(02-21-2013 12:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:08 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  Taking a step back, why would other conferences care if a league with 10 members hosts a championship game? Heck, I've heard the argument that not having a champ game is an advantage since it is one less chance a team can get upset and fall out of the top 2 or 4.

It is an advantage if your top team is undefeated... an undefeated team from a top league will be in the playoff regardless, so no need to risk a loss in a 13th game against a good opponent.

If the playoff money is good enough, the SEC might even think about dumping its conference title game and just designating "SEC East champions" and "SEC West champions". If the current reputation of the SEC holds, then a one-loss SEC division champ has an excellent chance of being in a playoff and the SEC has an even better chance of placing two teams in the playoff. Why saddle one of those division champs with an extra loss by playing a conference title game?

I think that's exactly where the "deregulation" sentiment out there comes from. Why should the NCAA dictate how conferences crown their champs?

Heck, if it was the BCS or playoff entity dictating this it might make more sense, but why the NCAA (who has little to do with the postseason)?

(02-21-2013 11:53 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:58 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Bowlsby...at all.

Why? What has he done so far to alienate anyone?

I tend to agree with you, Doc. But there are some people within the WVU fanbase that live and breath expansion for expansion's sake. So it doesn't surprise me that his reluctance to push an expansionist agenda has caused some WVU fans to take an antagonistic view against him...

(02-21-2013 11:53 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:58 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Bowlsby...at all.

Why? What has he done so far to alienate anyone?

He hasn't done a single thing since becoming the commish. Well he repeats the "we are happy at 10" party line often. If the Big 12 doesn't expand then its F'd, that's the bottom line and if the Big 12 is F'd then so is WVU.

(02-21-2013 01:58 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:53 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:58 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Bowlsby...at all.

Why? What has he done so far to alienate anyone?

I tend to agree with you, Doc. But there are some people within the WVU fanbase that live and breath expansion for expansion's sake. So it doesn't surprise me that his reluctance to push an expansionist agenda has caused some WVU fans to take an antagonistic view against him...

You're blind if you can't see not expanding will be detrimental to WVU and I know for a fact people in WVUs AD feel the same way. Without eastern expansion the Big 12 is a terrible home for WVU long term

(02-21-2013 02:05 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:53 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:58 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Bowlsby...at all.

Why? What has he done so far to alienate anyone?

He hasn't done a single thing since becoming the commish. Well he repeats the "we are happy at 10" party line often. If the Big 12 doesn't expand then its F'd, that's the bottom line and if the Big 12 is F'd then so is WVU.

I think it is clear the B-12 wants to expand, but no one we want wants to join right now.

(02-21-2013 02:11 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 02:05 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:53 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:58 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Bowlsby...at all.

Why? What has he done so far to alienate anyone?

He hasn't done a single thing since becoming the commish. Well he repeats the "we are happy at 10" party line often. If the Big 12 doesn't expand then its F'd, that's the bottom line and if the Big 12 is F'd then so is WVU.

I think it is clear the B-12 wants to expand, but no one we want wants to join right now.

Some days I think that's true and others I think some conference members really are happy at 10. I don't want to expand just for expansions sake and I understand having to wait till more attractive teams become available.

Bowlsby just doesn't come across as a strong leader to me.

(02-21-2013 02:15 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 02:11 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 02:05 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:53 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:58 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Bowlsby...at all.

Why? What has he done so far to alienate anyone?

He hasn't done a single thing since becoming the commish. Well he repeats the "we are happy at 10" party line often. If the Big 12 doesn't expand then its F'd, that's the bottom line and if the Big 12 is F'd then so is WVU.

I think it is clear the B-12 wants to expand, but no one we want wants to join right now.

Some days I think that's true and others I think some conference members really are happy at 10. I don't want to expand just for expansions sake and I understand having to wait till more attractive teams become available.

Bowlsby just doesn't come across as a strong leader to me.

He's running a delay handoff here- he is being patient and waiting for guard to pull and open the hole. If he goes right with the snap, he'll run headfirst into a D-lineman.

(02-21-2013 02:09 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:58 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:53 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:58 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Bowlsby...at all.

Why? What has he done so far to alienate anyone?

I tend to agree with you, Doc. But there are some people within the WVU fanbase that live and breath expansion for expansion's sake. So it doesn't surprise me that his reluctance to push an expansionist agenda has caused some WVU fans to take an antagonistic view against him...

You're blind if you can't see not expanding will be detrimental to WVU and I know for a fact people in WVUs AD feel the same way. Without eastern expansion the Big 12 is a terrible home for WVU long term

I don't think expanding willy nilly is going to benefit the B12. If the B12 does expand, it should be with programs that will keep our payout stable or increase it. Expanding with the wrong schools, just for the sake of expansion, is only going to drop the payout per school, which is NOT the desired result...

