year is that its best team lost to its second best team and its second best team didn't play anyone in non-conference.

They were always going to be the P5 that got screwed out.

Agree with the first statement- the Big 12 did get "cross-cut".

Disagree with the second, at least without the disclaimer "if the favorites all won in the champ games". All that had to happen was one upset and the Big 12 would have been in. Two upsets and the Big 12 probably would have had two teams in.

…which is why your lying commissioner proclaimed “co-champions” after running a season long “One True Champion” SCAM-paign . Obviously, the conference still doesn’t want to move in the right direction after ESPN stuck its foot in the B12’s @$$ (using the committee to do the dirty work) so that it will take its hand off the Pause button and press Forward. Instead, the myopic B12 is trying to use the Rewind button so the past can be undone with this rule change. The other conferences have progressed except for the SBC (due to raids), so the B12 wants everyone to agree with rules regression….

As far as the first point- the sham was the one true champion advertising campaign, not the co-champions designation. Every major conference in history has always crowned co-champions when two teams have the same conference record and there isn't a champ game. Every one. The league should be blasted for a poor advertising campaign. "We play everyone, every year" or something like that would have been better to point out the virtues of the round robin.

If it passes, I would say this stabilizes the FBS for the next 20 years. No reason for the Sunbelt or B12 to add teams. ACC will only add ND to do a 15 team structure. Otherwise stay status quo or scrap all divisions with 14 teams.

(04-08-2015 10:33 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:18 AM)bluesox Wrote:  No way do agree that the big 10 and SEC aren't in favor of a 2 game playoff of pod winners which would generate lots for money in house. IN fact, i think the big 10 and SEC might be laying a trap to get this passed, i.e. the only way deregulation passes is if a 2 game playoff is allowed for leagues with 3 or more pods.

I don't think this proposed legislation has the power to add any more games to the season length. That would be a HUGE deal and would have alot of resistance. This legislation is simply designed to eliminate the round robin requirement for divisional play, allow multiple divisions, eliminate the 12 team requirement, and allow each conference the freedom to define the criteria by which the two CCG teams will be chosen on a conference by conference basis.

They are resisting an 8 team playoff, let alone semi-finals.

(04-08-2015 10:36 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:28 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  IMO, the Big 12 realizes the lack of a title game hurt them in the CFP selection this past year. Also, a CCG will bring in more money. No brainer ...

The unfortunate reality of the XII last year is that its best team lost to its second best team and its second best team didn't play anyone in non-conference.

They were always going to be the P5 that got screwed out.

Agree with the first statement- the Big 12 did get "cross-cut".

Disagree with the second, at least without the disclaimer "if the favorites all won in the champ games". All that had to happen was one upset and the Big 12 would have been in. Two upsets and the Big 12 probably would have had two teams in.

…which is why your lying commissioner proclaimed “co-champions” after running a season long “One True Champion” SCAM-paign . Obviously, the conference still doesn’t want to move in the right direction after ESPN stuck its foot in the B12’s @$$ (using the committee to do the dirty work) so that it will take its hand off the Pause button and press Forward. Instead, the myopic B12 is trying to use the Rewind button so the past can be undone with this rule change. The other conferences have progressed except for the SBC (due to raids), so the B12 wants everyone to agree with rules regression….

As far as the first point- the sham was the one true champion advertising campaign, not the co-champions designation. Every major conference in history has always crowned co-champions when two teams have the same conference record and there isn't a champ game. Every one. The league should be blasted for a poor advertising campaign. "We play everyone, every year" or something like that would have been better to point out the virtues of the round robin.

Your point would hold more water if the Big 12 hasn't changed the way they crown champions, which they have.

The fact is pretty much everyone around thinks Baylor was the Big 12 champion last year except for TCU fans. 2 teams have the same record and played each other, the team that won the head to head is the champion.

(04-08-2015 10:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:36 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:28 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The unfortunate reality of the XII last year is that its best team lost to its second best team and its second best team didn't play anyone in non-conference.

They were always going to be the P5 that got screwed out.

Agree with the first statement- the Big 12 did get "cross-cut".

