Barry Alvarez: Co-champions impacted Big 12 in playoff last year

[Vernon]

ROSEMONT, Ill. -- Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez, a member of the College Football Playoff Selection Committee, said Wednesday the Big 12 was affected last season by not declaring one true champion.

When asked at the Big Ten spring meetings whether having co-champions impacted the Big 12, Alvarez replied, "One of our main criteria is conference championship. You can't give two teams in a conference the conference championship. You can't give two teams credit for that."

Alvarez said the Big 12 "didn't have a champion, they had co-champions."

When asked at the Big Ten spring meetings whether having co-champions impacted the Big 12, Alvarez replied, "One of our main criteria is conference championship. You can't give two teams in a conference the conference championship. You can't give two teams credit for that."

Alvarez said the Big 12 "didn't have a champion, they had co-champions."

Full article: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...hampions-impacted-big-12-in-playoff-last-year

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

The big 12 had "TWO TRUE CHAMPIONS" - the slogan "One True Champion" was a total failure. I did not like it from the start - and said so last summer. But in last year's case it really did not matter after Ohio State demolished Wisconsin.

 

[GoWVU]

Funny how Alvarez and the entire Big Ten suddenly got religion on these phony "conference championship" games after spending nearly the entire BCS era as the biggest beneficiary of naming conference co-champions and tri-champions. Now they're the very hypocrites looking down their blueblood noses at the Big 12 for doing exactly what the snooty Big Ten did more than any other conference over the 1998-2013 period.

1998 = Tri-champions Michigan/Ohio St/Wisconsin (7-1) -- [Ohio St & Wisconsin both to BCS]

2000 = Tri-champions Michigan/Northwestern/Purdue (6-2)

2002 = Co-champions Iowa/Ohio St (8-0) -- [Both go to BCS games]

2004 = Co-champions Iowa/Michigan (7-1)
2005 = Co-champions Ohio St/Penn St (7-1) -- [Both go to BCS games]

2008 = Co-champions Ohio St/Penn St (7-1) -- [Both go to BCS games]

2010 = Tri-champions Michigan St/Ohio St/Wisconsin (7-1) -- [Ohio St & Wisconsin both to BCS]

The Big Ten went to the 2 divisions + "championship" game format in 2011, which means that they named co-champions or tri-champions a stunning 7 times in 13 seasons that it was possible for them to do so during the BCS era, which led all conferences.

Notice the Big Ten also got 2 teams into BCS games in 1999, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013. In just 4 of 16 seasons during the BCS era did the Big Ten NOT get the financial benefit of a 2d at-large team into a big-money BCS game.

What a total shock that--at the last minute--the "criteria" the playoff selection committee used to pick teams seemed to change to favor the Big Ten even though a Big 12 team had been omitted from a very similar situation just 3 seasons earlier.

I always had a lot of respect for Alvarez until this. Clearly he is now nothing more than a PR shill for the Big Hypocrite Conference.

 

[3xWVUenginEER]

So did the champions of the Big XII not being named Oklahoma or Texas. I think its obvious that like the NCAA selection committee for basketball, the football committee want schools that geographically represented the country and that could move the needle. The 4 they picked did just that. College football ratings for those games were all record setting. All goals met including controversey which is why they will stay at 4 for a while.

 

[11nut]

So did the champions of the Big XII not being named Oklahoma or Texas. I think its obvious that like the NCAA selection committee for basketball, the football committee want schools that geographically represented the country and that could move the needle. The 4 they picked did just that. College football ratings for those games were all record setting. All goals met including controversey which is why they will stay at 4 for a while.

That probably factored in but I think they went with what they thought were the best teams at that point of the season.

 

[GoWVU]

That probably factored in but I think they went with what they thought were the best teams at that point of the season.

Clearly that standard is not what they used. Otherwise, you wouldn't have dropped TCU from #3 to #6 after hammering Iowa St, but simultaneously moved Florida St up from #4 to #3 after squeaking past Georgia Tech. No, they used something else besides "what they thought were the best teams at that point of the season" all right.

 

[topdecktiger]

Clearly that standard is not what they used. Otherwise, you wouldn't have dropped TCU from #3 to #6 after hammering Iowa St, but simultaneously moved Florida St up from #4 to #3 after squeaking past Georgia Tech. No, they used something else besides "what they thought were the best teams at that point of the season" all right.

