What am i missing here? From recent comments, these things seem clear to me:

1) The Big 12 obviously prefers to not expand, but also believes that despite OU making this year's playoffs, not having a CCG is a handicap to making the playoffs.

2) The Big 12's solution is to have a CCG with 10 teams and no divisions. That's the proposal they have on the table for next month's NCAA meeting.

3) But, the B1G has filed a counter-proposal that would allow a CCG with 10 teams, but require divisions.

4) The obvious solution for the Big 12 is to just create two five-team divisions and have their CCG with no expansion, AND YET, Bowlsby's comments seem to indicate that he thinks the B1G proposal will force the Big 12 to expand. All of his recent comments have been fatalistic, they have an expansion-is-now-inevitable feel, as if the B1G proposal sinks the Big 12's hopes of having a CCG with 10 teams.

So .... what problem(s) do Bowlsby and the Big 12 see with having divisions in the context of a 10-team conference? Why is that problematic?

(12-27-2015 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What am i missing here? From recent comments, these things seem clear to me:

1) The Big 12 obviously prefers to not expand, but also believes that despite OU making this year's playoffs, not having a CCG is a handicap to making the playoffs.

2) The Big 12's solution is to have a CCG with 10 teams and no divisions. That's the proposal they have on the table for next month's NCAA meeting.

3) But, the B1G has filed a counter-proposal that would allow a CCG with 10 teams, but require divisions.

4) The obvious solution for the Big 12 is to just create two five-team divisions and have their CCG with no expansion, AND YET, Bowlsby's comments seem to indicate that he thinks the B1G proposal will force the Big 12 to expand. All of his recent comments have been fatalistic, they have an expansion-is-now-inevitable feel, as if the B1G proposal sinks the Big 12's hopes of having a CCG with 10 teams.

So .... what problem(s) do Bowlsby and the Big 12 see with having divisions in the context of a 10-team conference? Why is that problematic?

Big 12 wants the option. They won't necessarily implement it.
The smaller the divisions, the better chance you have of a weak team winning a division. Further, with a RR and a 10 team league, you are guaranteed a rematch. It lowers the value and even the purpose of having a ccg. Personally, I think matching the top two teams without divisions has no purpose as one performed better and they probably did play.

(12-27-2015 12:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What am i missing here? From recent comments, these things seem clear to me:

1) The Big 12 obviously prefers to not expand, but also believes that despite OU making this year's playoffs, not having a CCG is a handicap to making the playoffs.

2) The Big 12's solution is to have a CCG with 10 teams and no divisions. That's the proposal they have on the table for next month's NCAA meeting.

3) But, the B1G has filed a counter-proposal that would allow a CCG with 10 teams, but require divisions.

4) The obvious solution for the Big 12 is to just create two five-team divisions and have their CCG with no expansion, AND YET, Bowlsby's comments seem to indicate that he thinks the B1G proposal will force the Big 12 to expand. All of his recent comments have been fatalistic, they have an expansion-is-now-inevitable feel, as if the B1G proposal sinks the Big 12's hopes of having a CCG with 10 teams.

So .... what problem(s) do Bowlsby and the Big 12 see with having divisions in the context of a 10-team conference? Why is that problematic?

Big 12 wants the option. They won't necessarily implement it.
The smaller the divisions, the better chance you have of a weak team winning a division. Further, with a RR and a 10 team league, you are guaranteed a rematch.

Not sure rematches lower value, and as for purpose, the purpose is to hold a CCG to make money and to boost your playoff chances by having one more good game on your standard bearer's resume. A 10-team CCG would seem to do both.

The Big Ten's proposal is an ambush proposal. What this causes the big 12 to do is to admit that their previous propaganda is simply that....propaganda. To switch to a 10 team, two division system would show that their current system isn't as optimal as they claim it to be. That may seem silly to everyone here but to these massive ego's, that is a big hit. Secondly, does the big 12 then shy away from their 9 game round robin propaganda and go to an 8 game schedule again? If they don't swallow that pill then it is absolutely guaranteed that every single Championship Game will be a rematch from the regular season. The possibility for a rematch is there for every conference that has a CCG but as they have gotten bigger, that chance has decreased. For the big 12 at ten teams and two divisions with a 9 game season, it is a 100% guarantee.

