(10-28-2016 03:33 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Not to say Colorado and the Arizona schools never played each other, but they were never in the same conference prior to CU joining the PAC.

Arizonas were in the Border conf, then the WAC, Colorado was in the Skyline, then the Big 7/8/12.

Correct on Colorado. They played Arizona every year (except one) from 1950 to 1960, but other than a couple games, nothing until Colorado joined the Pac.

ASU and Colorado had only played one home and home series before the Pac expansion to Colorado

If you are going to have a CCG with 10 teams, then no divisions makes the most sense. So this was the only decision that made sense.

That said, having a CCG with 10 teams after a round robin 9 game schedule is idiotic, and I hope the CFP committee is able to see through the charade.

(10-28-2016 01:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 01:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I wonder if the other p5 conferences are surprised by what's happened in the Big 12. I can't imagine they're happy that they're going to be getting 50 million from the CFP and only having to split 10 ways, while other conferences 50 million is split 14 ways.

The Big 10 is laughing at the trap they set by allowing the Big 12 to do this to itself.

This. It didn't tip anybody in the Big 12 off that the Big 10 basically tripped over itself trying to make this exact scenario happen to them?

Wonder what the Big 10 was thinking

(10-28-2016 12:18 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  To clarify- isn't the two highest ranked teams, it is the teams with the 2 best conference records. Will be interesting to see what the tie-breaker is. It won't be unusual to have 3 8-1 teams, or an 9-0 and two 7-2 teams. I would guess it would be similar to the tie-breakers they adopted to determine the champ.

I think its a good move. With a round robin, no reason to have divisions.

As far as a rematch, that happens 67% of the time on average in a 12 team league with 9 conference games. So it isn't that different.

I do think it's a tough road. You miss no one and play the best/ second best team twice. I wouldn't encourage Baylor like scheduling non-conference, but no reason to have more than 1 P5 team on the non-conference schedule.

Edit- I do think the one major downside is the potential for back to back rematches like would have happened last year. Divisions allows for preventing that.

It just showed the Big 12 teams failed at basic math and spent no time scenario planning how the RPI works. The point of two divisions, especially when executed with an 8 game schedule is to get two undefeated teams in the conference championship game and each having a 1 loss team in division they beat. These idiots on the other hand:
1) play a 9 game schedule insuring their league has 5 extra losses
2) makes every team play each other so two undefeated teams can never play in a championship game.
3) Rematch their top two teams so the best case scenario is your second best team had two losses and more likely 3.

The ACC and SEC must be laughing their asses off how stupid and unable to do basic math the Big 12 Presidents are.

(10-28-2016 01:47 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  I think Navigate did the math and concluded that a CCG increases the chance slightly (5%, IIRC). But a 5% increase isn't going to be real noticeable. It's pretty much a wash, playoff wise.

Yes because of the chance of two 12-0 teams in the playoff, backed by two 11-1 teams in second place. In the best case scenario, The winner has beaten two 11-1 teams and conference RPI is enhanced by 1 team with a 13-0 record, one with a 12-1, and two with an 11-1 record. All likely ranked in the top 15.

Big 12 best case is one team with a 13-0 followed by a team at 11-2 followed by a team at 10-2. Likely the two ranked below the one loss teams. Not to mention the best possible 4th team is 9-3 and likely not ranked at all. This is all assuming no teams fails OOC.

(10-28-2016 12:55 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  This is especially right decison for Big 12 in my view. 10 teams means a crossover every week, which means immediate repeat possible no matter what and this way at least top 2 (vs. Possibly #1 vs. 3/4, as we get in other conferences and would be a bigger deal here given a round robin schedule.

Maybe the Big 12 should follow the SEC in playing non-conference rivals at the end of the season. For example:

West Virginia-Pittsburgh
Texas-Texas A&M
Kansas-Missouri
TCU-Arkansas


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-29-2016 03:15 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 12:55 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  This is especially right decison for Big 12 in my view. 10 teams means a crossover every week, which means immediate repeat possible no matter what and this way at least top 2 (vs. Possibly #1 vs. 3/4, as we get in other conferences and would be a bigger deal here given a round robin schedule.

Maybe the Big 12 should follow the SEC in playing non-conference rivals at the end of the season. For example:

West Virginia-Pittsburgh
Texas-Texas A&M
Kansas-Missouri
TCU-Arkansas


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You lost me on that last one, but the first3 all make sense. Since Pitt was ending with Miami prior to this year maybe someone play them to make it even.

However, last year it still wouldn't have worked because of OU vs OSU.


Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

(10-28-2016 01:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Big 12 should not be allowed to have a CCG.

A CCG only has context when a full round-robin can't be accomplished, due to the size of the conference. The Big 12 has 10 members and plays 9 conf games, a full round-robin.

A CCG in the Big 12 thus has no context, and is a guaranteed rematch. Done purely for the money. I hope the selection committee will not reward them, either. It's not a true 13th data point.

^^^^
This.

Without divisions and playing a "Round Robin" schedule, there is no need for a CCG... There were plenty of ways for the Big XII to determine "one true champion" through tie-breakers but they tried to get multiple champions through out of greed.

(10-28-2016 01:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 01:00 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I wonder if the other p5 conferences are surprised by what's happened in the Big 12. I can't imagine they're happy that they're going to be getting 50 million from the CFP and only having to split 10 ways, while other conferences 50 million is split 14 ways.

The Big 10 is laughing at the trap they set by allowing the Big 12 to do this to itself.

Yup.

In just a few years the entire conference will be "splitting" 10 ways.

