(04-07-2015 02:29 PM)btiger Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:23 PM)Rodney Carney Wrote:  Was anybody really such a fool as to seriously believe Memphis had a chance of getting into the Big 12?

it was real to me, dammit

I guess we'll just be tigahhigh forever

Take heart b. It will happen. With good fans like you in our corner, it will happen in our lifetime.

(04-07-2015 05:27 PM)Strat57 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:29 PM)btiger Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:23 PM)Rodney Carney Wrote:  Was anybody really such a fool as to seriously believe Memphis had a chance of getting into the Big 12?

it was real to me, dammit

I guess we'll just be tigahhigh forever

Take heart b. It will happen. With good fans like you in our corner, it will happen in our lifetime.

Ain't it the truth?

(04-07-2015 05:27 PM)Strat57 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:29 PM)btiger Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:23 PM)Rodney Carney Wrote:  Was anybody really such a fool as to seriously believe Memphis had a chance of getting into the Big 12?

it was real to me, dammit

I guess we'll just be tigahhigh forever

Take heart b. It will happen. With good fans like you in our corner, it will happen in our lifetime.

Don't worry he still has Ole Miss to cheer on.

(04-07-2015 05:39 PM)smytiger Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:27 PM)Strat57 Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:29 PM)btiger Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 02:23 PM)Rodney Carney Wrote:  Was anybody really such a fool as to seriously believe Memphis had a chance of getting into the Big 12?

it was real to me, dammit

I guess we'll just be tigahhigh forever

Take heart b. It will happen. With good fans like you in our corner, it will happen in our lifetime.

Don't worry he still has Ole Miss to cheer on.

Best news I've heard all day.

A dream can't die. That is all.

The sky is not falling, just a little cracked is all

time to pack my bags up and leave this disaster
knoxville is beautiful ..

(04-07-2015 06:57 PM)grapes Wrote:  time to pack my bags up and leave this disaster
knoxville is beautiful ..

Having lived there for two years...umm, no.

I read the article. I see NOTHING about the waiver being approved.
This is simply a "state of the legislation" put on back burner last fall.
All things remain the same. There is nothing different.
The only folks quoted in this article are ACC and Big 12 people. The very 2 seeking the waiver.
Propaganda.
I admonish btiger for his interpretation. But what else is new?

(04-07-2015 07:03 PM)Pastnerized Wrote:  I read the article. I see NOTHING about the waiver being approved.
This is simply a "state of the legislation" put on back burner last fall.
All things remain the same. There is nothing different.
The only folks quoted in this article are ACC and Big 12 people. The very 2 seeking the waiver.
Propaganda.
I admonish btiger for his interpretation. But what else is new?

The OP would never bait the board like that.

(04-07-2015 05:51 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  A dream can't die. That is all.

I saw one die in Oxford last year

(04-07-2015 07:17 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:51 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  A dream can't die. That is all.

I saw one die in Oxford last year

That's just hearsay.

(04-07-2015 07:28 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 07:17 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:51 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  A dream can't die. That is all.

I saw one die in Oxford last year

That's just hearsay.

Oh no. It died on the one inch line

(04-07-2015 07:58 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 07:28 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 07:17 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 05:51 PM)snowtiger Wrote:  A dream can't die. That is all.

I saw one die in Oxford last year

That's just hearsay.

Oh no. It died on the one inch line

Pervert.

(04-07-2015 07:03 PM)Pastnerized Wrote:  I read the article. I see NOTHING about the waiver being approved.
This is simply a "state of the legislation" put on back burner last fall.
All things remain the same. There is nothing different.
The only folks quoted in this article are ACC and Big 12 people. The very 2 seeking the waiver.
Propaganda.
I admonish btiger for his interpretation. But what else is new?

http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-pass-2016

Quote:As for whether deregulation will happen by 2016, Bowlsby told ESPN.com: "I don't see that there's any reason it can't be considered by then. Whether the votes will be there to change it is anybody's guess, but I think it can go through the process by then and I think it has a chance to be implemented by then."

That sounds like wishful thinking and actually nothing is a done deal yet, but I might be reading too much into it.

I still don't for the life of me understand why the other P5 conferences don't want to force the B12 to swallow the same pill they did in expanding and either (a) force them to expand and weaken their brand or (b) forgo the title game money and help in getting into the CFPlayoff.

If I'm the SEC, the Big 10, and the Pac-12 I giggle, say 'screw you Texas conference, you want this $20-30M Conf Title Game and the assistance in getting the CFP, you gotta take two G5 teams to get there. Good luck weakening your conference suckers!'

And then they hold their noses and take us and Cincy.

Easy Peasy? Am I too hopeful (sucker)?

(04-07-2015 07:03 PM)Pastnerized Wrote:  I read the article. I see NOTHING about the waiver being approved.
This is simply a "state of the legislation" put on back burner last fall.
All things remain the same. There is nothing different.
The only folks quoted in this article are ACC and Big 12 people. The very 2 seeking the waiver.
Propaganda.
I admonish btiger for his interpretation. But what else is new?

