Big 10 too stupid to understand the CCG rules they wrote

[ButtFumble 5287]

https://sports.yahoo.com/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-195817459.html

remember when the Big 10 screwed the ACC (and idiots thought it screwed the Big 12) and made changes to the ACC proposal for the CCG games (it was the ACC that actually initially called for CCG rules changes)

the ACC wanted to be able to play in 3 divisions possibly and have their CCG feature the two best teams no matter how the divisions shook out or play in two divisions and still have the CCG with the two best conference teams......the Big 10 shitted on that and made sure the CCG could be held with fewer than 12 teams, but the CCG (no matter how many teams in the conference) had to feather either the two highest rated teams from a conference that played a full conference round robin OR it had to feature the winners from two divisions that played a divisional round robin

somehow morons thought that impacted the Big 12, but it did not at all because the Big 12 only needed the rule changed to allow a CCG with fewer than 12 teams and the Big 12 because they had 10 teams and (stupidly) play 9 conference games could have the CCG setup they do now with the two best teams OR the Big 12 could have split into divisions and had the division winners in the CCG.......which is even more stupid if the Big 12 keeps playing 9 conference games.....amazingly the Big 12 was so stupid as to actually consider playing in "divisions" and then somehow pulled their heads out of their asses and went with the current setup featuring the two best teams and no divisions

but now laughably the Big 10 is too stupid to remember they specifically called for the rules to be as they are now written.....hopefully the ACC can find a way tom get enough votes to shit on the Big 10 and not allow them to feature their two best teams in the CCG

also it looks like the Big 10 wants to either try and make the SEC SEC SEC and ACc Acc acc play 9 conference games or the Big 10 might go back to 8 conference games....hopefully the Big 12 will realize that 9 conference games is totally stupid and sucks dicks and will change as soon as or sooner than the Big 10 does (or hopefully the Big 12 changes and the Big 10 stays stupid with 9 conference games)

[Neonmoon 38130]

That is a lot of words 

[Valmy77 13626]

There is only one way I would like to see us play less than 9 conference games: if we boot somebody out of the league and have nine schools.

Besides we have Kansas in our league so that should be roughly equivalent to some trash team we would otherwise schedule. And yes, Charlie Strong would have lost that game to.

[kopp0e 1135]

31 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/big-ten-commissioner-jim-delany-195817459.html

remember when the Big 10 screwed the ACC (and idiots thought it screwed the Big 12) and made changes to the ACC proposal for the CCG games (it was the ACC that actually initially called for CCG rules changes)

the ACC wanted to be able to play in 3 divisions possibly and have their CCG feature the two best teams no matter how the divisions shook out or play in two divisions and still have the CCG with the two best conference teams......the Big 10 shitted on that and made sure the CCG could be held with fewer than 12 teams, but the CCG (no matter how many teams in the conference) had to feather either the two highest rated teams from a conference that played a full conference round robin OR it had to feature the winners from two divisions that played a divisional round robin

somehow morons thought that impacted the Big 12, but it did not at all because the Big 12 only needed the rule changed to allow a CCG with fewer than 12 teams and the Big 12 because they had 10 teams and (stupidly) play 9 conference games could have the CCG setup they do now with the two best teams OR the Big 12 could have split into divisions and had the division winners in the CCG.......which is even more stupid if the Big 12 keeps playing 9 conference games.....amazingly the Big 12 was so stupid as to actually consider playing in "divisions" and then somehow pulled their heads out of their asses and went with the current setup featuring the two best teams and no divisions

but now laughably the Big 10 is too stupid to remember they specifically called for the rules to be as they are now written.....hopefully the ACC can find a way tom get enough votes to shit on the Big 10 and not allow them to feature their two best teams in the CCG

also it looks like the Big 10 wants to either try and make the SEC SEC SEC and ACc Acc acc play 9 conference games or the Big 10 might go back to 8 conference games....hopefully the Big 12 will realize that 9 conference games is totally stupid and sucks dicks and will change as soon as or sooner than the Big 10 does (or hopefully the Big 12 changes and the Big 10 stays stupid with 9 conference games)

All of which is even more ironic, when factoring the lackluster B1G title games of the last 2 seasons have kept the league champ out of the CFP, now B1G is "maybe" on expansion:

 

[ButtFumble 5287]

24 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

There is only one way I would like to see us play less than 9 conference games: if we boot somebody out of the league and have nine schools.

