The Big12 is just fine at 10. Baylor, Texas, TCU, and especially UT are enough Texas representatives in the Big12 tyvm.

(05-12-2013 08:34 PM)Groo Wrote:  The Big12 is just fine at 10. Baylor, Texas, TCU, and especially UT are enough Texas representatives in the Big12 tyvm.

So same thing you said in every thread so far. Keep saying it till it becomes true. Oh and click your heels, I hear that helps.

(05-12-2013 09:22 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 08:34 PM)Groo Wrote:  The Big12 is just fine at 10. Baylor, Texas, TCU, and especially UT are enough Texas representatives in the Big12 tyvm.

So same thing you said in every thread so far. Keep saying it till it becomes true. Oh and click your heels, I hear that helps.

Bob Bowlsby has said it enough, I am just giving him a well earned break. You can accept it and move on, or pin your hopes on a blogger. Seems like an easy decision considering the ACC is better than ever. LOL and ty for the neg.

(05-12-2013 09:46 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 09:22 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 08:34 PM)Groo Wrote:  The Big12 is just fine at 10. Baylor, Texas, TCU, and especially UT are enough Texas representatives in the Big12 tyvm.

So same thing you said in every thread so far. Keep saying it till it becomes true. Oh and click your heels, I hear that helps.

Bob Bowlsby has said it enough, I am just giving him a well earned break. You can accept it and move on, or pin your hopes on a blogger. Seems like an easy decision considering the ACC is better than ever. LOL and ty for the neg.

Time will tell. I mistook you for a troll, but your answers have been cordial enough. I'll take the neg rep back. Good luck to your Jayhawks this year. I'm a Sooner alum and spent a few cold afternoons in Lawrence, watching us dominate in football. Of course you always return the favor in basketball. Good luck.

(05-12-2013 10:40 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 09:46 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 09:22 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 08:34 PM)Groo Wrote:  The Big12 is just fine at 10. Baylor, Texas, TCU, and especially UT are enough Texas representatives in the Big12 tyvm.

So same thing you said in every thread so far. Keep saying it till it becomes true. Oh and click your heels, I hear that helps.

Bob Bowlsby has said it enough, I am just giving him a well earned break. You can accept it and move on, or pin your hopes on a blogger. Seems like an easy decision considering the ACC is better than ever. LOL and ty for the neg.

Time will tell. I mistook you for a troll, but your answers have been cordial enough. I'll take the neg rep back. Good luck to your Jayhawks this year. I'm a Sooner alum and spent a few cold afternoons in Lawrence, watching us dominate in football. Of course you always return the favor in basketball. Good luck.

I don't understand your desire for expansion Sooner fan. Thus, the vitriol.

(05-12-2013 10:42 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:40 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 09:46 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 09:22 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 08:34 PM)Groo Wrote:  The Big12 is just fine at 10. Baylor, Texas, TCU, and especially UT are enough Texas representatives in the Big12 tyvm.

So same thing you said in every thread so far. Keep saying it till it becomes true. Oh and click your heels, I hear that helps.

Bob Bowlsby has said it enough, I am just giving him a well earned break. You can accept it and move on, or pin your hopes on a blogger. Seems like an easy decision considering the ACC is better than ever. LOL and ty for the neg.

Time will tell. I mistook you for a troll, but your answers have been cordial enough. I'll take the neg rep back. Good luck to your Jayhawks this year. I'm a Sooner alum and spent a few cold afternoons in Lawrence, watching us dominate in football. Of course you always return the favor in basketball. Good luck.

I don't understand your desire for expansion Sooner fan. Thus, the vitriol.

It's a longer story than I want to tell right now, but lets just say I've lived in CFL since 1997.

(05-12-2013 10:42 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 10:40 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 09:46 PM)Groo Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 09:22 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-12-2013 08:34 PM)Groo Wrote:  The Big12 is just fine at 10. Baylor, Texas, TCU, and especially UT are enough Texas representatives in the Big12 tyvm.

So same thing you said in every thread so far. Keep saying it till it becomes true. Oh and click your heels, I hear that helps.

Bob Bowlsby has said it enough, I am just giving him a well earned break. You can accept it and move on, or pin your hopes on a blogger. Seems like an easy decision considering the ACC is better than ever. LOL and ty for the neg.

Time will tell. I mistook you for a troll, but your answers have been cordial enough. I'll take the neg rep back. Good luck to your Jayhawks this year. I'm a Sooner alum and spent a few cold afternoons in Lawrence, watching us dominate in football. Of course you always return the favor in basketball. Good luck.

I don't understand your desire for expansion Sooner fan. Thus, the vitriol.

He's a Central Florida fan, dude. The Knight in his name should have told you that...

"With any luck the Big 12 will stop talking about expansion and conference allegiances and will start adding teams in order to survive the impending storm. Conference realignment and expansion is going to happen again, and teams are going to get shuffled around. Some of them will have their pick of conferences given their marketability and their ability to be championship contenders every single season. Other will be left searching for a home and hoping that they don’t fall too far from where they started."

Read more at http://www.rantsports.com/ncaa-football/...kS1sGEA.99

I think that both the round-robin and the divisions-plus-CCG game formats are "valid" for determining a champion, and each poses their unique advantages and disadvantages. I tend to doubt that other conferences are going to force the Big 12 to expand for a CCG for purely competitive reasons.

(05-13-2013 10:23 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I think that both the round-robin and the divisions-plus-CCG game formats are "valid" for determining a champion, and each poses their unique advantages and disadvantages. I tend to doubt that other conferences are going to force the Big 12 to expand for a CCG for purely competitive reasons.

I disagree..... If a B12 school knocks another P5 school out of the four school college playoff that was previously ranked ahead of the B12 champ but lost in a CCG, a CCG would eventually become mandatory in my opinion.

(05-13-2013 11:17 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 10:23 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I think that both the round-robin and the divisions-plus-CCG game formats are "valid" for determining a champion, and each poses their unique advantages and disadvantages. I tend to doubt that other conferences are going to force the Big 12 to expand for a CCG for purely competitive reasons.

I disagree..... If a B12 school knocks another P5 school out of the four school college playoff that was previously ranked ahead of the B12 champ but lost in a CCG, a CCG would eventually become mandatory in my opinion.

What is more likely to happen is a rule will be implemented stating all regular season conference games must end on a particular weekend, and isolating all conference championship games on a following weekend. In other words, the Oklahoma State 2011 scenario will keep reoccuring for the Big12...

As a fan, the fact is we all simply want more content (and the downstream effect is so do the network partners). The Big12 sticking at 10, while every other conference moves to 12 or more, effectively robs us of a compelling championship game.

(05-13-2013 11:27 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 11:17 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 10:23 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I think that both the round-robin and the divisions-plus-CCG game formats are "valid" for determining a champion, and each poses their unique advantages and disadvantages. I tend to doubt that other conferences are going to force the Big 12 to expand for a CCG for purely competitive reasons.

I disagree..... If a B12 school knocks another P5 school out of the four school college playoff that was previously ranked ahead of the B12 champ but lost in a CCG, a CCG would eventually become mandatory in my opinion.

What is more likely to happen is a rule will be implemented stating all regular season conference games must end on a particular weekend, and isolating all conference championship games on a following weekend. In other words, the Oklahoma State 2011 scenario will keep reoccuring for the Big12...

As a fan, the fact is we all simply want more content (and the downstream effect is so do the network partners). The Big12 sticking at 10, while every other conference moves to 12 or more, effectively robs us of a compelling championship game.

The B12 is attempting to avoid having its conference champ lose in a CCG. Therefore, it would likely get one of the four playoff spots if undefeated. I can't see the other P5 schools allowing this to happen. Moreover, this past championship game fiasco with Notre Dame also has to be addressed. Either Notre Dame has to join a conference or be excluded from the playoffs.

My official stance is the Big XII won't expand anytime soon. I have said I like UNM as an option, and I still do, but it seems they have to prove they can step up their football program. I also like a BYU/UNLV combo for a South division with the Texas schools. This would lead to the MTN West inviting UTEP and bumping BSU to the West division. BTW, BYU and UNM were heavily considered for the Big XIV when the league was created.

(05-13-2013 11:42 AM)esayem Wrote:  My official stance is the Big XII won't expand anytime soon. I have said I like UNM as an option, and I still do, but it seems they have to prove they can step up their football program. I also like a BYU/UNLV combo for a South division with the Texas schools. This would lead to the MTN West inviting UTEP and bumping BSU to the West division. BTW, BYU and UNM were heavily considered for the Big XIV when the league was created.