It's not a great system for them. Hell, the ten team round robin and then put the top two teams into a CCG isn't all that great either. Hell, that could end up being a rematch from the week before.

(12-27-2015 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What am i missing here?

That the Big 12 consists of numerous stakeholders with different perspectives.

Based on the recent coverage, it seems that the conference commissioner and front office is now of the opinion that a conference championship game is preferable, and that expansion to 12 may be fine if the FBS still requires expansion to 12.

However, the conference is governed by a board consisting of the university presidents/chancellors. Apparently expansion doesn't have the votes there yet.

The athletic directors and football coaches have their own different perspectives too, and may be lobbying one way or the other, but don't get any final say.

At this point, they definitely want to count votes at the NCAA convention before making any decisions.

(12-27-2015 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What am i missing here? From recent comments, these things seem clear to me:

1) The Big 12 obviously prefers to not expand, but also believes that despite OU making this year's playoffs, not having a CCG is a handicap to making the playoffs.

2) The Big 12's solution is to have a CCG with 10 teams and no divisions. That's the proposal they have on the table for next month's NCAA meeting.

3) But, the B1G has filed a counter-proposal that would allow a CCG with 10 teams, but require divisions.

4) The obvious solution for the Big 12 is to just create two five-team divisions and have their CCG with no expansion, AND YET, Bowlsby's comments seem to indicate that he thinks the B1G proposal will force the Big 12 to expand. All of his recent comments have been fatalistic, they have an expansion-is-now-inevitable feel, as if the B1G proposal sinks the Big 12's hopes of having a CCG with 10 teams.

So .... what problem(s) do Bowlsby and the Big 12 see with having divisions in the context of a 10-team conference? Why is that problematic?

Assuming you are going to a CCG with only 10 teams, the draw back of having two divisions is that you have the potential for a 9-3 division champ knocking off a 11-1 division champ with another 11-1 champ sitting it out and missing out on the playoffs. If you have the two 11-1 teams playing you maximize your chances of getting a playoff spot.

The issue is that there still are 5 Power conferences and only 4 playoff spots, which means that at least 1 P5 champion is going to get shut out.

And maybe the reality is starting to set in that 10-team conferences are still at a disadvantage compared to a 14-team power conference even if the 10-team conference has a CCG.

(12-27-2015 12:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  Big 12 wants the option. They won't necessarily implement it.
The smaller the divisions, the better chance you have of a weak team winning a division. Further, with a RR and a 10 team league, you are guaranteed a rematch.

True. The PAC 12 has had that problem a couple of times, by and large the ACC, SEC, and Big Ten have not since their recent expansions. They had those problems more as 12 team leagues (Along with the 12 team Big 12)

(12-27-2015 12:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Not sure rematches lower value, and as for purpose, the purpose is to hold a CCG to make money and to boost your playoff chances by having one more good game on your standard bearer's resume. A 10-team CCG would seem to do both.

Specifically for OU vs. Texas it would, if they regularly met. The value of that rivalry to each school cannot be underestimated, when you account for how it forces donors to give well beyond what is needed for their seats, to get tix to that game. If demand for that game dwindles because they end up playing each other 2 months later a few miles away, that can be a problem.

Which means Texas and Oklahoma have to be in the same division or the conversation shouldn't even start because Texas and Oklahoma would be against it. That means a very unbalanced conference in terms of perception. I know Texas hasn't been all that strong as of late but I think most folks consider that to be temporary. In fact, it may be as soon as next year that Strong finally breaks out with this Texas program. They had some big wins this year to build from.

The problem of deciding which division everyone should be in has been a constant problem for the big 12. When you combine that with what expansion options they have, it has led to zero expansion happening for the big 12. Neither of those aspects of reality surrounding big 12 expansion are set to change anytime soon. The division problem exists whether it is with 10 teams, 12 teams or 14 teams.

(12-27-2015 12:30 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What am i missing here? From recent comments, these things seem clear to me:

1) The Big 12 obviously prefers to not expand, but also believes that despite OU making this year's playoffs, not having a CCG is a handicap to making the playoffs.

2) The Big 12's solution is to have a CCG with 10 teams and no divisions. That's the proposal they have on the table for next month's NCAA meeting.

3) But, the B1G has filed a counter-proposal that would allow a CCG with 10 teams, but require divisions.

