(06-04-2016 09:07 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 04:20 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 04:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Just for fun, I was looking at the historic rivalries of WV and Iowa St, to see if there was a chance to add anyone even a bit obscure to the B12 to help with the "rivalries week".

It's probably obvious that there aren't any possibilities.

WV rivals are all either in the ACC or Big Ten.

And here's a kicker: Missouri and Nebraska leaving caused six of the oldest rivalries in college football to be cancelled. So none for Iowa St, either.

When WVU joined they tried to spin WVU and Iowa St as new rivals but it just doesn't work. I'd rather try on making KU our rival because of basketball and we are the most even for football even though we are still better currently.

The B12 should have added a school that was closer to the footprint.

BYU would have been a better addition than WVU strategically.

The distance between BYU and the closest B12 town which is Lubbock is 872 miles.
The distance between WVU and the closest B12 town which is Ames is 872 miles.
That said, distance is overrated when it comes to realignment.

(06-05-2016 04:42 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 12:26 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 11:33 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Having "divisions" is dumb since the schedule is round robin and a rematch is inevitable anyway.

If the schedule is a round-robin.

Using divisions gives the Big 12 the option of playing 8 conference games instead of 9.

Having divisions at 10 teams is dumb if the goal is to maximize playoff chances. It lessens the chance of a 1-2 matchup.

The Big 12 can't go to 8 conference games at 10 teams. It reduces the TV inventory by 5 conference games and breaks the TV contract.

So by going to divisions, the Big 12 has hinted it will be expanding to 12 teams. Then it can play 8 games and not break the TV contract.

PS - 12 teams/2 divsions/8 games is what the highly paid consultants found was the best model for producing playoff teams.

This.

(06-05-2016 06:15 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(06-04-2016 11:33 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Having "divisions" is dumb since the schedule is round robin and a rematch is inevitable anyway.

Take #1 vs #2 and be done with it and pray it doesn't screw over the conference.

Championship game for a 10 team round robin league is dumb as hell IMO and far more likely to play spoiler.

But we'll see how it works out.

What if Baylor/TCU are in the same division in a year like 2014? TCU would have been eliminated via head to head and Baylor would have played some 8-4 team.

That is the same risk that every other conference faces every year.

As for what the high priced consultants would tell us about the chances of putting a team in the CFP, they don't know any better than your average fan, or any Big 12 member school, what those are. The definition of an expert is somebody outside your own organization who will tell you what you want to hear.

I would say this: If the Big 12 were to expand by adding Alabama and Ohio State, their chances of having a team in the CFP are going to be a lot better than if they add Colorado State and Memphis. To suggest they would be better no matter what two teams they might add is nonsense.

No surprise... I guess we will see if adding that game will be enough to get them in the CFP every year!!

ken,

The reason it works is because with more conference teams, you don't have your top four conference teams all playing each other and beating each other up, OK St, OU, Baylor, TCU, for example last year. OK St just had to beat OU. TCU just had to beat OK St. Baylor beat OK St, but lost to TCU. etc. etc.

Instead, each of those could get a schedule of only having to play two other tough teams and then a "free win" against a newbie.

(06-05-2016 10:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  ken,

The reason it works is because with more conference teams, you don't have your top four conference teams all playing each other and beating each other up, OK St, OU, Baylor, TCU, for example last year. OK St just had to beat OU. TCU just had to beat OK St. Baylor beat OK St, but lost to TCU. etc. etc.

Instead, each of those could get a schedule of only having to play two other tough teams and then a "free win" against a newbie.

So the irony here is that the reason a Big 12 team would get more consideration from the selection committee is because they would now play weaker schedules than they used to. How is the chair of the selection committee going to spin that on the weekly "reveal" show on ESPN?

No spinning required.

Take TCU last season, for example. Instead of having to go to OK St and getting shellacked, they get to play, say, UConn, and win. Then they lose by one point to OU on the road, and finish 11-1.

OU wins the other division at 11-1. TCU gets a rematch in the CCG. The winner finishes 12-1.

(06-05-2016 12:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 10:33 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  ken,

The reason it works is because with more conference teams, you don't have your top four conference teams all playing each other and beating each other up, OK St, OU, Baylor, TCU, for example last year. OK St just had to beat OU. TCU just had to beat OK St. Baylor beat OK St, but lost to TCU. etc. etc.

Instead, each of those could get a schedule of only having to play two other tough teams and then a "free win" against a newbie.

So the irony here is that the reason a Big 12 team would get more consideration from the selection committee is because they would now play weaker schedules than they used to. How is the chair of the selection committee going to spin that on the weekly "reveal" show on ESPN?

I think the issue here is being fan of Minnesota he takes the approach that every team should be happy to be in a conference to serve as "wins" for a top team and he does not understand the idea that is not a way to have a really string conference when you have a limited number of top teams

his position is that more bottom feeders makes the other bottom feeders happy and secure because of the top teams leave well at least you still have your big group of bottom feeders to make really poor money with and to add more bottom feeders to in order to "rebuild" the conference

he also seems to not grasp the idea that your teams in the conference that are just on the cusp might benefit from playing the top teams a bit less often and instead playing a quality OOC game and winning it because that gets people thinking that team can go out and represent the conference well and then if they pull off the won against the top conference team they might face in the regular season or in the CCG they make the playoffs and become another top conference team

But that's exactly what the Big 12 is: 2-4 really strong teams and the bottom providing wins for those top teams. That's what it has been the last four years at least.

And because of the Big 12 full round-robin policy, those strong teams all have to play each other, which knocks them out of contention (usually). Happened in 2014, should've happened last year (with OU having to go on the road, but managing to win).


That's how the consultants proved that adding two teams and going to 8 conf games improved CFP chances by X%.

(06-05-2016 01:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But that's exactly what the Big 12 is: 2-4 really strong teams and the bottom providing wins for those top teams. That's what it has been the last four years at least.

And because of the Big 12 full round-robin policy, those strong teams all have to play each other, which knocks them out of contention (usually). Happened in 2014, should've happened last year (with OU having to go on the road, but managing to win).


That's how the consultants proved that adding two teams and going to 8 conf games improved CFP chances by X%.

I'm sure that's correct. Whatever, it leads to expansion by at least 2.