Left Behind: A Quick Dose Of Post Big 12 Reality

[closetojumping 62538]

20 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

You have no idea how badly I'd love to never play Northern Iowa (or any FCS school frankly) ever again.

And I'm pretty sure most of the Big 12 schools are doing this going forward.  It's not Art Briles and Bill Snyder scheduling any more.

I hope you are right, because that means a lot more compelling CFB games for me to watch in the future. I hate seeing FCS/FBS match-ups on tv. It renders that station moot for 3 hours for me. 

That considered, clearly @'stache doesn't share your same POV. I hope you're correct.

[MuellerHorn 4228]

1 hour ago, closetojumping said:

This goes back to what I said in this thread months ago that @Deej is touching on now and others have referenced as well. The non-conference scheduling is a problem.  14 of the 16 schools are playing FCS schools. 

The 2024 season, due to the rapid nature of the new conference teams coming into play, has several teams playing 10 conference games. That's a quality offset to FCS crap, for sure. In the future, that won't be happening. 

Given the nature of lacking blue bloods, there will be a voting bias against the conference. The offset needs to be quality non-con opponents. Any team that fails to win the conference and goes something like 11-2 (conference title loss) should likely be heading to the playoff. That considered, many years there is a strong likelihood that any or all of the Big 10, SEC and ACC could have 3rd place teams that are 10-2. We all know the Big 10 and SEC will get biased benefits of the doubt. So then you're left with the Big 12 and ACC arguing for one of the final spots. The Big 12 has 9 conference games, so that wins. But let's say the 10-2 ACC team is FSU with two conference losses and a win over UF and another P5 in their non-con. Is TCU or Baylor getting in over them? Not if their non-con is Tarleton State, North Texas and Air Force.

Kansas State vs. Arizona (2024 & 25) and Baylor at Utah (2024) are counted as a non-conference games due to previous scheduling as such.

['stache 21794]

10 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I hope you are right, because that means a lot more compelling CFB games for me to watch in the future. I hate seeing FCS/FBS match-ups on tv. It renders that station moot for 3 hours for me. 

That considered, clearly @'stache doesn't share your same POV. I hope you're correct.

I'd be fine if P5 precluded FCS matchups accross the board, but I don't see a major problem with those games in general, as long as it's only one a year, or preferably every few years. Those schools can use the payments, and most teams can use a warmup game (or for SEC a late season recovery game). The occasional upsets are fun too, and it's not like every team plays their FCS game at the same time, there are plenty of made for TV noncon games every week in September. There's also no way the SEC would agree to do away with these games seeing as pretty much every program does the late November cupcake game and insist on 8 game conference schedules. 

Edited January 30 by 'stache

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

15 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

I hope you are right, because that means a lot more compelling CFB games for me to watch in the future. I hate seeing FCS/FBS match-ups on tv. It renders that station moot for 3 hours for me. 

That considered, clearly @'stache doesn't share your same POV. I hope you're correct.

I don't know that they're giving up FCS games.  Just that everyone is scheduling P4 non-cons.

Again, I'd love to ditch FCS games, but I know like with us and Northern Iowa for example, there's a lot of political pressure on the big schools to keep UNI on the schedule because of the payday it brings them, and also the effect on the local economy.  When ISU plays Southeast Missouri State, we'll fill Jack Trice, but they aren't bringing ANY fans.  When we play UNI, there's an extra 15K people just coming to Ames to party for the weekend with 0 intent of going to the game.  That's a lot of cash into the local economy.

So for reasons that have fuck all to do with sports, I'd be surprised to see them die.

[66BUFF 2562]

2 hours ago, Deej said:

The dozens of people interested will find a way to read it. 

[Left Coast 863]

Wait so the only rivalry games being played on the last weekend (“rivalry week”) are Arizona/AZ State and KSU/ISU?

So they protected only 4 rivalries (BYU/Utah, Baylor/TCU, KU/KSU, and AZ/AZ State) and they couldn’t even schedule 3 of them on the last weekend?

instead we’ll get West Virginia/TCU, Baylor/Kansas, BYU/Houston and Utah/UCF. 
 

Nice move, Big 12.

[statsman 5450]

21 minutes ago, Left Coast said:

Wait so the only rivalry games being played on the last weekend (“rivalry week”) are Arizona/AZ State and KSU/ISU?

