From the article:

PHOENIX -- The Big 12's best chance to reach the College Football Playoff is to expand to 12 teams and stage a conference championship game, according to research by an analytics firm hired by the league.

The numbers run by Chicago-based Navigate Research show the Big 12 has a 4-5 percent better chance of reaching the top four in the CFP by adding two teams, playing one less conference game and holding a championship game, commissioner Bob Bowlsby said Monday.

The Big 12 is one of only two Power Five leagues to be left out the CFP in its first two seasons. Baylor and TCU came close in 2014. The Pac-12, whose highest ranked team was No. 6 Stanford, was left out last season.

The new information will be formally presented to the entire league later this month. The Big 12 is in the process of deciding whether it will stay in its current figuration of 10 teams playing a round-robin nine-game conference schedule. A decision could be reached by the end of the summer.

“This will probably persuade some people one way or the other,” said Bowlsby, who is in town for Big 12 spring meetings at the annual Fiesta Summit.

The rest of the Big 12's officials, including school presidents who will ultimately make the decision, will meet in Dallas from May 31 to June 3.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...for-league

And the $$$$ quote from Bowlsby:

“If we do nothing, we'll fall behind the SEC and the Big Ten in terms of [revenue],” Bowlsby said. “We may be every bit as competitive as we are today, but we'll fall behind financially.”

Bowlsby previously told CBS Sports that, if the league stands pat, it will be “$20 million [per school]” behind the SEC and Big Ten in 12 years.

Navigate's numbers were first reported by the Dallas Morning News.

(05-02-2016 06:37 PM)Maize Wrote:  From the article:

PHOENIX -- The Big 12's best chance to reach the College Football Playoff is to expand to 12 teams and stage a conference championship game, according to research by an analytics firm hired by the league.

The numbers run by Chicago-based Navigate Research show the Big 12 has a 4-5 percent better chance of reaching the top four in the CFP by adding two teams, playing one less conference game and holding a championship game, commissioner Bob Bowlsby said Monday.

The Big 12 is one of only two Power Five leagues to be left out the CFP in its first two seasons. Baylor and TCU came close in 2014. The Pac-12, whose highest ranked team was No. 6 Stanford, was left out last season.

The new information will be formally presented to the entire league later this month. The Big 12 is in the process of deciding whether it will stay in its current figuration of 10 teams playing a round-robin nine-game conference schedule. A decision could be reached by the end of the summer.

“This will probably persuade some people one way or the other,” said Bowlsby, who is in town for Big 12 spring meetings at the annual Fiesta Summit.

The rest of the Big 12's officials, including school presidents who will ultimately make the decision, will meet in Dallas from May 31 to June 3.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...for-league

And the $$$$ quote from Bowlsby:

“If we do nothing, we'll fall behind the SEC and the Big Ten in terms of [revenue],” Bowlsby said. “We may be every bit as competitive as we are today, but we'll fall behind financially.”

Bowlsby previously told CBS Sports that, if the league stands pat, it will be “$20 million [per school]” behind the SEC and Big Ten in 12 years.

Navigate's numbers were first reported by the Dallas Morning News.

Gosh. One of only two conferences to be left out of the CFP in 2 years. What are the odds that there would only be two in such a long stretch as that?

How much were these consultants paid to come up with that gem? What is clear is that they were told that their job was to issue a report saying what they said, and find some reasons to "support" their conclusion.

My take is the Big XII isn't the only league looking at the financial gap...the Pac 12 and ACC if they don't do something-(ACC Network and better Orange Bowl Deal) faces the same

Haha next year the ACC will be left out then it will be in three years 3 out of the 5 have been left out, then the year after the Big Ten will be left out and believe it or not 4 out of 5 will be left out in fours years what are the odds!? However the SEC will never be left out just because

(05-02-2016 06:54 PM)Maize Wrote:  My take is the Big XII isn't the only league looking at the financial gap...the Pac 12 and ACC if they don't do something-(ACC Network and better Orange Bowl Deal) faces the same

That's true. But that's not because of how many members they have. The B1G and SEC have inherent advantages that are going to be very hard for anybody to overcome.

The advantages the B1G has are structural, and nobody is going to duplicate them, at least in my lifetime. To overcome the SEC's advantages, somebody is going to have to figure out a way to poach some of their crown jewels, while retaining all their own jewels. I don't see either the B12 or ACC being able to pull that off.

(05-02-2016 06:55 PM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  Haha next year the ACC will be left out then it will be in three years 3 out of the 5 have been left out, then the year after the Big Ten will be left out and believe it or not 4 out of 5 will be left out in fours years what are the odds!? However the SEC will never be left out just because

You understand that Clemson will be Preseason #1 and Florida State likely Top 8...with Louisville and North Carolina also very likely Preseason Top 20...let the ACC Hate go....