Disagree with the second, at least without the disclaimer "if the favorites all won in the champ games". All that had to happen was one upset and the Big 12 would have been in. Two upsets and the Big 12 probably would have had two teams in.

…which is why your lying commissioner proclaimed “co-champions” after running a season long “One True Champion” SCAM-paign . Obviously, the conference still doesn’t want to move in the right direction after ESPN stuck its foot in the B12’s @$$ (using the committee to do the dirty work) so that it will take its hand off the Pause button and press Forward. Instead, the myopic B12 is trying to use the Rewind button so the past can be undone with this rule change. The other conferences have progressed except for the SBC (due to raids), so the B12 wants everyone to agree with rules regression….

As far as the first point- the sham was the one true champion advertising campaign, not the co-champions designation. Every major conference in history has always crowned co-champions when two teams have the same conference record and there isn't a champ game. Every one. The league should be blasted for a poor advertising campaign. "We play everyone, every year" or something like that would have been better to point out the virtues of the round robin.

Your point would hold more water if the Big 12 hasn't changed the way they crown champions, which they have.

The fact is pretty much everyone around thinks Baylor was the Big 12 champion last year except for TCU fans. 2 teams have the same record and played each other, the team that won the head to head is the champion.

This ^^^ is spot on stever20....

@Frog in the Kitchen Sink

Your commissioner had the audacity to say publicly that he “misspoke.” Why did it take ESPN putting its foot in the B12 @$$ in order to get the “I misspoke” response to pop out of his mouth? Moreover, why didn't he make this acknowledgment before TCU was kicked out of the playoffs by the committee (which was ESPN's foot)? You mean it dawned on him the very moment TCU landed behind Baylor (ESPN kicked hard) that he had misspoken? He was lying, and ESPN made sure that the nation knew it....

(04-07-2015 03:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you go back and read the history of the rule allowing divisional play and a CCG---the selection of 12 teams to allow divisional play was completely arbitrary. There probably should never have been a set number of teams established.

The truth is it was an under the radar rule that few even noticed. The requirement for a CCG was originally set at 14 by the conference that originally proposed the rule. Another conference, liked the concept, and during the legislative process requested that the number be changed to 12 so it would apply to their conference as well. There is no real pressing reason for the number "12" to be set in stone. It just happened to fit the needs of the two conferences pushing the rule at the time.

The B1G and PAC had to follow the arbitrary rule. Why wasn't it revised for them?

I guess because they did not ask............

(04-07-2015 08:57 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 03:35 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Not sure how you do three divisions of 14 teams, unless there's an expansion coming...

Someone would have to define "deregulation". If we are talking more than 2 divisions and therefore implying conference semis and then finals I could see the appeal for the SEC and Big 10, as not only would it enhance revenues, keep a higher percentage of their schools (and their fan bases energized) deeper into the season, but it would also mean that for the sake of additional markets that additions to 16 or even 18 would be manageable. So in that regard CommuterBob it could mean expansion.

If however by "deregulation" we are merely tossing the Big 12 and the ACC a bone that benefits only them, I don't see it happening.

The actual wording of the proposed deregulation has yet to be published, but I have to think that based on this article and others from previous years, it only affects the definition of the allowable 13th game for a CCG, and not allowing more additional games. I agree that a playoff within conferences would be a revenue boon, but I don't think that is what is being discussed here.

I also don't think of the deregulation as throwing the ACC and XII a bone, but rather opening a door for any conference to bolster the SOS for a potential champion, something the CFP committee really stressed as being important. I don't think expanding the CCG to a playoff enhances that, but rather introduces more chance that an inferior team pulls an upset.

Yep, I can see it both ways. If we do ever have conference autonomy over deciding champions a semi seems in order but perhaps with some caveats with regards to scheduling. If you had 6 team divisions the playoff would still be for divisional champions which in a conference that large would likely not have played comparable schedules of the same opponents. If the champ is the one progressing to the 4 team national playoff then the system makes perfect sense. But, if you have have that same setup in a conference of just 16 then there would be duplication of some games and what you suggest might easily happen. Plus a 4 school division doesn't really produce a divisional champ so having a school advance based upon 3 games in the schedule is specious. Rotating half divisions however could work as then the head to head comparisons would be over 7 games.