So they protected only 4 rivalries (BYU/Utah, Baylor/TCU, KU/KSU, and AZ/AZ State) and they couldn’t even schedule 3 of them on the last weekend?

instead we’ll get West Virginia/TCU, Baylor/Kansas, BYU/Houston and Utah/UCF. 
 

Nice move, Big 12.

It’s clear that they are trying to put their most attractive games (and BU-TCU) on dates without significant competition. See Oct. 12. 
 
The B12 knows what they are, and are trying to get the most out of it. 
 
I suspect this is why they are last with the schedule. There is one time slot they have a shot at (Fox mid afternoon Saturday) and they want to get it. Future revenue will be based on ratings and they don’t want to do something stupid like counter program the RRS with a TT-OSU game. 

Edited January 30 by statsman

[WelfareBuysMyWeed 5388]

7 hours ago, slorch said:

You're on ignore, dipshit.  Because you're a dipshit.

You are on a texas longhorns message board with tens of thousands of posts. Because you are a shameless cuck with an embarrassment fetish.

[TKthunder2 4985]

9 hours ago, statsman said:

It’s clear that they are trying to put their most attractive games (and BU-TCU) on dates without significant competition. See Oct. 12. 
 
The B12 knows what they are, and are trying to get the most out of it. 
 
I suspect this is why they are last with the schedule. There is one time slot they have a shot at (Fox mid afternoon Saturday) and they want to get it. Future revenue will be based on ratings and they don’t want to do something stupid like counter program the RRS with a TT-OSU game. 

Agree think it’s a smart strategy. Play around the P2 conferences, avoid playing your best games in head to head competition with their blockbusters and do your best to capitalize where you can. If Texas isn’t playing (like in Nov2nd) put up a Baylor/TCU game and see if you can get any of that audience to watch an in state match up. Do the same with Okie St, UCF, and any others you can.

[BurntOrange&White 39930]

BU-TCU in 2024 is a dog shit game. 

 

Big 12 is nothing but pussies.

[alincoln 2371]

The Big12 should consider 9AM ET kickoffs.  They probably also want to avoid the EPL though.

[Armybrat 40822]

1 hour ago, BurntOrange&White said:

BU-TCU in 2024 is a dog shit game. 

 

Big 12 is nothing but pussies.

But some pussies are more desirable than others….

 

[Nivek 16916]

I don't know that they're giving up FCS games.  Just that everyone is scheduling P4 non-cons.
Again, I'd love to ditch FCS games, but I know like with us and Northern Iowa for example, there's a lot of political pressure on the big schools to keep UNI on the schedule because of the payday it brings them, and also the effect on the local economy.  When ISU plays Southeast Missouri State, we'll fill Jack Trice, but they aren't bringing ANY fans.  When we play UNI, there's an extra 15K people just coming to Ames to party for the weekend with 0 intent of going to the game.  That's a lot of cash into the local economy.
So for reasons that have fuck all to do with sports, I'd be surprised to see them die.

FCS is understandable during alignment issues, even if it is less desirable.

[Dnaguy 11916]

On 1/30/2024 at 10:06 AM, mdmost said:

Nice schedule, morons.

 

 

Ummmm Arizona, Baylor, KState, and Utah all have 10 conference games according to this schedule:

 

They can't even count to 9 correctly.

 

But seriously I guess they'll treat the Arizona vs K state and the Baylor vs. Utah games as OOC since they were on the books before the move.

Out of conference, in conference games.... just... so on brand for this conference.

Edited January 31 by Dnaguy

[thunderlounge 7813]

Should have kept reading. We’ve discussed this. Those “extra” games were already scheduled, and they let them stay as non-con’s. 

[Guest]

Friendlies.

[nbmishoid 949]

Absurd.  Imagine the tiebreakers.  

[Mitch Cumsteen 18547]

1 hour ago, nbmishoid said:

Absurd.  Imagine the tiebreakers.  

Have they announced how the tiebreakers work? I know the Big 12 typically doesn't like to manipulate reveal it's math on such matters until championship week, but it's going to be hilarious if one team gets into the CCG over another despite having a head to head loss that doesn't count in the tie breaker. There is going to be an epic amount of pussy rubbing if a playoff bid is determined because of it.

[nbmishoid 949]

Exactly 

[Ignatius 4017]

8 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

 

Ummmm Arizona, Baylor, KState, and Utah all have 10 conference games according to this schedule:

 

They can't even count to 9 correctly.

 

But seriously I guess they'll treat the Arizona vs K state and the Baylor vs. Utah games as OOC since they were on the books before the move.

Out of conference, in conference games.... just... so on brand for this conference.

We did the same thing in basketball when we joined the B12; played an already-scheduled game vs Nebraska as OOC plus a 2nd game once the conference schedule came out…

Edited February 1 by Ignatius

[Dnaguy 11916]

4 minutes ago, Ignatius said:

We did the same thing in basketball when we joined the B12; played an already-scheduled game vs Nebraska as OOC plus a 2nd game once the conference schedule came out…

We talking about basketball?

Nebraska?

[TKthunder2 4985]

3 hours ago, Dnaguy said:

We talking about basketball?

Nebraska?

Fun fact:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Cornhuskers_men's_basketball

The Cornhuskers have appeared in the NCAA tournament seven times with a combined record of 0–7. Nebraska is the only power conference school that has never won a tournament game.

[Crockett 490]

This is amazing. Utah week & ASU are gold, gold, Jerry!

 

[closetohumping 17433]

On 1/30/2024 at 10:18 AM, closetojumping said:

I hope you are right, because that means a lot more compelling CFB games for me to watch in the future. I hate seeing FCS/FBS match-ups on tv. It renders that station moot for 3 hours for me. 

That considered, clearly @'stache doesn't share your same POV. I hope you're correct.

I mean I find northern Iowa vs isu as compelling as isu vs Kansas 

[statsman 5450]

15 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

Have they announced how the tiebreakers work? I know the Big 12 typically doesn't like to manipulate reveal it's math on such matters until championship week, but it's going to be hilarious if one team gets into the CCG over another despite having a head to head loss that doesn't count in the tie breaker. There is going to be an epic amount of pussy rubbing if a playoff bid is determined because of it.

There is a greater-than-zero chance that the B12 office hasn’t really considered this. 

[Armybrat 40822]

8 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Fun fact:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Cornhuskers_men's_basketball

The Cornhuskers have appeared in the NCAA tournament seven times with a combined record of 0–7. Nebraska is the only power conference school that has never won a tournament game.

Proof that white boys can’t jump?

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

3 hours ago, closetohumping said:

I mean I find northern Iowa vs isu as compelling as isu vs Kansas 

Between Mangino and Leipold it was a far more competitive game.

[CashMcCoy 3199]

1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

Proof that white boys can’t jump?

That’s more of a Wisconsin and Iowa thing typically. Nebraska has no excuse.

Omaha can actually put out some pretty solid hoops prospects, but Nebraska never seemed to have been able to land those high level guys or find the underrated gems across the state that end up dominating at a place like South Dakota St. Growing up there, the CBB fandom in the state is wild with the relationship between UNL and Creighton. Basketball season was always a nice break from the constant Texas hatred as those same Husker football fans would split off into two fanbases that fucking despise each other. It’s hilarious.

[oSuJeff97 3435]

22 hours ago, Mitch Cumsteen said:

Have they announced how the tiebreakers work? I know the Big 12 typically doesn't like to manipulate reveal it's math on such matters until championship week, but it's going to be hilarious if one team gets into the CCG over another despite having a head to head loss that doesn't count in the tie breaker. There is going to be an epic amount of pussy rubbing if a playoff bid is determined because of it.

Has the SEC announced theirs?

Better buckle up because now that we have the stupid unwieldy large conferences with no divisions and unbalanced schedules everyone is going to be subject to the same tie-breaker chaos that the Big 12 went through last year.

[Deej 76752]

At least they all count as conference games.

['stache 21794]

It's already known which will count towards the conference standings and which wont. It's a byproduct of shit changing on a dime, the PAC died suddenly with only a few months to rearrange schedules. I don't recall any other P-5 realignment that had programs move within months of the announcement. 

Edited February 1 by 'stache

[statsman 5450]

12 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Has the SEC announced theirs?

Better buckle up because now that we have the stupid unwieldy large conferences with no divisions and unbalanced schedules everyone is going to be subject to the same tie-breaker chaos that the Big 12 went through last year.

I don’t think it was the parameters that made the B12 tie breakers such a mess; they were just not well thought out. I don’t know that you can assume other conferences will be the same. 

[Mitch Cumsteen 18547]

9 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Has the SEC announced theirs?

