NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:10 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1412 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 ... 95  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:57 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 734
Location: Columbus, OH
tkalmus wrote:
Think about it...if the Texohoma four leave for the PAC16, then the Big 12 could reload with BYU, Boise, Cincy, UConn, SMU, and Houston for a better than average league.

West: Houston, Baylor, SMU, TCU, BYU, Boise
East: Kansas, K State, Iowa St, Cincy, WVU, UConn

The ACC is in a way better position that the Big 12, if they lose 2 to the B1G (UVA/UNC) and 2 to the SEC (VPI/NCSU) then they can quickly reload with WVU, Cincy, UConn, and another eastern member and still have a pretty competetive league with enough "jewels" and history to ride out these raids.


This is a very plausible scenario--I think for teh most part you even have the right schools on your list unless they go into Florida with UCF and/or USF. The question is "What has to happen to send the Texlahoma 4 to the Pac 12?" The Pac 12 will not offer a sweet heart deal to cater to the Longhorns and there are members within the Pac 12's own ranks that are concerned with preserving the history of the old Pac 8 days. I think the SEC and Big 10 would have to strike the ACC first in order to set off a realignment panic.

I honestly think we are going to enter a phase of the the cut throat realignment carousel where conferences expand purely to strip rival conferences of their most valuable assets. While the retrofitted Big 12 you describe certainly would be solid on the field they can't compete for tv dollars the way the Pac 16, Big 10, and SEC can. The same could be said of the ACC. There are maybe 6 schools in that conference that give that league clout on television and if you take them away the value and stability of that league drop dramatically.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:19 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
hibbett2222 wrote:
Ok so lets talk about this vote upcoming on Autonmy that the P5 conferences want. Some of the language states what are permissive rules which mandates that the P5 conferences offer these perks while the other conferences can choose to if they want to. However we all know that just because a school is in the P5 doesn't mean that it operates on the same budget as the top schools in the P5. Take for example. Alabama and Texas of course are making money and are top dogs in the P5, but what about schools like Wake Forest, Iowa State, Rutgers, Northwestern, Washington, ect. These schools don't have the same budget as Texas, Alabama, LSU, Ohio State or even the middle of the roads like UNC and Michigan. Once this Autonomy is approved and it will be in August, then will we see some of the P5 schools that are at the bottom, jump back down to the Go5 conferences to have a choice in rather or not they can pay for all these perks? I know that the P5 schools get tons of TV money but is that really split evenly amoung all the schools in the conferences? Or do the Bigger names get more?


There will be a move to consolidate, then dump the lesser by means of severance packages. Those forced out will be because they cannot maintain the costs per new membership rules and expectations. There will be congressional hearings on all this. When the public really understands what is being attempted, there will be a certain level of backlash. Government will not let the service academies diminish with sports, and certain schools such as BYU have strong alumni and LDS supporters in big business. Pressure shall be placed on congressmen representing districts and states with schools outside the power five conferences plus beloved Notre Dame. Historically African-American colleges, who are outside the group of wealthy sports schools, would legitimately complain and be heard. There are several western and upper plains states much underrepresented or not represented at all in the power group.

Power 5 schools and conferences, sports networks, big bowls and advertisers, and the media that feeds off of it, along with pro-sports interests showing input, are doing their lobbying and bullying right now to streamline participation to those who represent the most profitable, and shall get away with much of it to a point. The less power conferences may wait to pull their cards, once the power 5 interests have made their moves, and perhaps rightfully, play victim. They'll do it outside the NCAA organization where the power 5 conferences have control with the purse and can hold the less affluent hostage though collectively their numbers are the majority.

