Big 12 Expansion (new thread)

Cyclones1969

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jul 26, 2021
2,799
1,573
113
52
Was


Look at baseball. The addition of the second wild card means a bunch of teams in the NL are playing meaningful games still when, without it, the 4 playoff teams (and the 11 who are out) would already be close to set.

Expanded playoff will work like this on a larger scale. We are already seeing how 4 teams isn’t good enough and a bunch of teams have no chance.

Still an open question to me what that expansion looks like because as it gets bigger, more stakeholders get into it (devaluing it for the ones who would have made a smaller one anyway). Wouldn’t shock me a bit to see some leagues push for a 6- or 8-team playoff with slots reserved for the 4 highest ranked conference champions. Why make life easier for the B12/AAC/Mtn West when that makes life harder for you?
Wait. What?

I was told by you that this new conference was great because all of the other conferences will gladly help it along, and make sure the conference champion gets an automatic play off bid to keep them voting with the alliance to stop the sec. You mean that wasn’t guaranteed? The heck you say

it’s also nice you’re equating this new conference you think is so exceptional with the aac and mountain west

but I’m sure how exciting the football will be will more than make up for the loss of revenue, and access
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
2,067
2,479
113
I am not a supporter of a 12 team Playoff in the next few years because over the last 5 years Alabama, Clemson, Georgia and Ohio State probably beat the 8 to 12th ranked team by 21 points seven out of ten games they plays. Probably makes sense to bump up to 8 teams for something like 5 years and then expand to 12.

A big benefit of an expanded playoff is Bama, OSU, Georgia and Clemson can pretty much sell recruits they will get the opportunity to play for a national title and they aren't lying. Expand to 12 teams and now 15+ teams now can sell that dream to recruits.
It depends on what you want. Will the #9-12 team ever win a national title? I honestly doubt it. But I’m not convinced #6-8 will either.

I hope that expanding the playoff helps with parity though. Right now if you are a top 5*, you go to Alabama or Clemson or Ohio State or maybe Oklahoma if playing in the CFP is important to you. If the playoff expands as you say, more schools can sell regular appearances, which might help to level things.

And then there is the most important thing for me as an Iowa State fan, which is relevant football. An 8 team playoff with 0-4 spots saved for conference champions would be bad for the Big 12 and worse for the G5. Our top goal should be a system where the Big 12 season is meaningful in the playoff picture and the best team/conference champion makes the playoff at least a large majority of the time.

So even though I don’t think the 12-teams, top-6-champs proposal is perfect, I think it is better for Iowa State and the Big 12 than the other smaller ideas that are being thrown around. Because it would come as close as possible to getting the Big 12 champ in the playoff every year, with a shot at getting 2 teams in.
 

cyIclSoneU

Well-Known Member
Apr 7, 2016
2,067
2,479
113
I know what you're saying, but has any #49-68 team ever won the basketball championship?
No. March Madness isn't designed with the idea that every team has a realistic shot of winning the natty, though. Some people think the CFP should be. That's why I am saying it depends on what you want. Right now in my head that is intertwined with my ISU fanhood and I want the system designed for the best outcome for ISU. But different people will have different concepts in their head of what a CFP "should" try to accomplish and then design proposals based on those different ideas.
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
2,513
1,159
113
I am not a supporter of a 12 team Playoff in the next few years because over the last 5 years Alabama, Clemson, Georgia and Ohio State probably beat the 8 to 12th ranked team by 21 points seven out of ten games they plays. Probably makes sense to bump up to 8 teams for something like 5 years and then expand to 12.
Why does it matter some of the teams lose by 21? We saw that in the championship game two years ago.

I think with 12, in a P3 or P4 world, is it makes the conference championship games a penalty. Some of the wildcards will in essence be getting a bye. You’d basically need to replace those games with playoffs wildcard games like baseball, which probably would get viewers
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Itjustdoesn'tmatter

Win5002

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
1,633
-521
63
Why does it matter some of the teams lose by 21? We saw that in the championship game two years ago.

I think with 12, in a P3 or P4 world, is it makes the conference championship games a penalty. Some of the wildcards will in essence be getting a bye. You’d basically need to replace those games with playoffs wildcard games like baseball, which probably would get viewers
The CCG's are nothing but a creation of greed. If CFB had a neat and tidy way to incorporate CCG's to a playoff, then thats fine but instead its another "data point" or allows for stupid comments like "we have a 10 team playoff now". NO, we don't! If you had a 10 team playoff all 5 winners advance, instead we have games where if the selectors want the teams they use the results, if they don't want the teams they can ignore the results.