Besides we have Kansas in our league so that should be roughly equivalent to some trash team we would otherwise schedule. And yes, Charlie Strong would have lost that game to.

9 conference games is detrimental to the long term success of the conference and it hurts the strength of schedule of the top conference teams the most

[MillerEP 30905]

The better answer is to force the other conferences to shed some teams and all go 10 teams. The first school anyone should drop is aggy.

[Hurtlocker 2219]

59 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

There is only one way I would like to see us play less than 9 conference games: if we boot somebody out of the league and have nine schools.

Besides we have Kansas in our league so that should be roughly equivalent to some trash team we would otherwise schedule. And yes, Charlie Strong would have lost that game to.

Just spit balling here, but how about Baylor?

[Beau Vine 55863]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

That is a lot of words 

His choice of which ones to capitalize always flummoxes me.  

[DaysOff 8206]

That is a lot of words 

Most of which I didn't understand.

[Hurtlocker 2219]

The Big 12 should go to 8 conference games, but the reason they got paid more when the schools left was, with moving from 8 to 9, they'd have the same amount of games on the contract, but with 2 less teams to split it with.

They'd need to expand or something, but I don't think its a coincidence that the three conferences with 9 conference games have placed 8 teams in the playoffs so far and the two conferences who have 8 conference games have placed 10.  

[ButtFumble 5287]

12 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

The Big 12 should go to 8 conference games, but the reason they got paid more when the schools left was, with moving from 8 to 9, they'd have the same amount of games on the contract, but with 2 less teams to split it with.

They'd need to expand or something, but I don't think its a coincidence that the three conferences with 9 conference games have placed 8 teams in the playoffs so far and the two conferences who have 8 conference games have placed 10.  

the media partners do not lose games with fewer conference games

team A plays team B two years in a row that is two media partner games (one each year)

team A plays an OOC home game year 1 and team B plays an OOC away game in year 1 that is one media partner game

team B plays an OOC home game year 2 and team A plays an OOC away game in year 2 that is one media partner game for two total over those two years (one each year)

no Big 12 team is going to play a 2-1 with the other team getting the two home games nor are they going to play a buy in game

as for the "quality" of an OOC game Vs a conference game you can simply have conference rules to address that so the same number of "P5" games are played by each team as before and the reality is no one gives a shit about a 2-9 Kansas team playing Texas or OU, but people would actually probably give a bit more of a shit if it was a Kansas team that was 6-5 with 4 or 5 of those wins even coming from not so great OOC games).....and the bigger reality for Texas (and OU and other top Big 12 teams) is a 6-5 Kansas team even with wins over mostly shit in the OOC is a much stronger contributor to the strength of schedule for Texas or OU Vs a Kansas team that has played a bunch of "quality" opponents and had their ass kicked and is 2-9......you do not get any credit to your strength of schedule because your opponent got their asses kicked against a bunch of good teams and you do get more credit for your opponent actually winning even if it is against shit teams......that is one of the reasons why the SEC SEC SEC has their annual two weeks of playing dog shit.....the other being that other conferences are busy beating themselves up and dropping in the rankings while the SEC SEC SEC is getting easy wins and at worst stating ranked and usually moving up at least the same number of positions as the number of teams that were ranked above them that lost

Texas (and others looking to make the playoffs) do not need to schedule like shit they can continue to schedule for quality and for making the playoffs, but teams in the conference that know for damn sure they are not making the playoffs in the next 3 years can schedule decent teams for wins and for making bowl games and that benefits the entire conference especially the top teams

Edited December 8, 2018 by ButtFumble

[Hurtlocker 2219]

I'll keep it brief:   conference games are worth A LOT more than non-con, even if you schedule P5, because conference games are consistent.    Could you do it with a scheduling agreement with another conference?   Yes, but it couldn't just be some rule that says, "schedule P5"