(05-02-2016 07:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 06:54 PM)Maize Wrote:  My take is the Big XII isn't the only league looking at the financial gap...the Pac 12 and ACC if they don't do something-(ACC Network and better Orange Bowl Deal) faces the same

That's true. But that's not because of how many members they have. The B1G and SEC have inherent advantages that are going to be very hard for anybody to overcome.

The advantages the B1G has are structural, and nobody is going to duplicate them, at least in my lifetime. To overcome the SEC's advantages, somebody is going to have to figure out a way to poach some of their crown jewels, while retaining all their own jewels. I don't see either the B12 or ACC being able to pull that off.

Correct...my frustration is the ACC has done a poor job not taking advantages it has in population and being a good TV Ratings draw for the networks

Take Cinci or Uconn B12, and BYU. Then grab NIU AAC. Plz

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The BigXii leadership suffers from a collective case of schizophrenia.

(05-02-2016 07:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 06:54 PM)Maize Wrote:  My take is the Big XII isn't the only league looking at the financial gap...the Pac 12 and ACC if they don't do something-(ACC Network and better Orange Bowl Deal) faces the same

That's true. But that's not because of how many members they have. The B1G and SEC have inherent advantages that are going to be very hard for anybody to overcome.

The advantages the B1G has are structural, and nobody is going to duplicate them, at least in my lifetime. To overcome the SEC's advantages, somebody is going to have to figure out a way to poach some of their crown jewels, while retaining all their own jewels. I don't see either the B12 or ACC being able to pull that off.

I don't see how adding Cincinnati + 1 enables the Big 12 to close any gap that is there. It might make it bigger as CFP money and ccg money gets split 2 more ways.

I think 4-5% is reasonable, but it's hard to judge and I'm still not sold on the fact it's not advantageous long term for the CFP to only have 10. Keep in mind, with all 8 of the CCGs in the Big Ten, the ACC, the SEC, and PAC-12 the past 2 years, the higher ranked team won. Of course in those situations, it helped those winners. However, we're not going to keep up with that ratio. If Clemson lost the ACC Championship last year, the ACC wouldn't have had a team. If Alabama had lost the SEC Championship, the SEC probably wouldn't have either. With the Big 12's luck, they'll add a CCG and in the first year, they'll have a high ranking team lose to someone ranked too low to make the CFP and be locked out because they added a CCG.

With that said, I get the argument made for the 8 conference game model with a CCG. Eight conference games limits some games between top teams which leaves fewer places for losses for an eventual conference champ and that is only possible with a CCG that will at least sometimes help.

My money though would be on the Big 12 adding a CCG, but not expanding (for the moment). While expanding might slightly increase their playoff bowl chances, it will probably end up costing a bit of money elsewhere and they'll want to wait until they are 100% sure they are adding the best possible teams or they are forced too. The timing for that will more likely be around the time this contract ends (when they can get very specific about how teams will affect them for more than just a few years).

(05-02-2016 06:37 PM)Maize Wrote:  The rest of the Big 12's officials, including school presidents who will ultimately make the decision, will meet in Dallas from May 31 to June 3.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...for-league

And the $$$$ quote from Bowlsby:

“If we do nothing, we'll fall behind the SEC and the Big Ten in terms of [revenue],” Bowlsby said. “We may be every bit as competitive as we are today, but we'll fall behind financially.”

Bowlsby previously told CBS Sports that, if the league stands pat, it will be “$20 million [per school]” behind the SEC and Big Ten in 12 years.

Navigate's numbers were first reported by the Dallas Morning News.

I'm hoping this is the last stand as far as the B12 expansion question. One more month of speculation and its put to bed for a while.

If the B12 does indeed pull the trigger on the BYU/UC package it will most likely mean that NMSU will find a spot in CUSA or SBC.

B12 (BYU, Cincinnati)
AAC (Southern Miss)
CUSA (Louisiana)
SBC (NMSU)

That will solve issues for a lot of schools downstream.

Just having more teams increases the odds slightly.
Playing 1 less regular season (and one more OOC) game also helps due to relative strength.
And, of course, the 13th game helps some too.

Q: did the consultants mention that it's better if Oklahoma can play Alabama instead of Clemson in the first round?