The best course of action at the moment is waiting for the right candidates to appear. Now whether that's due to the SEC and B1G starting the ball rolling, making ACC schools available for the picking, or waiting for a school to step up and make themselves worthy is open to question at the moment. But just grabbing schools that have no other options that decrease the payout per school, just for the sake of having more schools won't benefit anyone...

BTW, since WVU has been severed from all their rivals, a 10 team conference is perfect for creating new rivals, which is exactly what WVU needs right now...

(02-21-2013 02:42 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 02:09 PM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 01:58 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 11:53 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:58 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Bowlsby...at all.

Why? What has he done so far to alienate anyone?

I tend to agree with you, Doc. But there are some people within the WVU fanbase that live and breath expansion for expansion's sake. So it doesn't surprise me that his reluctance to push an expansionist agenda has caused some WVU fans to take an antagonistic view against him...

You're blind if you can't see not expanding will be detrimental to WVU and I know for a fact people in WVUs AD feel the same way. Without eastern expansion the Big 12 is a terrible home for WVU long term

I don't think expanding willy nilly is going to benefit the B12. If the B12 does expand, it should be with programs that will keep our payout stable or increase it. Expanding with the wrong schools, just for the sake of expansion, is only going to drop the payout per school, which is NOT the desired result...

The best course of action at the moment is waiting for the right candidates to appear. Now whether that's due to the SEC and B1G starting the ball rolling, making ACC schools available for the picking, or waiting for a school to step up and make themselves worthy is open to question at the moment. But just grabbing schools that have no other options that decrease the payout per school, just for the sake of having more schools won't benefit anyone...

BTW, since WVU has been severed from all their rivals, a 10 team conference is perfect for creating new rivals, which is exactly what WVU needs right now...

Adding to that latter point- Thoroughly enjoyed our time in the MWC developing rivalries, visiting new locales, etc. Some of our BYU and Utah games were more intense than any we had in the SWC (of course being competitive helped...).

(02-21-2013 11:53 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 10:58 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Bowlsby...at all.

Why? What has he done so far to alienate anyone?

It's because he hasn't added FSU yet. The eers believe that FSU is right there and all they have to is call and its done. They've been told this by their bloggers.

The fact is no ACC teams want to join. It's takes two to tango (expand). So, they just blame Bowlsby for it and continue to listen to the dud and mhver.

(02-21-2013 12:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Bowlsby wants the "option" to have a championship game with 10 teams....does not mean they will. He has said before, even if the Big12 expanded to 11 or 12 teams they would not necessarily have a CCG. It appears what he wants is the freedom to have a CCG if a situation develops like the Big12 had last year when KSU and OU tied for the championship.As for being penalized for not having a CCG.....the fact the Big12 plays 9 conference games rather than the usual 8 and a cup cake, will help their strength of schedule in the selection process and that may offset no CCG

How is that a situation to play the game though? KSU had the head to head, no? Now depending on who was home or away, they may want to replay that game at a neutral site, but I would think head to head justifies who the champ is.

In the rare occassion you have 11 or 12 teams, and the top two teams finished tied without having played one another, then you have reason to have a CCG. Not otherwise. Plus having a CCG doesn't break 3-team ties either. So the entire exercise is pointless.

Either every conference has the game or doesn't. It will make things easier selecting the final four teams.

(02-21-2013 03:09 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Bowlsby wants the "option" to have a championship game with 10 teams....does not mean they will. He has said before, even if the Big12 expanded to 11 or 12 teams they would not necessarily have a CCG. It appears what he wants is the freedom to have a CCG if a situation develops like the Big12 had last year when KSU and OU tied for the championship.As for being penalized for not having a CCG.....the fact the Big12 plays 9 conference games rather than the usual 8 and a cup cake, will help their strength of schedule in the selection process and that may offset no CCG

How is that a situation to play the game though? KSU had the head to head, no? Now depending on who was home or away, they may want to replay that game at a neutral site, but I would think head to head justifies who the champ is.

In the rare occassion you have 11 or 12 teams, and the top two teams finished tied without having played one another, then you have reason to have a CCG. Not otherwise. Plus having a CCG doesn't break 3-team ties either. So the entire exercise is pointless.

Either every conference has the game or doesn't. It will make things easier selecting the final four teams.

To the last point- I think you are fooling yourself if you think that each league having a championship game "will make things easier selecting the final four teams". That is going to be hard no matter how rigid the regular season or championship game rules there are. There is always going to be controversy ranking the #3-6 teams.

(02-21-2013 10:14 AM)OldGoldnBlue Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 08:46 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 08:44 AM)pablowow Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 08:25 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  When they start getting snubbed out of the 4th seed, then they will realize how asinine it was to drop a game from the schedule. There is no way the committee is going to reward a team that plays one less game than everyone else.