Once again, someone who wants to ignore facts in favor of conspiracy theories.

Here are the stats. Florida St, Oregon, and Ohio St all beat 3 teams ranked in the committee poll. TCU and Baylor only beat 2 each. (Alabama had 5.) Florida St, Oregon, Ohio St, and Alabama all had higher SOS ratings than Baylor or TCU. Florida St, Oregon, Ohio St, and Alabama all won outright conference championships. TCU and Baylor were only co-champs.

Florida St, Oregon, Ohio St, and Alabama simply had better resumes than TCU or Baylor.

 

[GoWVU]

Once again, someone who wants to ignore facts in favor of conspiracy theories.

Here are the stats. Florida St, Oregon, and Ohio St all beat 3 teams ranked in the committee poll. TCU and Baylor only beat 2 each. (Alabama had 5.) Florida St, Oregon, Ohio St, and Alabama all had higher SOS ratings than Baylor or TCU. Florida St, Oregon, Ohio St, and Alabama all won outright conference championships. TCU and Baylor were only co-champs.

Florida St, Oregon, Ohio St, and Alabama simply had better resumes than TCU or Baylor.

What conspiracy theory? If factual arguments had been what the committee cited all along, the final choices wouldn't have been as big an issue. They didn't, though. All year, we heard them cite various subjective factors..."the eyeball test"...who is playing the best...on and on in various rewordings and permutations. Suddenly that changed on the last day in a manner that favored a "have" program and hurt 2 "have not" programs.

Very little mention was made of objective criteria. What little we did hear was that the conference's individual method of selecting its champion would have no impact on the final process. Lo and behold, we have a committee who apparently decided to change course on that point at the 11th hour. That isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact.

If all the things you cited had been such a major issue, then why didn't we see evidence of the committee moving in that direction during the previous week or weeks? Those factual arguments were all equally true a week earlier. Strangely, though, the committee seemed to be moving farther away from those points all through November rather than toward them as you suggest. Suddenly on selection day, though, a bunch of statistical arguments that they'd been ignoring became more relevant than anything else for the first time all season? If you can't imagine why there might be a dramatic reversal of course at the last moment, well, then you are truly a trusting soul.

You're also overlooking the fact that the 2011 season ended in a choice very similar to the one the playoff committee faced in 2014, yet that time the exact opposite selection was made--in a manner that once again favored a "have" school and hurt a "have not" school. Please reconcile that example with 2014 if you can.

 

[topdecktiger]

What conspiracy theory? If factual arguments had been what the committee cited all along, the final choices wouldn't have been as big an issue. They didn't, though. All year, we heard them cite various subjective factors..."the eyeball test"...who is playing the best...on and on in various rewordings and permutations. Suddenly that changed on the last day in a manner that favored a "have" program and hurt 2 "have not" programs.

Very little mention was made of objective criteria. What little we did hear was that the conference's individual method of selecting its champion would have no impact on the final process. Lo and behold, we have a committee who apparently decided to change course on that point at the 11th hour. That isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact.

If all the things you cited had been such a major issue, then why didn't we see evidence of the committee moving in that direction during the previous week or weeks? Those factual arguments were all equally true a week earlier. Strangely, though, the committee seemed to be moving farther away from those points all through November rather than toward them as you suggest. Suddenly on selection day, though, a bunch of statistical arguments that they'd been ignoring became more relevant than anything else for the first time all season? If you can't imagine why there might be a dramatic reversal of course at the last moment, well, then you are truly a trusting soul.

You're also overlooking the fact that the 2011 season ended in a choice very similar to the one the playoff committee faced in 2014, yet that time the exact opposite selection was made--in a manner that once again favored a "have" school and hurt a "have not" school. Please reconcile that example with 2014 if you can.

First thing, 2011 is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because that was under a completely different system, which implemented a computer formula. It was also for a system that only chose two, rather than four teams, so it's completely an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Ok, now to the rest of it. Nothing you stated was a fact. Nothing at all. Let me explain.

The committee only ranks week-to-week. They plainly stated this. What week-to-week means is that they only take into account anything (including data) that happened to that point. For example, when they publish the ranking in week 10, they only include things that happened up to week 10. They don't take into account any of the games scheduled past week 10, because those games haven't happened yet.

