(12-01-2018 10:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 10:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Why would anyone in the Big 12 join that conference? TV deal is subpar, the schools are too far away, and the commissioner is terrible.

Yes, when the PAC almost gutted the Big 12, the Big 12 was seemingly on life support. But now, it is firing on all cylinders, on the field and in revenue.

Those who think the Big 12 is unstable are just not paying attention.

I don't know if it's firing on all cylinders on the field. It's obviously OK and everyone else. That arrangement could be happening in the PAC right now.
Off the field, media knows they overpaid for the rights to schoolyard football and I don't expect the same mistake to happen again.

(12-01-2018 02:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 01:15 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 11:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 08:22 AM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 01:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  So, the team that finished 10th in the SEC (Auburn) beat the PAC 12 Champion. Hmm....

Logical fallacy.

Hogwash! The PAC's whole OOC record speaks for itself this year. They should have had a scheduling agreement with the ACC.

Nope. Champions are decided by the college football playoff ranking. Washington is rated 11, and Auburn is unranked. The playoff ranking system removes all bias and gives all teams equal footing.

Now that's illogical and shows your reading comprehension is nil. I didn't claim that Auburn was a champion or that they were ranked 10th in the nation. I said the #10 school in the SEC defeated Washington (the PAC champion). That's a fact. It had nothing to do with the CFP rankings. "the team that finished 10th in the SEC" hasn't squat to do with the CFP rankings. Of course the #10 school in the SEC is not ranked.

Try reading and understanding a comment before you reply to it twice with a miscomprehension!

I read it just fine. Rules are the rules. Washington is the better team.

(12-01-2018 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 10:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 10:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Why would anyone in the Big 12 join that conference? TV deal is subpar, the schools are too far away, and the commissioner is terrible.

Yes, when the PAC almost gutted the Big 12, the Big 12 was seemingly on life support. But now, it is firing on all cylinders, on the field and in revenue.

Those who think the Big 12 is unstable are just not paying attention.

It wasn't dead last in revenue when it was falling apart. And in 2010 the product on field was every bit as good as it is now, if not better. Their revenue was right where it is now, a solid third among the P5. The issues that pushed the Big 12 apart are still viable. The latest iteration of it is the scandal over the Horns Down penalty that has been instilled into Big 12 rules mid season.

Perceived and real deference to Texas is one of two sources of tension among some of the members, but most palpably Oklahoma. For the little 8 the tension remains 3rd tier revenue. But due to the prospects of many of the schools not named Texas or Oklahoma 3rd tier revenue isn't enough to break the conference up. Only Oklahoma deciding they've had enough of Bevo could be the catalyst. And I'd say that's still an unknown but potentially volatile variable.

Last time it was Texas threatening to leave and then getting their own network that shook things loose. This time it is Oklahoma threatening to leave that is causing the fracking earthquakes in the Big 12.

Good points, but IMO there is a big difference between the Nebraska - Texas clash that led to the 2010-2011 troubles and the Texas-OU rivalry.

Texas really rubbed Nebraska the wrong way. Different geographic culture. Nebraska is genteel north midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota. And they had no history together so UNL was not amenable to Texas's overbearing style.

But OU always had known Texas, they straddled the Big 8 and SWC because of their rivalry game. And Oklahoma is southwest cowboy culture like Texas.

So OU knows how to handle Texas and their styles don't clash. And Texas knows how far they can push OU. EG two years ago Texas was adamantly against expansion but when OU insisted they do a serious vetting, Texas relented until OU was satisfied it didn't make dollars and sense.

So despite their rivalry, they know how to work together. That means stability

(12-01-2018 06:31 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 02:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 01:15 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 11:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 08:22 AM)72Tiger Wrote:  Logical fallacy.

Hogwash! The PAC's whole OOC record speaks for itself this year. They should have had a scheduling agreement with the ACC.

