CFP expansion discussion

[TXSooner518 2432]

B12 should DEFINITELY kill the CCG, and adopt a plan of designating a single champion for purposes of the top 4 seeds/byes. Take advantage of the full round robin, and like you said, MUCH better chance of getting your second team in. Going to be VERY rare that the B12 champ isn't a top 6 champ, since without a conf champ game with divisions, you eliminate a fluke champ. So the champ will virtually always be in, the second team just avoids an extra L by killing the CCG. 

[Thiefery 4969]

7 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

B12 should DEFINITELY kill the CCG, and adopt a plan of designating a single champion for purposes of the top 4 seeds/byes. Take advantage of the full round robin, and like you said, MUCH better chance of getting your second team in. Going to be VERY rare that the B12 champ isn't a top 6 champ, since without a conf champ game with divisions, you eliminate a fluke champ. So the champ will virtually always be in, the second team just avoids an extra L by killing the CCG. 

they won't do that..the CCG is a lot of money

[TXSooner518 2432]

replace it with a Week 0 neutral site game between the previous year's B12 and SEC champs then. Or just accept that it will likely be a net negative on playoff berths and positioning, while also being absolutely superfluous in a round robin setup, I suppose.

[ButtFumble 5158]

Just now, TXSooner518 said:

replace it with a Week 0 neutral site game between the previous year's B12 and SEC champs then. Or just accept that it will likely be a net negative on playoff berths and positioning, while also being absolutely superfluous in a round robin setup, I suppose.

the round robin is the problem

it sucks cocks, no one cares about that, it cost the conference wins especially for the lower level teams which actually cost the conference and the top teams a great deal

the CCG with a round robin is stupid, but the CCG is not the real issue the round robin is the real issue

[TXSooner518 2432]

No. The round robin is the best way to actually determine a champion. I have zero interest in your plan of "hey, let's play 7 conf games" and play 5 shit OOC games so everything is boring and trash. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

replace it with a Week 0 neutral site game between the previous year's B12 and SEC champs then. Or just accept that it will likely be a net negative on playoff berths and positioning, while also being absolutely superfluous in a round robin setup, I suppose.

Wait…you want tougher schedules for the SEC?   Lolz.

I actually like your proposal.  And they would never have to worry about protecting aggy.

Edited June 14, 2021 by slorch

[ButtFumble 5158]

3 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

No. The round robin is the best way to actually determine a champion. I have zero interest in your plan of "hey, let's play 7 conf games" and play 5 shit OOC games so everything is boring and trash. 

nobody cares about "a true champion" that has been proven time and again

they care about it a lot less when many of the teams have shitty records

and you seem stuck on the idea that OU (or a similar team) has to have a lot of trash on their schedule with more OOC games

you are still stuck on the shitty idea that "true champion" is anything other than worthy of mockery.....you do not seem to understand that a program like OU or Texas that can get anyone they want on their OOC benefits from fewer conference games because they can get WHO THEY WANT on their schedule instead of who they are stuck with....all the more so when being the "true champion" of those teams they are stuck playing means fuck all to anyone

[Zeus 5950]

Florida plays rival Florida State around Thanksgiving every year, and gets their in-division rival Georgia neutral site every year. Plays their cross-division rival every year with LSU. Also squeezes in Miami every few years too. 

They get to play the schedule they want because they aren't playing 9 conference games every year, only 8. They also have a championship that is most often not a rematch. 

Everything about the round robin method sucks. The solution isn't deleting the conference title game though, having 2 or 3 teams all finish super close to each other sucks. Also having that weekend where every other conference is playing a championship while we aren't would really suck.

Just add two more teams to the big 12 and actually have 12 teams, or just blow this shit conference up. BYU, Nebraska, Memphis, Cincinnati, Louisville, Air Force anyone

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

22 minutes ago, Zeus said:

Everything about the round robin method sucks.

playing everyone in your conference does not suck

[ButtFumble 5158]

15 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

playing everyone in your conference does not suck

it does when the result is driving down the competitiveness and the attractiveness of the lower to mid level teams in the conference (and even the above mid level teams)......which hurts the top teams in the conference as much as anyone

and there is no one available to add that does shit to help that....what is available to add has massive academic side subsidies that would have to continue to have a P5 budget, high athletics debt, low fan support, low ticket sales, low donor support and a desire to get in the conference, get up to beat the best team here and there and collect a check after some bad losses in other conference games and OOC games

Edited June 14, 2021 by ButtFumble

[camel at sea 589]

5 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

B12 should DEFINITELY kill the CCG, and adopt a plan of designating a single champion for purposes of the top 4 seeds/byes. Take advantage of the full round robin, and like you said, MUCH better chance of getting your second team in. Going to be VERY rare that the B12 champ isn't a top 6 champ, since without a conf champ game with divisions, you eliminate a fluke champ. So the champ will virtually always be in, the second team just avoids an extra L by killing the CCG. 

