Conference Realignment Spin-off: Who should the B12 add...?

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

Both schools were rumored to be interested back when all the conference shuffling started.

Arrogance will be the down fall of the big 12. Sooner the better.

[ChiTown]

Originally Posted by Mr. Laz

Both schools were rumored to be interested back when all the conference shuffling started.

Right. I'm saying that that ship has sailed at this point.

[BWillie]

ZERO TEAMS FROM TEXAS

I'd go with teams with huge enrollments. Cincinnati and Central Florida. Central Florida has one of the largest enrollments in the United States. It is a sleeping giant if they can just get momentum to build a football program.

[Mr_Tomahawk]

Originally Posted by BWillie

ZERO TEAMS FROM TEXAS

I'd go with teams with huge enrollments. Cincinnati and Central Florida. Central Florida has one of the largest enrollments in the United States. It is a sleeping giant if they can just get momentum to build a football program.

This.

I still love Memphis though....I think there is a lot of potential as well.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk

This.

I still love Memphis though....I think there is a lot of potential as well.

21,000 students, very regional school. Bad academics. Terrible football program.

Love it for basketball, hate it for anything else. I would rather have BYU or Colorado State before Memfizz.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by BWillie

21,000 students, very regional school. Bad academics. Terrible football program.

Love it for basketball, hate it for anything else. I would rather have BYU or Colorado State before Memfizz.

Sounds a little bit like South Carolina when the SEC picked them up. Memphis also has Fed-Ex money...not quite Nike at Oregon, but similar to T. Boone and Oklahoma State.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by BWillie

ZERO TEAMS FROM TEXAS

I'd go with teams with huge enrollments. Cincinnati and Central Florida. Central Florida has one of the largest enrollments in the United States. It is a sleeping giant if they can just get momentum to build a football program.

UCF's got a huge enrollment, but it's a commuter school...more of a community college feel to it. Cincy is similar in some ways, but they have much more university pride from their alums.

Neither would be a bad choice given the available options. BYU and Memphis would be the other two that would be worth at least considering.

[GloucesterChief]

Originally Posted by BWillie

ZERO TEAMS FROM TEXAS

I'd go with teams with huge enrollments. Cincinnati and Central Florida. Central Florida has one of the largest enrollments in the United States. It is a sleeping giant if they can just get momentum to build a football program.

Good luck with that. ASU is similar (in fact has a larger enrollment) and while they have had some very good teams they have been unable to supplant USC, UCLA, or now Oregon as the dominant teams in the conference.

[BWillie]

I'm actually tired of everyone dogging on the Big 12 for the co-champions thing. If the committee can't think for themselves, then what good is it? Them crowing a co-champion or not should have absolutely no bearing on the selection process. None.

And, think about this. Every other conference plays EIGHT games. EVERYONE in the Big 12 plays NINE. AND, if it was split into divisions like every other conference, it would have set K-State vs Baylor for the championship game, which Baylor won anyway. So I don't quite understand the backlash against Bowlsby and the B12. People on the committee are paid to do critical thinking and see these things. If they can't, the committee has failed CFF.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by BWillie

I'm actually tired of everyone dogging on the Big 12 for the co-champions thing. If the committee can't think for themselves, then what good is it? Them crowing a co-champion or not should have absolutely no bearing on the selection process. None.

And, think about this. Every other conference plays EIGHT games. EVERYONE in the Big 12 plays NINE. AND, if it was split into divisions like every other conference, it would have set K-State vs Baylor for the championship game, which Baylor won anyway. So I don't quite understand the backlash against Bowlsby and the B12. People on the committee are paid to do critical thinking and see these things. If they can't, the committee has failed CFF.

Bowlsby went on record saying that head to head would determine the champion. Then, when he thought he could sneak two teams in, he flipped and said there would be co-champions. He tried to have it both ways. Smallest conference, twice as many "champions", duck a CCG, and get an extra off week... The committee isn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why should they?

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Bowlsby went on record saying that head to head would determine the champion. Then, when he thought he could sneak two teams in, he flipped and said there would be co-champions. He tried to have it both ways. Smallest conference, twice as many "champions", duck a CCG, and get an extra off week... The committee isn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why should they?

Why should the committee take into account if they have a little crown or star next to their name? Like I said, IT SHOULD NOT MATTER to the committee. THey should look at it as two 11-1 teams, look at the resume, that is it. The committee shouldn't give any shits about who is TECHNICALLY crowned conference champion.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Why should the committee take into account if they have a little crown or star next to their name? Like I said, IT SHOULD NOT MATTER to the committee. THey should look at it as two 11-1 teams, look at the resume, that is it. The committee shouldn't give any shits about who is TECHNICALLY crowned conference champion.

I'm not saying they should...but they made it clear long ago that they do. Don't like it? Get your conference up to 12+ teams like everyone else. Don't like the choices out there? Then you shouldn't have run your conference so poorly that a third of your conference sprinted off to greener pastures.

Pretending you didn't know that the parameters included an emphasis on conference champions sure as shit isn't the answer.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Why should the committee take into account if they have a little crown or star next to their name? Like I said, IT SHOULD NOT MATTER to the committee. THey should look at it as two 11-1 teams, look at the resume, that is it. The committee shouldn't give any shits about who is TECHNICALLY crowned conference champion.

The committee said months ago it DIDN'T matter. Then it did.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Bowlsby went on record saying that head to head would determine the champion. Then, when he thought he could sneak two teams in, he flipped and said there would be co-champions. He tried to have it both ways. Smallest conference, twice as many "champions", duck a CCG, and get an extra off week... The committee isn't going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Why should they?

how did the Big 12 get an extra week off?

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

how did the Big 12 get an extra week off?

Really? Your season started at the same time as every other conference, but it ended a week later. You didn't play any more games than the other conferences, so there must have been an extra week off in there somewhere, right?