[ButtFumble 5287]

4 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

I'll keep it brief:   conference games are worth A LOT more than non-con, even if you schedule P5, because conference games are consistent.    Could you do it with a scheduling agreement with another conference?   Yes, but it couldn't just be some rule that says, "schedule P5"

the Big 10 has a rule that no member can schedule D1-AA any longer

there is nothing that is stopping the Big 12 playing 7 conference games from requiring at least 1 if not two P5 OOC games or at least making a good faith effort to do so or scheduling higher quality G5 games or BYU or Army if there are no P5 teams available

and if conference games were so valuable then the PAC 12 and Big 12 would be earning the most TV dollars not the SEC SEC SEC that plays 8 conference games AND pretty much every team plays a D1-AA team in the OOC......but of course their games and their rankings and ratings are higher because they allow even their shittiest teams to look good by scheduling for wins in the OOC instead of eating shit in an additional conference game or in a  required quality OOC game

[Hurtlocker 2219]

51 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

the Big 10 has a rule that no member can schedule D1-AA any longer

there is nothing that is stopping the Big 12 playing 7 conference games from requiring at least 1 if not two P5 OOC games or at least making a good faith effort to do so or scheduling higher quality G5 games or BYU or Army if there are no P5 teams available

and if conference games were so valuable then the PAC 12 and Big 12 would be earning the most TV dollars not the SEC SEC SEC that plays 8 conference games AND pretty much every team plays a D1-AA team in the OOC......but of course their games and their rankings and ratings are higher because they allow even their shittiest teams to look good by scheduling for wins in the OOC instead of eating shit in an additional conference game or in a  required quality OOC game

Well, there is a few things at play here it isn't just a straight apples to apples comparison.   The SEC, Big Ten and the Pac 12 have been able to take all of their rights to market since realignment.   The Big 12 has only been able to take its T2.   The T1 deal is old and very under valued.   In 2024-25, for the first time since the conference formed, the Big 12 will finally be taking all of its rights to the market.   At that point you'll be able to compare directly.

So what you're seeing is the Big 12 has stayed competitive, and exceeded in some measures, by moving to 9 conference games.   They literally HAD to do it when they moved to 10 because they had to provide inventory.   

With 12 teams you had:

12 x 4 conference (home games) = 48 games

And with 10 you have:

10 x 4.5 = 45 games

They lost the CCG in the process, but, if they made roughly $4.5m on average per game (more for T1, less for T2) they made:

12 = $216m or $18m per team 

10 = $202.5m or $20m per team

The SEC makes more money than the Big 12 because:

1 - It has updated T1 contracts which pay the most money

2 - They have so much inventory that they can monetize the shitty games better, e.g. the SEC network

The Big 12 makes more money than the Pac/ACC because

1 - It has less unwanted games (only 16% of the B12s games are not on national channels.   The Pac12 has 36% and the SEC/BigTen are closer to 50%.   FS1 is basically the Big 12's conference network)

2 - The playoff revenues are set at around $50m per conference, regardless of size, and the Sugar brings in $40m a year.   That $90m is shared 10 ways, for $9m per school, where the SEC shares it 14 ways, for $6.42 per.  

Of course, none of this takes into consideration that LHN is paying out close to $15m a year, Oklahoma makes around $8m, and Kansas/WVU are just under that in selling these 16% left.  Its like two different ways of getting to the same place.

All I'm saying through all this is WHY we're at 9 games now.   Its why the Big 12 schools got a raise when they went from 12 to 10.  To your point, going to 8 would allow them to do the same bullshit schedules as the SEC/ACC, which does provide results.   But they couldn't drop to 8 conference and keep the money they make.   They won't have enough inventory to fill their requirements.  No one wants 3 games against no ones.   That's why they end up on conference networks.   The Big 12 doesn't have enough inventory to build one of those either, so unless it expands, it won't be going to 8 conference games, unless it is tied to a scheduling agreement with a P5 conference.

