(06-29-2019 09:46 PM)BruceMcF Wrote: (06-29-2019 08:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: ... sadly they do not understand the math of why that is better for the conference as a whole nor do they understand why that is better for individual members
It's a club, not a corporation ... the "interests of the conference as a whole" always takes a back seat to the individual interests of a large number of members.
And it is in the interest of a large number of members to host either Oklahoma or Texas every year.
those members fail to understand that it would be better for them as well that is the main issue
also if it was done properly they could still have those teams quite frequently
what you are saying is exactly why some teams in the Big 12 have a hard time climbing out of the toilet they are too stupid to understand their fans would rather see a winning program especially against Texas or OU even if it is fewer times a decade than see Texas and OU come in more often and usually beat them
that change will not happen over night, but it would happen over time with a properly crafted schedule and a clear explanation to fans of the overall goals
you have to be proactive about getting your fans to the place you want them to be along with getting your program there and if you are not or you make it too simple like "well Texas or OU is here every year" then you can easily lose your fans and your program (losing your program being a decade of losing seasons in a row)
(06-29-2019 10:44 PM)chester Wrote: (06-29-2019 08:01 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote: the Big 12 is currently the only ones that can put their two top teams in the CCG no other P5 conference could do so in a logical way
the PAC 12 could, but it would require them to play 11 conference games and that is a disaster
the Big 12 could also splint into divisions and play as few as 5 conference games and place the division winners in the CCG
no other P5 conference has the ability to do either or (again barring the PAC 12 playing a disastrous 11 conference games)
if the Big 12 was smart they would split into divisions and play 7 conference games, but sadly they do not understand the math of why that is better for the conference as a whole nor do they understand why that is better for individual members
If by 7 conference games you mean 7 accountable conference games, then no. A 10-member conference cannot justify the use of divisions if its teams play more than 6 accountable games. You'd end up with in a situation where at least some intra-divisional teams would have accountable schedules that are as poorly balanced as the schedules of any two teams in the conference could possibly be, with or without divisions.
Here is a question for the board at large: Of what worth is a conference title if it is determined via a game that includes a team that was literally proven not to belong via the exact same test that proved it to be the most "deserving" team in its arbitrary division?
That's part of the problem with conference "championships" today. The other being that the largest conferences can neither disprove nor prove their most deserving teams.
Off-topic, I know, but indulge me this complaint: In 1991 six of ten 1A conferences staged round robins. In two of the remaining four, teams played all but one of the other teams in the conference, which is almost enough to guarantee that whatever team finished with the most wins was the team most deserving of being called "champions."
Used to be college football was about fun rivalries, legitimate conference championships (for the most part), fun bowl games and childish but kinda charming make-believe "national championships."
Nowadays it's about broken rivalries, division championships (which may or may not be legitimate since no divided conference sees fit to discount cross-division games), bogus conference championships (for the most part), bowl games that few care about and the ever/always make-believe "national championships."