Now, there are several consequences to that. The first one is, conference championships don't apply, for the simple reason nobody had won the conference up to that point. You can't win the conference until the end of the season. (The one exception is the Big 12, but this year it came down to the final weekend anyway.) Therefore, that metric can't be, and was not, applied until the final poll.

The strength-of-schedule is also only figured week-to-week. That means your SOS changes from week to week. (The way the committee figures SOS is, they take the win/loss records of all your opponents, plus the W/L records from all the teams your opponents played. Then they take that total winning percentage, and that's your SOS.) For example, TCU played 2-10 Iowa St in the final week. Iowa St didn't come onto TCU's SOS until that last week, so Iowa St drug down TCU's SOS in the final poll. By contrast, Florida St played 10-2 Georgia Tech. That made Florida St's SOS go up in the final poll.

There are other ramification to the week-to-week approach. Going into the final week, Oklahoma was ranked #20 in the committee poll. At that point, this gave TCU 3 wins over ranked teams, and Florida St had just 2. However, Oklahoma lost to Oklahoma St in the last week, and dropped out of the final poll. That left TCU with only 2 wins over ranked teams. By contrast, Florida St beat #11 Georgia Tech, which gave Florida St 3 wins over ranked teams. That metric completely reversed in the final week.

You mentioned the eyeball test. The eyeball test is subjective. It doesn't go by a mathematical formula, i.e. margin of victory. In other word, blowing out Iowa St isn't really impressive to the eyeball test, because Iowa St sucks. They were 2-10. You could beat them by 100 points and it doesn't really prove anything. Beating the #11 team, even by just two points, is more impressive than beating a lousy 2-10 team by 50.

The other problem is your assertion that the process of selecting a conference champion had an impact on the ranking. It didn't. That's because the Big 12 did not select a champion.

 

[3xWVUenginEER]

If you want to talk SOS before the playoffs, look at SOS on say December 8, 2014. This was the first rankings after the conference title games. According to Jeff Sagarin, TCU was 42, Tosu was 52, and Baylor was 56. Look it up if you want.

This is despite Baylor and TCU playing 1 less game than Tosu cause Tosu had a joke of a schedule and not just ooc.

The playoffs were about TV. It is about ratings especially in year 1, and it worked.


Tosu >>>>>> Baylor or TCU in terms of TV Appeal
Bama >>>>> Baylor or TCU in terms of TV Appeal
FSU >>>> Baylor or TCU in terms of TV Appeal
Oregon >>> Baylor or TCU in terms of TV Appeal


Its like the seeding and the brackets in the NCAA basketball tournament. Its why Duke and UNC will never be in the same 16 brackett or even meet til the finals. It is Ratings.

 

[topdecktiger]

If you want to talk SOS before the playoffs, look at SOS on say December 8, 2014. This was the first rankings after the conference title games. According to Jeff Sagarin, TCU was 42, Tosu was 52, and Baylor was 56. Look it up if you want

I already explained this. The committee doesn't use Sagarin, or anyone else for SOS. The committee uses its own formula to determine SOS. The take the combined won/loss record of the teams you played, plus the W/L record of the teams your opponents played. Any other SOS rankings are irrelevant, because they aren't used by the committee.

Baylor and TCU played weak OOC schedules. The Big 12 also performed the worst of the P5 conferences. Here are the OOC records:

SEC 55-12 .821
Pac 12 37-9 .804
ACC 42-14 .750
Big Ten 42-14 .750
Big 12 22-9 .710

And lo and behold, the top 5 teams were:

Alabama - SEC
Oregon - Pac 12
Florida St - ACC
Ohio St - Big Ten
Baylor - Big 12

The evidence is incontrovertible. Every metric favors the four teams that go in, instead of Baylor and TCU. The committee didn't do it to "screw" anybody. They didn't do it for ratings. They didn't do it because they hate the "little guy." Clearly, clearly, an objective analysis favors the teams that got in.

 

[GoWVU]

First thing, 2011 is irrelevant. It's irrelevant because that was under a completely different system, which implemented a computer formula. It was also for a system that only chose two, rather than four teams, so it's completely an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Ok, now to the rest of it. Nothing you stated was a fact. Nothing at all. Let me explain.