I think that it will depend on the other P5 conferences eventually requiring a CCG, which they should. Why should the B12 and Notre Dame receive special privileges?

who is bob bowlsby?

(05-13-2013 12:33 PM)Cardiff Wrote:  who is bob bowlsby?

The BIG 12 Commissioner.

If a conference complains because their championship playoff candidate lost their conference championship game and got supplanted by a deserving B12 team, that conference is a 2nd rate conference IMO...

Little boys try, men get the job done...

(05-13-2013 08:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If a conference complains because their championship playoff candidate lost their conference championship game and got supplanted by a deserving B12 team, that conference is a 2nd rate conference IMO...

Little boys try, men get the job done...

Not sure if you're serious, but the SEC already did this against OSU, in 2011. There are multiple other examples in 2000's that show the human bias that was involved in the BCS selection process. Nothing about humanity has convinced me, especially the vomitus individuals in CFB, that this will change for the CFP.

It's less about deserving a shot, and more about popular opinion for people's own motivations behind voting a team into the process. POLITICS. None of the "haves" want a fair system. They want a system that favors them. Which is sad. Even more sad is that most CFB fans seem dumb enough to buy into it.

(05-14-2013 11:16 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 08:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If a conference complains because their championship playoff candidate lost their conference championship game and got supplanted by a deserving B12 team, that conference is a 2nd rate conference IMO...

Little boys try, men get the job done...

Not sure if you're serious, but the SEC already did this against OSU, in 2011. There are multiple other examples in 2000's that show the human bias that was involved in the BCS selection process. Nothing about humanity has convinced me, especially the vomitus individuals in CFB, that this will change for the CFP.

It's less about deserving a shot, and more about popular opinion for people's own motivations behind voting a team into the process. POLITICS. None of the "haves" want a fair system. They want a system that favors them. Which is sad. Even more sad is that most CFB fans seem dumb enough to buy into it.

Since the polls, especially the coaches poll, are not going to be a part of the selection process, a lot of the inequities in the old system will be removed from the process. There will be no more coaches voting a team way down to improve their own - or conference mates - chances, as has happened so many times in the past...

However since the committee will be made up of men, there will always be some bias. But it's a big improvement on the selection system of the past. The coaches poll should have been the one removed from the BCS selection process, not the AP poll. But the writers saw the hypocrisy in the process and opted out, instead of the ones most responsible for the hypocrisy being forcibly removed. I like a selection committee much better, without polls being the main determining factor...

(05-14-2013 03:06 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 11:16 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(05-13-2013 08:27 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  If a conference complains because their championship playoff candidate lost their conference championship game and got supplanted by a deserving B12 team, that conference is a 2nd rate conference IMO...

Little boys try, men get the job done...

Not sure if you're serious, but the SEC already did this against OSU, in 2011. There are multiple other examples in 2000's that show the human bias that was involved in the BCS selection process. Nothing about humanity has convinced me, especially the vomitus individuals in CFB, that this will change for the CFP.

It's less about deserving a shot, and more about popular opinion for people's own motivations behind voting a team into the process. POLITICS. None of the "haves" want a fair system. They want a system that favors them. Which is sad. Even more sad is that most CFB fans seem dumb enough to buy into it.

Since the polls, especially the coaches poll, are not going to be a part of the selection process, a lot of the inequities in the old system will be removed from the process. There will be no more coaches voting a team way down to improve their own - or conference mates - chances, as has happened so many times in the past...

However since the committee will be made up of men, there will always be some bias. But it's a big improvement on the selection system of the past. The coaches poll should have been the one removed from the BCS selection process, not the AP poll. But the writers saw the hypocrisy in the process and opted out, instead of the ones most responsible for the hypocrisy being forcibly removed. I like a selection committee much better, without polls being the main determining factor...

I truly hope the selection process is above board. The BCS process was full of thieves, and as a Sooners fan you'd think I would like the BCS. That system propped OU up in years that we really didn't belong there. But as an objective CFB fan, I honestly couldn't stand it. Anyway, I hope they select some honorable people who are objective and fair-minded. I'll start holding my breath.