I think I recall OU Prez Boren recently saying it was important to bring in Lville soon for WVU though I dont recall him saying they want to go to 12. I also, recall reading that TX and others view a CCG as an obstacle for playing for the NC.
My questions are:
Will the Big 12 go back to 12 in the near future? Will they go to 11 or just stay at 10?
If they dont go to 12 and CCG, will coaches and sportswriters "penalize" them for not hosting a CCG when all the major confs do or plan to?
don't know if the coaches and writers will penalize them but it shows up more in the computers- not getting that extra quality win....
They will go back to 12 by 2016.. bet on it....
There just no need now less money..and no way Texas takes less money..after letting us in and sharing tier 1 and 2 rights.
(11-27-2011 12:52 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]don't know if the coaches and writers will penalize them but it shows up more in the computers- not getting that extra quality win....
What's interesting is that the computers LOVE the Big 12 this year. Even though the SEC has had the most press since it held the top 3 spots in the rankings this week, the Big 12 is actually ranked as the #1 conference in virtually all computer measures. That's why in this past week's rankings, Oklahoma was the highest ranked team with 2 losses, Baylor was the highest ranked team with 3 losses, and Texas was ranked #25 despite only a 6-4 record. All 3 of those schools plus Kansas State got pushed up in their overall BCS rankings due to the computers. The human Harris, AP and Coaches Polls all had those 4 schools ranked lower than where they ended up in the BCS standings, which shows how much the computers love the Big 12.
yeah. There's a few reasons for the Big 12 cpu ratings...
1- 27-3 in OOC games. Best record just about i've ever heard of.
2- 9 conference games. Instead of playing in general a 4th OOC game(which would be more likely a cupcake)- they played a conference game...
If you look all 10 teams in the Big 12 are 1-10 in Sagarin's computer ratings SOS as a result.
(11-27-2011 03:41 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]yeah. There's a few reasons for the Big 12 cpu ratings...
1- 27-3 in OOC games. Best record just about i've ever heard of.
2- 9 conference games. Instead of playing in general a 4th OOC game(which would be more likely a cupcake)- they played a conference game...
If you look all 10 teams in the Big 12 are 1-10 in Sagarin's computer ratings SOS as a result.
I have always thought that ranking conferences was pretty absurd, especially Sagarin's. In most years, nearly every conference will have their top teams, their mediocre teams and their bottom feeders. Rarely do you have a league with all mediocre records, yet people will spin that to mean that their overall conference is strong, since no one is really bad.
When schedules are made, you don't know whether an opponent will be ranked or not, but of those OOC wins for the Big 12, only Oklahoma's win over Florida State (no longer ranked) and Baylor's upset of TCU were over ranked opponents. By comparison, SEC teams beat Penn State, Oregon and West Virginia by double digit scores and beat several other ranked teams, with their only loss to a ranked team (that I know of) being Georgia's season opener against Boise.
You can make raw numbers say pretty much what you want them to, but in trying to compare entire conferences, people feel compelled to try to prop up their favorite conference (or tear down their least favorite) by using raw data. In looking at the Big 12 OOC numbers, you have to be impressed with the winning percentage, but the overall quality of those opponents may not be particularly strong. By the same token, I have no problem with teams playing in strong conferences scheduling weak OOC games. If a team is likely to play against 5-6 ranked teams in conference, it's not unreasonable to me that they might not schedule 3-4 tough OOC opponents.
(11-27-2011 07:48 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2011 03:41 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]yeah. There's a few reasons for the Big 12 cpu ratings...
1- 27-3 in OOC games. Best record just about i've ever heard of.
2- 9 conference games. Instead of playing in general a 4th OOC game(which would be more likely a cupcake)- they played a conference game...
If you look all 10 teams in the Big 12 are 1-10 in Sagarin's computer ratings SOS as a result.
I have always thought that ranking conferences was pretty absurd, especially Sagarin's. In most years, nearly every conference will have their top teams, their mediocre teams and their bottom feeders. Rarely do you have a league with all mediocre records, yet people will spin that to mean that their overall conference is strong, since no one is really bad.
When schedules are made, you don't know whether an opponent will be ranked or not, but of those OOC wins for the Big 12, only Oklahoma's win over Florida State (no longer ranked) and Baylor's upset of TCU were over ranked opponents. By comparison, SEC teams beat Penn State, Oregon and West Virginia by double digit scores and beat several other ranked teams, with their only loss to a ranked team (that I know of) being Georgia's season opener against Boise.