not sure what you mean by "accountable games" or your discussion of 6 games
here is how I would split the Big 12
Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, WVU, ISU
OU, OkState, TCU, KU, KSU
each team plays everyone in their division, they play the team above or below them in a locked in rivalry game, and then they play a pair from the other division for two years then rotate to the other pair
so a schedule for Texas would be.....Tech, Baylor, WVU, ISU, OU, OkState, TCU for two years home and home
then the next two years it would be Tech, Baylor, WVU, ISU, OU, KU, KSU home and home
so Texas/OU (Cotton Bowl State Fair )would always play, OkState/Tech (the two that match up the best and argue the best), TCU/Baylor (both private in Texas and long history), WVU/KU (the only one that is not any real rivalry), KSU/ISU (Farmageddon)
then you still have Texas/Tech, OU/OkState, Texas/Baylor (longer than Texas/TCU because of TCU not in the Big 12 to start), KU/KSU
ISU misses KU some and OU and OkState some, but you can make the schedules and rotating pairs to mitigate that
at the end of the day the Big 12 would still be the conference that plays each other more frequently than any other P5 conference out there by a long shot because teams would still play home and home two out of four years no matter what and most teams would play home and home every year
it also dramatically lowers the chances of a CCG being a repeat (although still a high %, but much closer to the % of the PAC 12) and it would be the most balanced conference in terms of divisions, resources, historical strength ect
as for the difficulty of the schedules perhaps not being equal for all well Texas and OU are the ones always complaining about wanting a better overall schedule and their fans always wondering if some other conference would be better (while ignoring that in all but the SEC SEC SEC they would be in the crappy half of the conference playing teams that are as bad or worse than their Big 12 schedule) so Texas and OU can suck it up and play each other yearly as the big boys in the conference along with their other main rivals like Tech and Okstate
and with 7 OOC games it gives each program the ability to schedule for their needs....Kansas right now has no business scheduling as if they are going to make the playoffs they need to schedule to make bowl games consistently......and if you have ACTIVE ADs instead of passive ones then teams like ISU that have become much better than the recent past would be going out there and tweaking their schedule to perhaps ditch a D1-AA game and instead getting a lower level P5 team or a G5 that has been winning on the schedule to bump it up in strength......of course that requires an AD that is willing to put in work and review schedules and openings every year for the next few years and to make changes instead of filling a schedule 5 years out and taking a nap
and even if a team does not choose to do that the reality is a bad win is better for the conference strength than a "good loss" and if a team in the conference misses the playoffs because they had "da season doh" and their AD was too stupid to shift their schedule a bit two years prior when it was clear they were gaining traction well their fans can take that out on him and the answer to Texas and OU is one or both of you should have beaten them and your fans are the ones that do not cheer Big 12 Big 12 Big 12 instead you only care when your team makes the playoffs and if you miss the playoffs then your fans would prefer everyone in the Big 12 misses the playoffs.....so next time beat that team with the weak OOC that just won the conference and missed the playoffs because of that weak OOC or shut up
and Texas and OU and others that want a better OOC schedule are free to schedule for their needs as well....to make the playoffs, to have big names cone to the stajium to sell tickets ect
over time (3 to 5 years) you hope that you end up with a conference where even your lower level teams have 6 wins most years and make a bowl game and so even with the teams in your conference that you wish would disappear you are still playing a team that will probably have a winning record to end the season and go to a bowl game and over time that is better for the entire conference
here is a study done on the PAC 12 with 9 vs 8 conference games
https://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/20...en-big-acc
in this study they replaced a conference game with an OOC game that was equal to the WEAKEST game in the teams schedules.....so a conference game swapped for a terrible OOC game
what it shows is the top teams in the conference gained meaningful overall strength of schedule from that happening and it clearly explains why and all but the lowest level teams gained meaningfully in strength of schedule
now I am not advocating that the Big 12 (or any other conference) just removes conference games for OOC garbage, but I am saying that some teams and ADs need to get over the idea that their decade long 2 to 5 game winning team is suddenly going to jump up and start consistently beating Texas and OU and more importantly winning the conference (or their division)
and just because you schedule a "weaker" team in the OOC instead of a historically stronger conference game that does not mean you need to just go right to a really bad D1-AA game or a G5 that averages 2 wins a season for the last 8 years
again it requires WORK by the ADs (which is probably why most are against the idea)
but at the end of the day/year/decade you should have a conference where everyone is winning more games, making more bowl games, being ranked higher and more often, much better strength of schedule and as a conference the top teams looking better to make the playoffs and the middle to lower teams looking like a more competitive team on the schedule for everyone......and all the fans of all the teams should be much happier with those results across the conference
and if you constantly adjust your schedules 2 to 2+ years out and leave openings and ways to do so then you can consistently have good games and high ticket sales and better seasons
and with more independent teams than ever now it helps with that flexibility