Exactly! Bowsby is "fishing" here, nothing more....The BIGXII still has the same issues that will NOT allow them to participate in the playoff system. The fact of the matter is the BIGXII SOS is too weak to qualify for a playoff spot. As long as teams outside of Oklahoma and Texas finish at the top, this delima will remain apparent.


2015 College Football Strength of Schedule – NCAA Method
By Kevin Kelley - March 13, 2015

"The SEC leads with six teams in the Top 10 of the rankings — Arkansas (2), Alabama (4), Kentucky (5), Auburn (8), Texas A&M (10), and Georgia (10). The Big Ten and Pac-12 are second with two teams each, followed by the ACC with one."


Note: The NCAA method uses winning percentage of opponents, but now excludes records of FCS teams, FBS Transitional teams, and bowl games. The data below includes these three items.

1. Washington – 101-56, 64.33%
2. Arkansas – 99-57, 63.46%
3. Miami, FL – 97-58, 62.58%
4. Alabama – 96-58, 62.34%
5. Kentucky – 95-58, 62.09%
6. Purdue – 97-61, 61.39%
7. California – 95-61, 60.90%
8. Auburn – 92-60, 60.53%
9. Michigan St – 95-62, 60.51%
10. Texas A&M – 93-61, 60.39%
10. Georgia – 93-61, 60.39%
12. Virginia – 94-62, 60.26%
13. Maryland – 95-63, 60.13%
14. Kansas – 93-62, 60.00%
14. Georgia Tech – 93-62, 60.00%
16. Boston College – 91-62, 59.48%
17. Iowa State – 92-63, 59.35%
17. BYU – 92-63, 59.35%
19. Utah – 93-65, 58.86%
20. Minnesota – 90-63, 58.82%
21. USC – 91-65, 58.33%
22. South Carolina – 89-64, 58.17%
22. UConn – 89-64, 58.17%
24. Tennessee – 89-65, 57.79%
25. Clemson – 88-65, 57.52%
26. Texas Tech – 89-66, 57.42%
26. Mississippi State – 89-66, 57.42%
28. LSU – 87-65, 57.24%
29. Vanderbilt – 87-66, 56.86%
29. West Virginia – 87-66, 56.86%
31. Michigan – 88-67, 56.77%
31. Arizona State – 88-67, 56.77%
33. Ole Miss – 87-67, 56.49%
33. Western Michigan – 87-67, 56.49%
35. Utah State – 88-68, 56.41%
36. SMU – 85-66, 56.29%
37. Stanford – 87-68, 56.13%
37. UNLV – 87-68, 56.13%
39. Colorado – 94-74, 55.95%
40. Florida State – 85-67, 55.92%
41. Florida – 86-68, 55.84%
42. Ohio State – 86-69, 55.48%
42. Washington State – 86-69, 55.48%
44. UTSA – 84-68, 55.26%
44. Texas – 84-68, 55.26%
46. Virginia Tech – 86-70, 55.13%
47. Southern Miss – 83-68, 54.97%
47. Louisville – 83-68, 54.97%
49. Fresno State – 85-70, 54.84%
50. Georgia State – 82-69, 54.30%
50. Penn State – 82-69, 54.30%
52. Northwestern – 83-70, 54.25%
52. Pittsburgh – 83-70, 54.25%
52. Illinois – 83-70, 54.25%
52. North Carolina – 83-70, 54.25%
52. Indiana – 83-70, 54.25%
57. San Jose State – 84-71, 54.19%
58. Arizona – 82-70, 53.95%
58. Oregon – 82-70, 53.95%
60. Louisiana Tech – 81-70, 53.64%
61. Notre Dame – 82-71, 53.59%
61. Wake Forest – 82-71, 53.59%
61. Nc State – 82-71, 53.59%
61. Rutgers – 82-71, 53.59%
65. Air Force – 83-72, 53.55%
66. FIU – 80-70, 53.33%
67. Nebraska – 82-72, 53.25%
68. Syracuse – 81-72, 52.94%
69. Oklahoma State – 79-72, 52.32%
69. Army – 79-72, 52.32%
71. Florida Atlantic – 77-71, 52.03%
72. USF – 79-73, 51.97%
73. Missouri – 78-73, 51.66%
74. Wyoming – 79-74, 51.63%
75. Miami, OH – 76-72, 51.35%
76. Ohio – 77-73, 51.33%
77. Troy – 76-73, 51.01%
78. Oregon State – 78-76, 50.65%
79. Idaho – 74-73, 50.34%
79. Central Michigan – 74-73, 50.34%
81. Middle Tennessee – 76-75, 50.33%
82. Hawaii – 84-84, 50.00%
82. Tulane – 75-75, 50.00%
82. UCLa – 76-76, 50.00%
82. New Mexico – 76-76, 50.00%
86. North Texas – 76-77, 49.67%
86. Boise State – 76-77, 49.67%
88. Baylor – 75-76, 49.67%
88. Tulsa – 75-76, 49.67%
88. Oklahoma – 75-76, 49.67%
91. Kansas State – 75-77, 49.34%
92. Kent State – 74-77, 49.01%
93. TCU – 74-78, 48.68%
94. South Alabama – 72-76, 48.65%
95. Wisconsin – 74-79, 48.37%
96. Eastern Michigan – 72-78, 48.00%
97. Rice – 71-77, 47.97%
98. Bowling Green – 70-77, 47.62%
99. Arkansas State – 70-79, 46.98%
100. Iowa – 65-74, 46.76%
101. WKU – 70-80, 46.67%
102. Northern Illinois – 70-81, 46.36%
102. Duke – 70-81, 46.36%
104. Temple – 69-80, 46.31%
105. New Mexico State – 68-79, 46.26%
105. Texas State – 68-79, 46.26%
107. Ball State – 70-82, 46.05%
108. Cincinnati – 69-81, 46.00%
109. Old Dominion – 68-80, 45.95%
110. Houston – 68-81, 45.64%
111. ULM – 73-88, 45.34%
112. Buffalo – 68-82, 45.33%
113. San Diego State – 64-78, 45.07%
114. East Carolina – 67-82, 44.97%
115. Colorado State – 69-85, 44.81%
116. Charlotte – 65-81, 44.52%
117. Toledo – 67-84, 44.37%
118. Appalachian State – 65-82, 44.22%
119. Navy – 65-84, 43.62%
120. Memphis – 65-85, 43.33%
121. UCF – 64-85, 42.95%
122. Nevada – 65-87, 42.76%
123. UL Lafayette – 62-86, 41.89%
124. Georgia Southern – 61-86, 41.50%
125. UMass – 58-88, 39.73%
126. Akron – 58-90, 39.19%
127. UTEP – 56-91, 38.10%
128. Marshall – 54-89, 37.76%


