I agree with your SEC scenario but not Stanford.

Stanford is #4, in the BCS (@ .8689) because of the computers this week because they beat Oregon last week and that's the last time they'll get help. They play a 3 loss USC and 3 loss ND and 9 loss Cal plus a CCG with another game from a 2 loss UCLA or ASU who they already beat. They have no more quality games left.

Baylor, who's #4 in all the polls (AP/Coaches/Harris) #5 in BSC (@ .8618) still has to play 4 games left to play too including a 3 loss Tech, a 1 or 2 loss OkSt, a bad TCU team that's still better than Cal, and a 2 or 3 loss Texas.

If Baylor goes undefeated they'll jump Stanford in the BCS possibily as soon as next week (especially if OSU beats Texas) becuase as great as that Oregon win was, Utah is still a big black eye on that squad.

But besides the point, its the computers that are helping Stanford, people are voting Baylor in at #4 in every poll, if the playoff committee was running things I have a hard time beleiving that they'd pick more like the computers and less like the people are (though Condy Rice does like her some Stanford).


Texas will lose to Okie St on Saturday (and as always I'll be there to see it) will beat Tech on Thanksgiving, and then will lose to Baylor in Dec ending Mack Brown's tenure with an 8-4 season and putting us in the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl.

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

I'd still take the bet that Stanford leaps Baylor in the polls and takes a comfortable lead in the computers. The thirteenth game, likely against a team they already beat, will still be viewed as a good win, and likely against yet another ranked opponent.

I know people love to hate on the computers, but they aren't impressed by score run-up's. They see a conference with not many good wins to their name.

It's all speculation, but I think Baylor would have it the bag if they got just one more game when all/most of the others do, too. Whether a repeat with K-State or a helpful rematch with the Sooners, Pokes, or Bevo, it puts them even, or ahead of conferences with other CCGs.

I get the feeling the Big XII expands this off-season anyway. For what happens this season regardless.

Baylor v Stanford, I guess just agree to disagree, but I personally have a hard time passing up any undefeated AQ conference champ for a 1 loss team. Reminds me of when OU got in after losing to K State in the CCG back in 2003, did sit well with me then, and would sit well with me now (and fyi while I agree with your SEC scenerio would be likely, I still dont like it).

I wouldn't hold your breath on Big 12 expansion, only way it happens is if ESPN/FOX agree to increase the TV money enough to add 2 more schools w/o costing the others any of their share (so like ~45 million).

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

I don't disagree about rewarding an undefeated program, but I believe in scheduling just a little more. And it wouldn't even be a question with an eight team playoff (heck, that could even benefit teams like Clemson, Oregon, and maybe even a third SEC team). I don't think of it as punishment, either. I think of it as one being rewarded more than another. Stanford's got 7-9 bowl eligible teams on its schedule (8-10 with the CCG), to Baylor's 5-8 eligible ones. Stanford's Oregon and UCLA top-10 battles (at the time) to Baylor's Oklahoma. Heck, Stanford has had 5 top-25 opponents to Baylor's two...that Baylor is still stiff-arming them in the polls, it's certainly more divisive than when flushed out on stats.

The can of worms I don't want to open is how it might be perceived were programs like NIU and Fresno State to go undefeated with thirteen games and still get passed over for one like Baylor with twelve.

The expansion topic is going to be one that resurfaces regardless of the commissioner and athletic directors' words to the contrary. It just sounds like discord, and because it does create some questions and debates like the one above, I don't know if the Big XII has it in them to keep up this "us vs. the world" fight, where the conference should be accommodated, and wherever they are not, put it up as "prejudice" (like the argument of added risk of a CCG, passive-aggressively trying to "expose" a perceived flaw in the championship structure, but then still requesting a waiver for a CCG at ten teams).

When exactly has the Big XII been hosed (due to only 10 schools, or other reason) ?

Why would they be pressured into adding 2 teams that would dilute their conference-wide revenue (TV) stream by 10/12 or .8333 ?
Would this somehow guarantee an improvemnt in strength of schedule that would help them ? No reason to believe that.
If Baylor wants to whine about not being in the Top 2 right now - what about Ohio State ?
tOSU is in the same predicament....