If you have even 12 playoff teams CCG's are not needed, and they definitely are not for 16 or even better 24 teams. Selecting teams are one thing when the playoffs involve 12-24 teams, its a lot different when it is 4-6 teams.

There may even be a way to have CCG's and take the "winners" from the 6 highest CCG's and there is the CFP, and it is 6 teams seeded after you have the games. Until there is more consolidation the two highest G5's can play for the 6th spot even. I know those teams are not as good as the 2nd place SEC, B1G, ACC, PAC, B12 but we don't need to CHOOSE one or even two teams at large whether its 6 or 8 schools. I know that doesn't leave a spot for ND, but they can join a league or the ACC can ***** themselves out to ND and allow them access to their league championship game based on conference win %.

At least way, there is a defined path for every team to get in. Leagues need to pick their highest two conference regular season finishers not one from the West and one from the East, because the winner advances not who the committee wants. With this small of a field you don't need to put 2nd place teams in a playoff.
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
6,378
8,045
113
I know what you're saying, but has any #49-68 team ever won the basketball championship?
No, but teams in the 30ish range (Villanova and UConn) have. And a 40+ team just about made it to the title game last year. Depending on year the odds are pretty small that someone in the 6-12 range wins, but wacky things happen. I'd say due to the dramatic swings that a couple big turnovers or busted play can make there's enough of a chance to keep people interested.

Plus, I'm of the view that this is entertainment. There isn't some great importance of actually making sure the best team wins the title. I never understand people getting all worked up about the short series in baseball or the one game playoffs. It's freaking sports. People thinking that having far more drama and entertainment is somehow bad if *gasp* the best teams ends up losing in a fluke game.
 

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
3,576
2,203
113
It depends on what you want. Will the #9-12 team ever win a national title? I honestly doubt it. But I’m not convinced #6-8 will either.

I hope that expanding the playoff helps with parity though. Right now if you are a top 5*, yo
Why does it matter some of the teams lose by 21? We saw that in the championship game two years ago.

I think with 12, in a P3 or P4 world, is it makes the conference championship games a penalty. Some of the wildcards will in essence be getting a bye. You’d basically need to replace those games with playoffs wildcard games like baseball, which probably would get viewers
Just don't see a need to expand to 12 when there is such a big talent difference. Bump to 8 and see what happens.

Agree that if there is a bump to 8 or 12 teams, there needs to be rules about whether CCG are even needed. IMO at 12 teams, CCG games are only being played for greed since each P3/P4 conference will likely get at least 2 teams in a playoff.

At 8 or 12 teams, being the losing team in a CCG could be detrimental in getting a Playoff bid.
 

surly

Well-Known Member
May 16, 2013
7,984
3,891
113
reservation lake, mn
There's material in here that was new to me. I've underlined parts that may be of particular interest.


In August 2014, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors voted to allow the 65 schools in the five wealthiest conferences the autonomy to write many of their own rules.

The following January, at the annual NCAA Convention, the members of the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 were able to establish ways of doing business specific to them. The smaller NCAA member schools, more than 300, could opt in, but could no longer use their strength in number to stop the big boys from charting a new course.

Power-five conference members opted to give their athletes stipends that cover full cost of attendance above and beyond the athletic scholarship and offer those scholarships for the duration of their college careers. Previously, scholarships were one-year agreements renewable annually. There are other components, but that's a key one.

Texas Tech and Houston opened the 2021 season facing each other as non-conference opponents. In the near future, the two teams will be together as Big 12 members with UH accepting an invitation on Friday to join the conference.
That's important to keep in mind in the wake of the major changes to the college sports landscape this summer.

Power-five status is not merely a perception; it was legislated. The "autonomy five" do business, in some ways, as they see fit.

Texas and Oklahoma are leaving the Big 12 for the SEC, by July 2025 and perhaps sooner, and the Big 12 moved quickly to replace those two schools, extending membership invitations that were formally accepted Friday by Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati and Houston.

The departures of the two most high-profile schools can't be glossed over. No one expects the media-rights partners to pay as much for a reconstituted Big 12 as one with the national brands the Sooners and Longhorns represent. The moves shook the Big 12 and prompted many who support the eight left behind to wonder: Is the Big 12 still a power-five conference? To not be, however, that status would need to be revoked or relinquished voluntarily.