The committee only ranks week-to-week. They plainly stated this. What week-to-week means is that they only take into account anything (including data) that happened to that point. For example, when they publish the ranking in week 10, they only include things that happened up to week 10. They don't take into account any of the games scheduled past week 10, because those games haven't happened yet.

Now, there are several consequences to that. The first one is, conference championships don't apply, for the simple reason nobody had won the conference up to that point. You can't win the conference until the end of the season. (The one exception is the Big 12, but this year it came down to the final weekend anyway.) Therefore, that metric can't be, and was not, applied until the final poll.

The strength-of-schedule is also only figured week-to-week. That means your SOS changes from week to week. (The way the committee figures SOS is, they take the win/loss records of all your opponents, plus the W/L records from all the teams your opponents played. Then they take that total winning percentage, and that's your SOS.) For example, TCU played 2-10 Iowa St in the final week. Iowa St didn't come onto TCU's SOS until that last week, so Iowa St drug down TCU's SOS in the final poll. By contrast, Florida St played 10-2 Georgia Tech. That made Florida St's SOS go up in the final poll.

There are other ramification to the week-to-week approach. Going into the final week, Oklahoma was ranked #20 in the committee poll. At that point, this gave TCU 3 wins over ranked teams, and Florida St had just 2. However, Oklahoma lost to Oklahoma St in the last week, and dropped out of the final poll. That left TCU with only 2 wins over ranked teams. By contrast, Florida St beat #11 Georgia Tech, which gave Florida St 3 wins over ranked teams. That metric completely reversed in the final week.

You mentioned the eyeball test. The eyeball test is subjective. It doesn't go by a mathematical formula, i.e. margin of victory. In other word, blowing out Iowa St isn't really impressive to the eyeball test, because Iowa St sucks. They were 2-10. You could beat them by 100 points and it doesn't really prove anything. Beating the #11 team, even by just two points, is more impressive than beating a lousy 2-10 team by 50.

The other problem is your assertion that the process of selecting a conference champion had an impact on the ranking. It didn't. That's because the Big 12 did not select a champion.

That last statement of yours is quite plainly a factual falsehood. The Big 12 did select a champion; it was simply co-champions rather than a single champion...exactly the same thing the Big Ten did 7 times in 13 seasons from 1998-2010.

"Did not select a champion" is something clearly different. That would be what happened to MLB in 1994 when the remainder of the season was cancelled due to the player strike. That is an example of "not selecting" a champion. What the Big 12 did is not at all the same...or are you actually trying to claim that the Big Ten also "did not select a champion" all those years when they named co-champions and tri-champions? That's exactly what you are saying.

You also totally misunderstood why I cited that example, and the impact it had on the selection--which is why I mentioned it in the first place. The reason is that Bowlsby and the Big 12 schools were told explicitly prior to the season that the Big 12 format of naming a champion or champions would not be a problem compared to the different format used by the other leagues. Suddenly that changed when it came to selection day, which is the fact I mentioned in my last post that you missed. We know this is factually true because it has now been verified in numerous sources.

I fully understand everything you explained about how the ranking process allegedly worked or should have worked. Little of that is an issue if a truly objective-based procedure were being followed, but we have plenty of evidence that it wasn't.

What you didn't understand is why I mentioned 2011 and why it was highly relevant to 2014--despite what you thought--and in spite of it being under a different selection process and aimed at a different number of teams.

The reason is that in 2011 we had an overwhelmingly objective selection system (the BCS) which nevertheless arrived at a primarily subjective-based outcome which favored a "have" program at the expense of an upstart program. In 2014, despite increasing the number of teams and doing a U-turn in the selection system used, we nevertheless saw a now primarily subjective selection process arrive at a primarily objective-based outcome which once again favored a "have" school at the expense of 2 upstart schools.

That is just too fantastic of a coincidence for me to believe that two disparate selection procedures deviated from their stated priorities in such a contradictory fashion and "accidentally" arrived at the same outcome. How is that even possible when they both deviated in a manner that should've been mutually exclusive?

To put it another way: Had the 2014 result happened under the BCS selection process, it would've made all the sense in the world. Had the 2011 result happened under the playoff committee process, it would've made more sense. The fact that both occurred under the exact system that should've produced the opposite result is why the whole thing smells fishy.