It's a question of fairness, opportunity, and access. The most powerful have the right to be together. But do they have the right to monopolize and drive less stronger schools and conferences essentially out of the sports business or create a situation whereby they cannot sustain themselves through traditional revenue measures that would then be afforded only to the elite?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:45 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 10:23 am
Posts: 163
So we know that even with the P5 getting more power, the Go5 conferences are still safe at least for the next 12 years due to the contract with the new CFP that provides a Access bowl bid to the best Go5 conference champion. The question is what will happen after this agreement ends? The Go5 conferences will support the P5 conferences attempts to get more power. Why because of this provision that allows them to stay at least relavent with the access bowl bid. But once that ends and the P5 have the power that they have sought after, why would they concead even that one spot to the Go5 conferences? I think this is when college football will really change in regards to another sub-division.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 5:56 am 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 118
How about this:
A 16 team playoff. Each conf champion gets an auto-bid, then that leaves 6 up for the next best teams in the rankings. The top teams get to host the games at their stadiums (thus ensuring schools actually make money) with the P5 conf champs hosting the L5 conf champs to open and the other three games are the open qualifiers playing each other.
SEC vs MWC
PAC vs AAC
B1G vs CUSA
BXII vs MAC
ACC vs SBC
open vs open
open vs open
open vs open
Play one game elimination, and this would create a bit more excitement for CFB. The L5 teams get a chance for an upset, and there is enough space open to handle at least 6 teams after conf champs to deal with any undefeated problems. this is just the opening weekend of the 16 team playoff for my format.
What do you guys think?
I also think that conferences with a ccg should get preference over teams w/o ccg. (example: 10-2 Florida St. over 10-2 Texas Tech) This also encourages conferences to have a ccg and thus hold onto at least 12 schools.
The SBC really needs to add one more, and I think that U. Tennessee - C. is going to get the nod when they are ready. I have no proof to back this up, but I believe that the SBC has put off getting a 12th member because the Mocs have probably told the SBC that they can be ready for an invite next year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:41 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1038
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
NorwichCat11 wrote:
How about this:
A 16 team playoff. Each conf champion gets an auto-bid, then that leaves 6 up for the next best teams in the rankings. The top teams get to host the games at their stadiums (thus ensuring schools actually make money) with the P5 conf champs hosting the L5 conf champs to open and the other three games are the open qualifiers playing each other.
SEC vs MWC
PAC vs AAC
B1G vs CUSA
BXII vs MAC
ACC vs SBC
open vs open
open vs open
open vs open
Play one game elimination, and this would create a bit more excitement for CFB. The L5 teams get a chance for an upset, and there is enough space open to handle at least 6 teams after conf champs to deal with any undefeated problems. this is just the opening weekend of the 16 team playoff for my format.
What do you guys think?
I also think that conferences with a ccg should get preference over teams w/o ccg. (example: 10-2 Florida St. over 10-2 Texas Tech) This also encourages conferences to have a ccg and thus hold onto at least 12 schools.
The SBC really needs to add one more, and I think that U. Tennessee - C. is going to get the nod when they are ready. I have no proof to back this up, but I believe that the SBC has put off getting a 12th member because the Mocs have probably told the SBC that they can be ready for an invite next year.


Love the format. And it seems interesting for me to say that I wish that the CFP should eventually upgrade to 16 teams, with 10 conference champs plus the 6 at-large. But within those 16 teams, it should be based on the Top 25 standings. But sometimes, most of those teams might NOT be in the rankings, maybe the conference champ might be an impressive unranked team who upsetted the favorite, but got the hard-fought earning bid. But if I was an elite staff member of the CFP, I would organize into 4 regions: East/South/Midwest/West And it would consist of the following:

East: ACC vs. East at-large; AAC vs. East at-large
South: SEC vs. SBC; C-USA vs. South at-large
Midwest: BIG vs. Midwest at-large; MAC vs. BXII
West: PAC-12 vs. West at-large; MW vs. West-at large

The regional champs will be in the "Final Four" scenario, where Midwest vs. East and South vs. West.

P.S.: UTC might be a possible candidate. Plus, it'll return back some market stuff in the Tennessee/Kentucky area (replacing Middle Tenn. St. & Western Kentucky respectively), plus it's on the East side of the conference footprint, enough to have a CCG with 12 teams.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:38 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
NorwichCat11 wrote:
How about this:
A 16 team playoff. Each conf champion gets an auto-bid, then that leaves 6 up for the next best teams in the rankings. The top teams get to host the games at their stadiums (thus ensuring schools actually make money) with the P5 conf champs hosting the L5 conf champs to open and the other three games are the open qualifiers playing each other.
SEC vs MWC
PAC vs AAC
B1G vs CUSA
BXII vs MAC
ACC vs SBC
open vs open
open vs open
open vs open
Play one game elimination, and this would create a bit more excitement for CFB. The L5 teams get a chance for an upset, and there is enough space open to handle at least 6 teams after conf champs to deal with any undefeated problems. this is just the opening weekend of the 16 team playoff for my format.
What do you guys think?
I also think that conferences with a ccg should get preference over teams w/o ccg. (example: 10-2 Florida St. over 10-2 Texas Tech) This also encourages conferences to have a ccg and thus hold onto at least 12 schools.
The SBC really needs to add one more, and I think that U. Tennessee - C. is going to get the nod when they are ready. I have no proof to back this up, but I believe that the SBC has put off getting a 12th member because the Mocs have probably told the SBC that they can be ready for an invite next year.