4) The obvious solution for the Big 12 is to just create two five-team divisions and have their CCG with no expansion, AND YET, Bowlsby's comments seem to indicate that he thinks the B1G proposal will force the Big 12 to expand. All of his recent comments have been fatalistic, they have an expansion-is-now-inevitable feel, as if the B1G proposal sinks the Big 12's hopes of having a CCG with 10 teams.

So .... what problem(s) do Bowlsby and the Big 12 see with having divisions in the context of a 10-team conference? Why is that problematic?

Big 12 wants the option. They won't necessarily implement it.
The smaller the divisions, the better chance you have of a weak team winning a division. Further, with a RR and a 10 team league, you are guaranteed a rematch. It lowers the value and even the purpose of having a ccg. Personally, I think matching the top two teams without divisions has no purpose as one performed better and they probably did play.

Take a look at Baylor. Two years ago, they were blown out in their bowl game. They would not been a very good rep for the Big 12. Expanding 12 to 16 teams could bring a championship game to put their best team in the playoffs. This year, it could have been Oklahoma Vs. the east champ Houston for the spot. It would have been Baylor Vs. the head to head winner of Cincinnati, Memphis, UCF or East Carolina. If Baylor loses to any of these schools? Baylor would still be out. TCU would be a spot higher. I also think people will not want to watch a rematch which kills the ratings like the rematch between Alabama and LSU in the BCS championship game.

They are waiting to see who gets invited where after the bowl games. If there is an exodus to the PAC, SEC, ACC or BIG adding new teams doesn't matter at this point does it?

(12-27-2015 03:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Which means Texas and Oklahoma have to be in the same division or the conversation shouldn't even start because Texas and Oklahoma would be against it. That means a very unbalanced conference in terms of perception. I know Texas hasn't been all that strong as of late but I think most folks consider that to be temporary. In fact, it may be as soon as next year that Strong finally breaks out with this Texas program. They had some big wins this year to build from.

I don't disagree with you at all, I was just pointing out to Quo why the rematch factor, in that circumstance, is a bigger deal, and bigger than others.

Welcome back BTW.

I was simply adding to, not refuting.

Hello again.

(12-27-2015 06:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I was simply adding to, not refuting.

Hello again.

oic.....

(12-27-2015 03:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Which means Texas and Oklahoma have to be in the same division or the conversation shouldn't even start because Texas and Oklahoma would be against it. That means a very unbalanced conference in terms of perception. I know Texas hasn't been all that strong as of late but I think most folks consider that to be temporary. In fact, it may be as soon as next year that Strong finally breaks out with this Texas program. They had some big wins this year to build from.

The problem of deciding which division everyone should be in has been a constant problem for the big 12. When you combine that with what expansion options they have, it has led to zero expansion happening for the big 12. Neither of those aspects of reality surrounding big 12 expansion are set to change anytime soon. The division problem exists whether it is with 10 teams, 12 teams or 14 teams.

With 10 teams in two divisions playing 9 conference games, Texas and Oklahoma could be in different divisions - it just doesn't work when the conference gets too large to guarantee that Texas and Oklahoma will play each other every year, or that everyone gets a game in the state of Texas each year.

North - Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State
South - Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, West Virginia

(12-28-2015 01:38 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 03:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Which means Texas and Oklahoma have to be in the same division or the conversation shouldn't even start because Texas and Oklahoma would be against it. That means a very unbalanced conference in terms of perception. I know Texas hasn't been all that strong as of late but I think most folks consider that to be temporary. In fact, it may be as soon as next year that Strong finally breaks out with this Texas program. They had some big wins this year to build from.

The problem of deciding which division everyone should be in has been a constant problem for the big 12. When you combine that with what expansion options they have, it has led to zero expansion happening for the big 12. Neither of those aspects of reality surrounding big 12 expansion are set to change anytime soon. The division problem exists whether it is with 10 teams, 12 teams or 14 teams.

With 10 teams in two divisions playing 9 conference games, Texas and Oklahoma could be in different divisions - it just doesn't work when the conference gets too large to guarantee that Texas and Oklahoma will play each other every year, or that everyone gets a game in the state of Texas each year.

North - Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State
South - Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, West Virginia

The point was that Oklahoma and Texas wouldn't want their big rivalry game to be minimized by them appearing against each other in the CCG game. They both make a lot of money at that game, both in the usual manner that money is made at games as well as with all the donations that poor in after that game. It's their biggest selling point and they wont want it mitigated by playing each other in the CCG.