[ButtFumble 5287]

2 minutes ago, Hurtlocker said:

Well, there is a few things at play here it isn't just a straight apples to apples comparison.   The SEC, Big Ten and the Pac 12 have been able to take all of their rights to market since realignment.   The Big 12 has only been able to take its T2.   The T1 deal is old and very under valued.   In 2024-25, for the first time since the conference formed, the Big 12 will finally be taking all of its rights to the market.   At that point you'll be able to compare directly.

 

this is incorrect

the Big 12 Tier 1 contract was set to end in 2015/16

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/05/televison-contract-breakdown/

the Big 12 Tier 2 contract was renewed in 2011 when the Big 12 was 10 teams with aggy and MU, but it was known changes were coming that is why that contract required 10 teams (and why the Big 12 could not wait on Louisville to fuck around and break up with the Big East gently

https://247sports.com/college/texas/Board/21/Contents/Big-12-signs-TV-deal-with-Fox-Sports-2857077/

ESPN said they would keep the tier 1 contract whole paying for what was 12 teams and with a CCG, but then with only 10 teams and no CCG

after TCU and WVU were added ESPN approached the Big 12 about renewing the existing contract 3 years early and in Sept of 2012 ESPN, Fox and the Big 12 all sdgned the current deals

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/campus-corner/article308164/Big-12-announces-new-TV-deal-with-ESPN-and-Fox.html

http://www.espn.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/3163/a-comparison-conference-television-deals

the main deal with Fox stayed about the same with Fox paying a bit more money to get some better picks during the season and the provision to pay for a CCG and the provision for expansion were included and the deal with ESPN was new and the old one went away

so technically the Big 12 did not take those first tier rights to market, but the Big 12 is not under any part of the past contract with ESPN that was in place before WVU and TCU were added to the Big 12 and when the Big 12 previously had a CCG

if the Big 12 had not done a new deal with ESPN they would have been $4 to $6 million behind the other conferences for the final 3 years of the deal because the old deal was for $60 million per year (that was with 12 teams and the CCG) and that would have been $6 million per member plus the existing members splitting the exit fees from NU, CU, MU and aggy and the total package being $15 million per team (excluding the exit fees) because the Fox tier 2 deal was actually paying $90 million per year or $9 million per team on average

the new deal with ESPN was for about $1.4 billion over 13 years (to match with Fox and their $1.17 billion) and again Fox kicked in a bit more to get the whole contract to $2.6 billion over 13 years or $20 million per team on average plus provisions for a CCG and expansion

and actually the SEC SEC SEC has a very dated tier 1 contract with CBS that buys the SEC SEC SEC game of the week and the CCG and that is all and known idiot Travis Clay is still all butt hurt that CBS only renegotiated with the SEC SEC SEC for adding aggy and MU by allowing the SEC SEC SEC to have other games shown at the same time as the game of the week.....Travis Clay thought that CBS should have paid more money, but that is stupid (just like he is) because CBS still only gets one game a week and the CCG so they do not give a shit how many total games the SEC SEC SEC plays.....the new money for the SEC SEC SEC was their network and some money on the tier 2 (that has never been released) and a rumored extension of the SEC SEC SEC tier 2 deal with ESPN that moved some of that content to the network as well and extended it until 2031/32 <- rumored

 

[Valmy77 13626]

2 hours ago, Hurtlocker said:

Just spit balling here, but how about Baylor?

I think that sounds like a reasonable suggestion.

[Valmy77 13626]

2 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

9 conference games is detrimental to the long term success of the conference and it hurts the strength of schedule of the top conference teams the most

Yes but not playing every team in your conference every year is garbage and horrible. So it really is a balancing act between not being garbage and horrible and attempting to game the system by over-inflating the records of your teams by scheduling garbage and horrible games nobody wants to see.

[ButtFumble 5287]

9 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

Yes but not playing every team in your conference every year is garbage and horrible. So it really is a balancing act between not being garbage and horrible and attempting to game the system by over-inflating the records of your teams by scheduling garbage and horrible games nobody wants to see.

it has been a long long time since most teams in a conference played each other every year and the conferences that did that died (SWC) or expanded

there is nothing magical or amazing about every team playing every other team in the conference every year and in fact that seems to not interest most people

if you look back there have been and still are a lot of games that are big time games that are OOC.....Texas/OU was a major annual OOC game forever, Clemson/SC, Georgia/GT Florida/FSU

again some teams in the Big 12 MIGHT go with a full on garbage schedule (or as much garbage as the conference allows), but that does not mean Texas needs to do the same or that Texas would

and that is BETTER for Texas fans because it is clear that Texas can get quality OOC games and it is better for the SOS of Texas if the teams in the conference that Texas fans do not give a shit about have better records when they do play even if those records are against garbage

it is clear as day that no one gives a fuck about the Big 12 and their stupid marketing pitched about one true champion, or the best way to crown a conference winner or everyone plays everyone....that shit impresses no one and no other conference out there is looking to shrink in numbers and even if they wanted to that is next to impossible so sitting around thinking that the Big 12 is not going to suck ass playing 9 conference games is ignoring the truth of what many PAC 12 coaches know, that has been mathematically proven with a detailed study on the PAC 12 and what the Big 10 is rapidly finding out and what the Big 12 should have figured out after the first year

every other conference out there has major flaws for Texas.....terrible half of the PAC 12 and terrible game times, terrible half of the Big 10 and cold ass places no one wants to go, the ACC is filled with suck and the SEC SEC SEC is the SEC SEC SEC and Texas has said 3 times at least they have no interest in associating with that....that is for aggy to relish

so the simple answer is stop clinging to an idea that has failed multiple times and is failing again, stop clinging tightly to teams that Texas fans do not care a great deal about playing and get some freedom to have a better schedule AND allow other teams in the conference to schedule for their needs instead of sitting around saying "who cares if we only won 5 games this year we had a home game with Texas or OU to bring in the fans"

 

[ADHD 28]

Big10. let's Go.

[clapclapclap 9000]

2 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

His choice of which ones to capitalize always flummoxes me.  

My favorite Dr. Seuss book is the one with the Flummoxes.

Edited December 8, 2018 by clapclapclap

[Valmy77 13626]

36 minutes ago, ADHD said:

Big10. let's Go.

Hell no. What is wrong with you people? 

The best option, and really the only option, is the SEC and even that option sucks.

Edited December 8, 2018 by Valmy77

[wood 11764]

5 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

That is a lot of words 

Words, words, words and some numbers ...

[ADHD 28]

Yeah I didn't understand it.

[Bullneck 19517]

[US183 163]

9 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

That is a lot of words 

And now my mind is bent 

[kopp0e 1135]

8 hours ago, MillerEP said:

The better answer is to force the other conferences to shed some teams and all go 10 teams. The first school anyone should drop is aggy.

So, the XII actually seems progressive at this point, since OU by itself has tied the 14 member B1G in having 3 CFP invites..?

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/dphG/big-12-...y-game-matters Just another reason to point out, in the XII: #EveryGameMatters

 

Hmmm... So, if the 5 of ACC/ B1G/ SEC/ XII/ PAC only had *(about) 10 member rosters, they might shake out like this:

ACC (10 members)

Florida State
Georgia Tech
Clemson
NC State
North Carolina
Virginia
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Boston College
Notre Dame

...

B1G (10 members)

Maryland
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa

...

SEC (11 members)

Florida
Georgia
South Carolina
West Virginia
Kentucky
Tennessee
Alabama
Ole Miss
LSU
Oklahoma State
Texas A&M

...

X10 (10 members)

Nebraska
Iowa State
Kansas
Missouri
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Texas
Texas Tech
Colorado
Utah

...

PAC (9 members)

Washington
Oregon
California
UCLA
USC
UNLV
Arizona
Arizona State
New Mexico

...

All teams in each conference have an 8 game league schedule, allowing 4 out of conference games per season...

Edited December 8, 2018 by kopp0e

[Extra Anejo 99]

I like the Big12 round robin scheduling better than anything else I've heard. I can see people not liking some of the teams in the conference but that is is part of what makes college football great. If it weren't for aTm and Baylor, we would have to hate on TCU and Tech, well some us do already.

[Newy25 7916]

10 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

That is a lot of words 

Why say what you mean in 100 words when 1,000 will do? 

