(12-07-2015 10:27 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  There are so many people who make conjecture on expansion without fully understanding why many of the pieces moved. If ANYBODY on this board thinks that Academics wont matter, then you havent been paying attention.

Texas, Kansas and ISU are all AAU. As much as everyone likes to think that the AD makes the choice as to who will be in the conference, the truth is that it is the Presidents of each school who cast the vote. Kansas and Texas have both been vocal in stating that they dislike the lower rank that the Big 12 has when being compared academically to the others. The Pac12, Big 10 and ACC all share research... thats very attractive to them. AAU is freaking elite. USF is on the list of schools being watched and advised. We have met the majority of requirements for AAU and at best were probably 20 years away from acceptance. hell, Georgia tech was quliafied for AAU for nearly a decade before being invited.... so yes, those three schools REALLY want high academics. Not to mention that Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma are all considered to be very good academic schools.

Market will play a big role in this expansion also. If I were to guess the order of importance it would be Market, On field success and Academics basically tied for first place and all other factors a distant fourth.

This is why they havent expanded because there isnt a single team outside of BYU that gives them all those things.... and BYU did an amazing job of pissing off Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas with their demands and arrogance.... but I can see them being an expansion candidate.

Lets also not forget their the Big 12 commish did state that they are exploring models that go beyond 12. The Big 12 did buy the rights to the Big 14 and Big 16. If I had to guess, I do think that they will end up going to 14 if they expand. We already learned that ESPN and Fox have agreed to increase the payment at current level for expansion.

For now, Its all moot since they are waiting to see if they get the waiver. If they do, then we all get on board the American cause its gonna be our only ride for a while. If denied, well this board is gonna go to hell in a handbasket real quick but lets all not forget that there are MANY teams that could get an invite.... the proof is that the very maligned Tulane was on the short list for expansion last time. So before we all go and claim that some team doesnt have a chance just remember... Tulane. Let that soak in.

This. Tulane to BigXII was actually more likely than Tulane to Big East. It all came down to Louisville.

Big XII expected to add TCU, WVU, Tulane and Louisville. Two publics on the interior borders of B1G, ACC, and SEC, and two well respected privates to shore them up academically with potential for success. When Louisville turned them down for ACC, they decided to stay at 10, with no candidate available to replace Louisville. If they could have undone WVU and added Tulane instead the presidents would have. WVU was only added in expectation of Louisville. But you don't count your chickens before they hatch. Bad job by BigXII.

With Tulane left hanging they found a spot to land with the Big East, with the backing of NE/blue blood university president connections. But it came last minute and ruffled a lot of feathers the wrong way in the athletic departments. Tulane made sense as part of a planned 4 team package deal that checked all the boxes: state flagship, metro power, competitive private with loyal following and AAU academic. On it own? Not so much.

With Tulane mucking up the last two years, their name has fallen out of public conversation by BigXII presidents and commissioner. A clear message was sent. Hence the cleaning house at the Athletic Department. And the new AD with Bowlsby/BigXII connections. In many ways the BigXII dodged a bullet, and Tulane is on notice-- become respectable on the field or it won't matter who you are or who you know.

First of all, this play by the B1G wasn't the ace up the sleeve. This was just the opening act. Doing this forces a discussion, rather than just letting the blank check deregulation (thank you Wedge!) sail through, unimpeded.

Second of all, this is what I think the B1G really wants: they want all the P conferences to look the same to the committee. That means, two divisions and a CCG between division winners. Four of the conferences do this. One does not.


The XII doesn't need more than 10 teams to have two divisions. But divisions make no sense for them, if they're playing a round-robin anyway.

The point of divisions is to allow a round-robin in the division. Then have the two round-robin winners play a CCG. That's the point. XII doesn't need to do that.


So at the end of the day, I guess the SEC "compromise" makes the most sense.

But yes, the XII should be forced to play a CCG, every year. Like everyone else.

(12-07-2015 09:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  This past week drove two nails in the coffin of any short-term Big 12 expansion.

First, Oklahoma made the playoffs, debunking the notion that not having a CCG is some kind of fatal flaw in the Big 12's current structure concerning making the playoffs.