At least that is the point that was being made. I am sure some folks may disagree with that.

I personally understand why on paper you would want to put Oklahoma and Texas in different divisions. The reality on the ground though is that they likely wont want to be put in different divisions.

(12-28-2015 02:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 01:38 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 03:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Which means Texas and Oklahoma have to be in the same division or the conversation shouldn't even start because Texas and Oklahoma would be against it. That means a very unbalanced conference in terms of perception. I know Texas hasn't been all that strong as of late but I think most folks consider that to be temporary. In fact, it may be as soon as next year that Strong finally breaks out with this Texas program. They had some big wins this year to build from.

The problem of deciding which division everyone should be in has been a constant problem for the big 12. When you combine that with what expansion options they have, it has led to zero expansion happening for the big 12. Neither of those aspects of reality surrounding big 12 expansion are set to change anytime soon. The division problem exists whether it is with 10 teams, 12 teams or 14 teams.

With 10 teams in two divisions playing 9 conference games, Texas and Oklahoma could be in different divisions - it just doesn't work when the conference gets too large to guarantee that Texas and Oklahoma will play each other every year, or that everyone gets a game in the state of Texas each year.

North - Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State
South - Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, West Virginia

The point was that Oklahoma and Texas wouldn't want their big rivalry game to be minimized by them appearing against each other in the CCG game. They both make a lot of money at that game, both in the usual manner that money is made at games as well as with all the donations that poor in after that game. It's their biggest selling point and they wont want it mitigated by playing each other in the CCG.

At least that is the point that was being made. I am sure some folks may disagree with that.

I personally understand why on paper you would want to put Oklahoma and Texas in different divisions. The reality on the ground though is that they likely wont want to be put in different divisions.

The problem with Texas and Oklahoma being in the same division is that, who in the Big XII would support that? Oklahoma and Texas are the only big-name brands in the conference....which 5 (or 6) schools will agree to be in the opposite division?

I think the entire Big XII situation is conflicted....

Texas is really stupid as well....they want to be a top program, they go and get a network, but football is tanking, and they don't have any reasonable content for said network, because they're still very much stuck in a small, regional conference....you can't have it both ways. Are you big time? or top dog of a small region??

If they can't suck up their ego and join a big boy conference, why not join the ACC with a Notre Dame type deal. Now would be the perfect time to do it, as the ACC doesn't have their own network.

Expanding for the Big XII is really Oklahoma and Texas grudgingly accepting the fact that they need to build their small regional conference.

(12-27-2015 12:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What am i missing here? From recent comments, these things seem clear to me:

1) The Big 12 obviously prefers to not expand, but also believes that despite OU making this year's playoffs, not having a CCG is a handicap to making the playoffs.

2) The Big 12's solution is to have a CCG with 10 teams and no divisions. That's the proposal they have on the table for next month's NCAA meeting.

3) But, the B1G has filed a counter-proposal that would allow a CCG with 10 teams, but require divisions.

4) The obvious solution for the Big 12 is to just create two five-team divisions and have their CCG with no expansion, AND YET, Bowlsby's comments seem to indicate that he thinks the B1G proposal will force the Big 12 to expand. All of his recent comments have been fatalistic, they have an expansion-is-now-inevitable feel, as if the B1G proposal sinks the Big 12's hopes of having a CCG with 10 teams.

So .... what problem(s) do Bowlsby and the Big 12 see with having divisions in the context of a 10-team conference? Why is that problematic?

I think it is workable. With a round robin, the league doesn't really need to announce divisions until the season starts, since the schedule is the same regardless of divisions. It can look at preseason rankings and divide up divisions equally. Heck, theoretically it doesn't even need to announce divisions until after the season (although I suspect the amendment might limit the ability to do that).

I think Bowlsby is acting like it is unworkable so that it influences the vote, especially among the G5- that a vote against the legislation is a vote to create another round of realignment.

(12-28-2015 03:35 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 02:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 01:38 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 03:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Which means Texas and Oklahoma have to be in the same division or the conversation shouldn't even start because Texas and Oklahoma would be against it. That means a very unbalanced conference in terms of perception. I know Texas hasn't been all that strong as of late but I think most folks consider that to be temporary. In fact, it may be as soon as next year that Strong finally breaks out with this Texas program. They had some big wins this year to build from.