In a typical year, an analysis has shown, there are typcailly about 7-8 undefeated or one-loss teams that might lay claim to being deserving of a slot in the NCG.

The current system allows for 2.
Next year it will be 4.
Ultimately there will be pressure to go to 8, as the selection committee wil be catching heat when the choice between the #4 team (in) and the #5 team (out)
will appear to be arbitrary year after year, and YET the #5 team (excluded) will be considered by many to be worthy of the playoffs.

My personal opinion, is that only people on this board continue to obsess over Big XII expansion.
There are not 2 schools out there that the conference desires, and expansion wil only hurt the current 10 teams in the pocketbook (diluting the existing TV $$$ total).
Bowlsby says they are not considering expansion.... why can't we take his word for it ?

In the past? There's been a few times. oSu was hosed in '11. Missouri got passed over for Kansas a few years back (when there was a CCG), back in '07. One could argue KSU fell unfairly far after getting bested last season. Texas in 2003. Colorado in 2001. The infamous KSU snub of '98 (#3 and no BCS bowl, the first time, but not the last, iirc, that happened, so soon after it was claimed it never could).

A lot of bad results that tended to hurt the Big XII the most over the years. It's why, I think, the conference has been critical of the need for a larger conference and a CCG. But, it's very hypocritical considering in 2003, while Texas got hosed, Oklahoma, who lost their CCG, still benefited from favorable polling and got their game in the national championship.

Undefeated Auburn, 2004 season; not invited to the BCS Championship game.

Your'e getting amusing there, tute79. I read in another forum somewhere the other day someone saying only the 'the Dude' was talking about expansion while everyone else had their minds focused elsewhere. It was not a declaration of endearment, rather a commentary about posts delivering unsubstantiated rumors.
Wait till the bowl season ends, with new rumors and leaks emerging, and chatter is bound to pick up. In the meantime, the Dude can have his platform, and a few here can speculate, advocate, rant, and waste time...but why damper the fun?



That's the line. Substitute the name Bowlsby for Tranghese (and the number 10 for whatever number) and such could have been said about the Big East in 2002 and multiple other years before and after.

Though these conferences are not announcing meetings with expansion placed on the formal agendas as a prime topic, it doesn't mean the subject matter is neglected.

I agree with the basic point, though. Nothing has been added since Bowlsby arrived with the B12. He's the B12's 'status quo' public face. That's their decision to dwell at ten. But if the conference ends up complaining in the future that they are being hurt in the selection processes for playoff placements due to not having a CCG, then I would suggest they keep the whining amongst themselves. The Big12 is outside the 'norm' on this, so the pressure would seem more to be for the B12 to adjust to the methodologies of the other power 5 conferences, rather than making unique accommodations and exceptions in expectations for the one out of sync. And if the B12 uses the argument they have not added because nobody good enough is available to be added, that message should not fly. If the conference cannot attract better, GoRs' aside of which the B12 has one themselves, then such should not be cited as a strength of the conference. Failure to make proactive moves when opportunities were there is not a good excuse in the playoff discussions. And if they cite they had loss choice schools to three other power conferences a couple of years back; that's more about vulnerability then, rather than being a useful argument to deliver that they have peaked on strength.

The same should apply to Notre Dame if they complain in the future they were overlooked due to being fb independent and not involved with a CCG. Of course, such would have to come from a two-loss season, because with anything less than that, ND would otherwise have so many forces trying to push them in. Aside from the strength of schedule arguments and criteria, 13-0 vs 12-0 should be a weighed factor at some level among multiple content for assessing. And the CCG game (usually #13) is an added 'pressure game', and deserves to have meaning.

I don't see the B12 as any kind of victim. Save that for an undefeated Fresno State or a Northern Illinois team who have considerably less system control. Reading posts upwards, I basically agree with Cutter's general premise as it related to undefeated seasons. If so much empahsis is to be placed on being undefeated, then one additional win needs to be a plus, but in context.

Maybe Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas could become........