Second, with the release of the B1G's proposal, it is now clear that the Big 12 will get what it wants - the ability to create a CCG while having just ten teams, because the B1G proposal accepts that as well. There is no P5 opposition to the basic notion of having a CCG with 10 teams.

If Stanford only had 1 loss the PAC CCG would have bumped OU. It worked for the Big 12 this year, but they are still at a disadvantage for not having a CCG.

(12-07-2015 12:01 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:53 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-06-2015 11:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Agreed, the G5 isn't going to vote for anything that would cause them to be cherry-picked, have a domino effect, etc.

Even if Delany finds enough support to block "blank check" deregulation, it seems likely that there would be support for what the SEC commissioner Sankey proposed: Rules stay the same for conferences of 12 or more; conferences with fewer teams can have a 1st place vs. 2nd place CCG if they play a full round-robin.

It is a reasonable compromise I think, although it doesn't really give the ACC anything.

True, it doesn't, but if the ACC doesn't address Delany's "What are you going to do if we deregulate" question, then we don't even know what they're asking for.

My guess is still that the ACC wouldn't eliminate divisions but would want the flexibility to play only 5 division opponents each year instead of all 6, and that would be a reasonable thing to let them have -- but again, how do we know that's what they want unless they say so.

Swofford is trying to cheat something. Smells stinky.

Otherwise, he would've laid his cards on the table by now, publicly. But he won't do that, because he knows people will rip it to shreds.


If you have "divisions" with no division round-robin, that's cheating the concept of the division.

At that point, you really just have no divisions and a crafty schedule. Fine, if that's what they want ... then do that. But they're not allowed to have a CCG, if they don't play a full round-robin.

(12-07-2015 10:48 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  This past week drove two nails in the coffin of any short-term Big 12 expansion.

First, Oklahoma made the playoffs, debunking the notion that not having a CCG is some kind of fatal flaw in the Big 12's current structure concerning making the playoffs.

Second, with the release of the B1G's proposal, it is now clear that the Big 12 will get what it wants - the ability to create a CCG while having just ten teams, because the B1G proposal accepts that as well. There is no P5 opposition to the basic notion of having a CCG with 10 teams.

If Stanford only had 1 loss the PAC CCG would have bumped OU. It worked for the Big 12 this year, but they are still at a disadvantage for not having a CCG.

It should be noted that after last year, the big argument by XII fans was always "CCG upsets are commonplace, this year was a fluke ... so when CCG upsets inevitably occur, we'll get in".

That didn't happen, again.

(12-07-2015 10:47 AM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:27 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  There are so many people who make conjecture on expansion without fully understanding why many of the pieces moved. If ANYBODY on this board thinks that Academics wont matter, then you havent been paying attention.

Texas, Kansas and ISU are all AAU. As much as everyone likes to think that the AD makes the choice as to who will be in the conference, the truth is that it is the Presidents of each school who cast the vote. Kansas and Texas have both been vocal in stating that they dislike the lower rank that the Big 12 has when being compared academically to the others. The Pac12, Big 10 and ACC all share research... thats very attractive to them. AAU is freaking elite. USF is on the list of schools being watched and advised. We have met the majority of requirements for AAU and at best were probably 20 years away from acceptance. hell, Georgia tech was quliafied for AAU for nearly a decade before being invited.... so yes, those three schools REALLY want high academics. Not to mention that Baylor, TCU and Oklahoma are all considered to be very good academic schools.

Market will play a big role in this expansion also. If I were to guess the order of importance it would be Market, On field success and Academics basically tied for first place and all other factors a distant fourth.

This is why they havent expanded because there isnt a single team outside of BYU that gives them all those things.... and BYU did an amazing job of pissing off Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas with their demands and arrogance.... but I can see them being an expansion candidate.

Lets also not forget their the Big 12 commish did state that they are exploring models that go beyond 12. The Big 12 did buy the rights to the Big 14 and Big 16. If I had to guess, I do think that they will end up going to 14 if they expand. We already learned that ESPN and Fox have agreed to increase the payment at current level for expansion.

For now, Its all moot since they are waiting to see if they get the waiver. If they do, then we all get on board the American cause its gonna be our only ride for a while. If denied, well this board is gonna go to hell in a handbasket real quick but lets all not forget that there are MANY teams that could get an invite.... the proof is that the very maligned Tulane was on the short list for expansion last time. So before we all go and claim that some team doesnt have a chance just remember... Tulane. Let that soak in.

This. Tulane to BigXII was actually more likely than Tulane to Big East. It all came down to Louisville.

Big XII expected to add TCU, WVU, Tulane and Louisville. Two publics on the interior borders of B1G, ACC, and SEC, and two well respected privates to shore them up academically with potential for success. When Louisville turned them down for ACC, they decided to stay at 10, with no candidate available to replace Louisville. If they could have undone WVU and added Tulane instead the presidents would have. WVU was only added in expectation of Louisville. But you don't count your chickens before they hatch. Bad job by BigXII.

With Tulane left hanging they found a spot to land with the Big East, with the backing of NE/blue blood university president connections. But it came last minute and ruffled a lot of feathers the wrong way in the athletic departments. Tulane made sense as part of a planned 4 team package deal that checked all the boxes: state flagship, metro power, competitive private with loyal following and AAU academic. On it own? Not so much.

With Tulane mucking up the last two years, their name has fallen out of public conversation by BigXII presidents and commissioner. A clear message was sent. Hence the cleaning house at the Athletic Department. And the new AD with Bowlsby/BigXII connections. In many ways the BigXII dodged a bullet, and Tulane is on notice-- become respectable on the field or it won't matter who you are or who you know.

"When Louisville turned down the big 12 for the ACC"-----Lie!! Louisville wasn't invited. Sen Mitch McConnel went on tv and begged and pleaded with the Big 12 to get in, in 2011, but Louisville was not invited to the Big 12. You also told another lie and said "the original plan was for Tulane to the big 12...."--- lie!!!! Tulane was never invited to the big 12. STOP lying Tulane fan.

Tulane was vetted and confirmed to be on the short list but from everything I have ever read and heard only WVU and TCU were actually invited.... and it was pretty well known the next two in were actually Lville and Cinci. Tulane was closer then anyone else after that.
If BYU hadnt pissed off people, I think Lville and BYU would be in the Big 12.

(12-07-2015 10:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:48 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  This past week drove two nails in the coffin of any short-term Big 12 expansion.

First, Oklahoma made the playoffs, debunking the notion that not having a CCG is some kind of fatal flaw in the Big 12's current structure concerning making the playoffs.

Second, with the release of the B1G's proposal, it is now clear that the Big 12 will get what it wants - the ability to create a CCG while having just ten teams, because the B1G proposal accepts that as well. There is no P5 opposition to the basic notion of having a CCG with 10 teams.

If Stanford only had 1 loss the PAC CCG would have bumped OU. It worked for the Big 12 this year, but they are still at a disadvantage for not having a CCG.

It should be noted that after last year, the big argument by XII fans was always "CCG upsets are commonplace, this year was a fluke ... so when CCG upsets inevitably occur, we'll get in".

That didn't happen, again.

I make that argument and still believe it. Upsets are going to happen in CCGs with regularity. It's football, after all. One of the reasons we love watching it. If the favorite always won, we'd get bored quickly.

There will be years with with chaos on championship Saturday with 2, 3 or even 4 favorites losing.

(12-07-2015 11:04 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:48 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  This past week drove two nails in the coffin of any short-term Big 12 expansion.

First, Oklahoma made the playoffs, debunking the notion that not having a CCG is some kind of fatal flaw in the Big 12's current structure concerning making the playoffs.

Second, with the release of the B1G's proposal, it is now clear that the Big 12 will get what it wants - the ability to create a CCG while having just ten teams, because the B1G proposal accepts that as well. There is no P5 opposition to the basic notion of having a CCG with 10 teams.

If Stanford only had 1 loss the PAC CCG would have bumped OU. It worked for the Big 12 this year, but they are still at a disadvantage for not having a CCG.

It should be noted that after last year, the big argument by XII fans was always "CCG upsets are commonplace, this year was a fluke ... so when CCG upsets inevitably occur, we'll get in".

That didn't happen, again.

I make that argument and still believe it. Upsets are going to happen in CCGs with regularity. It's football, after all. One of the reasons we love watching it. If the favorite always won, we'd get bored quickly.

There will be years with with chaos on championship Saturday with 2, 3 or even 4 favorites losing.

Sorry Frog, there's only one cursed conference and that is the XII.

I look forward to your cursed CCG restarting, though. It always provided a fun headline!

billybob777 Wrote:There are so many people who make conjecture on expansion without fully
"When Louisville turned down the big 12 for the ACC"-----Lie!! Louisville wasn't invited. Sen Mitch McConnel went on tv and begged and pleaded with the Big 12 to get in, in 2011, but Louisville was not invited to the Big 12. You also told another lie and said "the original plan was for Tulane to the big 12...."--- lie!!!! Tulane was never invited to the big 12. STOP lying Tulane fan.

(12-07-2015 11:02 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  Tulane was vetted and confirmed to be on the short list but from everything I have ever read and heard only WVU and TCU were actually invited.... and it was pretty well known the next two in were actually Lville and Cinci. Tulane was closer then anyone else after that.
If BYU hadnt pissed off people, I think Lville and BYU would be in the Big 12.

Never said they were invited. You don't extend an invite until it's a done deal. When BYU said no thanks Tulane was the replacement. But when Louisville went to ACC instead they stayed at 10. No need to call me a liar, it's all well documented.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/...nvite-most

Quote:There were a number of top candidates, the source said, including BYU, Louisville, West Virginia, TCU and previously unmentioned Tulane, of Conference USA. The source said the Big 12 has been contacted by a number of other schools about possible inclusion, as well.

On Thursday, the Big 12 invited TCU, which was supposed to begin membership in the Big East in 2012-13. The TCU board of trustees was scheduled to meet later in the day to discuss the invitation.

The source said that Tulane would become a viable option for the Big 12 if it were to grab four schools to beef up the membership to 12, in a situation where BYU decides it doesn't want to leave its football independence or its new tie to the WCC in all other sports. Tulane is interesting to the Big 12 because of its location in New Orleans and in a state, Louisiana, where the Big 12 is absent, as well as the school's renewed commitment to sports and facilities after Hurricane Katrina.

A source with knowledge of Tulane's situation told ESPN.com that the Green Wave have privately been making overtures to the Big East and Big 12 about possible membership but didn't want to upset Conference USA as that league looks to form a partnership with the Mountain West.

Tulane is also a member of the Association of American Universities -- the only AAU member listed as a possible addition. The prestigious AAU tag is something that the SEC has looked at as an important criterion for expansion, as evidenced by the league promoting Texas A&M as one of three AAU members in the SEC in a news release announcing the Aggies' addition. Florida and Vanderbilt are the other two in the SEC.

The Big 12 would be down to four AAU schools after the departure of Texas A&M, and down to three -- Texas, Kansas, and Iowa State -- if Missouri leaves.

The source cited the improved academics at TCU and Louisville as important aspects to possible inclusion in the Big 12.

Cincy was and is never going. Ohio State, and therefore University of Ohio board of regents, would never allow it.

(12-07-2015 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:04 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:48 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 09:50 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  This past week drove two nails in the coffin of any short-term Big 12 expansion.

First, Oklahoma made the playoffs, debunking the notion that not having a CCG is some kind of fatal flaw in the Big 12's current structure concerning making the playoffs.

Second, with the release of the B1G's proposal, it is now clear that the Big 12 will get what it wants - the ability to create a CCG while having just ten teams, because the B1G proposal accepts that as well. There is no P5 opposition to the basic notion of having a CCG with 10 teams.

If Stanford only had 1 loss the PAC CCG would have bumped OU. It worked for the Big 12 this year, but they are still at a disadvantage for not having a CCG.

It should be noted that after last year, the big argument by XII fans was always "CCG upsets are commonplace, this year was a fluke ... so when CCG upsets inevitably occur, we'll get in".