They are expanding

Cincy and BYU on speed Dial

If they wouldn't take UL why would they suddenly take Cincy?

I honestly believe the Big-12 powers that be thought UL would always be available. UL to the ACC was a surprise to many...most talking heads and speculators like us thought it would be UCONN.

(02-21-2013 03:30 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 03:09 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Bowlsby wants the "option" to have a championship game with 10 teams....does not mean they will. He has said before, even if the Big12 expanded to 11 or 12 teams they would not necessarily have a CCG. It appears what he wants is the freedom to have a CCG if a situation develops like the Big12 had last year when KSU and OU tied for the championship.As for being penalized for not having a CCG.....the fact the Big12 plays 9 conference games rather than the usual 8 and a cup cake, will help their strength of schedule in the selection process and that may offset no CCG

How is that a situation to play the game though? KSU had the head to head, no? Now depending on who was home or away, they may want to replay that game at a neutral site, but I would think head to head justifies who the champ is.

In the rare occassion you have 11 or 12 teams, and the top two teams finished tied without having played one another, then you have reason to have a CCG. Not otherwise. Plus having a CCG doesn't break 3-team ties either. So the entire exercise is pointless.

Either every conference has the game or doesn't. It will make things easier selecting the final four teams.

To the last point- I think you are fooling yourself if you think that each league having a championship game "will make things easier selecting the final four teams". That is going to be hard no matter how rigid the regular season or championship game rules there are. There is always going to be controversy ranking the #3-6 teams.

The problem is less about the playoff and more about keeping up with the changing paradigm of FBS. If every other conference expands to 12, 14 , 16, etc....except the Big-12...it is foolish to think they are not boxing themselves in to a lose-lose situation long term. Sure, the $$ per school are great today, but that is only half the picture.

Every other conference is gobbling up markets and flagship unviersities, while the Big-12 has the contrarion strategy of staying in a 5 state footprint? Ok.

(02-21-2013 03:43 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 03:30 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 03:09 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(02-21-2013 12:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Bowlsby wants the "option" to have a championship game with 10 teams....does not mean they will. He has said before, even if the Big12 expanded to 11 or 12 teams they would not necessarily have a CCG. It appears what he wants is the freedom to have a CCG if a situation develops like the Big12 had last year when KSU and OU tied for the championship.As for being penalized for not having a CCG.....the fact the Big12 plays 9 conference games rather than the usual 8 and a cup cake, will help their strength of schedule in the selection process and that may offset no CCG

How is that a situation to play the game though? KSU had the head to head, no? Now depending on who was home or away, they may want to replay that game at a neutral site, but I would think head to head justifies who the champ is.

In the rare occassion you have 11 or 12 teams, and the top two teams finished tied without having played one another, then you have reason to have a CCG. Not otherwise. Plus having a CCG doesn't break 3-team ties either. So the entire exercise is pointless.

Either every conference has the game or doesn't. It will make things easier selecting the final four teams.

To the last point- I think you are fooling yourself if you think that each league having a championship game "will make things easier selecting the final four teams". That is going to be hard no matter how rigid the regular season or championship game rules there are. There is always going to be controversy ranking the #3-6 teams.

The problem is less about the playoff and more about keeping up with the changing paradigm of FBS. If every other conference expands to 12, 14 , 16, etc....except the Big-12...it is foolish to think they are not boxing themselves in to a lose-lose situation long term. Sure, the $$ per school are great today, but that is only half the picture.

Every other conference is gobbling up markets and flagship unviersities, while the Big-12 has the contrarion strategy of staying in a 5 state footprint? Ok.

Oh, I totally agree. The Big 12 should expand eventually.

In regards to the playoff though (to summarize my thoughts, since this thread has gone several direction),

1. I don't think there should be hard and fast rules or "force" conferences to have a championship or not have a championship. Conferences should be free to crown a champ however they want (including having a 4 team tournament, should they so desire).
2. I don't think the presence or absence of a conference championship will signifiantly increase or decrease a league's chances of making the playoff. Sure in individual instances a specific team's resume might be enhanced or hurt, but long term it won't make a difference.
3. I don't think all conferences either having a championship or not having a championship will make it any easier on the selection committee. There is going to controversy over the 3-6 ranks no matter what they do.

(02-21-2013 03:43 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  The problem is less about the playoff and more about keeping up with the changing paradigm of FBS. If every other conference expands to 12, 14 , 16, etc....except the Big-12...it is foolish to think they are not boxing themselves in to a lose-lose situation long term. Sure, the $$ per school are great today, but that is only half the picture.

Every other conference is gobbling up markets and flagship unviersities, while the Big-12 has the contrarion strategy of staying in a 5 state footprint? Ok.