Yeah. One day, Louisville wasn't worthy of a Big East spot, but then it was. All it took was a raid, and then it became more public that Louisville had been in the conversation for some considerable amount of time. Same with Cincinnati.

It won't likely take a raid for the Big XII to expand. It'll be payout $ stats for other conferences' pulls, ratings, and other factors. More than anything, the Big XII will be "pulled into" expansion. It won't play it any other way.

It very well could be just an issue of how CCG money gets distributed...like, what does Texas and Oklahoma make when they go, and what do they make when they don't?

OK, I wil concede that folks like us on other boards also obsess about realignment, and probably dwell on the Big XII, specifically becaus eit is only 10 and not XII.

To me, ultimately the stable end game for realignment will be moving to 4 18-team conferences.
Last year, the Big XII and the ACC were moving to position themselves as the #4 conference, and the one that would dissolve.
However, I think the GOR's will put that all on hold for some time to come.

So expansion will only take place by inviting teams that are independent (BYU, Army, UMass (sort of)) or members of the "Little 5" Conferences.
The better teams in that group are a bit geographically remote from the Big XII, so They are generally content to sit tight for the time being.
PERHAPS things wil get liquid agin, when TV contracts and GOR's expire...

With regard to the Big XII getting hosed, they have had strong teams over the last 20 years that may have been passed over,
However this has generally been the result of what I will call a self-inflicted wound.
On multiple occasions, a undefeated season got wrecked by an upset loss in the CCG.
Texas knocking off Nebraska, K State knocking off Oklahoma, etc.
The Missouri team that did not make a BCS bowl lost to OU and Kansas, and although a highly ranked team, had 2 losses and did not even win the Big XII North.

The hoopla about a BCS Bowl is entirely a product of ESPN hype. If you are not in the NCG, who gives a flying crap whether you played in the Orange or Gator...
You're out of it, and the BCS Bowl means money for your confrence but not much else. ONLY the NCG is relevant. Next year we will have 4 teams and 3 relevant games...


By hosed (in the era of the 2 top teams going to the NCG), I would say you can only complain if you went undefeated and were forced to sit on the sidelines....
Auburn, Tulane, Boise State (a few times) .... One loss teams forfeited their right to complain when they lost that one game.
HARSH ? Absolutely ! I have been advocating an 8- or 16-team playoff for years.
If it's 16, maybe we scrap the Power Conference CCG's and invite both division winners into the bracket of 16.

But this is a Big XII thread.
They have chosen a round robin with no CCG, which for 10 teams I prefer to divsions and a CCG.
When the Big XII had 12 and a North and South Division, there were enequal schedules within a division (where the 3 inter-division opponents might be tough for one school and cakey for another).
The CCG game was also often disappointing when it resulted in a re-match, or the one division was far weaker (the year a really medicore Colorado team won the North).
SO.... understandably there is a lot of sentiment for the 10-team league with a 9-game round robin and no CCG.

I don't disagree with this much, but getting into the BCS does a great deal for programs' and conferences' exposure. They may be also-rans, but tell that to the kids, the fans, the programs, and the conferences. Tell it to schools like TCU, Utah, and Louisville, who's wins in these games may have significantly assisted in their future P5 placement. Heck, the push for Boise's consideration for P5 inclusion picked up momentum over the years because of those games. Their continued success as one of the top non-majors shows these games...they do something. Certainly at the recruiting level, they do.

Agree.

And calling those teams "also-rans" sounds a bit harsh, especially since some of those squads have accomplished eveything possible for them to accomplish
(by going undefeated), and still be denied any consideration for the National Championship.

That is the mark of a lousy "system".

I would like to have seen ESPN (which is paying $600+ million for the combined TV rights of the whole shooting match for the next 6? years)
take a more active role in creating a better system - somehting more in line with what their viewership wants to see.
They act powerless to influence the process the created the new "College Football Playoff",
by pandering to a bunch of bull**** from college presidents and conference commissioners about "the good of the student athlete...",
yet at the end of the day you can clearly see that those same individuals can be coerced into just about anything if the TV networks through enough money at them.