I like the direction and order for inclusiveness you presented; however, as we know, extensive separation from the Go5 is the big initiative now, and the Power 5 have no intent to be more accommodating than they were. Power conferences and TV executives will view the first five matchup games you listed as basically unnecessary and less appealing, having comparatively less viewership for TV because it is not all big names. For example, if an 8-team playoff, the powers that be, hypothetically for the example, would rather market B1G champ Ohio State vs PAC12 tied for runner-up Oregon, rather than Ohio State vs Rice (C-USA champ with a 12-1 record). The 'Cinderella effect' works at times to varying degrees for NCAA tournament basketball, but for higher stakes football with precious few slots, the system will dictate the power names.
The Power 5 will continue to leave one access option to the group of 5. But that remains an extraordinary hurdle. Even a strong, undefeated Go5 team will have a tough time making it in with the current 4 spots. Strength of schedule and high quality wins will be much valued. Go5 schools are going to have even less future options in scheduling Power 5 teams for the regular season to demonstrate "high caliber wins of proof".
Another issue in the Power 5 will be the varying conference sizes and CCG concerns. The SEC will continue to push for the "4 best" while some other power conferences will demand a guaranteed rep (which your model affords for all). And we know that politics, the media, broadcasters, pollsters, etc., are going to get Notre Dame placed in there as an independent if they look to being anywhere close as the selection process draws near.

I really respect the idea of fairness. But they will claim fairness for only the 'chosen' among the elite. Big money and power and control drives all this. Personally, I don't like Go5 and FCS schools and conferences being sidelined more they have been.
NCAA reforms are sorely needed. Focus needs to be made about bringing greed under control; as much as they focus on defining whose allowed to be greedy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:47 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:33 am
Posts: 312
Location: Austin, Texas
sec03 wrote:
I like the direction and order for inclusiveness you presented; however, as we know, extensive separation from the Go5 is the big initiative now, and the Power 5 have no intent to be more accommodating than they were. Power conferences and TV executives will view the first five matchup games you listed as basically unnecessary and less appealing, having comparatively less viewership for TV because it is not all big names. For example, if an 8-team playoff, the powers that be, hypothetically for the example, would rather market B1G champ Ohio State vs PAC12 tied for runner-up Oregon, rather than Ohio State vs Rice (C-USA champ with a 12-1 record). The 'Cinderella effect' works at times to varying degrees for NCAA tournament basketball, but for higher stakes football with precious few slots, the system will dictate the power names.
The Power 5 will continue to leave one access option to the group of 5. But that remains an extraordinary hurdle. Even a strong, undefeated Go5 team will have a tough time making it in with the current 4 spots. Strength of schedule and high quality wins will be much valued. Go5 schools are going to have even less future options in scheduling Power 5 teams for the regular season to demonstrate "high caliber wins of proof".
Another issue in the Power 5 will be the varying conference sizes and CCG concerns. The SEC will continue to push for the "4 best" while some other power conferences will demand a guaranteed rep (which your model affords for all). And we know that politics, the media, broadcasters, pollsters, etc., are going to get Notre Dame placed in there as an independent if they look to being anywhere close as the selection process draws near.

I really respect the idea of fairness. But they will claim fairness for only the 'chosen' among the elite. Big money and power and control drives all this. Personally, I don't like Go5 and FCS schools and conferences being sidelined more they have been.
NCAA reforms are sorely needed. Focus needs to be made about bringing greed under control; as much as they focus on defining whose allowed to be greedy.