First time a Big 12 team misses a bye game due to not having a 13th data point... there'd be an argument to bring back the CCG.

The conference will usually put two teams into a twelve team field with our current format.  We would have had two last year (ISU) and the year before (Baylor).  Texas makes it in in 2018 under our existing format, too - if they don't let Maryland hang an L on them to start the year.

[CastHorn 794]

Hook’em 

Edited June 14, 2021 by CastHorn

[TXSooner518 2432]

16 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

First time a Big 12 team misses a bye game due to not having a 13th data point... there'd be an argument to bring back the CCG.

The conference will usually put two teams into a twelve team field with our current format.  We would have had two last year (ISU) and the year before (Baylor).  Texas makes it in in 2018 under our existing format, too - if they don't let Maryland hang an L on them to start the year.

Stop with the data points. There is nothing about data points. They mentioned "the 13th data point" one time for Ohio State, b/c their 13th game they beat Wisky about 379-0 and so that boosted them. There is nothing magical about 13 games, it was just that their 13th game was super impressive. Not that they played 13.

2017 - going into B12 title game, OU is 3 and TCU is 11. With no game, OU gets a bye and TCU gets in. As played, OU keeps a bye and TCU falls out. A TCU win just keeps them in the field, maaaaaaaybe a home Round 1 game, and costs OU the bye.  Result: Negative Freeroll.

2018 - going into the game, OU is 5 and Texas is 14. OU ended up with a bye, Texas could have gotten a berth with a win that would have then cost OU the bye. Result: Even

2019 - OU and Baylor both look pretty locked here either way. Result: Even

2020 - OU and ISU are both safely in with no game. A loss likely moves OU out of the field. Also, ISU earned the title on the field, and would have lost a program-definining bye and top 4 seed due to losing this game. Again: Negative Freeroll.

So 2018 is the only game that could have earned the conf another bid, but at the cost of a top 4 seed. 2017 would have cost the conference a bid and 2020 could have with an OU loss. 

Also of the 4 years, only 2 years get 2 teams in with the game, 3 years get 2 teams in without. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by TXSooner518

[TXSooner518 2432]

What about before the game came back, how would that have impacted things?

2016: OU was 7 and OSU was 12 in the final CFP. All that can happen is OSU gets pushed out.

2015: OU was 4 and TCU 11. Exact same as 2013. They both are in with no game, with OU a bye. Game MUST cost OU the bye or TCU the bid. 

2014: BU 5, TCU 6, KSU 11. Game is basically only a potential harm, winner likely still not getting a bye, loser dropping out of a home game in Round 1. 

2013: No CFP rankings but using coaches - BU 5, OU 10. Baylor would have a bye with no game, b/c Aub and Bama both above them and can't both get bye. Game risks Baylor's bye and OU's bid, with no upside, just like the 2015 and 2017 games. How many of these negative freeroll games do you need to see to realize how shitty this game is for having multiple top 12 teams?

2012: GOOD NEWS HERE IS ANOTHER.  KSU 6, OU 11.  KSU would also have a bye here, because of 3 SEC teams above them. KSU bye or OU bid will go out the window with again no upside.

2011: AND ANOTHER. OSU 3, KSU 10.  

So in the 10 seasons of full round robin, 6 of them would be GUARANTEED to either cost a bye or bid to a B12 team. COOL.  

[Vic Mackey 46936]

1 hour ago, SwanderedTalent said:

playing everyone in your conference does not suck

It does when you have a conference championship game. What is the point of a round robin if you can't decide the conference champ after that? That is the whole point of it. Either add 2 more teams and go back to the old format before the split or do one less conference game and add another OOC. We got zero benefit from playing OU again in 2018. Win or lose, we were going to the Sugar Bowl.

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

5 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

It does when you have a conference championship game. What is the point of a round robin if you can't decide the conference champ after that?

right, I'm very much not in favor of the conference title game PLUS round robin

[Vic Mackey 46936]

12 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

right, I'm very much not in favor of the conference title game PLUS round robin

Big 12 needs to add 2 teams and go back to the old format. They got desperate and wanted that extra money. How many conferences out there does not have have a conference title game these days? Every P5 for sure has one. But under this new format of 12 playoff teams, the use for it for a round robin schedule makes even less sense. I am sure it has contractual obligations but if they plan to stay at 10 teams, get rid of that pointless game.