It seems like Dodd has trolled us all.

(04-08-2015 11:05 AM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 03:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:23 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  If you go back and read the history of the rule allowing divisional play and a CCG---the selection of 12 teams to allow divisional play was completely arbitrary. There probably should never have been a set number of teams established.

The truth is it was an under the radar rule that few even noticed. The requirement for a CCG was originally set at 14 by the conference that originally proposed the rule. Another conference, liked the concept, and during the legislative process requested that the number be changed to 12 so it would apply to their conference as well. There is no real pressing reason for the number "12" to be set in stone. It just happened to fit the needs of the two conferences pushing the rule at the time.

The B1G and PAC had to follow the arbitrary rule. Why wasn't it revised for them?

I guess because they did not ask............

Both conferences stayed at eleven and ten respectively to purposefully avoid the CCG. "Quality, not quantity," iirc some leader(s) said about it. The backdrop was also the splitting of rivalries that were inevitable with growth that many institutions did not want to readily do.

So, we all see that this all comes down to how the ACC pitches it, right? That the Big XII, whatever they're doing on the matter (which may be nothing), isn't enough to move the needle on the subject? CCG autonomy might be a fait accompli...but the conference size matter thing to hold one seems anything but.

This hasn't passed yet and even if it does pass, the final form may be different than what we are thinking. 12 may still be the number but divisions not necessary.

(04-08-2015 11:00 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:36 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:28 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Agree with the first statement- the Big 12 did get "cross-cut".

Disagree with the second, at least without the disclaimer "if the favorites all won in the champ games". All that had to happen was one upset and the Big 12 would have been in. Two upsets and the Big 12 probably would have had two teams in.

…which is why your lying commissioner proclaimed “co-champions” after running a season long “One True Champion” SCAM-paign . Obviously, the conference still doesn’t want to move in the right direction after ESPN stuck its foot in the B12’s @$$ (using the committee to do the dirty work) so that it will take its hand off the Pause button and press Forward. Instead, the myopic B12 is trying to use the Rewind button so the past can be undone with this rule change. The other conferences have progressed except for the SBC (due to raids), so the B12 wants everyone to agree with rules regression….

As far as the first point- the sham was the one true champion advertising campaign, not the co-champions designation. Every major conference in history has always crowned co-champions when two teams have the same conference record and there isn't a champ game. Every one. The league should be blasted for a poor advertising campaign. "We play everyone, every year" or something like that would have been better to point out the virtues of the round robin.

Your point would hold more water if the Big 12 hasn't changed the way they crown champions, which they have.

The fact is pretty much everyone around thinks Baylor was the Big 12 champion last year except for TCU fans. 2 teams have the same record and played each other, the team that won the head to head is the champion.

This ^^^ is spot on stever20....

@Frog in the Kitchen Sink

Your commissioner had the audacity to say publicly that he “misspoke.” Why did it take ESPN putting its foot in the B12 @$$ in order to get the “I misspoke” response to pop out of his mouth? Moreover, why didn't he make this acknowledgment before TCU was kicked out of the playoffs by the committee (which was ESPN's foot)? You mean it dawned on him the very moment TCU landed behind Baylor (ESPN kicked hard) that he had misspoken? He was lying, and ESPN made sure that the nation knew it....

The head to head is the main tie breaker. But sometimes I wonder if it should be. After all, TCU lost to a team in the top 10, while Baylor lost to an unranked WVU team. Whose loss looks worse?

It's not TCU's, who lost on the road in the final minutes of the game. Baylor was never in the WVU game, and looked totally inept. TCU never looked inept. So I'm not totally convinced there.

(04-08-2015 10:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:36 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:28 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:21 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 04:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  The unfortunate reality of the XII last year is that its best team lost to its second best team and its second best team didn't play anyone in non-conference.

They were always going to be the P5 that got screwed out.

Agree with the first statement- the Big 12 did get "cross-cut".

Disagree with the second, at least without the disclaimer "if the favorites all won in the champ games". All that had to happen was one upset and the Big 12 would have been in. Two upsets and the Big 12 probably would have had two teams in.