You can make raw numbers say pretty much what you want them to, but in trying to compare entire conferences, people feel compelled to try to prop up their favorite conference (or tear down their least favorite) by using raw data. In looking at the Big 12 OOC numbers, you have to be impressed with the winning percentage, but the overall quality of those opponents may not be particularly strong. By the same token, I have no problem with teams playing in strong conferences scheduling weak OOC games. If a team is likely to play against 5-6 ranked teams in conference, it's not unreasonable to me that they might not schedule 3-4 tough OOC opponents.
I'm no pro or anti Big 12, but it is pretty clear to me that they have performed best this year. I hate it when IA teams schedule IAA teams (my own included, and don't give me the FBS/FCS crap). The SEC schedules way too many of these teams. Compare the OOC schedules:
Tulsa 26
Arizona 71
ULL 89
Tulsa 26
Florida State 30
Ball State 83
A$M 19
Troy 155
New Mexico 179
Missou St. 156
Any sensible selection committee would devalue the third teams OOC for being too easy. At this point, excuses don't count for much. You have to look at what teams have actually accomplished, and Arkansas is lacking due to their soft OOC.
The Big12 will stay at 10......they had 12 and it cost them an opportunity to play in the National Championship game three times and if not for a couple of a miracles it would have cost them five opportunities to play for the National championship. OU lost the Big12 CG and by some miracle the computers saved them. Texas lost it CG to Nebraska unril the refs put one second back on the clock.
Add to that, there were years it cost Texas a trip to the Rose Bowl and three or four times it kept the Big12 from getting two teams in the BCS bowls.
Not playing a Championship game will have no effect how the polls rate them
(11-27-2011 04:05 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2011 07:48 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2011 03:41 AM)stever20 Wrote: [ -> ]yeah. There's a few reasons for the Big 12 cpu ratings...
1- 27-3 in OOC games. Best record just about i've ever heard of.
2- 9 conference games. Instead of playing in general a 4th OOC game(which would be more likely a cupcake)- they played a conference game...
If you look all 10 teams in the Big 12 are 1-10 in Sagarin's computer ratings SOS as a result.
I have always thought that ranking conferences was pretty absurd, especially Sagarin's. In most years, nearly every conference will have their top teams, their mediocre teams and their bottom feeders. Rarely do you have a league with all mediocre records, yet people will spin that to mean that their overall conference is strong, since no one is really bad.
When schedules are made, you don't know whether an opponent will be ranked or not, but of those OOC wins for the Big 12, only Oklahoma's win over Florida State (no longer ranked) and Baylor's upset of TCU were over ranked opponents. By comparison, SEC teams beat Penn State, Oregon and West Virginia by double digit scores and beat several other ranked teams, with their only loss to a ranked team (that I know of) being Georgia's season opener against Boise.
You can make raw numbers say pretty much what you want them to, but in trying to compare entire conferences, people feel compelled to try to prop up their favorite conference (or tear down their least favorite) by using raw data. In looking at the Big 12 OOC numbers, you have to be impressed with the winning percentage, but the overall quality of those opponents may not be particularly strong. By the same token, I have no problem with teams playing in strong conferences scheduling weak OOC games. If a team is likely to play against 5-6 ranked teams in conference, it's not unreasonable to me that they might not schedule 3-4 tough OOC opponents.
I'm no pro or anti Big 12, but it is pretty clear to me that they have performed best this year. I hate it when IA teams schedule IAA teams (my own included, and don't give me the FBS/FCS crap). The SEC schedules way too many of these teams. Compare the OOC schedules:
Tulsa 26
Arizona 71
ULL 89
Tulsa 26
Florida State 30
Ball State 83
A$M 19
Troy 155
New Mexico 179
Missou St. 156
Any sensible selection committee would devalue the third teams OOC for being too easy. At this point, excuses don't count for much. You have to look at what teams have actually accomplished, and Arkansas is lacking due to their soft OOC.
I'm not even sure that is even relevant. You can't have Arky's school prez hold a gun to some other AQ school prez's head and force them to sign a contract that they don't want to sign.
On the other hand, Arky has to fill a schedule and if Troy, UNM and MSU want $XXX,000 to get their teeth handed to them to pay their bills, so what? Nobody is thinking they are for real until the real grind starts, anyway. It turns out that they aren't for real when it matters. So be it.
Aside from that Tulsa probably gets paid nicely to lose to Boise, Okie and Okie Lite (oddly enough, the others in your comparison)...I have no cookies to reward them with. Sorry.