Yeah I'm not seeing the long term strategy here. They maximized profits coming off a reccession by taking the quick buck now. It's not a viable long term strategy. They have no markets outside of Texas. I really don't know what the vision is there, other than that fat bottom line that looks pretty today.

I don't think there is reason to panic just yet. I just think the ACC and Big 12 need to work something out long term in terms of scheduling. Since the ACC championship game has basically been a failure since its inception, maybe they could schedule a game between the two conferences the final weekend. With the winner and runner up going to the Sugar/Orange Bowl. Just to buff the schedule. As of now it is near impossible for the ACC champ to qualify for the final four, outside of an FSU and maybe Clemson, since they play Fla/USC every year.

(02-21-2013 04:07 PM)Frog in the Kitchen Sink Wrote:  3. I don't think all conferences either having a championship or not having a championship will make it any easier on the selection committee. There is going to controversy over the 3-6 ranks no matter what they do.

Mid majors vying for #4 will definitely benefit. Think a 13th game is not going to help a Boise? They need every game they can get. Even if the opponent is a scrub (but a division winner nonetheless), it's something to build on. Yeah they can lose the game and eliminate themselves, but they need anything they can get over an At-Large team. So MWC did themselves a favor there.

(02-21-2013 11:40 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  The push wouldn't matter anyway...its not going to be changed.

I'm sure the Big 12 understands basic math (although their conference name doesn't seem to indicate such). The reason for the "12" team champ rule is because with 12 teams not everyone can play each other...i.e...the need for a champ game to decide the title. With 10 teams everyone can play everyone so there is no need for a champ game.

If you don't believe me that it won't be changed, think about the fact that the Big Ten sat for like 20 years with 11 members and no champ game. Even though TV would have paid a pretty penny for it. I don't recall the Big Ten talking about changing a rule for their benefit....it's just not going to happen when other conferences have added members for the express purpose of getting that game and the additional revenue. The MWC will be at 12 now and the Big East is moving toward it by 2015.

Things change, though. A number of leagues would have reasons to favor letting conferences have CCGs if they want them, with whatever rules they want. 5-team divisions, straight top 2 in son-of-BCS rankings, some mix of conference record and BCS ranking, whatever the league picks.

The Big Ten and SEC could then go to 16 and still play everyone in the league in football every other year--4 divisions for 3 division games, play half of each division one year and the other half the next year. The two top-ranked teams square off in the CCG.

The Big XII (and the Sun Belt and the Aresco LEague) don't have to expand to get a CCG. And the ACC has the option of "going small" if they get raided, either staying at 10 if they lose 4 more, or adding one or two rather than having to go down the depth chart past UConn and Cincy just to get to 12.

If the Big Ten, SEC and Big XII decide they want something, and they have two "yes" votes from lower-FBS in their pockets, I think it probably happens. It's not something that the PAC or ACC (or MWC or MAC or CUSA) is going to fight hard to prevent, after all.

(02-21-2013 12:56 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  Bowlsby wants the "option" to have a championship game with 10 teams....does not mean they will. He has said before, even if the Big12 expanded to 11 or 12 teams they would not necessarily have a CCG. It appears what he wants is the freedom to have a CCG if a situation develops like the Big12 had last year when KSU and OU tied for the championship.

As for being penalized for not having a CCG.....the fact the Big12 plays 9 conference games rather than the usual 8 and a cup cake, will help their strength of schedule in the selection process and that may offset no CCG

I don't think the other leagues would be okay with the Big XII deciding in November that they need a CCG this year.

(02-21-2013 04:18 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  Things change, though. A number of leagues would have reasons to favor letting conferences have CCGs if they want them, with whatever rules they want. 5-team divisions, straight top 2 in son-of-BCS rankings, some mix of conference record and BCS ranking, whatever the league picks.

The Big Ten and SEC could then go to 16 and still play everyone in the league in football every other year--4 divisions for 3 division games, play half of each division one year and the other half the next year. The two top-ranked teams square off in the CCG.

The Big XII (and the Sun Belt and the Aresco LEague) don't have to expand to get a CCG. And the ACC has the option of "going small" if they get raided, either staying at 10 if they lose 4 more, or adding one or two rather than having to go down the depth chart past UConn and Cincy just to get to 12.

If the Big Ten, SEC and Big XII decide they want something, and they have two "yes" votes from lower-FBS in their pockets, I think it probably happens. It's not something that the PAC or ACC (or MWC or MAC or CUSA) is going to fight hard to prevent, after all.

Why wouldn't the other conferences veto it though? If a Big 12 CCG increases the chances that their CC gets overlooked? Plus that makes their TV deal even bigger with only ten teams plus they take an extra prime time slot the last weekend of the year. The competition does not want that.