The problem of deciding which division everyone should be in has been a constant problem for the big 12. When you combine that with what expansion options they have, it has led to zero expansion happening for the big 12. Neither of those aspects of reality surrounding big 12 expansion are set to change anytime soon. The division problem exists whether it is with 10 teams, 12 teams or 14 teams.

With 10 teams in two divisions playing 9 conference games, Texas and Oklahoma could be in different divisions - it just doesn't work when the conference gets too large to guarantee that Texas and Oklahoma will play each other every year, or that everyone gets a game in the state of Texas each year.

North - Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State
South - Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, West Virginia

The point was that Oklahoma and Texas wouldn't want their big rivalry game to be minimized by them appearing against each other in the CCG game. They both make a lot of money at that game, both in the usual manner that money is made at games as well as with all the donations that poor in after that game. It's their biggest selling point and they wont want it mitigated by playing each other in the CCG.

At least that is the point that was being made. I am sure some folks may disagree with that.

I personally understand why on paper you would want to put Oklahoma and Texas in different divisions. The reality on the ground though is that they likely wont want to be put in different divisions.

The problem with Texas and Oklahoma being in the same division is that, who in the Big XII would support that? Oklahoma and Texas are the only big-name brands in the conference....which 5 (or 6) schools will agree to be in the opposite division?

I think the entire Big XII situation is conflicted....

Texas is really stupid as well....they want to be a top program, they go and get a network, but football is tanking, and they don't have any reasonable content for said network, because they're still very much stuck in a small, regional conference....you can't have it both ways. Are you big time? or top dog of a small region??

If they can't suck up their ego and join a big boy conference, why not join the ACC with a Notre Dame type deal. Now would be the perfect time to do it, as the ACC doesn't have their own network.

Expanding for the Big XII is really Oklahoma and Texas grudgingly accepting the fact that they need to build their small regional conference.

Every conference is regional. If anybody would be accused of being top dog of a little pond, it would be FSU.

(12-28-2015 03:35 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 02:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 01:38 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 03:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Which means Texas and Oklahoma have to be in the same division or the conversation shouldn't even start because Texas and Oklahoma would be against it. That means a very unbalanced conference in terms of perception. I know Texas hasn't been all that strong as of late but I think most folks consider that to be temporary. In fact, it may be as soon as next year that Strong finally breaks out with this Texas program. They had some big wins this year to build from.

The problem of deciding which division everyone should be in has been a constant problem for the big 12. When you combine that with what expansion options they have, it has led to zero expansion happening for the big 12. Neither of those aspects of reality surrounding big 12 expansion are set to change anytime soon. The division problem exists whether it is with 10 teams, 12 teams or 14 teams.

With 10 teams in two divisions playing 9 conference games, Texas and Oklahoma could be in different divisions - it just doesn't work when the conference gets too large to guarantee that Texas and Oklahoma will play each other every year, or that everyone gets a game in the state of Texas each year.

North - Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State
South - Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, West Virginia

The point was that Oklahoma and Texas wouldn't want their big rivalry game to be minimized by them appearing against each other in the CCG game. They both make a lot of money at that game, both in the usual manner that money is made at games as well as with all the donations that poor in after that game. It's their biggest selling point and they wont want it mitigated by playing each other in the CCG.

At least that is the point that was being made. I am sure some folks may disagree with that.

I personally understand why on paper you would want to put Oklahoma and Texas in different divisions. The reality on the ground though is that they likely wont want to be put in different divisions.

The problem with Texas and Oklahoma being in the same division is that, who in the Big XII would support that? Oklahoma and Texas are the only big-name brands in the conference....which 5 (or 6) schools will agree to be in the opposite division?

I think the entire Big XII situation is conflicted....

Texas is really stupid as well....they want to be a top program, they go and get a network, but football is tanking, and they don't have any reasonable content for said network, because they're still very much stuck in a small, regional conference....you can't have it both ways. Are you big time? or top dog of a small region??

If they can't suck up their ego and join a big boy conference, why not join the ACC with a Notre Dame type deal. Now would be the perfect time to do it, as the ACC doesn't have their own network.

Expanding for the Big XII is really Oklahoma and Texas grudgingly accepting the fact that they need to build their small regional conference.

Which is why none of the issues that have been plaguing the big 12 since four major Universities left have been solved. Middle ground cannot be found.