Good question. I looked it up and found: The 2024 season will be the first year the SEC will play a schedule without divisional competition since 1991. The top two teams in the league standings based on winning percentage will play in the 33rd SEC Football Championship Game in Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta on Saturday, December 7.

I didn't find anything about tie breakers, but I will go out on a limb and assume that it will not involve pretending games between two conference members never happened.

16 minutes ago, oSuJeff97 said:

Better buckle up because now that we have the stupid unwieldy large conferences with no divisions and unbalanced schedules everyone is going to be subject to the same tie-breaker chaos that the Big 12 went through last year.

It's likely going to be a problem, but the playoffs being the ultimate goal mitigates some of it. There are always going to be discrepancies and complaints, even when they had two divisions in the Big 12 that were not even close to being competitively even. In the big picture I think it's less critical for the SEC. You can almost be assured that both teams in the CCG will be in the playoff, and that game will probably be for a de facto bye for the first round. But the Big 12 isn't going to be afforded that luxury. And when they have games between two teams in the same conference that don't count toward the conference championship.... man, you are just asking for it. I'm here for it, both for the potential chaos and also the egg on the face.

[Deej 76752]

17 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It's already known which will count towards the conference standings and which wont. It's a byproduct of shit changing on a dime, the PAC died suddenly with only a few months to rearrange schedules. I don't recall any other P-5 realignment that had programs move within months of the announcement. 

I'm sure the Big 12 will be very clear about how it will work. Just like when they changed their rules towards the end of last season. 

['stache 21794]

Ugh, I know, Big 12 sucks, blah, blah, blah, but they didn't "change" the rule, it was impossible to apply as written because some dumbfuck used a weird comma with no context in the language. Mock them for that, not for "changing" anything, because they didn't. They also made clear in advance of the last weeks games that if one team in a three way tie has defeated the other two they win the tie breaker. Do you think that's unfair? The language as written didn't require a different outcome, it required no outcome, because it made no sense.

[statsman 5450]

Help me remember- was that the first time the Big XII had a fucked up tie breaker?

[royiv 9247]

42 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It's already known which will count towards the conference standings and which wont. It's a byproduct of shit changing on a dime, the PAC died suddenly with only a few months to rearrange schedules. I don't recall any other P-5 realignment that had programs move within months of the announcement. 

The same chorus of idiots would be moaning if the Big 12 told the schools to drop the previously scheduled noncon games. With noncon games scheduled so far in advance the only thing that they would have been able to fill the holes with would have been an FCS opponent. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Some people just have a weird obsession with bitching about a conference that they're leaving. 

[TKthunder2 4985]

28 minutes ago, royiv said:

The same chorus of idiots would be moaning if the Big 12 told the schools to drop the previously scheduled noncon games. With noncon games scheduled so far in advance the only thing that they would have been able to fill the holes with would have been an FCS opponent. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Some people just have a weird obsession with bitching about a conference that they're leaving. 

Washington State and Oregon St were available to play and are playing more MWC schools than agreed to because they were already scheduled as out of conference matchups. It would have been that difficult to arrange that if everyone involved was competent.

These were the OOC game before the changes:

K State v Arizona, Baylor v Utah
Oregon St v SDSU, Washington St v SJSU (these could have been MW conference games)

cancel and schedule each other it’s ain’t too difficult 

[royiv 9247]

3 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Washington State and Oregon St were available to play and are playing more MWC schools than agreed to because they were already scheduled as out of conference matchups. It would have been that difficult to arrange that if everyone involved was competent.

These were the OOC game before the changes:

K State v Arizona, Baylor v Utah
Oregon St v SDSU, Washington St v SJSU (these could have been MW conference games)

cancel and schedule each other it’s ain’t too difficult 

Those four games are scheduled on three different weekends. So a little more difficult than you think it is. Not to mention that switching out a power conference opponent for a G5 opponent has implications beyond scheduling.

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

5 hours ago, 'stache said:

Ugh, I know, Big 12 sucks, blah, blah, blah, but they didn't "change" the rule, it was impossible to apply as written because some dumbfuck used a weird comma with no context in the language. Mock them for that, not for "changing" anything, because they didn't. They also made clear in advance of the last weeks games that if one team in a three way tie has defeated the other two they win the tie breaker. Do you think that's unfair? The language as written didn't require a different outcome, it required no outcome, because it made no sense.

