To satisfy the ESPN mouthpieces. Like it or not, their weekly tirade about the Big12s lack of 13th game does matter. That 4th non-conference game from the SEC is so tough.
No Divisions for Football
- Thread starter cyIclSoneU
- Start date
To satisfy the ESPN mouthpieces. Like it or not, their weekly tirade about the Big12s lack of 13th game does matter. That 4th non-conference game from the SEC is so tough.
This. This exactly. They keep harping on the lack of a championship game but what they fail to mention is that the Big 12 already had 9 conference games which most of the other leagues needed a conference championship to reach. The game that the Big 12 contenders were missing was a game against Kennesaw State.
I think you will start seeing the "rivalry" games between the supposed power schools moved up in the year - rather than have them at the end of the schedule.
Hypothetically, OU and Texas meet the 4th week of the season, then both go on to win out and meet again 9 weeks later.
That would give the loser of the game ample time to move back up in the polls (like SEC teams do) and recover from the loss. In this case, there might even be a chance that both teams make the CFP even if #2 wins. That would never happen if either team took their one loss from the other 2 weeks prior to the end of the regular season.
Hypothetically, OU and Texas meet the 4th week of the season, then both go on to win out and meet again 9 weeks later.
That would give the loser of the game ample time to move back up in the polls (like SEC teams do) and recover from the loss. In this case, there might even be a chance that both teams make the CFP even if #2 wins. That would never happen if either team took their one loss from the other 2 weeks prior to the end of the regular season.
When this argument was made against the Big 12 only the PAC 12 also played a 9 game conference schedule. It wasn't a PAC 12 team that the Big 12 hopefuls lost out to. The big 10 didn't start a 9 game schedule until this year.
Just for an example, in 2005, Colorado would have been at best 3rd (behind TT and OU whom I can't remember if they were tied for 2nd) in the conference.
A worse record than the top 2-3 of the other division isn't great for deserving to play the overall 1st place team, and it was that way a lot of years.
It was certainly better set up for someone like ISU, who had chances to at least appear in that game, but I wouldn't have considered them the 2nd best team in the conference overall.
Yes, and move games pitting ISU against Texas, Baylor, TCU and Tech to the end of November/December. Let them freeze their asses off in Ames.
That can be said of conferences with divisions too. This year Wisky played both Ohio State and Michigan in the regulat season. Nebraska plays Ohio State in a couple weeks. I don't see any discussion of the Big10 considering cancelling their championship game. A rematch could easily happen is the Pac12 as well.
IMO Big12 fans need to stop the woe-is-me mentality. Our conference championship game WILL include the two best teams based on record. Conferences with divisions can't always say that.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure this is the wrong move. Guaranteeing that one of your top two teams lose in the final week of the season is going to bite the conference in the butt. If you go with divisions it's likely that neither of the top two teams lose in the final week.
The Big 12 almost always chooses the wrong way of going about things which further leads me to believe it is the wrong decision.
The Big 12 almost always chooses the wrong way of going about things which further leads me to believe it is the wrong decision.
IMO wrong way to look at the conference championship game. Who cares if it hurts the 2nd best or losing team. They will go to a top tier bowl game.
By the Championship game winner beating another nationally elite team (hopefully ranked in the top 10), that should provide the CCG winner the strongest arguement to the committee for the Big12 champ to earn one of the 4 playoff berths.
Sure it hurts the conference from getting 2 teams in the playoff- but I think that isn't likely unless any CCG loser only has one loss and the is a close loss.
A forward way of looking at it, when the playoffs expand, it could help the Big 12 annually taking 2 teams to the playoffs.
This answer is in the thread. Big 12 has a tiebreaking procedure, just like every single conference has one.
The flip flopping of this conference on many matters is getting old, but this is the best avenue to add that extra data point. In most years it should be a slam dunk to get a 1 loss or even a 2 loss conf champion into the playoff. Playing 10 conference games along with a non-con P5 game is as solid of a resume as you can have.
I agree with those who have said the B12 may have to do some projections each year in an effort to make a more front loaded schedule, to try and avoid a late season/CCG rematch that could be just a week or two apart.
I agree with those who have said the B12 may have to do some projections each year in an effort to make a more front loaded schedule, to try and avoid a late season/CCG rematch that could be just a week or two apart.
When the playoff expands to 8 teams, I bet each of the 5 conference champs will get a playoff berth. If one or more G5 team(s) are rated in the top 10-12, the top rated team would be guaranteed a playoff berth.
The final two teams would be selected at large and the selection committee will evaluate teams and I don't think they will hold a loss in the CCG against a team - who are the 2-3 best at-large teams?
Personally, if there is ever a move to 8 playoff teams, I could see a move away from conferences and the creation of 6 or 7 divisions with the division champ earning an automatic playoff berth. One or two at-large non-champs would receive the other two berths. This format would do away with the need for conference championship games and keep the maximum number of games at 15 for the two championship game teams.