[Gucci_Suit 2823]

So realignment talk has not gone away?

[markstanco 12786]

Most of which I didn't understand.

The big 10 was smart until they weren't.

[Hozz 1035]

CCGs are stupid and they can just as easily screw a conference out of a CFP spot as they can solidify one.

Get rid of them and go to an 8 team playoff.  Season does not get any longer that way.  Also, get rid of divisions.  With SEC soft scheduling, each team only plays their non-rival in the other division once every six years.  Absurd.  It's how we are playing Georgia before aggie.

The P5 conferences should all have to play 9 conference games and a team should have to play 11 FBS games to be eligible for playoff consideration.

[kopp0e 1135]

20 minutes ago, markstanco said:

10 hours ago, DaysOff said:

Most of which I didn't understand.

The big 10 was smart until they weren't.

#Verified...

[Ghost of Shag 2730]

I think I’m too stupid to understand OP’s post.

[runthebone 8376]

This is a one-man conference realignment thread!

[ImissWallyPryor 9046]

Can someone please point me to which overly wordy posts are worth the time reading?

[Machinator 32103]

PM Derka.

[ABSR 5369]

11 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

9 conference games is detrimental to the long term success of the conference and it hurts the strength of schedule of the top conference teams the most

9 conference games are fine so long as every conference has to play 9.  Either make that a rule or we should drop to 8.  Magically we would become a better conference.

My bet is if everyone went to 8, the mighty SEC would drop to 7....cause they are that tough and strong it would only be “fair”.

Edited December 8, 2018 by ABSR

[TreatyOak 17368]

[ButtFumble 5287]

13 minutes ago, ABSR said:

9 conference games are fine so long as every conference has to play 9.  Either make that a rule or we should drop to 8.  Magically we would become a better conference.

My bet is if everyone went to 8, the mighty SEC would drop to 7....cause they are that tough and strong it would only be “fair”.

9 conference games is still the worst for the Big 12 because there is never a chance to have a CCG with two undefeated teams no matter what happens in the season

and there is never a chance to have a CCG with two teams that have not already played in the regular season

plus split into divisions the right way the Big 12 would have the most equal divisions of all the conferences and even with 7 conference games the Big 12 would still play all the teams in the conference more frequently than any other conference

[El Hornarino 377]

The "best" thing would be for a selection of Big 12 and PAC teams to form a new conference, which would result in four power conferences.

Anyway, it is funny how conference big wigs like to overreact to CFP selections with changes, ignoring the fact that the CFP makes up whatever criteria they want for inclusion each year.  All the Big Ten really needs to do is tell Ohio State not to get blown out once a year, as opposed to changing the B1G championship game.

Edited December 8, 2018 by El Hornarino

[shakahorn 1656]

11 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

His choice of which ones to capitalize always flummoxes me.  

Must...resist...borderline CR joke...

[BurntOrange&White 41848]

12 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

9 conference games is detrimental to the long term success of the conference and it hurts the strength of schedule of the top conference teams the most

Fuck that, SEC should be playing 9 conference games. The fucking end of the year FCS teams they schedule is bullshit.

[CfRhTxStBobcats 608]

This thread reminds me a lot of realignment talk not going away.

[David Dennison 19534]

Join the SEC. Problem solved.

[ButtFumble 5287]

15 minutes ago, Bevo VIII said:

Fuck that, SEC should be playing 9 conference games. The fucking end of the year FCS teams they schedule is bullshit.

two of the main issues with the Big 12 are trying to be like other conferences and worrying about what other conferences do

the third biggest issue is thinking that people give a shit about bad conference games just because they are conference games

the fourth issue is giving in to teams in the conference that wish they could make the playoffs, but know there is little chance of it so they satisfy their fan base with "the big game" every season  being UT or OU and or they cling to the idea that their fans give a shit about other games because they are Big 12 conference games

those teams are not willing to take the chance that they might go 4 years without having UT or OU at home Vs scheduling other teams their fans would give a shit about and or actually getting a program that wins 6 or 7 games a year consistently and makes a bowl game with a chance to win 7 or 8 years and then build up from there

