purplepastor
Member
If a team is 12-0 they ought to be champs. Only if top two teams have lost should there be a playoff.Big 12 got bullied into this game.
If a team is 12-0 they ought to be champs. Only if top two teams have lost should there be a playoff.Big 12 got bullied into this game.
Should have been a contingent CCG. Only if two records are the same
Panicked into it more like. I imagine it will screw the conference before it helps itBig 12 got bullied into this game.
A head-to-head tiebreaker is a terrible, contrived way to produce a champion
Yep, I don't think other conferences have it right either. That is why the Big 12 had the potential to have the top team be the champion, but they messed it up. Last year was the one year that pretty much any conference had the rules set up for a single champion as much as could be for a football conference.Just as possible with any other conference.
I am preparing for some real gamesmanship near the end of the season. Let's say a team wraps up a spot in the championship game, say OU for example, then they don't have to win the final game of the season prior to the Big 12 CG. I have the feeling some teams would rest their starters and key players in preparation for the championship game trying to insure a championship.
The round robin format doesn't produce a "champion" unless a team finishes with a better record than everyone else. Go check the history books of conferences prior to the advent of split division leagues. All co-champions claimed a conference title. A head-to-head tiebreaker is a terrible, contrived way to produce a champion, it's used because it's the simplest way to do it in circumstances where playing another game isn't possible.
Producing one champion isn't important, and conference championships, regardless of how you interpreted what the CFP says, matter very little. This game was added to make money and beef up the resume of our best teams. It makes some sense, but a better way to do it would've been to ban all FCS games and start from there and see how it plays out.
But right now there's a guarantee of a rematch.I don't understand the basic complaint, rematch-is-bad, as I understand it. With cross-division regular season games, there's a chance of a rematch even in a league with divisions.
I would be curious as to what the better way is.
As to past titles, that was just how the rules were written. Last year, the head to head was champion if there was a tie.
Agree on last part, the CFP could have chosen TCU as the #3 team, but just used the lack of title as an excuse to put OSU in the playoffs and keep Baylor and TCU out. (Along with all the bad marketing and whining by the Baylor people in the press) They took the easy way out and not try to get the 4 best teams.
BS
They didn't deserve to be in the so called playoffs. It became an invitational right from the beginning.
The whole thing (with this [ Finebaum ]tbox committee) is fixed just like Delaney wants it. If we had a CCG back in '14 and beat Baylor, they still would have found a reason to put Delaney's team in.
Baylor would have gritched. ...
In a scenario with Oklahoma State and TCU 12-0 and 11-1 on the regular season, with TCU winning the play-in game, and both ending the year at 12-1, is there a single Big 12 champion (in this case TCU for winning the extra game), or are the two co-champions, ending the conference play each with effectively 9-1 conference records, but the conference certifying to the Gang of 13 that TCU is the conference playoff candidate? I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I've slept most nights....
OK...just one more reason for me not to like this new format....It's all about the Benjamins, I know, but the regular season is relegated to less importance as a result, even if it should be TCU winning the championship game...basketball and baseball seem to recognize regular season championship as well as conference tournament champions....
I don't know what the big deal is about a guaranteed rematch. Teams in the NFL play their division opponents twice every year and sometimes a third time in the playoffs. No one complains that it's not fair. The team that wins the playoff game moves on. Yes, the playoff game counts more than the regular season game. That's the point of a playoff game. There's nothing wrong with that.
The rematch isn't any big deal, but I still think this game is unnecessary. The same thing could be accomplished by just beefing up OOC schedules, starting with not allowing FCS opponents. Instead of promoting the uniqueness of the conference because of the round robin format it's like we're the weak kid trying to be like the everyone else.
The Big 12, by having only 10 teams and having every team play each other, has the best structure of all. Promote that. Don't try and be like everyone else when a 10-team league makes it seem cumbersome and contrived to match what the other conferences do. There's a real possibility of teams playing each other in back-to-back weeks, which I'm pretty sure would be unprecedented in college football.