Nope. Champions are decided by the college football playoff ranking. Washington is rated 11, and Auburn is unranked. The playoff ranking system removes all bias and gives all teams equal footing.

Now that's illogical and shows your reading comprehension is nil. I didn't claim that Auburn was a champion or that they were ranked 10th in the nation. I said the #10 school in the SEC defeated Washington (the PAC champion). That's a fact. It had nothing to do with the CFP rankings. "the team that finished 10th in the SEC" hasn't squat to do with the CFP rankings. Of course the #10 school in the SEC is not ranked.

Try reading and understanding a comment before you reply to it twice with a miscomprehension!

I read it just fine. Rules are the rules. Washington is the better team.

Not on the day the game was played. And I never said Auburn should finish ranked ahead of them. I merely pointed out that the 10th place team in the SEC beat the PAC champion, you tedious troll!

(12-01-2018 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 10:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 10:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Why would anyone in the Big 12 join that conference? TV deal is subpar, the schools are too far away, and the commissioner is terrible.

Yes, when the PAC almost gutted the Big 12, the Big 12 was seemingly on life support. But now, it is firing on all cylinders, on the field and in revenue.

Those who think the Big 12 is unstable are just not paying attention.

It wasn't dead last in revenue when it was falling apart. And in 2010 the product on field was every bit as good as it is now, if not better. Their revenue was right where it is now, a solid third among the P5. The issues that pushed the Big 12 apart are still viable. The latest iteration of it is the scandal over the Horns Down penalty that has been instilled into Big 12 rules mid season.

Perceived and real deference to Texas is one of two sources of tension among some of the members, but most palpably Oklahoma. For the little 8 the tension remains 3rd tier revenue. But due to the prospects of many of the schools not named Texas or Oklahoma 3rd tier revenue isn't enough to break the conference up. Only Oklahoma deciding they've had enough of Bevo could be the catalyst. And I'd say that's still an unknown but potentially volatile variable.

Last time it was Texas threatening to leave and then getting their own network that shook things loose. This time it is Oklahoma threatening to leave that is causing the fracking earthquakes in the Big 12.

Good points, but IMO there is a big difference between the Nebraska - Texas clash that led to the 2010-2011 troubles and the Texas-OU rivalry.

Texas really rubbed Nebraska the wrong way. Different geographic culture. Nebraska is genteel north midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota. And they had no history together so UNL was not amenable to Texas's overbearing style.

But OU always had known Texas, they straddled the Big 8 and SWC because of their rivalry game. And Oklahoma is southwest cowboy culture like Texas.

So OU knows how to handle Texas and their styles don't clash. And Texas knows how far they can push OU. EG two years ago Texas was adamantly against expansion but when OU insisted they do a serious vetting, Texas relented until OU was satisfied it didn't make dollars and sense.

So despite their rivalry, they know how to work together. That means stability

Let's see how stable they are if OU gets left out of the CFP.

(12-01-2018 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 06:31 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 02:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 01:15 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 11:55 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Hogwash! The PAC's whole OOC record speaks for itself this year. They should have had a scheduling agreement with the ACC.

Nope. Champions are decided by the college football playoff ranking. Washington is rated 11, and Auburn is unranked. The playoff ranking system removes all bias and gives all teams equal footing.

Now that's illogical and shows your reading comprehension is nil. I didn't claim that Auburn was a champion or that they were ranked 10th in the nation. I said the #10 school in the SEC defeated Washington (the PAC champion). That's a fact. It had nothing to do with the CFP rankings. "the team that finished 10th in the SEC" hasn't squat to do with the CFP rankings. Of course the #10 school in the SEC is not ranked.

Try reading and understanding a comment before you reply to it twice with a miscomprehension!

I read it just fine. Rules are the rules. Washington is the better team.

Not on the day the game was played. And I never said Auburn should finish ranked ahead of them. I merely pointed out that the 10th place team in the SEC beat the PAC champion, you tedious troll!

On the field doesn't matter. I didn't set the system up, so direct your vitriol at someone else.

