In the near term, we want the easy road. Long term, get better or get beat. Our goal now isn't to win the conference, first we want to be in the top half. In the middle of the pack, at the end of the season, they count wins rather than SOS.
Staying at 10?
- Thread starter chrismiller4isu
- Start date
I think the thing that makes it harder to win a title in divisional play is that you give up the chance to play a lesser team. When one team is not as good in the other division you take out such team. You will only play the best team in the other division to get to the title. In round robin you play all the lesser teams.
Common sense? We will have to beat out less teams to get to the championship game and there is a chance we won't have to face OU and Texas every year.
Your conclusion is basically based on the same faulty assumptions that IcSyU made...
I doubt they're in different divisions. Neither school would want to have to play the other twice in order to win the conference.
Will playing a divisional format be easier for Iowa State to win the Big 12? Yes. Example being Kansas State in 2003. They went 6-2 in conference play. Won the Big 12 North and beat Oklahoma in the title game. Ahead of them in the standings were Oklahoma at 8-0 and Texas at 7-1.
If there was no title game and we took the standings as who won, OU would of gone to the Sugar Bowl(National Championship game that year) most likely as they did anyway after losing to KSU, and Texas would of gotten the Fiesta Bowl bid as the next in line. KSU would of been left with a Cotton Bowl invite most likely.
In a round robin, you need to play everyone and probably beat everyone or hope the team that beats you loses twice.
If there was no title game and we took the standings as who won, OU would of gone to the Sugar Bowl(National Championship game that year) most likely as they did anyway after losing to KSU, and Texas would of gotten the Fiesta Bowl bid as the next in line. KSU would of been left with a Cotton Bowl invite most likely.
In a round robin, you need to play everyone and probably beat everyone or hope the team that beats you loses twice.
Last edited:
Getting to a BCS bowl is much easier for a team like ISU via a divisional format similar to the North and South was previously set up as. I can't believe people don't get this!
How can Iowa State's schedule possibly be any more difficult than the round robin? You CAN'T avoid Oklahoma and Texas. How aren't you understanding this? In the division format, there's at least a chance you can avoid one of them and maybe even both. Even if both end up in your division, what did you lose versus a round robin? Nothing.
I'll try....... Dmac "the mediocre" had two chances to win the north after starting out 0-3 in conference play...... any other coach would have gotten us to two championship games by playing to win and not to lose......in the champ game anything can happen (see NE and TX). He would have been in the middle of the pack in a round robin -- history shows you all the proof you need ----- well and common sense. If I have too I'll work out the odds but it is self evident to any reasonably logical individual. Have another beer.
Why would the Big 12 add Louisville if they had to wait 3 years? It would simply cue them up to be poached, and stop the Big 12 from looking at new opportunities in a changing landscape.
after MU stays and TCU joins the next two will be very carefully selected -- heavy hitters will come to the new stable big 12, you already know this ketel!!!!
Regarding OU's actual intentions:
I don't think they ever intended to leave for the Pac. Why?
-A well connected donor (who has definitely missed on stuff and is prone to emotional over-reactions) is telling us all along that OU is using the threat of leaving to get Texas to make concessions, and that this was all orchestrated.
-OU, for the 2nd time in a row, does not leave for the Pac. Pac says they turn them down, but the message is clear that the league is not interested in expansion past 12. Did they balk at the last second? Probably not. They were probably never that interested. If they were that interested, they would have worked out a deal. OU was likely aware of this.
-Texas, having their hand forced, actually makes concessions, agreeing to share Tier I and II revenue (which is actually a lot of money, although the blind "TEXAS IS EVIL" crowd acts like it isn't) and removing HS content from the LHN.
-The Big 12 goes back on the offensive, adding schools with OU's President Boren taking the front stage on it.
ALL of this plays perfectly into what was predicted and suggests that OU has been working for the Big 12 even when it publicly appeared otherwise.
I don't think they ever intended to leave for the Pac. Why?
-A well connected donor (who has definitely missed on stuff and is prone to emotional over-reactions) is telling us all along that OU is using the threat of leaving to get Texas to make concessions, and that this was all orchestrated.
-OU, for the 2nd time in a row, does not leave for the Pac. Pac says they turn them down, but the message is clear that the league is not interested in expansion past 12. Did they balk at the last second? Probably not. They were probably never that interested. If they were that interested, they would have worked out a deal. OU was likely aware of this.
-Texas, having their hand forced, actually makes concessions, agreeing to share Tier I and II revenue (which is actually a lot of money, although the blind "TEXAS IS EVIL" crowd acts like it isn't) and removing HS content from the LHN.
-The Big 12 goes back on the offensive, adding schools with OU's President Boren taking the front stage on it.
ALL of this plays perfectly into what was predicted and suggests that OU has been working for the Big 12 even when it publicly appeared otherwise.
In theory a division setup could be tougher although in general it is easier. Consider the following scenario. In division play you end the regular season with an 11-1 Oklahoma team ranked #2 versus the 12-0 Cyclones ranked #1 who pulled off a huge 28-24 win in Norman during the regular season. The rematch is a defensive struggle and Oklahoma wins 14-13 when ISU misses a FG as time expires. Oklahoma finishes the season #1 and plays in the national championship game against undefeated Colorado.
In round robin we win a national championship, but in division play we have to settle for beating Nebraska 48-5 in the Rose Bowl and a final #2 ranking.
True except in the current Big 12 we would need to knock off OU, Texas, OSU, A&M, Mizzou and Bayor who I would say are the top teams this year. In old Big 12 play, we would only play 3 of those Big 12 South teams and maybe not have a rematch if it was a year we didn't play OU or Texas.
So it is kinda six of one, half a dozen of the other but I still like how in divisional you can lose a game or two and still get to the championship game.
In divisional play with 2 - 6 team divisions and 8 conference games you can go 4-4 and make it to the championship game -- it's been done .......... trivia question - who did it??
Here's what history shows...
In the 19 SEC conference championship games that have been played, the conference champion had 2 or more losses 3 times. All other champions had 1 or no conference losses.
In the 15 Big 12 conference championship games that have been played, the conference champion had 2 or more conference losses 5 times. In one of those five times, the game was between competitors that had 2 or more losses.
The Pac-10 played a full round robin schedule from 2006-2010. The conference champion had 2 or more conference losses for 2 out of 5 years. It's unfortunate that the Pac-10 round robin sample size isn't bigger.
The Big East plays full-round robin schedule, the conference champion had 2 or more conference losses 3 of 18 years.
The ACC is a little odd. They've played 6 championship games, but in only 3 of those games did one of the competitors have 1 or no conference losses. In those three games, the team with 1 or no conference losses won two times.
What this history shows is that a divisional conference arrangement provides no obvious advantage over a full round-robin format for teams with two or more conference losses to win a conference championship, unless the conference as a whole is weak (as in the case of the ACC).
Perhaps there is some way that you could create a model showing that ISU would have an easier chance at making a BCS bowl by playing in a divisional arrangement, but I doubt that there is, since it would require knowing which teams would be added to the Big 12, and some model of how all the teams will perform in the future.
Last edited:
8 conference games vs 9 conference games. Which would you rather have?
Duh. Go back to divisions. Get 12 teams. That is the best for ISU.
Duh. Go back to divisions. Get 12 teams. That is the best for ISU.