Well said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:00 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1464
I'm good with 8, but not 16. 16 devalues the regular season. College basketball has become a 4 week season basically now, as people only care whether or not you make the tournament,

8 with automatic spots for the Big 5 plus a secured spot for the highest ranked Go5 team and 2 at large spots going to the highest remaining teams and with the first round on campus.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 5:50 am 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 118
Tkalmus,
8 sucks still, you will only get power 5 teams with still no chance of a lower 5 having a decent shot. 16 is the best for any kind of a "fair" playoff system. This way, even a 2 loss lower 5 team can still upset some of the big boys. That is what has such a big draw for BB. The capability for the smaller guys to bump off the big teams is I grant better in BB, but there is still that possibility in football. Example - Eastern Washington (1AA) defeats #25 Oregon State (1A) opening game of the season. No one saw that coming! :o The problem is that the big boys do not want to share the money or the spotlight with any smaller teams. Can you imagine Nick Sabine having to go to the alums of Alabama and explain why they got beat out of a playoff title by little bitty 18000 undergrad Boise State?Or USC having to try and explain why Nevada bumped them off, and they are no longer in the running for the title? If you keep it at anything less than 16, the chance for "fair" in a playoff system is so greatly diminished that the smaller 5 conferences might as well just be playing in a different league.

Back on topic: I think that the best choice for the SBC is U.Tennessee - C., and that they are waiting for the Mocs to be ready for an invite next year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 6:44 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1038
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
NorwichCat11 wrote:
Tkalmus,
8 sucks still, you will only get power 5 teams with still no chance of a lower 5 having a decent shot. 16 is the best for any kind of a "fair" playoff system. This way, even a 2 loss lower 5 team can still upset some of the big boys. That is what has such a big draw for BB. The capability for the smaller guys to bump off the big teams is I grant better in BB, but there is still that possibility in football. Example - Eastern Washington (1AA) defeats #25 Oregon State (1A) opening game of the season. No one saw that coming! :o The problem is that the big boys do not want to share the money or the spotlight with any smaller teams. Can you imagine Nick Sabine having to go to the alums of Alabama and explain why they got beat out of a playoff title by little bitty 18000 undergrad Boise State?Or USC having to try and explain why Nevada bumped them off, and they are no longer in the running for the title? If you keep it at anything less than 16, the chance for "fair" in a playoff system is so greatly diminished that the smaller 5 conferences might as well just be playing in a different league.

Back on topic: I think that the best choice for the SBC is U.Tennessee - C., and that they are waiting for the Mocs to be ready for an invite next year.


I agree that the playoff format for the FBS level should be 16 instead of 8, where 10 spots are AQs (5 P-5 and 5 Go5) while the other 6 are at-large. Possibly a 10-2 team (regardless of conference that is not a champion) might be worthy to get a shot at the national title. For instance, this past season, then-defending FCS champ North Dakota St. upsetted then-defending Big XII Kansas St. within their respective seasons. In the end, NDSU went unbeaten and regained another national title, while K-State didn't repeat its success like in 2012, where they were unbeaten until the loss at Baylor and their BCS bowl game loss too. But like Norwich said, if there isn't an opportunity for a Go5 FBS team to be in the playoffs, then the Go5 leagues must separate from the P-5 leagues and contest their own national title. I personally think that the D-I level in football should be merged, just like in other sports and have a 48-team playoff format, to see if there could be possible upsets or domination whether by the top elites or the former BCS busters.

Ok, returning to the topic: UTC is a great choice for an expansion candidate, it would bring back market to the state of Tennessee (replacing what Middle Tennessee once did). I still think Jacksonville St. would also be a great candidate. Unless Troy plans to head to C-USA someday, it might not happen soon. Or how about some of the Southland schools that are familiar with Texas St. & UTA in terms of competition and rivalries? Aren't some of them under consideration?

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 4:10 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 734
Location: Columbus, OH
I would actually argue that instead of merging division 1 football it needs to be formally divided into 3 levels with a playoff and national title at each level. The Power 5, obviously, would be their own group. I'd then do some rearranging of the rules to create a middle group for the Group of 5 and the elite of FCS--your Montana's, James Madison's, Delaware's etc. And then have the rest of FCS as the third tier.

I like UT-Chattanooga as an SBC option. I wish Delaware and James Madison were interested in moving up though--maybe they have a future in the MAC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 15, 2014 8:19 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1464
fighting muskie wrote:
I would actually argue that instead of merging division 1 football it needs to be formally divided into 3 levels with a playoff and national title at each level. The Power 5, obviously, would be their own group. I'd then do some rearranging of the rules to create a middle group for the Group of 5 and the elite of FCS--your Montana's, James Madison's, Delaware's etc. And then have the rest of FCS as the third tier.

I like UT-Chattanooga as an SBC option. I wish Delaware and James Madison were interested in moving up though--maybe they have a future in the MAC

Yep, expanding to 16 and having FSU, Auburn, and Alabama play Louisiana Lafayette, Bowling Green, and Rice is pointless. No one will watch and it will hurt the ratings and possibly cause injuries to star players that could ruin a great match ups in the next round.