(05-02-2016 08:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think 4-5% is reasonable, but it's hard to judge and I'm still not sold on the fact it's not advantageous long term for the CFP to only have 10. Keep in mind, with all 8 of the CCGs in the Big Ten, the ACC, the SEC, and PAC-12 the past 2 years, the higher ranked team won. Of course in those situations, it helped those winners. However, we're not going to keep up with that ratio. If Clemson lost the ACC Championship last year, the ACC wouldn't have had a team. If Alabama had lost the SEC Championship, the SEC probably wouldn't have either.

For what it's worth, Iowa was ranked higher than Mich St going into the BigTen CCG last year. But that's just a case when you have 14 teams, odds are better you will have 2 top 10 teams going into the game and the winner has a excellent chance of ending up in the top 4 even if they were the underdog going in.

This was also the case in the Big Ten in 2013. A 1-loss Mich St team beat an undefeated Ohio St team, and Mich St ended up #4 in the country. But more importantly Mich St got its chance to prove it was better than Ohio St and deserved the Big Ten's spot in the Rose Bowl. It also helped prove Ohio St did not deserve a spot in the BCS NCG. Are Big Ten fans upset that the CCG cost Ohio St a shot at the NCG? Not really because the CCG proved that Mich St was really the champion.

Keep in mind the CCG main purpose is to determine the conference champion in a large conference where all the teams don't play each other. It helps guarantee that all teams get their fair shot. All this business about how it hurts a teams chance at the playoffs is missing the point.

The reason the Big 12 has 4-5% less chance at the playoffs is because it only has 10 out of 65 P5 teams. The more quality programs you have, the better the odds 1 of the teams will end up in the top 4.

(05-02-2016 08:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think 4-5% is reasonable, but it's hard to judge and I'm still not sold on the fact it's not advantageous long term for the CFP to only have 10. Keep in mind, with all 8 of the CCGs in the Big Ten, the ACC, the SEC, and PAC-12 the past 2 years, the higher ranked team won. Of course in those situations, it helped those winners. However, we're not going to keep up with that ratio. If Clemson lost the ACC Championship last year, the ACC wouldn't have had a team. If Alabama had lost the SEC Championship, the SEC probably wouldn't have either. With the Big 12's luck, they'll add a CCG and in the first year, they'll have a high ranking team lose to someone ranked too low to make the CFP and be locked out because they added a CCG.

The difference is, without a CCG, more times than not you are hoping for the other teams to lose. You generally will not have control over your own destiny. For example, had Stanford lost one less game, Oklahoma likely would have been at home, with no real chance to earn their way in. Since it is VERY unlikely for the Big 12 to get two in, what little advantage they get from not potentially knocking off their top team, is erased by the opportunity cost left on the table, by not having your champion on an even playing field.

Plus two more teams, allows you to spread losses around, and statistically gives you two more opportunities to make it. 3 years ago, who'd have thought TCU would be a playoff contender two years in a row?

(05-02-2016 09:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think 4-5% is reasonable, but it's hard to judge and I'm still not sold on the fact it's not advantageous long term for the CFP to only have 10. Keep in mind, with all 8 of the CCGs in the Big Ten, the ACC, the SEC, and PAC-12 the past 2 years, the higher ranked team won. Of course in those situations, it helped those winners. However, we're not going to keep up with that ratio. If Clemson lost the ACC Championship last year, the ACC wouldn't have had a team. If Alabama had lost the SEC Championship, the SEC probably wouldn't have either. With the Big 12's luck, they'll add a CCG and in the first year, they'll have a high ranking team lose to someone ranked too low to make the CFP and be locked out because they added a CCG.

The difference is, without a CCG, more times than not you are hoping for the other teams to lose. You generally will not have control over your own destiny. For example, had Stanford lost one less game, Oklahoma likely would have been at home, with no real chance to earn their way in. Since it is VERY unlikely for the Big 12 to get two in, what little advantage they get from not potentially knocking off their top team, is erased by the opportunity cost left on the table, by not having your champion on an even playing field.

Plus two more teams, allows you to spread losses around, and statistically gives you two more opportunities to make it. 3 years ago, who'd have thought TCU would be a playoff contender two years in a row?

Spot on. I think people forget, OU dropped a spot via the committee ranking for the last week. Unless they add a ccg, they're going to be biting nails during championship week, everytime.

(05-02-2016 09:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think 4-5% is reasonable, but it's hard to judge and I'm still not sold on the fact it's not advantageous long term for the CFP to only have 10. Keep in mind, with all 8 of the CCGs in the Big Ten, the ACC, the SEC, and PAC-12 the past 2 years, the higher ranked team won. Of course in those situations, it helped those winners. However, we're not going to keep up with that ratio. If Clemson lost the ACC Championship last year, the ACC wouldn't have had a team. If Alabama had lost the SEC Championship, the SEC probably wouldn't have either. With the Big 12's luck, they'll add a CCG and in the first year, they'll have a high ranking team lose to someone ranked too low to make the CFP and be locked out because they added a CCG.

