Its not that odd, K State canceled because the Big 12's OOC game slate went from 4 games to 3. Oregon replaced the first trip with the LSU game in Cowboys stadium last year and never found a good replacement for them in 2012. K State already had a "premier" home and home with Miami (who was also an easier win) and now also had to play OU and Texas every year so they wanted to water down their schedule a bit. BTW the PAC12 was trying to poach Big12 schools like UT/TxTech/A&M/OU/OSU/CU and even KU so I don't think K State really cared about helping out the schedule of one of their top schools so that they could look good.

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

There's consequences is all. Just as I suspect FSU's fluff schedule in a rather down ACC season made FSU's championship chances all but certain that it was undefeated or bust, the more losses the Big XII field acquires, the less impressive KSU will look to voters and computers. That win over Miami looks good if UMFL wins out and takes the conference championship game, but any further losses makes Oregon look that much better. UNT and Missouri State was bunk. This is happening in the PAC, too, but we all remember what those schools were doing in their non-conference games, right?

Just as I didn't cry for OSU, I won't for KSU. When you play round-robin, programs are going to lose. And without a CCG, any program with national championship aspirations OWES it to themself to challenge themselves in the non-conference. This is where I believe, should we have more than two undefeated teams by season's end, the Ducks will squeak by. UMFL > Fresno State, but 13 > 12.

1st off none of this is an issue with the playoffs so this whole argument is pretty pointless...however I'm bored.

A reason I hated the CCG (not saying I'm glad the Big 12 doesn't have one) is when a school had to beat a team they had already played earlier in the season. The little benefit it gives you is nowhere close to the risk a loss could cause.

LSU should have been able to play Okie St for the title, if Bama wanted to play in the MNC they should have won their conference. It would have been more fair to both LSU AND OSU but the past is the past. But still if OSU hadn't choked away a game at Iowa State it wouldn't have been an issue.

Now about K State.

KSU clearly has the better schedule when you line it up the entire Big 12 versus the PAC12 minus UCLA (and Utah but they suck) and tack on that Miami>Fresno...its extremely obvious.

And BTW if Oregon doesn't play a 2 loss UCLA (meaning they beat Stanford AND USC) that game will get pretty bad ratings since it means they'll be playing a 3 loss team in a likely rematch that is in the back half of the polls, meanwhile KSU will be playing a top 10-15 Texas team on December 1st (assuming UT beats ISU/TCU). If Oregon wins the rematch against a 3 loss team its expected so big whoop, but if KSU wins with the big ratings it's more likely to give them a bump in the polls.

Its the exposure the CCG provides that gives teams a bigger advantage in the polls more than the 13th game does or else everyone would be begging Hawaii to let them come to the islands for a game. That's the reason the Big Ten always seemed to lose out but the PAC10 didn't a its the reason that the Big 12 scheduled games on CCG Saturday so they can avoid that drop off.

Once again, when the playoffs begin an undefeated Big 12 won't get left out. Its very rare to have more than 4 undefeated teams much less all from the 5 power conferences. If we get into the 1 loss teams the Big 12 champ will still carry some weight and the selection committee will probably benefit them over any non Big 5 conference like when they picked OU/FL over an undefeated Utah in 2008.

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

Big fan of your points about replaying a school you already beat with nothing to gain. And there's also to point of the Big 12 being at an advantage over other conferences in the Big 5.

It's why I've been a proponent of a system that would require conferences to all HAVE to have a CCG in order to be considered for a playoff/etc. Means the Big 12 would need 2 schools and everyone is on the same page...unlike this year where Alabama, Oregon, etc risk dropping spots while KSU can only benefit...in a scenario in which all 3 were undefeated in the regular season.

You're points also lead me to the idea mentioned in the past about 18 team conferences. In theory, 18 team conferences would be like 2 separate conferences under 1 umbrella...ala AFC and NFC. You play 8 conference games at year against the other 8 members, and you play the other division champ in the CCG. So no replays. And if the Big 4 at that point were all at 18, it's an even playing field...and covers 52 FBS schools.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

72 ??? (4 x 18). I like that. No repeat games. 72 makes room for just about all the really decent FBS schools.

Yes, mistype, 72.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Restraint of trade by a tv broadcaster,likely will end up in a court case.

In reality there is no big 5.
Possibly there is a Big 4.

However,the acc is no better than the new BE.

Having a tv broadcaster who tries to destroy your league and has TOO MUCH control of the process seems to be remedied by courts and having a real broadcaster like fox or nbc backing up your league in terms of the national football playoff.

I think I have a bigger problem with CBS than I have with ESPN, and both of them already have deep stakes in major college athletics. I think CBS has ruined the basketball tournament the way they shift coverage, killing the game's momentum and creating an artificial barrier against certain styles of play (seriously, who uses the run-and-gun anymore?). And frankly, I can't stand watching SEC football...I think CBS is a part of that for how loose the games feel.

ESPN just spoils the experience with politics and bad press...I'll take that over a network that actually affects the game.

All that is to say...do you really think Fox and NBC will be that different? NBC maybe, but not Fox. Broadcasters have a financial stake in this thing, must they be so passive?

I will say, though...I saw a Big XII game over the weekend...FINALLY!!! And, naturally, it was West Virginia...the closest "local" school in the conference.



Really? You think two bowl-eligible teams fighting for an actual league championship is the same as going to Hawaii?