the fifth biggest issue with the Big 12 is thinking that the SEC SEC SEC is the only conference that matters when it comes to how the Big 12 looks overall in the world of college football

the SEC SEC SEC is not going to just roll over and play 9 conference games or do a bunch of other (generally stupid) shit that lessens the chance for their lower level teams to have a winning season semi-consistently while the PAC 12, ACC and Big 10 are all about doing those stupid things......unfortunately the Big 12 is more than willing to follow the Big 10, PAC 12 and ACC into doing stupid shit while complaining about the SEC SEC SEC.....instead of the Big 12 doing smart shit that helps the Big 12 most of all

Edited December 8, 2018 by ButtFumble

[Fudge Nuggets 19453]

Still trying to figure out if there was a point in the OP.  It doesn't appear so.

[ButtFumble 5287]

Just now, Fudge Nuggets said:

Still trying to figure out if there was a point in the OP.  It doesn't appear so.

the point of the thread to start was that the Big 10 does not understand that the Big 10 was responsible for making a change to CCG deregulation that prevents the Big 10 from staging their CCG in the fashion they are now considering....and the Big 10 specifically did it to fuck over the ACC to the point that the ACC that first proposed CCG deregulation ended up and voted against it because of how the Big 10 forced the CCG deregulation rules to be written

[David Dennison 19534]

3 minutes ago, ButtFumble said:

two of the main issues with the Big 12 are trying to be like other conferences and worrying about what other conferences do

the third biggest issue is thinking that people give a shit about bad conference games just because they are conference games

the fourth issue is giving in to teams in the conference that wish they could make the playoffs, but know there is little chance of it so they satisfy their fan base with "the big game" every season  being UT or OU and or they cling to the idea that their fans give a shit about other games because they are Big 12 conference games

those teams are not willing to take the chance that they might go 4 years without having UT or OU at home Vs scheduling other teams their fans would give a shit about and or actually getting a program that wins 6 or 7 games a year consistently and makes a bowl game with a chance to win 7 or 8 years and then build up from there

the fifth biggest issue with the Big 12 is thinking that the SEC SEC SEC is the only conference that matters when it comes to how the Big 12 looks overall in the world of college football

the SEC SEC SEC is not going to just roll over and play 9 conference games or do a bunch of other (generally stupid) shit that lessens the chance for their lower level teams to have a winning season semi-consistently while the PAC 12, ACC and Big 10 are all about doing those stupid things......unfortunately the Big 12 is more than willing to follow the Big 10, PAC 12 and ACC into doing stupid shit while complaining about the SEC SEC SEC.....instead of the Big 12 doing smart shit that helps the Big 12 most of all

The Big 12 is garbage. Texas should do what's best for Texas.

[ButtFumble 5287]

Just now, David Dennison said:

The Big 12 is garbage. Texas should do what's best for Texas.

and that would IMO be reducing the number of conference games played by two

because every other option is just as shitty and is in IMO actually shittier.....moving to the PAC 12 sucks dicks especially being in the shitty half og the PAC 12 and rarely if ever seeing the couple of good teams in the other division.....same with the Big 10 and the ACC and he SEC SEC SEC is a place where Texas has repeatedly stated they do not wish to associate themselves and going back on that especially following aggy sucks dicks.....not to mention every other conference would be dramatically easier for their two or three good teams to consistently be at the top of the conference and rankings Vs the SEC SEC SEC

[David Dennison 19534]

Just now, ButtFumble said:

and that would IMO be reducing the number of conference games played by two

because every other option is just as shitty and is in IMO actually shittier.....moving to the PAC 12 sucks dicks especially being in the shitty half og the PAC 12 and rarely if ever seeing the couple of good teams in the other division.....same with the Big 10 and the ACC and he SEC SEC SEC is a place where Texas has repeatedly stated they do not wish to associate themselves and going back on that especially following aggy sucks dicks.....not to mention every other conference would be dramatically easier for their two or three good teams to consistently be at the top of the conference and rankings Vs the SEC SEC SEC

The SEC is the best option if you care about Texas sports.

Academically, well . . .