Jump to content

camel at sea

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    717
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by camel at sea

  1. Pretty much every member of the Big 12 is individually more valuable than every member of the AAC. If you wanted to quibble about a couple, I hear you, but the Big 12 + a few AAC >>> the AAC + a few Big 12 members. There are HS football teams in Texas with more fans than Tulsa. Tulane and some others aren't much better.
  2. That's what I said upthread and it makes the most sense. The rest of the Big 12 + a few AAC schools is still arguably a top 2 basketball conference nationally. With the expanded playoff, one or more of those "other 8" are going to start winning more games than they ever have and they'll be making the expanded CFP semi-regularly, too.
  3. I'd guess they negotiate a mid-length deal and come back to the table in a few years with TV numbers that are closer to being PAC/ACCish than MWCish. They'll also be an elite basketball league... which matters somewhat, too.
  4. That implies any of them have a place to go. If they don't, then it's fine.
  5. If the rest of the Big 12 decides to take a breath, this isn't all bad. The playoff access will remain if they stick together. And the Norman, Oklahoma roadblock to making the playoff is gone. Even weaker, the Big 12 is all but a lock to be a Top 5 conference champ and the Big 12 runner-up would regularly be in the mix for a 2nd spot with 2 or fewer losses. OSU, ISU, TCU, Tech, etc., will never have had a better opportunity to elevate their football brands.
  6. The easiest answer to in-state politics is for the Big 12 to survive and remain a power conference. If OSU has a P5 conference (even a much weaker one) with playoff access, OU is going to be able to leave without any pushback. In the case of Texas politics... there's an open door now for the Big 12 to add SMU and Houston. If so, then that increases the number of P5 teams in the state of Texas to seven. That's a win for the state legislature.
  7. Why would Big 12 schools (other than UT and OU) suddenly become additive to the other P5 leagues in this scenario? The 8 remaining Big 12 schools could backfill with AAC schools, continue to be elite in basketball, good in Olympics, and they continue to have CFP access. WVU, Cincy, Mem, ISU, KSU, KU OSU, Tech, SMU, TCU, BU, Houston
  8. Trying to force everything down into 4 super conferences is too messy and too complicated. It's also unnecessary in an expanded playoff. You can just fix the five conferences in place by shuffling a few teams around, though. B12N: OU, OSU, KU, KSU, Nebr, ISU B12S: UT, TTU, Mizzou, TCU, Arky, BU B1GW: Min, Iowa, Ill, NW, Wisky, MSU, Mich B1GE: MD, Purd, Indi, Rutg, Cuse, PSU, tOSU ACCC: FSU, CU, UL, BC, WF, UVA ACCA: UM, GT, WVU, Pitt, DU, UNC SECE: UF, UGA, Aub, USC, NC St, VT, UK SECW: Tenn, LSU, Bama, A&M, MSU, OM, Vandy The PAC can stay the way it is. If someone decides CU needs to return to the Big 12 for interest/rivalry purposes, you could probably put them in the North and add Houston to the South. The PAC could backfill the Buffs with SDSU. The Aztecs are competitive, their academics are P5 worthy, and there is no pro football team in that market anymore.
  9. Agreed on Arky. They're basically Oklahoma State but with much deeper pockets. That's a Top 15 football program in the Big 12 with the right hire at HC. Ironically, they'd start winning some recruiting battles against SECW schools, that they lose now, if they were actually winning in the Big 12 with a number next to their name on Saturdays. Nebraska is a wash competitively. But their ability to recruit improves with a move back to the Big 12. Their fan interest/happiness probably improves, too. IMO, most of the noise at OU has been Astroturf for a few years now. The noise is relevant in the sense that someone (inside OU or outside) is trying to influence things in a particular direction. But I don't think there' s a big groundswell of CR angst. The OU realignment thread is basically the same 8 posters arguing the same points over and over.
  10. In the last 15 or so years, Wisconsin/Iowa isn't really any different than Frogs/Pokes.
  11. 'Horns Down' wasn't always treated as a taunt by the officials (anymore than throwing Horns Up might be considered a taunt.) As long as it's not right in someone's face, who really cares? For whatever reason, the league office started treating the gesture like throwing up a middle finger a few years ago. A WVU wr (Sills?) got flagged for it - not in anyone's face - and the whole conversation has been out of hand ever since. I always assumed Herman was behind the officiating emphasis considering the start of his tenure overlaps with the change.