The issue isn't having a CCG. Or scheduling fluff OOC games. It's -both- (ala KSU this year and OSU last year). Stick to your guns about risk...I'll stick to mine about SOS, and no matter how little you think of the PAC-12's CCG, it will still pit two bowl eligible teams. As long as there is a computer component that helps determine the best programs, I'm not so confident in the Big XII's chances the remaining BCS years or in the playoffs if it isn't Texas and Oklahoma (and even then, it's a media perception/nostalgia thing for the program rather than a respect of the entire conference). And what the computers can't do, I suspect the PAC, B1G, SEC, and, yes, ACC will in the selection committees when they make it known that their schedule is naturally more challenging because of game #13, should the cupcake non-conference issue remain equal in all conferences.

I am certainly understand what espn is with regard to the BE and how it vastly underpays the conference for its games.
Also I understand how espn has tried on 3 occassions to kill the BE 1.miami,vatech,bc 2.wvu,tcu 3syracuse and pitt and likely nd.
All these actions could be part of a real nice court case.

I like the news as reality not as proganda as presented as presented by fox.

However,I still think fox would be better than espn for the BE

My first choice is of course is NBC for the BE

The media and the public believe that there is.

Did it give Oregon a huge boost last year? I doubt it. If its UCLA then you will be right, if its USC/AZ/ASU then I'd doubt it but we'll see.

If you want to go by schedule strength for the teams Sargins has...

K St -73.60 w/ avg opp rank 33 and predicts if undefeated will be 2
Oregon - 69.69 w/ avg opp rank 47 and predicts if undefeated will be 3

The reason for that is (minus the scrub games) that K St will play 8 bowl eligible teams (only Baylor/Kansas will not go bowling) while Oregon even with the CCG will also just play 8 bowl eligible teams (with Colorado, Washington St, and Cal staying home) so your argument that the 13th game helps Oregon's SOS is unlikely (once again, assuming they are not playing a two loss UCLA that run the table in their final three games). It all comes down to conference strength and this year the Big 12 is perceived better which is why I think it'll still be K State but that's my opinion.

Might as well have played Hawaii....jk

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

Well, we can put to rest the whole Champions Bowl location...as the Sugar Bowl has been selected as the location for the Big 12 vs SEC bowl game. So the "Champions Bowl" name will be dropped in favor of the "Sugar Bowl".

Good to see. Good location for the event, good market for both conferences. Keeps the tradition of that bowl game, making it actually a lot better. And the good thing is that with the SEC and Big 12 being in solid spots each year, there's a good chance they'll be able to get an SEC vs Big 12 matchup even when a school is out for the playoffs. SEC seems a lock...Big 12 nit far behind. NOT having a CCG will help the Big 12 get the top Big 12 school into the playoffs and the #2 in the Sugar Bowl...similar to the success the Big Ten had during the BCS years when they didn't have a championship game.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Pretty sure that SEC and Big XII resolved the impasse by agreeing that Sugar Bowl (perennial SEC site) gets the "Champs" (keeping SEC happy),
and in exchange both SEC and Big XII will endorse Cotton Bowl @ Jerry World (please don't call it "Jonestown")
to host "access bowl" (w/ semi-final rotation, and the Big XII -SEC match-up in years when the Sugar hosts semi-final)
and get a dose of NC games where the big 110,000 seat capactiy comes into good use.

I see the following happening:
A pairing of the Rose-Fiesta, a pairing of the Sugar-Cotton, a pairing of the Orange-Chick-fil-A.
My logic is that the "contract sites" require a back-up location in years when the Rose/ Sugar/Orange host a semi-final (not all at the same time).

So the Fiesta/Cotton/ Chick-Fil-A might host a semi-final, a "BCS" at-large match-up, or the "Rose Bowl match-up"/"Sugar Bowl match-up"/ "Orange Bowl match-up" in a given year.

The BCS power brokers meet next week, and you might see this all hashed out.
The remaining stuff awarding the 3 "access" bowl and NC game locations.

With regard to the 7th game... it seems like the you'd have the 5 "lesser" conferences + PAC-12 + Big XII all in favor of it.
When the ACC decided to pair their champ in the Orange Bowl vs. Notre Dame / SEC / Big Ten, the PAC and Big XII probably thought
"Hey - how did the Big Ten and SEC just get ANOTHER BCS slot ? We should have one too !!!"
It would have made more Sense (I should know better than to use the "S" word)
to have the Orange Bowl pair the ACC with BE/MAC/SunBelt/CUSA/MWC/independents (Notre Dame, BYU et. al.)
but the Orange Bowl folks know that those schools have a reputation for not all "travelling well".
Perhaps they can get together and force the Orange Bowl to adopt that, and force the networks to cough up the big TV $$$,
by somehow packaging the TV rights with the semi-fianls / NC game.

Guys, I have a question concerning the new four team playoff and six access bowls. What happened to the idea of having the college football championship game being hosted by any city willing to bid and pay for this game (i.e. Super Bowl City).

It was my understanding after the first year in 2014 (which the new playoff format did not have time to allow bidding in 2014 for the new playoff championship game) the championship game would always be hosted by to the highest bidding city which would not necessarily have to be a current bowl city.

If the championship game is always going to be bid out to the highest bidding city why would there be a need for a 7 access bowl?

I am guessing the idea of bidding out the championship game must have got put on hold allowing the same old problem of having the bowls control college football playoff.

Guessing I missed this important fact when the announcement came out of six access bowls there would be not independent city hosting college football championship game.

If college football would have done the right thing by keeping the four team playoff outside of the current bowl system and simply picking three cities every year to host these games just like college basketball the issues of access would have gone away.

It has finally dawned on me we simply have the same old pig (BCS disguised as playoff using the existing bowls) with perhaps better lipstick.

I must have missed something too. Not aware that the site of the final game has been addressed so far, only the six Dec 31-Jan 1 games.