[camel at sea 589]

1 hour ago, TXSooner518 said:

Stop with the data points. There is nothing about data points. They mentioned "the 13th data point" one time for Ohio State, b/c their 13th game they beat Wisky about 379-0 and so that boosted them. There is nothing magical about 13 games, it was just that their 13th game was super impressive. Not that they played 13.

2017 - going into B12 title game, OU is 3 and TCU is 11. With no game, OU gets a bye and TCU gets in. As played, OU keeps a bye and TCU falls out. A TCU win just keeps them in the field, maaaaaaaybe a home Round 1 game, and costs OU the bye.  Result: Negative Freeroll.

2018 - going into the game, OU is 5 and Texas is 14. OU ended up with a bye, Texas could have gotten a berth with a win that would have then cost OU the bye. Result: Even

2019 - OU and Baylor both look pretty locked here either way. Result: Even

2020 - OU and ISU are both safely in with no game. A loss likely moves OU out of the field. Also, ISU earned the title on the field, and would have lost a program-definining bye and top 4 seed due to losing this game. Again: Negative Freeroll.

So 2018 is the only game that could have earned the conf another bid, but at the cost of a top 4 seed. 2017 would have cost the conference a bid and 2020 could have with an OU loss. 

Also of the 4 years, only 2 years get 2 teams in with the game, 3 years get 2 teams in without. 

The "data points" stopped being a thing once the Big 12 started playing a CCG.  It would become a thing again if we stopped playing one.  Don't kid yourself.  

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

38 minutes ago, Vic Mackey said:

Big 12 needs to add 2 teams and go back to the old format.

I think ten teams and a nine-game round-robin w no CCG is the better way of doing it, but I do have a sentimental soft spot for meaningful CCGs (example, 2009 SEC). 

The problem with your suggestion is that there are flat-out zero attractive and available teams to add to the Big 12. Zero. If the school is available it's not attractive, if it's attractive it's not available. The Realignment Thread Conundrum, if you will, without which that thread would not still be spinning.  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Zeus said:

Florida plays rival Florida State around Thanksgiving every year, and gets their in-division rival Georgia neutral site every year. Plays their cross-division rival every year with LSU. Also squeezes in Miami every few years too. 

They get to play the schedule they want because they aren't playing 9 conference games every year, only 8. They also have a championship that is most often not a rematch. 

Everything about the round robin method sucks. The solution isn't deleting the conference title game though, having 2 or 3 teams all finish super close to each other sucks. Also having that weekend where every other conference is playing a championship while we aren't would really suck.

Just add two more teams to the big 12 and actually have 12 teams, or just blow this shit conference up. BYU, Nebraska, Memphis, Cincinnati, Louisville, Air Force anyone

yeah and SEC leverages 8 conference game into a November cupcake for everyone and bullshit scheduling shenanigans.

Require 9 conference games and go...

[TXSooner518 2432]

The "data points" stopped being a thing once the Big 12 started playing a CCG.  It would become a thing again if we stopped playing one.  Don't kid yourself.  

No. No one cares about number of games and didn’t then. Notre Dame made the playoffs a couple years back with 12 games. Ohio State made it this year with six. No one gives a fuck. Never did. I explained it already and laid out how devastating the CCG will be to the B12 once the 12 team model kicks in.

[TXSooner518 2432]

No. No one cares about number of games and didn’t then. Notre Dame made the playoffs a couple years back with 12 games. Ohio State made it this year with six. No one gives a fuck. Never did. I explained it already and laid out how devastating the CCG will be to the B12 once the 12 team model kicks in.

Also the literal year after the “13th data point” convo, OU made the playoffs having played 12 games and with a loss to a team with a losing record. NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT 12 v 13 GAMES.

[conVINCEd 21468]

Just now, TXSooner518 said:

Also the literal year after the “13th data point” convo, OU made the playoffs having played 12 games and with a loss to a team with a losing record. NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT 12 v 13 GAMES.

Agreed.  Having your 2 best teams play each other twice is a lose/lose situation 90% of the time.  This is not a difficult concept.

[GTX Horn 1707]

Number of games played doesn't matter - what's mattered is brand name and tv appeal. Ohio State made it in with 6 games but if it had been Indiana sitting there at 6-0 they would've likely been snubbed in favor of aggy. If a team like Oklahoma or Texas are sitting there at 12-0, we'd still have gotten into the playoff because of who we are. Playing the Championship game is totally counterproductive because you run the risk of an undefeated regular season champ losing in the championship game rematch against a team they'd already beaten and thus knocking the conference out of the 4 team playoff or missing a bye or home field advantage in the expanded playoff. The only way we should keep a Championship game is if the conference adds 2 teams and goes back to divisions instead of round robin scheduling with a championship game rematch.