 

[GetYaNumbersUp]

12-1 is better than 11-1.

That's basically all it comes down to.

 

[Vernon]

That last statement of yours is quite plainly a factual falsehood. The Big 12 did select a champion; it was simply co-champions rather than a single champion.

 

[3xWVUenginEER]

Youre absolutely correct the committee used its own formula to determine SOS. It was the 2 Texas schools went 11-1 and were not named The University of Texas so those 2 are not getting in cause they dont move the needle. Its that simple.

If you really believe the University of Texas or Oklahoma get left out with 11-1 records vs the 4 that got in and youre youre grossly wrong.

 

[topdecktiger]

That last statement of yours is quite plainly a factual falsehood. The Big 12 did select a champion; it was simply co-champions rather than a single champion...exactly the same thing the Big Ten did 7 times in 13 seasons from 1998-2010.

"Did not select a champion" is something clearly different. That would be what happened to MLB in 1994 when the remainder of the season was cancelled due to the player strike. That is an example of "not selecting" a champion. What the Big 12 did is not at all the same...or are you actually trying to claim that the Big Ten also "did not select a champion" all those years when they named co-champions and tri-champions? That's exactly what you are saying.

You also totally misunderstood why I cited that example, and the impact it had on the selection--which is why I mentioned it in the first place. The reason is that Bowlsby and the Big 12 schools were told explicitly by the committee prior

No, they didn't select a champion. Having co-champions is not selecting a champion. Let me explain.

Back in 2008, Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech all tied for the South Division. Each team had the same 11-1/7-1 record, and each went 1-1 against the other two. All of the tie-breakers failed. Well, the Big 12 didn't just say, "Hell, they all tied, so we'll just name them all co-champions." The selected Oklahoma as the South division champion, and Oklahoma went to the title game. That's what I'm getting at.

Now regarding your question about the Big Ten, no, they didn't select a champion either. In the specific case of the Rose Bowl, the Big Ten did have a rule. The team that hadn't been to the Rose Bowl in the longest time automatically got to go. Otherwise, they didn't select a champion.

The thing is, you think you have a point when you bring up the Big Ten co-champions in the BCS era, but you don't. The reason is, going to a BCS bowl is not the same thing as making the playoffs. The Big Ten never got two teams into the National Championship game during the BCS era. The equivalent of a BCS bowl is a NY6 bowl. The Big 12 did get two teams into NY6 bowls. Baylor got the Cotton and TCU got the Peach.

You mentioned 2010, in which Wisconsin and Ohio St both made BCS bowls. Neither one of them was in the National Championship game. (That was Auburn and Oregon.) Wisconsin went to the Rose and Ohio St went to the Sugar. That's no different than Baylor getting the Cotton and TCU getting the Peach bowl.

In fact, the only year that a Big Ten got into the National Championship game was 2002. Again, here is your problem. The BCS did not have a component for conference champions. You conveniently leave out that part. The BCS was a purely mathematical formula. It calculated a score based on the rakings of the media poll, coaches' poll, and computer polls.

The playoff committee is different. They don't have a mathematical formula. They take a variety of components, and make a subjective decision based off of all that data. In particular, they specifically said that winning a conference championship would be a factor in their decision. That was put in place specifically because of 2011, when Alabama got into the national title game over Oklahoma St, despite not winning their conference, or even their division. In fact, that was one of the big criticism about the BCS, and that's why the playoff committee specifically said conference championships would be a factor. As such, winning a conference outright is more significant that co-champions.

What Bowlsby is saying is disingenuous, because he was touting that "One True Champion" slogan, so the assumption was that the Big 12 would pick one champion.

 

[GoWVU]

I clearly remember this site selling "Big East champion" merchandise for 2003 and 2004 and citing "3 straight" titles in 2005 even though only the last of those was an outright title. Do you also not remember Connecticut getting a trophy and rings for winning the co-championship with us in 2007?

You guys can complain about the process all you like--and maybe there is a valid argument to be made that the procedure should be changed--but let's not suddenly act like the rules are not the rules and pretend we haven't used this same standard for our own benefit at times. Fair is fair.