  12. Eh, I think A&M is clearly better off (fan support, money, national perception, etc.) even if the results are similar. They never have their self-delusions challenged by anyone in-state anymore, either. The other three though definitely hurt themselves. Nebraska fans pretty openly hate the Big Ten. Mizzou fans don't show up for football or basketball as well as they did during the last few years of their Big 12 days. Colorado was already trending down ten years ago but it has gotten worse AND they're making less money. If I were CFB czar, I'd move NU, Arky, and Mizzou to the Big 12. I'd park WVU in the SEC b/c I think the 'eers playing Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, etc. would be fun to watch on TV. Something like this would be fun for the Big 12: N: OU, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU, NU S: UT, TTU, MU, TCU, BU, Arky That's better for fan interest, it's better for TV (lots of god potential Tier 1 inventory there), it doesn't subtract from Olympic sports, and the travel is easy for everyone.
  13. For inexplicable reasons, NU didn't prioritize TX recruiting for the duration of their time in the Big 12... until Pelini started trying a couple of years before they left. At a bare minimum, a competent coach in Lincoln could recruit Texas as well as Gary Pinkel did when he was at Mizzou. Mizzou was horrible when Pinkel arrived. He built them into a Top 20ish program that won multiple division titles. NU would kill to be at that level right now . In the Big Ten, NU is stuck trying to recruit nationally without stable "local" pipelines to build on as a talent base.
  14. The hate is why they should be here. Bring back Corn and then swap WVU for Arky. Texas and OU both get their secondary rivals back. Corn and Arky get the potential for national relevance back. The TV side gets a higher audience ceiling ($) for our Tier 1 football inventory.
  15. Sarcasm or not, their athletic department would be better off in the Big 12.
  16. The committee membership is the "structural protection." After your six champs get in, you can probably pencil in two more from the B1G and SEC most years just because of the number of members both conferences will have on the committee. That's ten of the 12 right there. The SEC *might* get one of the two remaining bids but most likely those last two spots will be a competition between ND, Big 12 #2, PAC #2, and ACC #2.
  17. North: OU, OSU, KU, KSU, ISU South: UT, TTU, BU, TCU, WVU Play your division and the cross-division opponent. Miss one of the other four teams from the other division every year. Since playing an 8 game slate hurts financially, the Big 12 could probably try working out a mutually beneficial annual OOC series with the ACC. We wouldn't own the away end of those games but it would give the Big 12 more guaranteed inventory to take to the TV partners when negotiating than only an 8 game conference slate. Maybe that makes the money good enough. Setting up a series with the ACC would work well because they have 14 schools. They'd have flexibility to accommodate their members who have permanent SEC OOC rivals. I'd imagine Clemson/FSU would want to be involved frequently but they wouldn't have to be. Getting OOC visits from VaTech, UNC, Miami, Clemson, FSU, etc., in place of a 9th conference game, solves a lot of the home schedule complaints in Austin and in Norman. Nobody would have to see each other so often that the opponent becomes stale.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. The SEC has been gaming the system and padding win totals for decades. There are a ton of intra-conference games in that league that were never played very often even before Arky and South Carolina were added. They were fortunate enough to operate this way before TV money was ever involved. As a result, they have a lot of big brand schools, with big TV viewership and big fanbases. The Big 12 can try to game the system, too, but it will take decades to catch up. Our second tier schools much more closely resemble the middle of the ACC than the middle of the SEC. Texas and OU are not going to hang around making less money while Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, etc., start to look more like Auburn, Tennessee, etc. Further, those schools are never going to catch up, win padding or not, if they're making significantly less money than their middle of the pack SEC counter-parts. The Big 12 either plays a 9 game conference slate to keep pace financially, or we take a big pay-cut to do win padding like you are suggesting. We cannot make competitive money AND do win padding with our current lineup. We need to add back 2-3 programs with huge fanbases to even have that discussion.
  24. Yep. The SEC's conference games are worth more than the in-league games of the Big 12. This gives them the ability to only play 8 instead of 9 without falling behind. As a result, then they can game the system w/ OOC schedule and build themselves up even farther. The Big 12 can do what the ACC is doing and try to play fewer conference games to build up our brands with inflated records... but our inventory is not worth as much, so we're going to be in a financial hole (like the ACC) if we try it.
  25. Should be interesting to see which of SMU, Houston, Tech, TCU, and Baylor make the 12 team playoff first and then most often.
×
×
  • Create New...