TCU, Utah, and Louisville managed to parlay success on the field into entry into the coveted "Power 5" conferences.
Boise State, despite 2 undefeated seasons culminating in BCS Bowl wins has not been so successful.
This year they are not so dominant, and perhaps it is (as you say) a result of a drop-off in recruiting, as it appears they have been relegated (for the time being) to a lower tier of FBS.

Tute70, I could not agree with you more on this post. Too many people on this board and other boards are way to obsessed with Big 12 expansion.

The simple fact is the Big 12 does not have to expand for any reason. There is no instability with 10 schools regardless of what obsessed fans believe is a sign of weakness.

Many are using a one year period or this year in particular to judge the benefits of a championship game or lack of championship game keeping Baylor possible out of the BCS championship game.

Next year there will not be the rankings that play a major part in determine which teams reach the four team playoff. It will not matter if Baylor started out too low in the pre season rankings as the selection committee can take this into account.

SOS will be the major factor to determine the four teams in the playoff. Ironically the Big Ten is going to have SOS issues as a result of more expansion by taking in Maryland and Rutgers.

While the Big Ten benefited greatly by having both of these schools for the TV markets, the conference SOS will be hurt by having two more bottom feeder programs join the ranks the determine Big Ten overall SOS next year.

If there were a Florida State out there for expansion, then it would make sense for the Big 12 to consider expansion for SOS benefits.

Otherwise expanding for the sake of expansion with schools such as the U of Cincinnati will only hurt the conference SOS and cause negative impacts by reducing the TV revenue shares per school.

There are major benefits to playing round robing football which will build up future rivalries and add additional stability to the Big 12 over the next decade as GOR are in place.

Unless the playoff determines a CCG is a measurement requirement, there is just no need or benefit for expansion of the Big 12.

Just sit back and enjoy the rebranding of the Big 12 with 10 schools because this is what we are going to have for the next decade and most likely well into the future.

I for one am thrilled one of the major conference remains in the best form alignment of round robin play in most major revenue sports including the most important of all revenue generating college football.. In todays college sports world, this is a major sigh of stability to be able to achieve this status.

I don't see how the lack of a CCG won't hurt the Big XII in the future playoff system. Every other Power 5 conference has one. I believe it is a reasonable fear that Big 12 schools should be concerned that Texas and OU will leave when the GOR is up. They may not, but I don't see how the rest of the conference can sit back and do nothing and hope they don't leave. I think it would be in their best interest to try and bring some teams in and try to develop them and try to bring them up to the standards of the Big 12. Cincy could be a wise pick, so would BYU if they could work that whole Sunday thing out. I know that I am a homer here, but I also think UCF and maybe USF could be a solid pickup as well.

Just because other conferences have a CCG doesn't mean that the Big 12 needs one. Were you complaining for the other conferences when they didn't have one...and the Big12 did?

The CCG is no guarantee that the two best teams in the conference are involved. That's why the Big 12 doesn't want it. It's an unsound way to decide a conference champion.

And this whole thing about UT and OU leaving is a load of crap. I live in Austin, graduated from UT, and keep up with the sentiment in this town. And I NEVER hear anything about UT leaving the conference or wanting to leave the conference. I guarantee....that UT never wants to quit playing Tech, Baylor and TCU.
So, Please....quite putting words in UTs mouth.
I feel the same way about OU. They will NEVER quite playing OSU...NEVER!

I'm certain that some of Y'all are saying....What about A&M(they left).
Well, A&M left....because no one in Texas likes them(except aggies). When I was at Tech my freshman year....everyone loathed A&M. Even though no one wanted to loose to Texas....we all loved Austin and really appreciated leaving Lubbock for a few hours to get away from the Panhandle. A&M are just a bunch of sour-asses. OU and Texas aren't. TCU, Tech and Baylor love having Texas around. I'm sure that OSU, Kansas, K State and ISU feel the same way about their relationship with OU.

In conclusion, I don't see, under any circumstance.....OU or Texas leaving their friendly rivals. Again, please quit repeating a completely unfounded rumor.