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

[Mr_Tomahawk]

The BigXII shot itself in the foot yesterday with the round-robin setup. 4 of the 5 P5 conferences have a championship game. The higher seed in each of those games got into the playoffs...whether those are the 4 top teams or not. I don't think FSU or OSU are a top 4 team...but that's for another thread.

The Big12 is going to be relying on the lower seed to win one of these championship games from her on out if they choose not to have a B12 CCG. IMO, that isn't a good way to get your conference represented in the playoffs...
The round-robin is cute...but until they expand to 8 teams. The B12 could find themselves in this situation more often than Not.

The Baylor vs KSU was the championship argument is flawed as is the B12 could have had 2 teams in the playoffs...

So....to get the B12 back to....12 teams, what two teams would you add?

Poll to come...

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The Big 12 is going to ask for a waiver to that rule (ie able to play CCG with 10 teams and without 2 divisions), and they'll probably get it.

What makes you think they will get it?

[alnorth]

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.

The co-champion thing is not the problem. Briles (coach for Baylor) is an idiot.

The committee made it quite clear what the issue was: the other teams all played 13 games, and that apparently mattered a lot. They accepted that both teams were champions, so they compared champions who played 12 games to champions who played 13.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

What makes you think they will get it?

There is really no good reason why they wouldn't. I've seen a couple writers even go so far as call it an "uncontroversial request"

edit: the ACC has also petitioned to deregulate the championship game along with the Big 12. In the ACC's case, they want their top 2 teams to play regardless of division.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by alnorth

There is really no good reason why they wouldn't. I've seen a couple writers even go so far as call it an "uncontroversial request"

edit: the ACC has also petitioned to deregulate the championship game along with the Big 12. In the ACC's case, they want their top 2 teams to play regardless of division.

Why would the B1G, PAC, and SEC agree to it?

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Why would the B1G, PAC, and SEC agree to it?

First of all this does not fall under the new P5 autonomy structure, so they don't need approval from another P5 conference. Second of all, there is no reason why they wouldn't.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Why would the B1G, PAC, and SEC agree to it?

Why indeed would they, as I said earlier, would they consent to giving the Big 12 a handicapped space - which would almost certainly cost them a spot down the road?

[Mr. Laz]

No Big 12 championship game is just the latest excuse for the 'bowl committee' to select teams they want for the games they want.

[cmh6476]

It would have been funny and more fitting if MU was still in the Big 12, and they got snubbed instead of TCU or Baylor.

[KChiefs1]

Originally Posted by cmh6476

It would have been funny and more fitting if MU was still in the Big 12, and they got snubbed instead of TCU or Baylor.

We are in the SEC now where we are appreciated.

Cotton last year & Citrus this year.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

We are in the SEC now where we are appreciated.

Cotton last year & Citrus this year.

I'm trying to remember who participated in those bowls last year.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Why would the B1G, PAC, and SEC agree to it?

Who says they have to agree to it?

[WilliamTheIrish]

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

We are in the SEC now where we are appreciated. as anonymous and crying about SEC bias in the CCG as we did in the Big XII

Cotton last year & Citrus this year.

The fix is in.

[cmh6476]

Originally Posted by KChiefs1

We are in the SEC now where we are appreciated.

Cotton last year & Citrus this year.

Orange in 2008 (Scoreboard!@#!#)

[mikeyis4dcats.]

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.

agreed, it was a convenient excuse for the snub they wanted to do anyway.

NO ONE ever didn't invite a Big10 team to a BCS game when they didn't have a CCG. But now the Big 12 is a pariah because we don't have one.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

agreed, it was a convenient excuse for the snub they wanted to do anyway.

NO ONE ever didn't invite a Big10 team to a BCS game when they didn't have a CCG. But now the Big 12 is a pariah because we don't have one.

Why do you think that is? I think you can figure it out.