Um, I thought the rule change was that you could have a CCG with less than 12 teams, but you had to have divisions and round-robin play? Does anyone have the actual new rule?

Or did the Big 12 idiots just announce a non-compliant CCG plan? Does this open the door to other leagues going with the same plan with 12 or 14 teams?

(10-29-2016 06:30 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 03:15 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 12:55 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  This is especially right decison for Big 12 in my view. 10 teams means a crossover every week, which means immediate repeat possible no matter what and this way at least top 2 (vs. Possibly #1 vs. 3/4, as we get in other conferences and would be a bigger deal here given a round robin schedule.

Maybe the Big 12 should follow the SEC in playing non-conference rivals at the end of the season. For example:

West Virginia-Pittsburgh
Texas-Texas A&M
Kansas-Missouri
TCU-Arkansas


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You lost me on that last one, but the first3 all make sense. Since Pitt was ending with Miami prior to this year maybe someone play them to make it even.

However, last year it still wouldn't have worked because of OU vs OSU.


Sent from my HTC Desire 626 using CSNbbs mobile app

The "Mascots-You-Don't-Want-To-Pet-Classic"
Horned Frogs (ouch) v Razor Backs (OUCH!)

(10-29-2016 07:04 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Um, I thought the rule change was that you could have a CCG with less than 12 teams, but you had to have divisions and round-robin play? Does anyone have the actual new rule?

Or did the Big 12 idiots just announce a non-compliant CCG plan? Does this open the door to other leagues going with the same plan with 12 or 14 teams?

Never mind, I found the story. I must have missed an update on the negotiation process. ESPN ARticle

It's a horrible idea. College football is built upon only getting one shot a year at every school on your schedule. It is notoriously difficult to get up for the same school twice if you've already beaten them.

L.S.U. should have never had to face Alabama again in the BCS after beating the Tide in Tuscaloosa. Auburn had to face Tennessee again in the SEC CCG in 2004 after beating them in the regular season. We won but the game was a lot closer than the first one. It hurt our chances to get into the BCS.

I think this whole idea is beyond stupid. They are potentially putting their true champion in jeopardy by having to play someone again in a danged if you win and damned if you don't scenario.

It's about money and nothing else.

(10-29-2016 07:00 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  In just a few years the entire conference will be "splitting" 10 ways.

If we take "splitting 10 ways" literally:

Texas Tech to the Pac 12
Kansas to the Big 10
Oklahoma to the SEC
West Virginia to the ACC
Baylor to the Sun Belt
TCU to the Mountain West
Oklahoma State to
Iowa State to the MAC
Kansas State to the AAC
Texas to independence




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10-29-2016 08:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  It's a horrible idea. College football is built upon only getting one shot a year at every school on your schedule. It is notoriously difficult to get up for the same school twice if you've already beaten them.

L.S.U. should have never had to face Alabama again in the BCS after beating the Tide in Tuscaloosa. Auburn had to face Tennessee again in the SEC CCG in 2004 after beating them in the regular season. We won but the game was a lot closer than the first one. It hurt our chances to get into the BCS.

I think this whole idea is beyond stupid. They are potentially putting their true champion in jeopardy by having to play someone again in a danged if you win and damned if you don't scenario.

It's about money and nothing else.

I, along with many others didn't consider LSU OT win as an actual victory. It was basically a tie that was decided by a skills competition called CFB OT. Since there was no true winner they played again to correct outcome.

(10-28-2016 01:00 PM)CyclonePower Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 12:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 11:24 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  what's a Big Xii?

10 Losers, who cannot count!

Um what does that make the big 10?

How come Utah and CU are in the south division of the PAC 12 when they are more north than Stanford and Cal?

No conference is perfect with numbers or geography.

The Big Ten is a brand, the Big 12 certainly isnt. It was a forced merger of mismatched schools.

(10-29-2016 08:24 AM)chargeradio Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 07:00 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  In just a few years the entire conference will be "splitting" 10 ways.

If we take "splitting 10 ways" literally:

Texas Tech to the Pac 12
Kansas to the Big 10
Oklahoma to the SEC
West Virginia to the ACC
Baylor to the Sun Belt
TCU to the Mountain West
Oklahoma State to
Iowa State to the MAC
Kansas State to the AAC
Texas to independence




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thought about that as I was I posting- cool that you found places for everybody!

Assuming we're putting OSU in CUSA, will be good to get that league back in the state after losing Tulsa

TCU/Baylor did need another game. The problem arises with a rematch the final two weekends of the year. Also what if you already win the conference outright after nine games? Why penalize the team with the best conference record at the end of the year?

Also what about a three way tie? You need a solid list of tie breakers to break that (probably best overall record, followed by strength of victory/loss intraconference would be the way to go if we had a OU/UT/TTech situation like a few years back).

In a nut shell, some years it works, some years it doesn't. Baylor/TCU would have worked for that year. In a year like 2008, I would have broken the tie like I mentioned above (strength of victory/loss intraconference).

So really, the final weekend should only be an *if necessary* CCG.

bragg,

The old rule was like this:

- you could have a CCG is you had 12 or more members, and you split into two divisions where every division team played a round-robin against all other division teams. Then the two division winners could meet in the CCG.


The new rule is like this:

- you can have a CCG with any number of members (even odd number!), so long as you split into two divisions where every division team played a round-robin against all other division teams. Then the two division winners could meet in the CCG.

-OR-

- you can have a CCG if you have 10 or less members, so long as you play a full round-robin. Then the two highest ranked teams can meet in the CCG.

JR,

Agreed 100%. In college football, ideally there would never be any rematches. You should get to beat a team once, and you reap that benefit for the rest of the year.

That's the tradition of college football.