(12-02-2018 09:35 AM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 06:31 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 02:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 01:15 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  Nope. Champions are decided by the college football playoff ranking. Washington is rated 11, and Auburn is unranked. The playoff ranking system removes all bias and gives all teams equal footing.

Now that's illogical and shows your reading comprehension is nil. I didn't claim that Auburn was a champion or that they were ranked 10th in the nation. I said the #10 school in the SEC defeated Washington (the PAC champion). That's a fact. It had nothing to do with the CFP rankings. "the team that finished 10th in the SEC" hasn't squat to do with the CFP rankings. Of course the #10 school in the SEC is not ranked.

Try reading and understanding a comment before you reply to it twice with a miscomprehension!

I read it just fine. Rules are the rules. Washington is the better team.

Not on the day the game was played. And I never said Auburn should finish ranked ahead of them. I merely pointed out that the 10th place team in the SEC beat the PAC champion, you tedious troll!

On the field doesn't matter. I didn't set the system up, so direct your vitriol at someone else.

And you still aren't addressing what I was pointing out. I wasn't discussing rankings, just pointing out the what actually happened.

(12-02-2018 01:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 09:35 AM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 06:31 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 02:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Now that's illogical and shows your reading comprehension is nil. I didn't claim that Auburn was a champion or that they were ranked 10th in the nation. I said the #10 school in the SEC defeated Washington (the PAC champion). That's a fact. It had nothing to do with the CFP rankings. "the team that finished 10th in the SEC" hasn't squat to do with the CFP rankings. Of course the #10 school in the SEC is not ranked.

Try reading and understanding a comment before you reply to it twice with a miscomprehension!

I read it just fine. Rules are the rules. Washington is the better team.

Not on the day the game was played. And I never said Auburn should finish ranked ahead of them. I merely pointed out that the 10th place team in the SEC beat the PAC champion, you tedious troll!

On the field doesn't matter. I didn't set the system up, so direct your vitriol at someone else.

And you still aren't addressing what I was pointing out. I wasn't discussing rankings, just pointing out the what actually happened.

The rankings aren't about what happens on the field? What are they based on?

(12-02-2018 01:38 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 01:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 09:35 AM)72Tiger Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 08:12 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 06:31 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  I read it just fine. Rules are the rules. Washington is the better team.

Not on the day the game was played. And I never said Auburn should finish ranked ahead of them. I merely pointed out that the 10th place team in the SEC beat the PAC champion, you tedious troll!

On the field doesn't matter. I didn't set the system up, so direct your vitriol at someone else.

And you still aren't addressing what I was pointing out. I wasn't discussing rankings, just pointing out the what actually happened.

The rankings aren't about what happens on the field? What are they based on?

1. It's called dissembling. I never discussed the rankings, ever. You introduced the rankings aspect. I said Auburn finished 10th in the SEC. That's not a ranking it's a woeful position in a 14 member conference.

2. They beat the PAC champion Washington. The point of my post was to cast a comparison between the PAC and SEC by referring to that single game.

3. You've continued to talk about rankings. I've never discussed them.

4. That means you are either trolling, or obtuse.

5. Obviously Auburn won the Washington game, and obviously Washington had the better overall season. But outside of Auburn who did they play other than PAC schools? And since the PAC had an abysmal record against other P5 schools out of conference the relevance of losing to the school that finished 10th in a 14 member SEC makes for an interesting bit of speculation.

6. The only vitriol I have here is the irritation of having a poster constantly insinuating a position that had nothing to do with the original position of my post.

All that? Seems kind of complicated. They should just run the playoff like every single other sport does. Win your league and you are in.

(12-01-2018 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 10:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 10:14 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Why would anyone in the Big 12 join that conference? TV deal is subpar, the schools are too far away, and the commissioner is terrible.

Yes, when the PAC almost gutted the Big 12, the Big 12 was seemingly on life support. But now, it is firing on all cylinders, on the field and in revenue.