Again, power-five stature was legislated, giving members of those schools more say in how they do business.

In addition to making some of their own rules to give their athletes extra benefits, members of those five conferences also are guaranteed representation on the College Football Playoff selection committee. Tech athletics director Kirby Hocutt has chaired that committee in the past, and Kansas State AD Gene Taylor is a current member.

Once accorded that status, there's no way a conference is going to give that up.

Texas Tech has no plans to opt out of giving its athletes the extra benefits permitted since the landmark 2015 NCAA Convention.

We asked Hocutt whether Tech, potentially facing some difficult budget questions with the uncertain value of the annual Big 12 revenue distribution post-2025, would consider dropping the full cost-of-attendance stipend.

"No way, no," Hocutt said. "No way. Never even crossed our mind."

For scholarships that cover full cost of attendance, Tech athletics pays about $750,000 a year more than what it did in the past.

Tech plans to keep doing that, and there appears a good chance the Big 12' financial shortfall from a lower-media-rights payout on the front end can be be somewhat mitigated on the back end by an expanded College Football Playoff.

USA Today's Steve Berkowitz reported in June that the proposed expansion of the College Football Playoff to 12 teams could triple the CFP's value, from about $600 million a year under the current four-team model to more than $2 billion annually. That's based on projections supplied to USA Today from Navigate, a firm specializing in college and professional sports rights valuations.

CFP revenue funnels down to the schools, with members of the autonomy-five conferences receiving more.

There's no reason to think Tech won't be part of the power-five, or its equivalent, once the Big 12 is reformed. "Our position within the NCAA governance structure," Hocutt said, "is not going to change."

So are there reasons to think the Big 12 looks less appealing and marketable minus UT and OU? For sure.

But the Big 12 losing its status among college football's top tier of conferences isn't likely to be one.

Don Williams is a sports reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: t-noah and MeanDean

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
6,378
8,045
113
There's material in here that was new to me. I've underlined parts that may be of particular interest.


In August 2014, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors voted to allow the 65 schools in the five wealthiest conferences the autonomy to write many of their own rules.

The following January, at the annual NCAA Convention, the members of the SEC, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 were able to establish ways of doing business specific to them. The smaller NCAA member schools, more than 300, could opt in, but could no longer use their strength in number to stop the big boys from charting a new course.

Power-five conference members opted to give their athletes stipends that cover full cost of attendance above and beyond the athletic scholarship and offer those scholarships for the duration of their college careers. Previously, scholarships were one-year agreements renewable annually. There are other components, but that's a key one.

Texas Tech and Houston opened the 2021 season facing each other as non-conference opponents. In the near future, the two teams will be together as Big 12 members with UH accepting an invitation on Friday to join the conference.
That's important to keep in mind in the wake of the major changes to the college sports landscape this summer.

Power-five status is not merely a perception; it was legislated. The "autonomy five" do business, in some ways, as they see fit.

Texas and Oklahoma are leaving the Big 12 for the SEC, by July 2025 and perhaps sooner, and the Big 12 moved quickly to replace those two schools, extending membership invitations that were formally accepted Friday by Brigham Young, Central Florida, Cincinnati and Houston.

The departures of the two most high-profile schools can't be glossed over. No one expects the media-rights partners to pay as much for a reconstituted Big 12 as one with the national brands the Sooners and Longhorns represent. The moves shook the Big 12 and prompted many who support the eight left behind to wonder: Is the Big 12 still a power-five conference? To not be, however, that status would need to be revoked or relinquished voluntarily.

Again, power-five stature was legislated, giving members of those schools more say in how they do business.

In addition to making some of their own rules to give their athletes extra benefits, members of those five conferences also are guaranteed representation on the College Football Playoff selection committee. Tech athletics director Kirby Hocutt has chaired that committee in the past, and Kansas State AD Gene Taylor is a current member.

Once accorded that status, there's no way a conference is going to give that up.

Texas Tech has no plans to opt out of giving its athletes the extra benefits permitted since the landmark 2015 NCAA Convention.

We asked Hocutt whether Tech, potentially facing some difficult budget questions with the uncertain value of the annual Big 12 revenue distribution post-2025, would consider dropping the full cost-of-attendance stipend.

"No way, no," Hocutt said. "No way. Never even crossed our mind."

For scholarships that cover full cost of attendance, Tech athletics pays about $750,000 a year more than what it did in the past.