[notre dame joe 172]

What problem is this expansion 'solution' trying to solve?

[Zeus 5950]

4 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

What problem is this expansion 'solution' trying to solve?

ya see we used to make $$$$$ and we need to make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[TXSooner518 2432]

I do think there are legit engagement issues and having more teams, players, and regions involved in the playoff race and playoff itself has great potential to really pump up interest in the sport. Cincy had a fun season last year. The excitement of them hosting Georgia in a playoff game would have really increased that to the next level and given them even more of a foundation to continue to build upon. A team like Iowa State that maybe can't get past an Oklahoma has a chance to really keep building recruiting momentum. If they hadn't had a B12 title game last year, ISU probably gets a first round bye in the new model, and if the majority get their way, would be hosting a national quarterfinal at Jack Trice. That would be MASSSSSIVE for that program.

I think you will find that there are many more games that are nationally interesting in the new model, and by definition, many of those games will not be SEC-centric, so everyone tired of that should be excited. 

Moving at least 4 massive postseason games (and hopefully at least eight) to campus environments will also create some really fresh, fun, exciting matchups. 

I would have said I was opposed to 12 a year ago, but I think going "top 6 champs" was a really really sharp move, and creating three "tiers" of playoff spots ensures no one is in "meaningless games" down the stretch and resting players. 

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

22 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

No. The round robin is the best way to actually determine a champion. I have zero interest in your plan of "hey, let's play 7 conf games" and play 5 shit OOC games so everything is boring and trash. 

As a fan of the only school to win the regular season round robin but not get a championship trophy, I agree completely.

I always thought the Big 12 CCG was stupid, and I understand why they did it, but I still think it's stupid and it finally pissed me off.  TBH, I figured it would it never really affect ISU anyhow, and thus had no emotional response other than thinking "round robin has already determined the champion and this is dumb."

If anything I think the Big 12 leaves the CCG and goes to an 8 game conference schedule with divisions (Big 8 + SWC/WVU makes the most competitive balance sense long term) but the implication is that one of those 4 non-cons has to be an eyeball-worthy opponent.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

2 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

I do think there are legit engagement issues and having more teams, players, and regions involved in the playoff race and playoff itself has great potential to really pump up interest in the sport. Cincy had a fun season last year. The excitement of them hosting Georgia in a playoff game would have really increased that to the next level and given them even more of a foundation to continue to build upon. A team like Iowa State that maybe can't get past an Oklahoma has a chance to really keep building recruiting momentum. If they hadn't had a B12 title game last year, ISU probably gets a first round bye in the new model, and if the majority get their way, would be hosting a national quarterfinal at Jack Trice. That would be MASSSSSIVE for that program.

I think you will find that there are many more games that are nationally interesting in the new model, and by definition, many of those games will not be SEC-centric, so everyone tired of that should be excited. 

Moving at least 4 massive postseason games (and hopefully at least eight) to campus environments will also create some really fresh, fun, exciting matchups. 

I would have said I was opposed to 12 a year ago, but I think going "top 6 champs" was a really really sharp move, and creating three "tiers" of playoff spots ensures no one is in "meaningless games" down the stretch and resting players. 

A playoff game in Jack Trice would elicit a kind of atmosphere that I don't think we've ever seen in American sports.

[ButtFumble 5158]

2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

As a fan of the only school to win the regular season round robin but not get a championship trophy, I agree completely.

I always thought the Big 12 CCG was stupid, and I understand why they did it, but I still think it's stupid and it finally pissed me off.  TBH, I figured it would it never really affect ISU anyhow, and thus had no emotional response other than thinking "round robin has already determined the champion and this is dumb."

If anything I think the Big 12 leaves the CCG and goes to an 8 game conference schedule with divisions (Big 8 + SWC/WVU makes the most competitive balance sense long term) but the implication is that one of those 4 non-cons has to be an eyeball-worthy opponent.

 

it works better for the Big 12 going to 7 conference games instead of 8 because it makes scheduling easier with a fixed "rivalry game" for everyone (except KU and WVU) and it makes it easier for teams that need to get "traction" to get some wins

it will work for ISU because ISU pretty much has the Iowa game set I know it is not on the schedule past something lime 2025, but I can't see that game ending so with 7 conference games plus a guaranteed Iowa game ISU has 8 P5 games in the bag already now they only need 1 more to get to the SEC SEC SEC "standard" and that should not be hard to do with 4 additional OOC games

as of now with 9 conference games and Iowa that is 10 P5 games for ISU......but that should still not be extremely difficult for ISU (or anyone else) to maintain that with 5 OOC slots

people get fixated on 8 conference games (which is only a very marginal help for a 10 team Big 12 in terms of the CCG rematch or in terms of quality schedules for some or "wins" for others because they do not want to "go against convention" or because "well the SEC SEC SEC does that" or well "they" (who is they) will never let us go down to 7

when 7 works extremely well for a number of reasons and fuck what the SEC SEC SEC or anyone else does or thinks......with the expanded playoffs 7 makes even more sense now.....especially of some mid level or slightly above Big 12 teams mix in an AAC or MWC game and beat some of them to knock a team down or out of the top 6 conferences or top 12 in general