Going to 8 with the P5 champs and the highest ranked Go5 school (must be ranked) with 2 at large spots is the way to go. Also keep 3 "BCS" bowls for #2s and the best non ranked Go5 if not included in playoffs.

This year you'd have the below playoff games...
FSU v UCF
Aub v tOSU
Bama v Baylor
MSU v Stan
(Top 7 BCS + #15 UCF)

and these BCS games...
Missouri v Oklahoma State
South Carolina v Oklahoma
Oregon v Clemson
(#8-13 in the BCS)

No schools would have had more than 2 losses and no school was ranked out of the top 15 (only a 3 loss Arizona St got passed over at #14) and every game on this slate would get good TV numbers except FSU vs UCF (and while include the Go5 in Nobel and all which would have helped UCF out more getting killed by FSU in the playoffs or beating Baylor in the Fiesta? If not ranked in the top 10 likely putting them in a winnable BCS game would be more beneficial than making them play the #1).

At 16 with bids for all conference champs, you add in 4 more games not worth watching with BGU, Rice, ULL, and Fresno vs top 5 teams plus 4 of those BCS bowl bids and omit a still leave out quality 2 loss teams like Clemson and Oklahoma State and there won't be any BCS level bowl to play for.

Back to the SBC, UTC is my favorite candidate and Coastal Carolina is number 2 but neither seem to want to jump which is disappointing because other than the odds fb only/non fb schools in the West, the SBC surprisingly with UTC or CC could be a real nice and tight sensible conference like the MAC and MWC. If the P5 ever split I could total see many in CUSA deciding split a reform into more sensible conference for travel.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:56 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 118
Now that we have almost a consensus on UTC being the next SBC invitee, would it ever happen? The reason I am asking this question is that I am hearing that the ACC is submitting a rules change to the NCAA to allow a conference to have a CCG with less than 12 members. Also was this submission possibly pushed by Notre Dame, the new power in the ACC? If you look at it this way - having a 12 member required CCG would mean that it could be counted as having a tougher schedule and CCG conference teams could be chosen over none CCG conferences in getting to the 'playoff'. If the required 12 member CCG was removed and any conference could have a CCG regardless of number of members, then it would not be as valued, and the big 12 and Notre Dame could breath easier. The Big 12 would not be forced to grab 2 more teams to share revenue, and Notre Dame would not be forced into joining a conference. What do you guys think of this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:30 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1719
Well, the NCAA now has 14 + Notre Dame.

The ACC was briefly at 11 (in 2004 ?) after adding Miami and Va. Tech, and petitioned the NCAA to allow a CCG for them with 11 teams.
The NCAA turned them down, but it became a moot point after they added BC the following year to get to 12.

I think the NCAA rule states that you can split into two divisions for football and play a CCG, if you have a minimum of 12 teams,
AND if each division has complete round-robin play among the division members.

The ACC has this with 7+7, after losing Maryland and bringing in Louisville as a replacement (Notre Dame's 5 games vs. ACC opponents are treated as OOC games).
It's hard to imagine how to fairly incorporate Notre Dame, until they commit to a full 8 ACC games (at which point the ACC would likely expand to 16 (8 + 8).

AT THIS POINT, the Big XII is interested in a CCG, even though all 10 schools play a round-robin vs. the other 9. (So their CCG would obviously be a re-match).
It's all about money (imagine that !!!)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 1:37 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1038
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
tute79 wrote:
AT THIS POINT, the Big XII is interested in a CCG, even though all 10 schools play a round-robin vs. the other 9. (So their CCG would obviously be a re-match).
It's all about money (imagine that !!!)


How interesting. So basically, in case the Big XII plans to get the CCG ruling with just 10 members, that means there will be a regular-season champion (shared or outright alike), while the top 2 of the conference standings would go compete for the title to be the "tournament" or "bowl" champion within the conference. So there might possibly be re-matches, even if those top 2 teams share the same best conference record.

For instance, the 2012 season (if that type of rule was applied): Oklahoma & Kansas St. (both with 8-1 in Big XII play) would have met in the re-match of a neutral field CCG (K-State as the designated home team; while Oklahoma as the designated road team) to determine the conference bowl/tournament champ.

Sorry for some of the basketball cliche talk when it comes to the road to the post-season.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1412 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 ... 95  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group