That didn't happen, again.

I make that argument and still believe it. Upsets are going to happen in CCGs with regularity. It's football, after all. One of the reasons we love watching it. If the favorite always won, we'd get bored quickly.

There will be years with with chaos on championship Saturday with 2, 3 or even 4 favorites losing.

Sorry Frog, there's only one cursed conference and that is the XII.

I look forward to your cursed CCG restarting, though. It always provided a fun headline!

It does amaze me how superstitious many sports figures and fans are (especially in baseball, but all sports, really). I guess I get it, especially if one doesn't have a grasp of probability and statistics- it gives some sense of control or explanation.

No facts or article, but just my conjecture. While all the other p5 Conferences are at 12 or more teams, I get the feeling that the P5 would prefer the B12 to be at that same level of teams as the P12 and add two teams. Guess we will see in January.

(12-07-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:04 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:48 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  If Stanford only had 1 loss the PAC CCG would have bumped OU. It worked for the Big 12 this year, but they are still at a disadvantage for not having a CCG.

It should be noted that after last year, the big argument by XII fans was always "CCG upsets are commonplace, this year was a fluke ... so when CCG upsets inevitably occur, we'll get in".

That didn't happen, again.

I make that argument and still believe it. Upsets are going to happen in CCGs with regularity. It's football, after all. One of the reasons we love watching it. If the favorite always won, we'd get bored quickly.

There will be years with with chaos on championship Saturday with 2, 3 or even 4 favorites losing.

Sorry Frog, there's only one cursed conference and that is the XII.

I look forward to your cursed CCG restarting, though. It always provided a fun headline!

It does amaze me how superstitious many sports figures and fans are (especially in baseball, but all sports, really). I guess I get it, especially if one doesn't have a grasp of probability and statistics- it gives some sense of control or explanation.

Probability has no place in single game outcomes.

I dislike expansion... My preference will be, pay the AAC what it deserves, provide this league the Power6 patch and move on.

(12-07-2015 11:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:04 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:55 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  It should be noted that after last year, the big argument by XII fans was always "CCG upsets are commonplace, this year was a fluke ... so when CCG upsets inevitably occur, we'll get in".

That didn't happen, again.

I make that argument and still believe it. Upsets are going to happen in CCGs with regularity. It's football, after all. One of the reasons we love watching it. If the favorite always won, we'd get bored quickly.

There will be years with with chaos on championship Saturday with 2, 3 or even 4 favorites losing.

Sorry Frog, there's only one cursed conference and that is the XII.

I look forward to your cursed CCG restarting, though. It always provided a fun headline!

It does amaze me how superstitious many sports figures and fans are (especially in baseball, but all sports, really). I guess I get it, especially if one doesn't have a grasp of probability and statistics- it gives some sense of control or explanation.

Probability has no place in single game outcomes.

Either does superstition or curses.

(12-07-2015 07:14 AM)baruna falls Wrote:  "The Big 12 took a potentially significant step toward expansion Sunday night when ESPN reported that Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany filed a last-minute amendment in November that could prevent the conference from having a championship game as early as next season.


"We're trying to work our way through it, but I'm less certain of the outcome than I was before," Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told ESPN.com on Sunday. ”We don't think we ought to be forced into adding schools in order to have a championship game, but it could end up that way.”
http://www.espn929.com/pages/22249014.php

Ever other conference P5 & G5 was forced to add schools in order to host a conference championship. I can think of a couple AAC schools that we wouldn't have added if we could do it with 10.

The irony is ESPN establishes who's power anything. We need to win OOC.