The difference is, without a CCG, more times than not you are hoping for the other teams to lose. You generally will not have control over your own destiny. For example, had Stanford lost one less game, Oklahoma likely would have been at home, with no real chance to earn their way in. Since it is VERY unlikely for the Big 12 to get two in, what little advantage they get from not potentially knocking off their top team, is erased by the opportunity cost left on the table, by not having your champion on an even playing field.

Plus two more teams, allows you to spread losses around, and statistically gives you two more opportunities to make it. 3 years ago, who'd have thought TCU would be a playoff contender two years in a row?

I would like to know what the data shows for a 10 team round robin schedule plus a CCG. 4-5% increase for 12 teams and 8 game schedule, but what about 10 team and a 9 game schedule plus a CCG? Is it the same 4-5%?

(05-02-2016 09:50 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I would like to know what the data shows for a 10 team round robin schedule plus a CCG.

If we stay at ten my hope would be that a CCG would only be played if there's a tie at the top in a particular year.

(05-02-2016 08:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 07:02 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 06:54 PM)Maize Wrote:  My take is the Big XII isn't the only league looking at the financial gap...the Pac 12 and ACC if they don't do something-(ACC Network and better Orange Bowl Deal) faces the same

That's true. But that's not because of how many members they have. The B1G and SEC have inherent advantages that are going to be very hard for anybody to overcome.

The advantages the B1G has are structural, and nobody is going to duplicate them, at least in my lifetime. To overcome the SEC's advantages, somebody is going to have to figure out a way to poach some of their crown jewels, while retaining all their own jewels. I don't see either the B12 or ACC being able to pull that off.

I don't see how adding Cincinnati + 1 enables the Big 12 to close any gap that is there. It might make it bigger as CFP money and ccg money gets split 2 more ways.

Connecticut alone brings 1.5m TV subscribers who already pay SNY $2.70 a month for tier 3 games.

I'm sure that B12N could get $1.50 x 12 x 1.5m for tier 3. The question is, does ESPN then make the B12 whole.

(05-02-2016 09:49 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 09:17 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-02-2016 08:28 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think 4-5% is reasonable, but it's hard to judge and I'm still not sold on the fact it's not advantageous long term for the CFP to only have 10. Keep in mind, with all 8 of the CCGs in the Big Ten, the ACC, the SEC, and PAC-12 the past 2 years, the higher ranked team won. Of course in those situations, it helped those winners. However, we're not going to keep up with that ratio. If Clemson lost the ACC Championship last year, the ACC wouldn't have had a team. If Alabama had lost the SEC Championship, the SEC probably wouldn't have either. With the Big 12's luck, they'll add a CCG and in the first year, they'll have a high ranking team lose to someone ranked too low to make the CFP and be locked out because they added a CCG.

The difference is, without a CCG, more times than not you are hoping for the other teams to lose. You generally will not have control over your own destiny. For example, had Stanford lost one less game, Oklahoma likely would have been at home, with no real chance to earn their way in. Since it is VERY unlikely for the Big 12 to get two in, what little advantage they get from not potentially knocking off their top team, is erased by the opportunity cost left on the table, by not having your champion on an even playing field.

Plus two more teams, allows you to spread losses around, and statistically gives you two more opportunities to make it. 3 years ago, who'd have thought TCU would be a playoff contender two years in a row?

Spot on. I think people forget, OU dropped a spot via the committee ranking for the last week. Unless they add a ccg, they're going to be biting nails during championship week, everytime.

The flip side of that argument though is that Oklahoma was in after just 12 games. If they had played a CCG, they very well could have lost a rematch and whomever they lost to would have been highly unlikely to beat out Stanford for the last spot. Meanwhile 2 years ago, a CCG for either/both of TCU/Baylor wasn't guaranteed to get the winner in the CFP even with a win (I personally think TCU would have pushed out Ohio State, but Baylor would not have).

I'm not saying a CCG is always bad (far from it), but I think in the long run, it will puts teams into the CFP about as often as it pushes teams out.

On the somewhat separate issue of 10 vs. 12, 12 does give a little more room for error, but at the same time you really only talking about 1 possible play contender for the Big 12 per year most years regardless so I'm not sure it makes all that much difference. Ironically, it probably would help the conferences playoff chances the most if they brought in 2 cellar dwellers and went down to 8 conference games (to reduce the number of games between potential playoff teams prior to a CCG). The problem with that though is while it might increase your playoff chances, it also reduces your TV value which is still the bigger deal.