Some of you make this scheduling thing out to be easier than it is and we haven't even touched on those last-minute cancellation type issues. Check yourselves.
(11-27-2011 05:14 PM)AllPtsBulletin Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2011 04:05 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote: [ -> ]I'm no pro or anti Big 12, but it is pretty clear to me that they have performed best this year. I hate it when IA teams schedule IAA teams (my own included, and don't give me the FBS/FCS crap). The SEC schedules way too many of these teams. Compare the OOC schedules:
Tulsa 26
Arizona 71
ULL 89
Tulsa 26
Florida State 30
Ball State 83
A$M 19
Troy 155
New Mexico 179
Missou St. 156
Any sensible selection committee would devalue the third teams OOC for being too easy. At this point, excuses don't count for much. You have to look at what teams have actually accomplished, and Arkansas is lacking due to their soft OOC.
I'm not even sure that is even relevant. You can't have Arky's school prez hold a gun to some other AQ school prez's head and force them to sign a contract that they don't want to sign.
On the other hand, Arky has to fill a schedule and if Troy, UNM and MSU want $XXX,000 to get their teeth handed to them to pay their bills, so what? Nobody is thinking they are for real until the real grind starts, anyway. It turns out that they aren't for real when it matters. So be it.
Aside from that Tulsa probably gets paid nicely to lose to Boise, Okie and Okie Lite (oddly enough, the others in your comparison)...I have no cookies to reward them with. Sorry.
Some of you make this scheduling thing out to be easier than it is and we haven't even touched on those last-minute cancellation type issues. Check yourselves.
I root for a newly independent team, so I know how hard it is to schedule good teams. But, the fact of the matter is that the SEC scheduled IAA teams and home games, and that should be (and is) reflected in their computer ratings. The Big 12 did not schedule IAA teams and played better teams, and that should be reflected in their computer ratings (and it is). If Okie St beats Oklahoma (#4 in most computers) I think they should get in the title game based on SOS. For those knocking Iowa State, the Cyclones are on par with Auburn, Florida, and Miss St this year.
Truth of the matter is that Arkansas could have made home-and-home arrangements with a number of quality teams. Instead, they scheduled home games and a IAA game, just as most of the rest of the SEC did. I have no pity when a low SOS results from "win inflation."
If you listen to Boren's interview a few weeks ago, it is pretty clear that 11 is on the radar for the Big 12, and that should they go that route, the eleventh team is Louisville. I think the reason is that they really don't love the Championship game, and the TV contract is set up for 10 teams, making 11 only one more mouth to feed. Souinds like they'd like a little more geographic link to WVU, too.
My opinion: I can't see them deciding to go to 11. Even though it is only one more mouth, it is still a 10% decrease in revenue and now a non-round robin schedule. I think the league waits until the next TV cycle to make a move to 12.
(11-28-2011 11:50 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote: [ -> ]If you listen to Boren's interview a few weeks ago, it is pretty clear that 11 is on the radar for the Big 12, and that should they go that route, the eleventh team is Louisville. I think the reason is that they really don't love the Championship game, and the TV contract is set up for 10 teams, making 11 only one more mouth to feed. Souinds like they'd like a little more geographic link to WVU, too.
My opinion: I can't see them deciding to go to 11. Even though it is only one more mouth, it is still a 10% decrease in revenue and now a non-round robin schedule. I think the league waits until the next TV cycle to make a move to 12.
Yeah, 11 doesn't make sense. The only reason why the Big Ten did it was because (1) the 11th team was a marquee name in Penn State and (2) they were willing to wait for another marquee name for school #12.
I agree that the next TV contract cycle would be the most likely time for further expansion as opposed to now. If the Big 12 really wanted Louisville that badly, they would've added them already.
Here's a scenario down the road to look out for: Rutgers and UConn to the Big 12. (Not immediately, but maybe 4 or 5 years from now.) Why? It provides the Northeastern presence to make it palatable for Notre Dame to join as a non-football member and agree to play 3 or 4 Big 12 football teams per year. With West Virginia already in the mix, the eastern geography isn't as far-fetched anymore.
Louisville's likely to be brought in along with a #12 around the spring time when preliminary TV talks get underway for the BigXII and will likely join the conference for play no sooner than 2013, 2014 being the most likely. From everything I've heard, it's sounding like there's an agreement already reached with handshakes...which could be why Boren's not bashful about talking about Louisville specifically. I've heard Rutgers and USF are the top LIKELY candidates for #12 with FSU being a longshot possibility.