http://www.fbschedules.com/2015/03/2015-...aa-method/

Bowlsby had to have some response to the committees decision to continue the same format....

College Football Playoff selection process remains unchanged for second year

Indianapolis, IN, United States (4E Sports) – There will be no changes in the College Football Playoff ( CFP ) selection method, including the weekly ranking system, after the committee decided to carry over the same procedures into Year 2.

The decision was made after the committee met Wednesday and Thursday, convening for the first time since it selected the four teams for the inaugural playoff on Dec. 7.

According to selection committee chairman Jeff Long, members undertook a thorough review of how the process went last year and decided to keep the status quo.

“Generally, we think last year went very well, and we were very pleased with the reaction from fans across the country,” said Long, who is the athletic director at Arkansas. “Our goal, really, is to build upon that success.”

http://www.localnewslongbeach.com/colleg...cond-year/

having a BIGXII champion (in the current form) doesn't change the facts of NOT being included in the playoffs, it just means that They will have a clear cut champion....The SOS is the determining factor. Not only does the BIGXII have to create an additional game for it's members, again, the SOS is very subpar. Something they felt would never occur as long as Texas, Oklahoma & previous member TA&M were dominant.

The best situation for us is supporting of Fuente and the Tigers football to achieve consistency over the next couple years. A presence in bowl games and beating teams that are favored over us......JUST WIN BABY

(04-07-2015 07:03 PM)Pastnerized Wrote:  I read the article. I see NOTHING about the waiver being approved.
This is simply a "state of the legislation" put on back burner last fall.
All things remain the same. There is nothing different.
The only folks quoted in this article are ACC and Big 12 people. The very 2 seeking the waiver.
Propaganda.
I admonish btiger for his interpretation. But what else is new?

You are actually right. I don't think anything is a done deal at all.

(04-07-2015 06:57 PM)grapes Wrote:  time to pack my bags up and leave this disaster
knoxville is beautiful ..

I'll help you pack and remember to bring you're butt chugging tube with you

(04-07-2015 01:44 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  If I had the energy, I'd go through the Big 12 thread where everyone said the waiver would be denied.

There were a LOT of morons who said it would NEVER happen.

Just FYI, the waiver and the rule deregulation are 2 completely different things.

The waiver was the B12 asking for a waiver from the NCAA to hold a CCG with less than 12 teams. That died and never happened, just as it didn't happen with other conferences who requested a waiver in the past.

This is a different animal. It is a rule change to allow conferences to determine their conference champs, by whatever method they choose. The process is that the entire NCAA has to vote on whether to let this become law. THAT is what this is about, so far.

It is apparently going to pass. All that does is grant autonomy to the P5 (and anybody else), to do what they want.

THEN, the P5 conferences have to decide if they want to take advantage of the rule, and exactly how. My understanding is that the 5 conferences have to vote as a group, before any of them can implement anything.

The ACC first proposed this legislative change for the alleged purpose of possibly going to 3 divisions. The Big 12 endorsed it, b/c their interpretation is that it would allow them to play a CCG with less than 12 teams, which was not allowed before (thus the past waiver denials).

But all this legislation does is give the P5 the autonomy to decide what to do. What they will do with it is still uncertain. They may allow 3 divisions, but still hold their conferences to 12 teams minimum.

Or not, but it is still up in the air, as I understand it.