It doesn’t matter what the Big 12 does.  It never has.  That’s what being a scapegoat looks like.

[Deej 76752]

7 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

That’s what being a scapegoat looks like.

[Texas Wahoo 3389]

8 hours ago, 'stache said:

Ugh, I know, Big 12 sucks, blah, blah, blah, but they didn't "change" the rule, it was impossible to apply as written because some dumbfuck used a weird comma with no context in the language. Mock them for that, not for "changing" anything, because they didn't. They also made clear in advance of the last weeks games that if one team in a three way tie has defeated the other two they win the tie breaker. Do you think that's unfair? The language as written didn't require a different outcome, it required no outcome, because it made no sense.

The weird comma isn't why it "required clarification."  With or without the comma, there is no way to read the rule as saying that if one team in a multiple team tie has defeated the other teams - they win the tie-breaker.

Quote

1. Head-to-head (best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams). If not, every tied team has played each other, go to step 2. 

In that scenario, not every team has played each other, so the rule says go to step 2.  The new rule may not have been unfair, but it certainly changed the way the tiebreaker works.

[Valmy77 13225]

On 1/31/2024 at 12:11 PM, Dnaguy said:

Out of conference, in conference games.... just... so on brand for this conference.

Maybe we should leave the conference or something.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Valmy77 said:

Maybe we should leave the conference or something.

What starts here, dissolves in a few years.

[alincoln 2371]

Abilene Christian 

North Texas 

Arizona State 

Cincinnati 

Baylor 

Colorado 

West Virginia 

Arkansas Pine-Bluff

Oregon State

BYU

Oklahoma State

Kansas

UCF

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

10 hours ago, Deej said:

Lucille Bluth is a perfect avatar for this thread.

[Hurtlocker 2212]

On 1/25/2024 at 11:50 AM, statsman said:

…and I think you’re getting a $5M per year/per school premium on the contract (based on comp of last contract Fox/ESPN split to this contract), to help OU and Texas leave a year early. That will disappear on the next contract. 
 
 

Eh, no.   Leaving early, contractually with the media partners, actually had to be settled out by giving Fox more.    The Big 12 teams did not get a premium for six years to allow a one-year early exit, that's crazy talk.   If there was movement the Big12 would have been looking at a $60m average over 6-8 years, due to how their T1 contract was severely undervalued from being so old, now they're looking at a $40m over 6, that's a sizable decrease with the big brand exits.   Additionally, they likely got 10-15% less for signing fast.  However, after watching what happened to the Pac, resigning at stable rates was the exact right decision.     I don't think anyone in whatever the new 16 is going to be called, is going to be complaining about media revenues.

The only increase that occurred here that isn't market dependent is the boosts they gave to the schools coming in, but that was completely paid for by Texas and OU's buy out fees.     They basically invested it to lure in more schools, like Colorado and Arizona. 

[Huckleberry 32845]

1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

Lucille Bluth is a perfect avatar for this thread.

Perhaps, but defending the Big 12 when it comes to the most horribly conceived and horribly written tiebreaker rules ever is a pretty weak starting point when arguing that it's not about what the conference does they'll always be bashed. Those tiebreakers were horrific and you know it.

[Al_4_ISU 12447]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Perhaps, but defending the Big 12 when it comes to the most horribly conceived and horribly written tiebreaker rules ever is a pretty weak starting point when arguing that it's not about what the conference does they'll always be bashed. Those tiebreakers were horrific and you know it.

I'm not disagreeing on that specific point.  Those tie breakers were horrific, and the Big 12 has made plenty of other mistakes over the years.

However, my general point is still true.  If the Big 12 cured cancer, the national narrative would be about how the conference fucked all these researchers out of a job.  Whatever decision the Big 12 makes on anything is going to get shit on in the court of public opinion, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of said decision as a result of who is making it.

[closetohumping 17433]

6 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I'm not disagreeing on that specific point.  Those tie breakers were horrific, and the Big 12 has made plenty of other mistakes over the years.

However, my general point is still true.  If the Big 12 cured cancer, the national narrative would be about how the conference fucked all these researchers out of a job.  Whatever decision the Big 12 makes on anything is going to get shit on in the court of public opinion, regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of said decision as a result of who is making it.

You have nothing to base that off of.  

 

Also, regarding the 08 screw job, I believe a few of the big 12 coaches votes us outside of their top 5.

Edited February 2 by closetohumping