The Big 12 needs to set themselves up to do things for themselves and that is improve the bottom of the conference (which helps the top teams the most) and to go out and take playoff slots from other conferences......playing more conference games limits that opportunity and makes it where the  Big 12 cost themselves playoff chances

[LTbear 4161]

48 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

 

it works better for the Big 12 going to 7 conference games instead of 8 because it makes scheduling easier with a fixed "rivalry game" for everyone (except KU and WVU) and it makes it easier for teams that need to get "traction" to get some wins

it will work for ISU because ISU pretty much has the Iowa game set I know it is not on the schedule past something lime 2025, but I can't see that game ending so with 7 conference games plus a guaranteed Iowa game ISU has 8 P5 games in the bag already now they only need 1 more to get to the SEC SEC SEC "standard" and that should not be hard to do with 4 additional OOC games

as of now with 9 conference games and Iowa that is 10 P5 games for ISU......but that should still not be extremely difficult for ISU (or anyone else) to maintain that with 5 OOC slots

people get fixated on 8 conference games (which is only a very marginal help for a 10 team Big 12 in terms of the CCG rematch or in terms of quality schedules for some or "wins" for others because they do not want to "go against convention" or because "well the SEC SEC SEC does that" or well "they" (who is they) will never let us go down to 7

when 7 works extremely well for a number of reasons and fuck what the SEC SEC SEC or anyone else does or thinks......with the expanded playoffs 7 makes even more sense now.....especially of some mid level or slightly above Big 12 teams mix in an AAC or MWC game and beat some of them to knock a team down or out of the top 6 conferences or top 12 in general

The Big 12 needs to set themselves up to do things for themselves and that is improve the bottom of the conference (which helps the top teams the most) and to go out and take playoff slots from other conferences......playing more conference games limits that opportunity and makes it where the  Big 12 cost themselves playoff chances

7 conference games is stupid. 8 is fine. 

[Big Frog II 511]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

A playoff game in Jack Trice would elicit a kind of atmosphere that I don't think we've ever seen in American sports.

I'm not sure there is enough beer in Ames to pull this off.

[Al_4_ISU 12409]

I'm not sure there is enough beer in Ames to pull this off.

Anheuser Busch’s stock would rise the minute that game was announced.

[clapclapclap 9000]

Just add UCF for all sports and partner with BYU for football only.

Edited June 15, 2021 by clapclapclap
And end the lie by modifying our conf name to 'Big 12ish'....

[Machinator 32097]

 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

1 minute ago, Machinator said:

 

Well, Pete, here's your homework assignment. Find me a season since 1992 in which a league's top-ranked team lost to an 8-4 in their CCG and then wasn't among the top six teams that didn't win their conference, and you'll have your answer. 

Could an upset get two teams in? Uh, yes, no fucking shit Sherlock. How is that even a question? Did upsets in the CCG allow two teams into the BCS? 

[TXSooner518 2432]

7 conference games really opens to the door to dramatically unbalanced schedules. A team going 6-1 when they got Kansas and Tech going to the CCG over a team going 5-2 when they got OU and Texas is a pretty lame outcome, esp if they didn't play each other.

Imagine a #1 OU going 12-0 and 7-0 in conf with a 31-30 win over Texas.  Texas goes 11-1, 6-1 with only that loss, dominant in all other games.  Iowa State goes 8-4, but is 7-0 in conf and doesn't play either OU or Texas. ISU then goes to CCG over Texas. Texas could be #2 in country but wouldn't be able to win the conf title or get a bye. 

It's just pointless and stupid, not to mention trying to fill 5 OOC games every year isn't going to work when every other conf is playing conf games those weeks. Derp.

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3868]

7 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

What problem is this expansion 'solution' trying to solve?

To limit the further concentration of talent to a dozen schools with a shot at the CFP causing fans across the nation to lose interest in college football and to make more late season games matter for the post season. 

[camel at sea 589]

14 hours ago, TXSooner518 said:

No. No one cares about number of games and didn’t then. Notre Dame made the playoffs a couple years back with 12 games. Ohio State made it this year with six. No one gives a fuck. Never did. I explained it already and laid out how devastating the CCG will be to the B12 once the 12 team model kicks in.

You're making an argument that human nature isn't human nature.  The committee has to choose between teams with similar records.  The committee is comprised of people with rooting interests that are not Big 12 rooting interests.  If 12-1 Ohio State is pitted against 11-1 OU, Ohio State is going to win that comparison in all years where OU didn't beat Ohio State on the field in the regular season.  The "data point" argument is why Notre Dame is not going to complain about never getting a bye week.

Give people an easy reason not to choose you, then they'll take that reason.  If the Big 12 opts out of a CCG, it will piss off everyone else who wants to play one and they'll go out of their way to try to punish the Big 12 for not playing one.  

The year OU made the playoff without a CCG, Stanford had 2 losses.  OU finished behind everyone with 1 loss or less - including a pretty meh Michigan State team.  OU arguably gets edged out for the 4 seed in both 2018 and 2019 without the CCG.  

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

55 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Imagine a #1 OU going 12-0 and 7-0 in conf with a 31-30 win over Texas. 

I don't want to imagine that.

Imagine Texas going 12-0 and beating Oklahoma 69-0, how about that. And then Oklahoma drops football to concentrate on academics. 

[SwanderedTalent 5761]

12 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

If 12-1 Ohio State is pitted against 11-1 OU, Ohio State is going to win that comparison in all years where OU didn't beat Ohio State on the field in the regular season. 

OK, but that's pretty specific. Ohio State has won a playoff championship and beaten both Alabama and Clemson in the post-season. OU goes to the playoff every few years and gets blasted out of the stadium in the first round.

If Ohio State gets in in your scenario, I would expect that had as much to do with Ohio State just getting the benefit of the doubt as a program.

[maninblack 7974]

19 hours ago, SwanderedTalent said:

I think ten teams and a nine-game round-robin w no CCG is the better way of doing it

If every other conference was doing the same I'd agree but they're not and as long as they aren't they'll have an advantage. 

Personally, I just want Texas to leave this conference. It doesn't do anything for us. I've always preferred the SEC but I've warmed to the PAC. 

[WBT 20422]

31 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

You're making an argument that human nature isn't human nature.  The committee has to choose between teams with similar records.  The committee is comprised of people with rooting interests that are not Big 12 rooting interests.  If 12-1 Ohio State is pitted against 11-1 OU, Ohio State is going to win that comparison in all years where OU didn't beat Ohio State on the field in the regular season.  The "data point" argument is why Notre Dame is not going to complain about never getting a bye week.

Give people an easy reason not to choose you, then they'll take that reason.  If the Big 12 opts out of a CCG, it will piss off everyone else who wants to play one and they'll go out of their way to try to punish the Big 12 for not playing one.  

The year OU made the playoff without a CCG, Stanford had 2 losses.  OU finished behind everyone with 1 loss or less - including a pretty meh Michigan State team.  OU arguably gets edged out for the 4 seed in both 2018 and 2019 without the CCG.  

The 13th data point was a bullshit talking point created to excuse putting in the blue blood over the private schools with small fan bases.  If it hadn't been that it would have been something else.  The lack of a 13th data point won't hurt Texas or OU.

For fuck's sake, the SEC's 13th data point is their week off to play a D2 school in November.  The CCG just brings them up to match what the Big 12, B1G, and PAC do in the regular season.

Edited June 15, 2021 by WBT

[TXSooner518 2432]

26 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

You're making an argument that human nature isn't human nature.  The committee has to choose between teams with similar records.  The committee is comprised of people with rooting interests that are not Big 12 rooting interests.  If 12-1 Ohio State is pitted against 11-1 OU, Ohio State is going to win that comparison in all years where OU didn't beat Ohio State on the field in the regular season.  The "data point" argument is why Notre Dame is not going to complain about never getting a bye week.

Give people an easy reason not to choose you, then they'll take that reason.  If the Big 12 opts out of a CCG, it will piss off everyone else who wants to play one and they'll go out of their way to try to punish the Big 12 for not playing one.  

The year OU made the playoff without a CCG, Stanford had 2 losses.  OU finished behind everyone with 1 loss or less - including a pretty meh Michigan State team.  OU arguably gets edged out for the 4 seed in both 2018 and 2019 without the CCG.  

Stop being dense. I've literally shown you empirically that the CCG will hurt much more often than it helps.

For 2015: For one, you're flat wrong. 11-1 OU finished ahead of 12-1 Iowa. BUT BUT BUT THE DATA POINTS. 

For two, OU being behind Sparty has nothing to do with 13 vs 12 games. Sparty's last 3 games were winning at the Shoe against #3 tOSU, who many thought was the best team that year, beating Penn St by 39, and then beating undefeated #4 Iowa on a neutral field. OU's loss was worse, getting dominated by a very bad Texas team, whereas Sparty lost at Nebraska who went to a bowl game that year, and Sparty led that game 39-26 with 2:00 to go and the winning TD was controversial.

In the final poll Sparty had wins over #5, #7, #14, and #15, with 3 of the 4 wins away from home. OU had wins over #11, 16, 17, and 23.  And guess what?  Playing and winning the CCG would just knock OU's best win down from #11, so then the 3 best wins between the two teams are all Sparty. I"m sure that would move OU ahead of them though to beat TCU again. 

Without a CCG in 2019, who edges OU? There were only 3 one loss conf champs other than OU. Literally a 0% chance they get edged for the 4. Only way they lose it is to lpay the worthless CCG. You are saying something "arguably" happens that has a 0% shot.  In 2018, 12-1 tOSU was behind 11-2 UGA because of how shitty tOSU's loss was, but they are somehow gonna be ahead of 11-1 OU.  11-1 OU was ahead of 11-1 tOSU going into the CCG week. I doubt beating trash Northwestern moves the needle, again given that they stayed behind UGA despite UGA losing the CCG. 

[ouflak 60]

8 hours ago, notre dame joe said:

What problem is this expansion 'solution' trying to solve?

How to make more money?

[camel at sea 589]

2 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Stop being dense. I've literally shown you empirically that the CCG will hurt much more often than it helps.

For 2015: For one, you're flat wrong. 11-1 OU finished ahead of 12-1 Iowa. BUT BUT BUT THE DATA POINTS. 

For two, OU being behind Sparty has nothing to do with 13 vs 12 games. Sparty's last 3 games were winning at the Shoe against #3 tOSU, who many thought was the best team that year, beating Penn St by 39, and then beating undefeated #4 Iowa on a neutral field. OU's loss was worse, getting dominated by a very bad Texas team, whereas Sparty lost at Nebraska who went to a bowl game that year, and Sparty led that game 39-26 with 2:00 to go and the winning TD was controversial.

In the final poll Sparty had wins over #5, #7, #14, and #15, with 3 of the 4 wins away from home. OU had wins over #11, 16, 17, and 23.  And guess what?  Playing and winning the CCG would just knock OU's best win down from #11, so then the 3 best wins between the two teams are all Sparty. I"m sure that would move OU ahead of them though to beat TCU again. 

Without a CCG in 2019, who edges OU? There were only 3 one loss conf champs other than OU. Literally a 0% chance they get edged for the 4. Only way they lose it is to lpay the worthless CCG. You are saying something "arguably" happens that has a 0% shot.  In 2018, 12-1 tOSU was behind 11-2 UGA because of how shitty tOSU's loss was, but they are somehow gonna be ahead of 11-1 OU.  11-1 OU was ahead of 11-1 tOSU going into the CCG week. I doubt beating trash Northwestern moves the needle, again given that they stayed behind UGA despite UGA losing the CCG. 

The Big 12 hired a stats firm to run simulations on this topic back when the league decided to play a CCG.  The stats firm said not playing a CCG hurts us more often than it helps us.  OU was the primary driver behind pushing for the CCG.  You can argue that you think the stats firm was wrong but the league already did that leg work.

In 2015, OU won the Big 12 and Iowa was 2nd in the Big Ten.  I never argued "data points" are the only factor.  I'm arguing they are one factor that can and will be used against the Big 12 if it drops a CCG.  In 2015, the Big Ten already had a team in the playoff.  OU got a conference champions bump so we stayed ahead of Iowa.  And your argument for why Sparty finished ahead of OU includes the fact that they played a CCG and got one more good win from it.  (They actually jumped OU in the committee rankings after that win.)  Does OU keep the 3 seed if the Sooners beat 10-2 OK State again?  Maybe.  OU would have been favored over Sparty head to head that year  

In 2018, OU barely edged Georgia.  11-2 Georgia finished ahead of 12-1 Ohio State that year.  Do I think OU might finish behind 11-2 Georgia AND 12-1 Ohio State in 2018 without a CCG?  Absolutely.  OU got one more good win (avenged its only loss) and closed the door on the argument to jump them.

In 2019, same situation.  Nobody really looked the part for the 4 seed that year.  UGA had better wins than OU that year.  If OU doesn't pick up a 12th win over a Top 10 Baylor, does the committee argue "why should we punish UGA for playing LSU?"  I think so.  Why wouldn't they?

 

It's human nature to do what benefits your own constituency.  The SEC guys (and everyone else) are going to vote to reward playing a CCG.  Nobody is going to look the other way if the Big 12 gives its champion - from their perspective - an easier path to the CFP.  We'd be seeded accordingly.    