 

[topdecktiger]

Youre absolutely correct the committee used its own formula to determine SOS. It was the 2 Texas schools went 11-1 and were not named The University of Texas so those 2 are not getting in cause they dont move the needle. Its that simple.

If you really believe the University of Texas or Oklahoma get left out with 11-1 records vs the 4 that got in and youre youre grossly wrong.

Nope, I'm not wrong at all. Ohio St is just as big a name as Texas or Oklahoma. You could make the exact same argument with them as you are making for Texas and Oklahoma.

 

[Vernon]

Nope, I'm not wrong at all. Ohio St is just as big a name as Texas or Oklahoma. You could make the exact same argument with them as you are making for Texas and Oklahoma.

Actually OSU would get picked over both Texas and OU and I firmly believe that.

 

[Vernon]

I clearly remember this site selling "Big East champion" merchandise for 2003 and 2004 and citing "3 straight" titles in 2005 even though only the last of those was an outright title. Do you also not remember Connecticut getting a trophy and rings for winning the co-championship with us in 2007?

You guys can complain about the process all you like--and maybe there is a valid argument to be made that the procedure should be changed--but let's not suddenly act like the rules are not the rules and pretend we haven't used this same standard for our own benefit at times. Fair is fair.

Not really sure what your point is, you try too hard at times to prove your point...even when someone isn't trying to tell you that you're wrong. The Big 12 made a mistake and they learned from it.

 

[GoWVU]

Well, the Big 12 didn't just say, "Hell, they all tied, so we'll just name them all co-champions." The selected Oklahoma as the South division champion, and Oklahoma went to the title game. That's what I'm getting at.

I'm sorry, but you are simply flat out mistaken. The NCAA's own record book lists all 3 as co-champions of the Big 12 South that season. Look it up for yourself. The only reason one had to be chosen for the title game is that it isn't possible to send all three.

Now regarding your question about the Big Ten, no, they didn't select a champion either.

Again, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The NCAA record book lists co-, tri-, and quad-champions for each of the pertinent Big Ten seasons I mentioned and all others in which there were ties. Many of those schools also fly championship banners in their stadiums for co-championships that you're trying to say the conference never named. You are just confusing an outright championship with what has actually been done all these years.

The thing is, you think you have a point when you bring up the Big Ten co-champions in the BCS era, but you don't.

I do, but you are lost as to why. My whole point was Alvarez's and the Big Ten's hypocrisy on citing that issue as a problem for the Big 12 after the fact, not its relevance or irrelevance to the differing selection process of BCS bowls v. playoffs.

The BCS did not have a component for conference champions. You conveniently leave out that part.

I'm well aware of that and every other aspect of how the BCS formula worked. You say I "conveniently" leave out that part as if to imply deception. In fact, that topic had not yet been relevant to the discussion so nobody had raised it--far from the ill intent you suggest.

What Bowlsby is saying is disingenuous, because he was touting that "One True Champion" slogan, so the assumption was that the Big 12 would pick one champion.

I don't think much of Bowlsby, but I seriously doubt it had that much to do with a slogan. The Big 12 had just named co-champions as recently as 2012. Certainly the committee was aware that could happen again. If they weren't, that is purely and simply a lack of effort.

No, I believe Bowlsby on this point. The committee most likely did tell Bowlsby exactly what he said about the round-robin, "no title game" format not being a problem. The reason I believe that is that no one connected with the committee came forward to refute Bowlsby's claim.

However, once the committee got in there and started putting it together, they discovered it was a more important factor than they originally anticipated...only it was now too late to let the Big 12 know. The committee's action of changing that horse midstream is why Bowlsby felt betrayed and said something publicly.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

That last statement of yours is quite plainly a factual falsehood. The Big 12 did select a champion; it was simply co-champions rather than a single champion...exactly the same thing the Big Ten did 7 times in 13 seasons from 1998-2010.

Different time and different system. Ohio State earned that 4th spot with the trashing of Wisconsin. People can argue all they want but it was a simple choice and everyone knew it was going to happen once the games were over on Championship Saturday. It would not have made a difference if Baylor had been named champion - especially since the Bears played such a horrible non conference schedule.

 

[GoWVU]

Not really sure what your point is, you try too hard at times to prove your point...even when someone isn't trying to tell you that you're wrong. The Big 12 made a mistake and they learned from it.

Then what were you trying to say if not that, Vernon? That seemed to be your implication.

I think the Big 12 made a mistake, all right, but perhaps not the same one everybody else thinks they made. The biggest problem as I see it is that the only Power-5 conference with a truly legitimate schedule is getting shafted by a marketing slogan when we should be on the offensive and calling out the other leagues for their inherently imbalanced and unfair schedules. If Bowlsby had simply used "True Champions" as the slogan instead, it would've alleviated most of this nonsense.

 

[Vernon]

Then what were you trying to say if not that, Vernon? That seemed to be your implication.

It was a joke because you said they chose a champion but then changed the definition of champion to champions. Grab a drink, life isn't that serious.

 

[topdecktiger]

[

I'm sorry, but you are simply flat out mistaken. The NCAA's own record book lists all 3 as co-champions of the Big 12 South that season. Look it up for yourself. The only reason one had to be chosen for the title game is that it isn't possible to send all three.

See, the problem is, you don't understand my point. You are so hell-bent on arguing with me, that you are misinterpreting the point I'm making.

I'm not arguing that these teams are all listed as co-champions in the record books. I am not disputing the mere existence of co-champions.

What I'm disputing is your characterization of how the co-champions functioned. For example, in the BCS era, even though there were co-champions, only one team received the automatic bid to the BCS. Again, I'll return to your 2010 example. Ohio St, Wisconsin, and Michigan St all were co-champions of the Big Ten. However, the Big Ten still selected Wisconsin to receive the conference's automatic bid to the BCS (Rose Bowl).

Ok, by the same token, what I'm telling you is, the Big 12 didn't do that with Baylor or TCU. They didn't name a team to be their representative for the committee.

Now let me ask you this. Let's just say the Sugar Bowl wasn't hosting the playoffs last year. Ok, in that case, who would have gotten the Sugar Bowl bid, Baylor or TCU? That's not up to the committee. That's up to whomever the individual conference designate as the champion. Well, see, you still have the same problem. The Big 12 has to pick one of the teams. Even if they want to put them as "co-champions" in the record books, they still have to choose a teams as a representative. So my point is, they should have just gone ahead and done that with Baylor or TCU.

Again, I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The NCAA record book lists co-, tri-, and quad-champions for each of the pertinent Big Ten seasons I mentioned and all others in which there were ties. Many of those schools also fly championship banners in their stadiums for co-championships that you're trying to say the conference never named. You are just confusing an outright championship with what has actually been done all these years.

Again, you completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that teams claim co-championships. What I'm telling you is, there has never been a situation like this in college football, where being a conference champion was part of the criteria for making it to the National Championship. That is a huge difference, and you don't acknowledge it. Under the BCS, you didn't have to win your conference to make it to the National championship game. Therefore, it didn't matter if you named co-champions or not. (It did matter for BCS tie-ins, as I explained above, but that's a different situation.)

That's the point I'm trying to make to you. It doesn't matter that conferences named co-champions in the past, because that didn't affect the National Championship under those systems.

I do, but you are lost as to why. My whole point was Alvarez's and the Big Ten's hypocrisy on citing that issue as a problem for the Big 12 after the fact, not its relevance or irrelevance to the differing selection process of BCS bowls v. playoffs.

No, it's not hypocritical, because again, having co-champions didn't affect the National Championship under the old system. Alvarez never made an argument that a Big Ten school got left out of the National Championship because it was a co-champion.

You absolutely brought up the relevance of the BCS system in your first post. You complained about the Big Ten getting multiple teams into the BCS. Well, getting multiple teams into the BCS had nothing to do with being co-champs. If you are trying to simply complain about the mere fact of the Big Ten having co-champs in the first place, again that's not relevant, because co-championships didn't affect the National Championship in the BCS era.

I'm well aware of that and every other aspect of how the BCS formula worked. You say I "conveniently" leave out that part as if to imply deception. In fact, that topic had not yet been relevant to the discussion so nobody had raised it--far from the ill intent you suggest.

Of course you did. You tried to compare the BCS era to the playoff era in your first post. Again, having co-champions in the BCS era does not have the same effects as having co-champs in the playoff era. That's completely relevant to the discussion, especially given your argument.

No, I believe Bowlsby on this point. The committee most likely did tell Bowlsby exactly what he said about the round-robin, "no title game" format not being a problem. The reason I believe that is that no one connected with the committee came forward to refute Bowlsby's claim.

However, once the committee got in there and started putting it together, they discovered it was a more important factor than they originally anticipated...only it was now too late to let the Big 12 know. The committee's action of changing that horse midstream is why Bowlsby felt betrayed and said something publicly.

Yeah, but here is the problem. Telling Bowlsby the format won't be a problem is different from them telling him co-champions won't be judged differently. Once again, it would be reasonable to assume that the Big 12 would still pick a representative, particularly since they will have to do that with the Sugar Bowl.

 

[Vernon]

See, the problem is, you don't understand my point. You are so hell-bent on arguing with me, that you are misinterpreting the point I'm making.

I'm not arguing that these teams are all listed as co-champions in the record books. I am not disputing the mere existence of co-champions.

What I'm disputing is your characterization of how the co-champions functioned. For example, in the BCS era, even though there were co-champions, only one team received the automatic bid to the BCS. Again, I'll return to your 2010 example. Ohio St, Wisconsin, and Michigan St all were co-champions of the Big Ten. However, the Big Ten still selected Wisconsin to be receive the conference's automatic bid to the BCS (Rose Bowl).

Ok, by the same token, what I'm telling you is, the Big 12 didn't do that with Baylor or TCU. They didn't name a team to be their representative for the committee.

Now let me ask you this. Let's just say the Sugar Bowl wasn't hosting the playoffs last year. Ok, in that case, who would have gotten the Sugar Bowl bid, Baylor or TCU? That's not up to the committee. That's up to whomever the individual conference designate as the champion. Well, see, you still have the same problem. The Big 12 has to pick one of the teams. Even if they want to put them as "co-champions" in the record books, they still have to choose a teams as a representative. So my point is, they should have just gone ahead and done that with Baylor or TCU.



Again, you completely misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that teams claim co-championships. What I'm telling you is, there has never been a situation like this in college football, where being a conference champion was part of the criteria for making it to the National Championship. That is a huge difference, and you don't acknowledge it. Under the BCS, you didn't have to win your conference to make it to the National championship game. Therefore, it didn't matter if you named co-champions or not. (It did matter for BCS tie-ins, as I explained above, but that's a different situation.)

That's the point I'm trying to make to you. It doesn't matter that conferences named co-champions in the past, because that didn't affect the National Championship under those systems.



No, it's not hypocritical, because again, having co-champions didn't affect the National Championship under the old system. Alvarez never made an argument that a Big Ten school got left out of the National Championship because it was a co-champion.

You absolutely brought up the relevance of the BCS system in your first post. You complained about the Big Ten getting multiple teams into the BCS. Well, getting multiple teams into the BCS had to do with being co-champs. If you are trying to simply complain about the mere fact of the Big Ten having co-champs in the first place, again that's not relevant, because co-championships didn't affect the National Championship in the BCS era.

I'm just impressed that you guys got the multi-quote function down.

 

[LowFatMilk]

The similarities of the big 12 and the old football big east is almost amazing.


....ALWAYS reacting and NEVER proactive.

 

[GoWVU]

See, the problem is, you don't understand my point. You are so hell-bent on arguing with me, that you are misinterpreting the point I'm making.

Wait a minute, topdeck...this doesn't have anything to do with me or you or anybody else being argumentative at all. I only just now realized this was a simple misinterpretation on both our parts.

You were originally using the term "champion" to be synonymous with "automatic conference representative to the BCS" as it might have been used during that era, which did not become apparent to me until your most recent post. I didn't know you were using "champion" in that context, which explains why only those portions of your posts made no sense to me. By the same token, I see now that you didn't know I was reading your use of the term "champion" literally instead.

No wonder it seemed like each of us was not following the other...we were actually talking about two different usages of the term "champion".

Now that this all makes sense, I don't think there is too much disagreement between us except for the fact that we seem to differ on whether Bowlsby mishandled the "name an automatic rep" portion of the procedure.

Incidentally, thanks for a nice debate that remained civil and respectful the whole time despite the fact that we were unknowingly not on the same page for most of it. That's an increasingly scarce thing these days.