Tech plans to keep doing that, and there appears a good chance the Big 12' financial shortfall from a lower-media-rights payout on the front end can be be somewhat mitigated on the back end by an expanded College Football Playoff.

USA Today's Steve Berkowitz reported in June that the proposed expansion of the College Football Playoff to 12 teams could triple the CFP's value, from about $600 million a year under the current four-team model to more than $2 billion annually. That's based on projections supplied to USA Today from Navigate, a firm specializing in college and professional sports rights valuations.

CFP revenue funnels down to the schools, with members of the autonomy-five conferences receiving more.

There's no reason to think Tech won't be part of the power-five, or its equivalent, once the Big 12 is reformed. "Our position within the NCAA governance structure," Hocutt said, "is not going to change."

So are there reasons to think the Big 12 looks less appealing and marketable minus UT and OU? For sure.

But the Big 12 losing its status among college football's top tier of conferences isn't likely to be one.

Don Williams is a sports reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal.
I think my favorite part of that article is that they cite a sports rights valuation firm to share that going from 4 to 12 could triple the value of the CFP. I'm no math wiz but...
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
2,513
1,159
113
The CCG's are nothing but a creation of greed. If CFB had a neat and tidy way to incorporate CCG's to a playoff, then thats fine but instead its another "data point" or allows for stupid comments like "we have a 10 team playoff now". NO, we don't! If you had a 10 team playoff all 5 winners advance, instead we have games where if the selectors want the teams they use the results, if they don't want the teams they can ignore the results.

If you have even 12 playoff teams CCG's are not needed, and they definitely are not for 16 or even better 24 teams. Selecting teams are one thing when the playoffs involve 12-24 teams, its a lot different when it is 4-6 teams.

There may even be a way to have CCG's and take the "winners" from the 6 highest CCG's and there is the CFP, and it is 6 teams seeded after you have the games. Until there is more consolidation the two highest G5's can play for the 6th spot even. I know those teams are not as good as the 2nd place SEC, B1G, ACC, PAC, B12 but we don't need to CHOOSE one or even two teams at large whether its 6 or 8 schools. I know that doesn't leave a spot for ND, but they can join a league or the ACC can ***** themselves out to ND and allow them access to their league championship game based on conference win %.

At least way, there is a defined path for every team to get in. Leagues need to pick their highest two conference regular season finishers not one from the West and one from the East, because the winner advances not who the committee wants. With this small of a field you don't need to put 2nd place teams in a playoff.
Of course they are, but do these wildcard games that would replace the CCG with presumably lesser teams, satisfy the greed as well UGA playing Bama with the playoffs on the line? Basically, if you're the networks, the informal playoffs (CCG) may be better than a larger playoffs if that means more chances of elite postseason matchups.
 

Win5002

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
1,633
-521
63
Of course they are, but do these wildcard games that would replace the CCG with presumably lesser teams, satisfy the greed as well UGA playing Bama with the playoffs on the line? Basically, if you're the networks, the informal playoffs (CCG) may be better than a larger playoffs if that means more chances of elite postseason matchups.
I will say it again. The reason the NFL is so much better and college football is a junior product or almost a cult is all of these engineered matchups that mean something when committees or networks want the game to or they choose to dismiss the game if they don't like the results. Its picking and choosing to get the desired results and anyone that is not a blueblood or at least a school championed by the SEC or B1G gets screwed. Its more akin to WWE fixing results than a playoff.

I use to think I liked CFB because it was rivalry, style of play, etc. I would watch games in all 4 windows of time. Then I realized what a joke the ending of the season was and completely stopped watching bowl games and playoffs except where ISU & Iowa are involved.

The older I get the more I realize the only reason I USE TO WATCH college football more than the NFL was the state of Iowa has two teams that play. Take away those reasons and there is no reason to watch the sport, it has so many flaws by the way it is ran, even though it could be really good. This goes to the point I have made with you on other points. CFB can't thumb its nose at everyone other than 40 programs and expect to thrive, its not that popular.
 

Jeh

Member
Dec 16, 2013
48
41
18
I think my favorite part of that article is that they cite a sports rights valuation firm to share that going from 4 to 12 could triple the value of the CFP. I'm no math wiz but...
Well, you'd be going from 3 games to 11 games, which is more than a tripling of games, so....
 