Those who think the Big 12 is unstable are just not paying attention.

It wasn't dead last in revenue when it was falling apart. And in 2010 the product on field was every bit as good as it is now, if not better. Their revenue was right where it is now, a solid third among the P5. The issues that pushed the Big 12 apart are still viable. The latest iteration of it is the scandal over the Horns Down penalty that has been instilled into Big 12 rules mid season.

Perceived and real deference to Texas is one of two sources of tension among some of the members, but most palpably Oklahoma. For the little 8 the tension remains 3rd tier revenue. But due to the prospects of many of the schools not named Texas or Oklahoma 3rd tier revenue isn't enough to break the conference up. Only Oklahoma deciding they've had enough of Bevo could be the catalyst. And I'd say that's still an unknown but potentially volatile variable.

Last time it was Texas threatening to leave and then getting their own network that shook things loose. This time it is Oklahoma threatening to leave that is causing the fracking earthquakes in the Big 12.

Good points, but IMO there is a big difference between the Nebraska - Texas clash that led to the 2010-2011 troubles and the Texas-OU rivalry.

Texas really rubbed Nebraska the wrong way. Different geographic culture. Nebraska is genteel north midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota. And they had no history together so UNL was not amenable to Texas's overbearing style.

But OU always had known Texas, they straddled the Big 8 and SWC because of their rivalry game. And Oklahoma is southwest cowboy culture like Texas.

So OU knows how to handle Texas and their styles don't clash. And Texas knows how far they can push OU. EG two years ago Texas was adamantly against expansion but when OU insisted they do a serious vetting, Texas relented until OU was satisfied it didn't make dollars and sense.

So despite their rivalry, they know how to work together. That means stability

Let's see how stable they are if OU gets left out of the CFP.

Well OU got in. More evidence of Big 12 strength and stability. :)

(12-02-2018 03:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 10:23 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, when the PAC almost gutted the Big 12, the Big 12 was seemingly on life support. But now, it is firing on all cylinders, on the field and in revenue.

Those who think the Big 12 is unstable are just not paying attention.

It wasn't dead last in revenue when it was falling apart. And in 2010 the product on field was every bit as good as it is now, if not better. Their revenue was right where it is now, a solid third among the P5. The issues that pushed the Big 12 apart are still viable. The latest iteration of it is the scandal over the Horns Down penalty that has been instilled into Big 12 rules mid season.

Perceived and real deference to Texas is one of two sources of tension among some of the members, but most palpably Oklahoma. For the little 8 the tension remains 3rd tier revenue. But due to the prospects of many of the schools not named Texas or Oklahoma 3rd tier revenue isn't enough to break the conference up. Only Oklahoma deciding they've had enough of Bevo could be the catalyst. And I'd say that's still an unknown but potentially volatile variable.

Last time it was Texas threatening to leave and then getting their own network that shook things loose. This time it is Oklahoma threatening to leave that is causing the fracking earthquakes in the Big 12.

Good points, but IMO there is a big difference between the Nebraska - Texas clash that led to the 2010-2011 troubles and the Texas-OU rivalry.

Texas really rubbed Nebraska the wrong way. Different geographic culture. Nebraska is genteel north midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota. And they had no history together so UNL was not amenable to Texas's overbearing style.

But OU always had known Texas, they straddled the Big 8 and SWC because of their rivalry game. And Oklahoma is southwest cowboy culture like Texas.

So OU knows how to handle Texas and their styles don't clash. And Texas knows how far they can push OU. EG two years ago Texas was adamantly against expansion but when OU insisted they do a serious vetting, Texas relented until OU was satisfied it didn't make dollars and sense.

So despite their rivalry, they know how to work together. That means stability

Let's see how stable they are if OU gets left out of the CFP.