(11-28-2011 12:11 PM)3rdandBlunder Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville's likely to be brought in along with a #12 around the spring time when preliminary TV talks get underway for the BigXII and will likely join the conference for play no sooner than 2013, 2014 being the most likely. From everything I've heard, it's sounding like there's an agreement already reached with handshakes...which could be why Boren's not bashful about talking about Louisville specifically. I've heard Rutgers and USF are the top LIKELY candidates for #12 with FSU being a longshot possibility.
Cincy will get in over UL. Rutgers is #12 unless the ACC takes them first. (Obviously FSU is first choice, but extremely unlikely.)
In an article in today's Oklahoman, Joe Castiglione, the OU AD, said ""there is not currently enough support for expansion"
The same article guotes Mike Holder, the OSU AD, as being a proponent for staying at 10.
Commissioner Nineas has also said there is no consenus to expand.
It is not going to happen
Eleven is the absolute worst number for a conference. You can't play a round robin or a championship game. Remember when Iowa and Ohio St each went 8-0 in the Big 10?
(11-27-2011 01:46 AM)Fear The Frog Wrote: [ -> ]They will go back to 12 by 2016.. bet on it....
All signs point to Texas going independant in 2018.
NIU & Louisville as 11th & 12th.
(11-28-2011 02:19 PM)EERSFAN Wrote: [ -> ] (11-28-2011 12:11 PM)3rdandBlunder Wrote: [ -> ]Louisville's likely to be brought in along with a #12 around the spring time when preliminary TV talks get underway for the BigXII and will likely join the conference for play no sooner than 2013, 2014 being the most likely. From everything I've heard, it's sounding like there's an agreement already reached with handshakes...which could be why Boren's not bashful about talking about Louisville specifically. I've heard Rutgers and USF are the top LIKELY candidates for #12 with FSU being a longshot possibility.
Cincy will get in over UL. Rutgers is #12 unless the ACC takes them first. (Obviously FSU is first choice, but extremely unlikely.)
Keep on trolling, troll. Facts are, you're wrong. The BigXII has, for reasons that escape me, absolutely NO interest in Cincinnati.
(11-28-2011 11:09 AM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2011 05:14 PM)AllPtsBulletin Wrote: [ -> ] (11-27-2011 04:05 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote: [ -> ]I'm no pro or anti Big 12, but it is pretty clear to me that they have performed best this year. I hate it when IA teams schedule IAA teams (my own included, and don't give me the FBS/FCS crap). The SEC schedules way too many of these teams. Compare the OOC schedules:
Tulsa 26
Arizona 71
ULL 89
Tulsa 26
Florida State 30
Ball State 83
A$M 19
Troy 155
New Mexico 179
Missou St. 156
Any sensible selection committee would devalue the third teams OOC for being too easy. At this point, excuses don't count for much. You have to look at what teams have actually accomplished, and Arkansas is lacking due to their soft OOC.
I'm not even sure that is even relevant. You can't have Arky's school prez hold a gun to some other AQ school prez's head and force them to sign a contract that they don't want to sign.
On the other hand, Arky has to fill a schedule and if Troy, UNM and MSU want $XXX,000 to get their teeth handed to them to pay their bills, so what? Nobody is thinking they are for real until the real grind starts, anyway. It turns out that they aren't for real when it matters. So be it.
Aside from that Tulsa probably gets paid nicely to lose to Boise, Okie and Okie Lite (oddly enough, the others in your comparison)...I have no cookies to reward them with. Sorry.
Some of you make this scheduling thing out to be easier than it is and we haven't even touched on those last-minute cancellation type issues. Check yourselves.
I root for a newly independent team, so I know how hard it is to schedule good teams. But, the fact of the matter is that the SEC scheduled IAA teams and home games, and that should be (and is) reflected in their computer ratings. The Big 12 did not schedule IAA teams and played better teams, and that should be reflected in their computer ratings (and it is). If Okie St beats Oklahoma (#4 in most computers) I think they should get in the title game based on SOS. For those knocking Iowa State, the Cyclones are on par with Auburn, Florida, and Miss St this year.
Truth of the matter is that Arkansas could have made home-and-home arrangements with a number of quality teams. Instead, they scheduled home games and a IAA game, just as most of the rest of the SEC did. I have no pity when a low SOS results from "win inflation."
Have the Cyclones popped the cork on the bubbly yet? I mean if they are equal to Miss State this year, they should,Ms State just won a championship, or at least their head coach said they did.