[TXSooner518 2432]

6 minutes ago, camel at sea said:

In 2018, OU barely edged Georgia.  11-2 Georgia finished ahead of 12-1 Ohio State that year.  Do I think OU might finish behind 11-2 Georgia AND 12-1 Ohio State in 2018 without a CCG?  Absolutely.  OU got one more good win (avenged its only loss) and closed the door on the argument to jump them.

In 2019, same situation.  Nobody really looked the part for the 4 seed that year.  UGA had better wins than OU that year.  If OU doesn't pick up a 12th win over a Top 10 Baylor, does the committee argue "why should we punish UGA for playing LSU?"  I think so.  Why wouldn't they?

Can't get a top 4 seed and bye if you aren't a conf champ, so non-champ UGA would be ineligible both years. 

And you just keep missing the negative freeroll point. OU had a top 4 seed and bye locked in 2015. So who cares if they could have kept the 3 over Sparty?  Prob not, because again you are damaging your best win.  Beating a 10-2 team once looks better than beating a 10-3 team twice. Playing OSU or TCU again can only risk the bye that is a lock going into the game. TCU also had a bid locked that year and playing OU again can only risk it. 

Maybe this is the disconnect, but the stats firm was looking at a 4 team playoff, not this 12 team model. I think the CCG (while still stupid and redundant after a round robin) is MUCH less detrimental in a 4 team playoff than in a 12 team playoff. B12 can reasonably get 2 teams in a 12 teamer but not in a 4 teamer. Also the fact that the 4 byes MUST be conf champs means the B12 champ can't get edged for byes by SEC runner-up, despite you keeping on saying that could happen. The 1 seed in B12 CCG is very likely to be one of the 4 best champs and the 2 seed winning is much less likely to be one of the 4 best champs. So the B12 will often risk the bye and/or second bid, with no upside. 

[camel at sea 589]

52 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Can't get a top 4 seed and bye if you aren't a conf champ, so non-champ UGA would be ineligible both years. 

And you just keep missing the negative freeroll point. OU had a top 4 seed and bye locked in 2015. So who cares if they could have kept the 3 over Sparty?  Prob not, because again you are damaging your best win.  Beating a 10-2 team once looks better than beating a 10-3 team twice. Playing OSU or TCU again can only risk the bye that is a lock going into the game. TCU also had a bid locked that year and playing OU again can only risk it. 

Maybe this is the disconnect, but the stats firm was looking at a 4 team playoff, not this 12 team model. I think the CCG (while still stupid and redundant after a round robin) is MUCH less detrimental in a 4 team playoff than in a 12 team playoff. B12 can reasonably get 2 teams in a 12 teamer but not in a 4 teamer. Also the fact that the 4 byes MUST be conf champs means the B12 champ can't get edged for byes by SEC runner-up, despite you keeping on saying that could happen. The 1 seed in B12 CCG is very likely to be one of the 4 best champs and the 2 seed winning is much less likely to be one of the 4 best champs. So the B12 will often risk the bye and/or second bid, with no upside. 

In '18, a 12-1 Ohio State gets the bye, then.  Maybe OU gets a Top 4 seed without the extra game in 2019.  The biggest threat that year would have been an 11-2 Oregon coming off a Top 5 win in their CCG.  The point still stands... the first time the Big 12 champ misses a bye because we didn't play a CCG, the school that missed out (most likely OU) will raise hell.  

 

But yeah, requiring that the teams with a bye also win the conference probably skews the math back in the direction of not playing a CCG somewhat.  That said, I don't see any scenario where the Big 12 opts not to play a game that everyone else is playing, that doesn't end with everyone else trying whenever possible to punish us for not playing it.  

Edited June 15, 2021 by camel at sea

[TXSooner518 2432]

And the first time a team loses a bye or a bid, that team won't raise hell also? 

I don't really disagree that they will stupidly keep playing it. I do disagree that we will be punished for not playing one, presuming they maintain a full round robin. After all, those conferences are free to decide their title as they want too.

[Horn of Gabriel 1590]

We may not like it for fan service, but it's pretty clear we need to 1) keep the CCG, and 2) stop the round-robin by reducing the in-conf games, which creates more intra-Big12 losses and the perception of a weaker league, especially @ the bottom.  Split by divisions, play a protected rival and add an OOC.  The strength of that OOC can be higher OR lower than the in-conf game we'd be losing depending on how that team wants to schedule.  It's pretty apparent that scheduling cupcakes hasn't damaged the SEC, pretty much the opposite.  So we have lots of data on that.  Or we could add a marquee name if we prefer; I'd go for mid-tier P5 with compelling road trips personally vs. going to Ames (no offense to ISU).