…which is why your lying commissioner proclaimed “co-champions” after running a season long “One True Champion” SCAM-paign . Obviously, the conference still doesn’t want to move in the right direction after ESPN stuck its foot in the B12’s @$$ (using the committee to do the dirty work) so that it will take its hand off the Pause button and press Forward. Instead, the myopic B12 is trying to use the Rewind button so the past can be undone with this rule change. The other conferences have progressed except for the SBC (due to raids), so the B12 wants everyone to agree with rules regression….

As far as the first point- the sham was the one true champion advertising campaign, not the co-champions designation. Every major conference in history has always crowned co-champions when two teams have the same conference record and there isn't a champ game. Every one. The league should be blasted for a poor advertising campaign. "We play everyone, every year" or something like that would have been better to point out the virtues of the round robin.

Your point would hold more water if the Big 12 hasn't changed the way they crown champions, which they have.

The fact is pretty much everyone around thinks Baylor was the Big 12 champion last year except for TCU fans. 2 teams have the same record and played each other, the team that won the head to head is the champion.

I don't think the issue is completely resolved, actually. What happens with a 3 way tie? Name co-champions there, but not if it is a 2 team tie?

I personally think the league should continue to announce co-champions like every other league has done in its past when two or more teams tie with the same record. I get that with the playoff it is a bit different and there is pressure to name one team to the committee, so the league needs to announce a single champion to the committee. With two teams, head to head is best. With a 3 way tie, I have no idea. Some sort of NFL like tie-breaker system I suppose. But I think its would be a great disservice to not name a team in a 3 way tie co-champion based on some way down the line tie breaker like 2 point conversions. Give the teams that tie trophies, but name one team to the committee. It can be both ways.

(04-08-2015 12:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 11:00 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:51 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:36 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 10:28 AM)Underdog Wrote:  …which is why your lying commissioner proclaimed “co-champions” after running a season long “One True Champion” SCAM-paign . Obviously, the conference still doesn’t want to move in the right direction after ESPN stuck its foot in the B12’s @$$ (using the committee to do the dirty work) so that it will take its hand off the Pause button and press Forward. Instead, the myopic B12 is trying to use the Rewind button so the past can be undone with this rule change. The other conferences have progressed except for the SBC (due to raids), so the B12 wants everyone to agree with rules regression….

As far as the first point- the sham was the one true champion advertising campaign, not the co-champions designation. Every major conference in history has always crowned co-champions when two teams have the same conference record and there isn't a champ game. Every one. The league should be blasted for a poor advertising campaign. "We play everyone, every year" or something like that would have been better to point out the virtues of the round robin.

Your point would hold more water if the Big 12 hasn't changed the way they crown champions, which they have.

The fact is pretty much everyone around thinks Baylor was the Big 12 champion last year except for TCU fans. 2 teams have the same record and played each other, the team that won the head to head is the champion.

This ^^^ is spot on stever20....

@Frog in the Kitchen Sink

Your commissioner had the audacity to say publicly that he “misspoke.” Why did it take ESPN putting its foot in the B12 @$$ in order to get the “I misspoke” response to pop out of his mouth? Moreover, why didn't he make this acknowledgment before TCU was kicked out of the playoffs by the committee (which was ESPN's foot)? You mean it dawned on him the very moment TCU landed behind Baylor (ESPN kicked hard) that he had misspoken? He was lying, and ESPN made sure that the nation knew it....

The head to head is the main tie breaker. But sometimes I wonder if it should be. After all, TCU lost to a team in the top 10, while Baylor lost to an unranked WVU team. Whose loss looks worse?

It's not TCU's, who lost on the road in the final minutes of the game. Baylor was never in the WVU game, and looked totally inept. TCU never looked inept. So I'm not totally convinced there.

You are in the minority. Head to head always should be a tiebreaker for a conference championship. And it always will be a tiebreaker for a conference championship.

I have to echo that the way the Big 12 crowned champions was correct and the only issue was marketing. They could have presented just Baylor to the committee if they wanted, but if two teams in tie in a traditionally set-up conference, they are co-champs and always have been. In the BCS era, not winning the tie-breaker in the Big Ten, Big East, PAC-10, or ACC (before it went to 12) in no way made you less of a champion and it shouldn't for the Big 12 either.