Well OU got in. More evidence of Big 12 strength and stability. :)

Maybe. I'll believe it if they are still together in 2025.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RuthVWatkins/...s.33822%2F

(12-02-2018 06:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 03:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It wasn't dead last in revenue when it was falling apart. And in 2010 the product on field was every bit as good as it is now, if not better. Their revenue was right where it is now, a solid third among the P5. The issues that pushed the Big 12 apart are still viable. The latest iteration of it is the scandal over the Horns Down penalty that has been instilled into Big 12 rules mid season.

Perceived and real deference to Texas is one of two sources of tension among some of the members, but most palpably Oklahoma. For the little 8 the tension remains 3rd tier revenue. But due to the prospects of many of the schools not named Texas or Oklahoma 3rd tier revenue isn't enough to break the conference up. Only Oklahoma deciding they've had enough of Bevo could be the catalyst. And I'd say that's still an unknown but potentially volatile variable.

Last time it was Texas threatening to leave and then getting their own network that shook things loose. This time it is Oklahoma threatening to leave that is causing the fracking earthquakes in the Big 12.

Good points, but IMO there is a big difference between the Nebraska - Texas clash that led to the 2010-2011 troubles and the Texas-OU rivalry.

Texas really rubbed Nebraska the wrong way. Different geographic culture. Nebraska is genteel north midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota. And they had no history together so UNL was not amenable to Texas's overbearing style.

But OU always had known Texas, they straddled the Big 8 and SWC because of their rivalry game. And Oklahoma is southwest cowboy culture like Texas.

So OU knows how to handle Texas and their styles don't clash. And Texas knows how far they can push OU. EG two years ago Texas was adamantly against expansion but when OU insisted they do a serious vetting, Texas relented until OU was satisfied it didn't make dollars and sense.

So despite their rivalry, they know how to work together. That means stability

Let's see how stable they are if OU gets left out of the CFP.

Well OU got in. More evidence of Big 12 strength and stability. :)

Maybe. I'll believe it if they are still together in 2025.

Which SEC school did you attend or root for?

(12-02-2018 09:23 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 06:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 03:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Good points, but IMO there is a big difference between the Nebraska - Texas clash that led to the 2010-2011 troubles and the Texas-OU rivalry.

Texas really rubbed Nebraska the wrong way. Different geographic culture. Nebraska is genteel north midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota. And they had no history together so UNL was not amenable to Texas's overbearing style.

But OU always had known Texas, they straddled the Big 8 and SWC because of their rivalry game. And Oklahoma is southwest cowboy culture like Texas.

So OU knows how to handle Texas and their styles don't clash. And Texas knows how far they can push OU. EG two years ago Texas was adamantly against expansion but when OU insisted they do a serious vetting, Texas relented until OU was satisfied it didn't make dollars and sense.

So despite their rivalry, they know how to work together. That means stability

Let's see how stable they are if OU gets left out of the CFP.

Well OU got in. More evidence of Big 12 strength and stability. :)

Maybe. I'll believe it if they are still together in 2025.

Which SEC school did you attend or root for?

Both, Auburn.

(12-02-2018 02:04 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  All that? Seems kind of complicated. They should just run the playoff like every single other sport does. Win your league and you are in.

I don't disagree with that. I've been for a champs only format since the CFP's inception.

It's just that the corporate power brokers don't want it.

(12-02-2018 06:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 03:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 12:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It wasn't dead last in revenue when it was falling apart. And in 2010 the product on field was every bit as good as it is now, if not better. Their revenue was right where it is now, a solid third among the P5. The issues that pushed the Big 12 apart are still viable. The latest iteration of it is the scandal over the Horns Down penalty that has been instilled into Big 12 rules mid season.

Perceived and real deference to Texas is one of two sources of tension among some of the members, but most palpably Oklahoma. For the little 8 the tension remains 3rd tier revenue. But due to the prospects of many of the schools not named Texas or Oklahoma 3rd tier revenue isn't enough to break the conference up. Only Oklahoma deciding they've had enough of Bevo could be the catalyst. And I'd say that's still an unknown but potentially volatile variable.

Last time it was Texas threatening to leave and then getting their own network that shook things loose. This time it is Oklahoma threatening to leave that is causing the fracking earthquakes in the Big 12.

Good points, but IMO there is a big difference between the Nebraska - Texas clash that led to the 2010-2011 troubles and the Texas-OU rivalry.

Texas really rubbed Nebraska the wrong way. Different geographic culture. Nebraska is genteel north midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota. And they had no history together so UNL was not amenable to Texas's overbearing style.

But OU always had known Texas, they straddled the Big 8 and SWC because of their rivalry game. And Oklahoma is southwest cowboy culture like Texas.

So OU knows how to handle Texas and their styles don't clash. And Texas knows how far they can push OU. EG two years ago Texas was adamantly against expansion but when OU insisted they do a serious vetting, Texas relented until OU was satisfied it didn't make dollars and sense.

So despite their rivalry, they know how to work together. That means stability

Let's see how stable they are if OU gets left out of the CFP.

Well OU got in. More evidence of Big 12 strength and stability. :)

Maybe. I'll believe it if they are still together in 2025.

OU and UT need an invite and your friends in Aggieland will do everything to stop a Texoma 4 invasion to the SEC.

(12-02-2018 10:50 PM)P5PACSEC Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 06:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 03:07 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 08:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-01-2018 06:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Good points, but IMO there is a big difference between the Nebraska - Texas clash that led to the 2010-2011 troubles and the Texas-OU rivalry.

Texas really rubbed Nebraska the wrong way. Different geographic culture. Nebraska is genteel north midwest, like Iowa and Minnesota. And they had no history together so UNL was not amenable to Texas's overbearing style.

But OU always had known Texas, they straddled the Big 8 and SWC because of their rivalry game. And Oklahoma is southwest cowboy culture like Texas.

So OU knows how to handle Texas and their styles don't clash. And Texas knows how far they can push OU. EG two years ago Texas was adamantly against expansion but when OU insisted they do a serious vetting, Texas relented until OU was satisfied it didn't make dollars and sense.

So despite their rivalry, they know how to work together. That means stability

Let's see how stable they are if OU gets left out of the CFP.

Well OU got in. More evidence of Big 12 strength and stability. :)

Maybe. I'll believe it if they are still together in 2025.

OU and UT need an invite and your friends in Aggieland will do everything to stop a Texoma 4 invasion to the SEC.

Yes, their fans would. Their administration would cry in public and allow it in private by abstaining on their vote. 3/4's is what is needed to gain an invitation and that vote is informal and roll call in nature and is not recorded. The formal vote is always unanimous (by tradition) and only abstentions are allowed.

What presidents say and do in public is sometimes far from what they discuss and agree to in private.

It is very easy to count the votes in private, speak your mind and abstain if your vote would cost the move, abstain publicly, and then mostly truthfully to say you spoke against it, were outvoted, and so abstained on the formal vote. The fans would never ever know the whole story.

Watched part of this on a tv on the Ford Field concourse after our game. Seemed like the ball was doomed to never escape between the 30s.

(12-02-2018 02:04 PM)72Tiger Wrote:  All that? Seems kind of complicated. They should just run the playoff like every single other sport does. Win your league and you are in.

Thing is, though, the other major college sports, like hoops and baseball, let not only all the conference champs in, but LOTS of at-large teams as well. In fact in both cases the majority of teams in are at-large.

E.g., if we compare FBS to college hoops, and we toss out the FCS leagues that are in the hoops tournament but would not be part of a true FBS football playoffs, we'd need about a 40-team football playoff to be equivalent.

I bet that the SEC and B1G wouldn't mind if the Sun Belt and CUSA champs had auto-entry into a football playoffs, as long as 6 or 7 of their teams could be in the playoffs as well, as they are in hoops and baseball. Which is fair given the relative strength of the conferences.

Wake me when you explain how that can happen.