(12-07-2015 12:01 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  the rel reason the G5 favors this is for the same reason the ACC proposed this in the first place

because the G5 conferences are even more likely than the ACC to have one division that is much stronger than the other division and having a CCG with a weak division winner Vs a strong division winner while a third team that is stronger overall sits on the sidelines does not help as much as putting the two strongest teams in the CCG without regards to divisions

the G5 teams still have an access bowl slot to play for every year and there is a slim chance at some point they could even have a playoff spot to play for for the YEARLY access bowl slot that still brings a lot of money to the conference along with the recognition so if the MWC or AAC or which ever conference can get their top two teams into a CCG that gives them the best chance to claim that spot.....if they are the conference with a really strong team Vs a really weak team and the other conference has the two strong teams in the CCG they are at a disadvantage as far as quality of win for the stronger team and as far as still getting the access bowl slot if the stronger team loses

if this was targeted specifically at the Big 12 it would simply require twelve teams to have a CCG and then allow the conferences to decide who plays in the CCG with their own criteria

there is every chance that if the Big 10 proposal passes it will cost THE BIG 10 in the future since the western half of the conference is clearly weaker than the eastern half and there is little chance Iowa will stay as good as they are this year and Nebraska appears to be falling further behind

there is every chance the Big 10 more often than not will be looking at a CCG with a 2+ loss team playing in it while other teams from the other division have the same or better records and a higher overall rank

look at the history of the Big 10 CCG

2011 10-2 and BCS#15 Wisconsin beats 10-2 #13 BCS MSU
2012 BCS #12 NU loses to unranked Wisconsin.....now this was an outlier because of the Penn State issue and tOSU actually being punished for cheating, but still it was a major upset
2013 BCS #10 beats BCS #2 tOSU

now in the above games with the exception of 2012 with the "issues" there was not a higher ranked team sitting home.....but of course the Big 10 was much more equal in conference alignment between divisions then

2014 tOSU thumps Wisconsin, but a much higher ranked MSU was sitting home

2015 the two highest were matched, but the lower ranked team almost won and tOSU that was only one place behind Iowa sat at home and there is little chance that Iowa continues to be this good because they are Iowa and there is every chance that tOSU, MSU and MU end the season most years higher ranked Vs the teams in the western division


so again this legislation is just as likely to harm the Big 10 as it is to harm any other conference and specifically it is about meaningless as to the Big 12 and being able to have a CCG or not......it really only has meaning for what the ACC desires and the inability for the ACC to get what they desire has the same effect on ALL the conferences equally and probably the Big 10 and ACC more so than the SEC or PAC 12 or even the Big 12 because the SEC and PAC 12 are more balanced conferences and the Big 12 can split their conference any way they see fit especially if they continue the round robin because the divisions will be meaningless with a round robin as far as the actual schedule

hell with a round robin the Big 12 could realign the divisions yearly to try and have the two perceived best teams in different divisions and it makes no difference for the actual schedule of games

not so with conferences that do not play a round robin

if there is no requirement for 2 divisions the Big 12 could simply have five two team divisions and with a round robin they could still manipulate those yearly as well with no effect on the schedule of games

No, the real reason the G5 wants this is in hopes it stops expansion

(12-07-2015 10:27 AM)Enviro5609 Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 10:05 AM)panicstricken Wrote:  cinn and memphis to big 12 north

coog high aint going anywhere

Cincy can't change who they are. No way BigXII ever takes a regional school in the same system as Ohio State. And even if they tried, Ohio State would never allow the University of Ohio system to sanction it. Sorry but thems the brakes.

Memphis is a promising pick but they aren't ready. Yet.

How does Ohio State have any say on UC's athletic conference membership? Certainly the mighty Ohio State would have blocked UC's move to the Big East, right? And describing UC as a regional school shows how little you comprehend the dynamics involved.

(12-07-2015 11:28 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:26 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:20 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:13 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2015 11:04 AM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I make that argument and still believe it. Upsets are going to happen in CCGs with regularity. It's football, after all. One of the reasons we love watching it. If the favorite always won, we'd get bored quickly.

There will be years with with chaos on championship Saturday with 2, 3 or even 4 favorites losing.

Sorry Frog, there's only one cursed conference and that is the XII.

I look forward to your cursed CCG restarting, though. It always provided a fun headline!

It does amaze me how superstitious many sports figures and fans are (especially in baseball, but all sports, really). I guess I get it, especially if one doesn't have a grasp of probability and statistics- it gives some sense of control or explanation.

Probability has no place in single game outcomes.

Either does superstition or curses.

But at least such things can be observed!