The problem is if you give them this edge you'll never ever have the chance to be on equal footing again. They already make twice the money, have the TV execs in their pockets, and are allowed to take every little edge possible (8 conference games, cupcake games in November ect). You have to find every little way to go up the hard side of the mountain.
Williams & Blum: Should the Big 12 consider the 4-4-2-2 model?
- Thread starter Aiden Wyatt
- Start date
The problem is if you give them this edge you'll never ever have the chance to be on equal footing again. They already make twice the money, have the TV execs in their pockets, and are allowed to take every little edge possible (8 conference games, cupcake games in November ect). You have to find every little way to go up the hard side of the mountain.
I don't get the "recruiting suicide" angle.
Iowa State doesn't really recruit players that are being actively recruited by Ohio State, Georgia, Notre Dame, et. al. on anything but an exceptional basis. Frankly I don't see that ever happening in my lifetime. So, what exactly would be lost there?
We are not on equal footing now, and if we don't take the deal, it will get worse not better. There is not a TV network that is going to invest major dollars into the B12 to bring it up to the level of what the SEC and B10 are getting. Look at the numbers from streaming in they are nowhere near what the numbers are for the over the air networks.
The best path forward is moving into the hybrid league between the football dominated B10 and SEC and the Big East in basketball. The B12 could be the very good basketball conference that also has decent football.
The pessimistic side of me is: we are already there, and frankly there's not a way to go back now that pay-for-play is here. At least not for another 5-6 years until contracts might force more realignment.
What universe shift would it take for Iowa State to play with the same level of resources as a mid-level B10 team? Probably only conference realignment, which would realign the deck chairs anyway and make this whole discussion old news.
My point is that getting 2 guaranteed spots for the Big 12 *limits* the SEC to 4 and possibly 5 teams in a 14-team playoff. The downside is you give 4 slots to the B10 and likely a guaranteed spot every year to ND to get it. But in my opinion you've limited the downside of sometimes only getting one team in while the SEC gets 6 and Big 10 4 or 5 teams in a 16-team format. THEN the boulder starts rolling down the hill against us.
And the auto bids remove polls entirely, except for those last two spots -- only one of which is an at-large. Even if you go to 16 teams, there's 3 at-large slots. If we are being crazy, go to 16 teams and maybe the Big 12 somehow still gets 3 teams in that scenario.
I don't like the anti-competitive nature of auto bids any more than anyone else, especially semi-permanently slanting the field in the favor of the P2. But the P2 exists and there's no doubt there are more top-flight programs in those conferences.
So the upside of the AQ format is: limit the downside risk by guaranteeing the Big12 two seats minimum at the table every year, and also put all the focus of our season on finishing in the top two of our conference...not some mystical formula derived by a combination of secret votes and computer polls which have the illusion of being unbiased.
No, there's no way we can outright support a slanted AQ format, but I think that's the best option in the near- and medium-term landscape for Iowa State.
That nine conference games is huge. Of course the SEC rates better in the computer system if half the conference doesn’t have another loss. Do that and the you can tell me how tough you are.
The Big12’s biggest problem this year was the top teams had late losses. It’s easier to rebound in the rankings the earlier the losses are.
Nitpicking, but TCU did beat Michigan in the 4 game model before getting blown out by UGA in the title game.
I don't find this "nitpicking," at all! The fact of the matter is, the B1G claims to be on par with the SEC. It is clearly NOT. Outside of 2, or at most 3, of the B1G teams, the rest are mediocre or just suck (looking at you Squakeyes).
Absolutely. It’s basically Ohio State, Michigan, sometimes Penn State. Now they have Washington and Oregon. USC should be better, but they’re running on brand name only. Everyone else is AnySchool USA.
The more I think of it, the more it’s clear that the SEC is gaming all of this. They’re good for one or two elite teams and a few really good ones. Add in the 8 game schedule and suddenly there’s a logjam of teams that are some combo of 12-0 and 9-3.
Ole Miss (9-3 with 2 unranked losses) and South Carolina (9-3) did a lot of barking last year about being one of the best teams in the country. But were they really deserving to get in the playoff to be the NATIONAL CHAMPION?
And if you are ranked too high preseason because of your conference propaganda...SEC and big.
That was another part of the problem, our higher ranked teams flopped. But BYU for example made up ground and ended up losing two games later in the year. Looked like a lock to make the title game, if not win it… then suddenly didn’t even make it.