AuH2O

Well-Known Member
Sep 7, 2013
6,378
8,045
113
Well, you'd be going from 3 games to 11 games, which is more than a tripling of games, so....
Yeah, and the number they throw out is going from $600M to just over $2B, so oddly the value goes up by approximately the increase in games.

I just find it funny because I can imagine a big to-do getting some "expert" firm to give them an idea of the value only to turn around and have said experts go to the in-depth analysis of 11/3 = 3.67 x $600M = $2.2 Billion and proclaim "It could triple to more than $2 Billion! Can you believe that?"

I can imagine Mark Emmert, Kevin Warren or Larry Scott writing up a consulting contract for these guys for millions of dollars to do such an exploratory study for expansion.
 

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
3,576
2,203
113
I will say it again. The reason the NFL is so much better and college football is a junior product or almost a cult is all of these engineered matchups that mean something when committees or networks want the game to or they choose to dismiss the game if they don't like the results. Its picking and choosing to get the desired results and anyone that is not a blueblood or at least a school championed by the SEC or B1G gets screwed. Its more akin to WWE fixing results than a playoff.

I use to think I liked CFB because it was rivalry, style of play, etc. I would watch games in all 4 windows of time. Then I realized what a joke the ending of the season was and completely stopped watching bowl games and playoffs except where ISU & Iowa are involved.

The older I get the more I realize the only reason I USE TO WATCH college football more than the NFL was the state of Iowa has two teams that play. Take away those reasons and there is no reason to watch the sport, it has so many flaws by the way it is ran, even though it could be really good. This goes to the point I have made with you on other points. CFB can't thumb its nose at everyone other than 40 programs and expect to thrive, its not that popular.
The CFB regular season is great. I would be less of a fan if ISU wasn't in a conference that put teams regularly in the Playoff. But hopefully that isn't the case near term.

However, I agree 100% that having a committee select Playoff teams is BS. Whether 4, 8 or 12 teams Playoff selection should be based on being conference champ and rankings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SolarGarlic

Cyrealist

Active Member
Sep 25, 2013
544
-152
43
65
Of course they are, but do these wildcard games that would replace the CCG with presumably lesser teams, satisfy the greed as well UGA playing Bama with the playoffs on the line? Basically, if you're the networks, the informal playoffs (CCG) may be better than a larger playoffs if that means more chances of elite postseason matchups.
If it is an imperative to have a "true national champion" determined by a playoff, why is it less of an imperative to have true conference champions. With divisions and unbalanced schedules, there's no other way than a conference championship game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyfanatic

isucy86

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2006
3,576
2,203
113
Yeah, and the number they throw out is going from $600M to just over $2B, so oddly the value goes up by approximately the increase in games.

I just find it funny because I can imagine a big to-do getting some "expert" firm to give them an idea of the value only to turn around and have said experts go to the in-depth analysis of 11/3 = 3.67 x $600M = $2.2 Billion and proclaim "It could triple to more than $2 Billion! Can you believe that?"

I can imagine Mark Emmert, Kevin Warren or Larry Scott writing up a consulting contract for these guys for millions of dollars to do such an exploratory study for expansion.
Just to clarify the $600M today includes the 3 playoff and something like 5 New Years day bowl games.

And the $2B was based on 11 playoff games in a 12 team format
 

WhoISthis

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2010
2,513
1,159
113
If it is an imperative to have a "true national champion" determined by a playoff, why is it less of an imperative to have true conference champions. With divisions and unbalanced schedules, there's no other way than a conference championship game.
Is a CCG even a true conference champion with unbalanced schedules? It is just one game based on an artificial separation of teams. The number 2 team in the BIG Ten East will almost always be the second best Big 10 team. Why need a conference champion at all?

Outside of the Big 12 round robin schedule, there will always be an element of "not true" champion, CCG or not. Arguably the Big 12 CCG is not the true champion, although I would say that depends on the delta between #1 and #2 going into the game
 

Jeh

Member
Dec 16, 2013
48
41
18
Is a CCG even a true conference champion with unbalanced schedules? It is just one game based on an artificial separation of teams. The number 2 team in the BIG Ten East will almost always be the second best Big 10 team. Why need a conference champion at all?

Outside of the Big 12 round robin schedule, there will always be an element of "not true" champion, CCG or not. Arguably the Big 12 CCG is not the true champion, although I would say that depends on the delta between #1 and #2 going into the game
Actually, unless you play infinitely many games, no system, including round robin, is going to reveal the true strength of teams with absolute certainty. "Champion" and "best team" are two very different terms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhoISthis