1 thing I think that is being overlooked in all this expansion talk

[VaultHunter]

It's not a guarantee that the playoffs don't expand to 6 teams or maybe more. Money is the driving force behind college football obviously and I think it's eventually going to happen. If the Big12 did add say Cincinnati and BYU a TV network and a Championship Game and then a few years down the road the playoffs expand to say 6-8 slots then it really doesn't hurt anything. The same case could be made why not to expand if that was the case but I don't think it's a guarantee the playoffs stay at 4. There are absolutely no schools the Big12 can add to pass the SEC or the Big10 NOW but that doesn't mean you should sit back and do nothing.

The Big12 needs a TV Network and Championship Game to survive, that much is obvious but basing expansion on 5 percent should not even be a topic of discussion. It should be doing everything it can to stay ahead of the PAC and ACC and conferences like the AAC. After a few years of teams being left out that arguably should have been invited and there will be grumblings of playoff expansion. 5 power conferences and 4 playoff spots won't keep everyone happy for long. Add 2 or 4 teams, get a network and Championship Game. The rest will take care of itself.

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers]

It's not a guarantee that the playoffs don't expand to 6 teams or maybe more. Money is the driving force behind college football obviously and I think it's eventually going to happen. If the Big12 did add say Cincinnati and BYU a TV network and a Championship Game and then a few years down the road the playoffs expand to say 6-8 slots then it really doesn't hurt anything. The same case could be made why not to expand if that was the case but I don't think it's a guarantee the playoffs stay at 4. There are absolutely no schools the Big12 can add to pass the SEC or the Big10 NOW but that doesn't mean you should sit back and do nothing.

The Big12 needs a TV Network and Championship Game to survive, that much is obvious but basing expansion on 5 percent should not even be a topic of discussion. It should be doing everything it can to stay ahead of the PAC and ACC and conferences like the AAC. After a few years of teams being left out that arguably should have been invited and there will be grumblings of playoff expansion. 5 power conferences and 4 playoff spots won't keep everyone happy for long. Add 2 or 4 teams, get a network and Championship Game. The rest will take care of itself.

An interesting counter-point: The Pac-12, which is doing all the things the world says the Big 12 should do (12 teams, title game), got LEFT OUT of the 2015 national playoffs. Oklahoma of the Big 12 got in.

So maybe it's not do cut-and-dried that 12 teams and a title game get you into the national playoffs. I agree that eventually there will be 8 teams (6 is too unwieldy). But for now, a Big 12 team has as much change of getting into the national playoffs as a team not from the SEC.

 

[Papillion]

It's not a guarantee that the playoffs don't expand to 6 teams or maybe more. Money is the driving force behind college football obviously and I think it's eventually going to happen. If the Big12 did add say Cincinnati and BYU a TV network and a Championship Game and then a few years down the road the playoffs expand to say 6-8 slots then it really doesn't hurt anything. The same case could be made why not to expand if that was the case but I don't think it's a guarantee the playoffs stay at 4. There are absolutely no schools the Big12 can add to pass the SEC or the Big10 NOW but that doesn't mean you should sit back and do nothing.

The Big12 needs a TV Network and Championship Game to survive, that much is obvious but basing expansion on 5 percent should not even be a topic of discussion. It should be doing everything it can to stay ahead of the PAC and ACC and conferences like the AAC. After a few years of teams being left out that arguably should have been invited and there will be grumblings of playoff expansion. 5 power conferences and 4 playoff spots won't keep everyone happy for long. Add 2 or 4 teams, get a network and Championship Game. The rest will take care of itself.

But if they expand the playoffs to six teams then the Big 12 doesn't need a conf champ game. This nonsense that a conf such as the Big 12 must do something like ad a conf champ game because some people say so, never mind it's not really justified is ridiculous and exemplifies how society just keeps playing follow the leader.
You play those games and you win those games, you'll get that ranking. Someone is going to be left out every single year. They should have known that when they started this but once again, every time the NCAA/BCS/whoever tries to fix something they keep setting themselves up for failure.

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

It's not a guarantee that the playoffs don't expand to 6 teams or maybe more. Money is the driving force behind college football obviously and I think it's eventually going to happen. If the Big12 did add say Cincinnati and BYU a TV network and a Championship Game and then a few years down the road the playoffs expand to say 6-8 slots then it really doesn't hurt anything. The same case could be made why not to expand if that was the case but I don't think it's a guarantee the playoffs stay at 4. There are absolutely no schools the Big12 can add to pass the SEC or the Big10 NOW but that doesn't mean you should sit back and do nothing.

The Big12 needs a TV Network and Championship Game to survive, that much is obvious but basing expansion on 5 percent should not even be a topic of discussion. It should be doing everything it can to stay ahead of the PAC and ACC and conferences like the AAC. After a few years of teams being left out that arguably should have been invited and there will be grumblings of playoff expansion. 5 power conferences and 4 playoff spots won't keep everyone happy for long. Add 2 or 4 teams, get a network and Championship Game. The rest will take care of itself.

The number of 5% increase was wrong (actually it is 21%) - Bowlsby was talking with out notes when he gave the figure. The info is in the following article http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...nce-expansion-football-playoff-chances-050616

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The playoffs will not be expanded to 6 or 8 teams. In order to do so, the entire NCAA would have to agree to go back to 11 games or approve 14 games. Not gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent.

 

[BobbyBoucheer]

I think it is absolutley idiotic that it isnt an 8 team playoff. it only means one more weekend and it solves a lot of the BS bias on the selection committee.

The correct number should have been 8 teams to begin with and I guarantee it will get to that number eventually.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I think it is absolutley idiotic that it isnt an 8 team playoff. it only means one more weekend and it solves a lot of the BS bias on the selection committee.

The correct number should have been 8 teams to begin with and I guarantee it will get to that number eventually.

Make the entire FBS vote it in, Waterboy! I'm for it, just don't think they will do it. I hope you are right and I'm wrong.

 

[BobbyBoucheer]

Make the entire FBS vote it in, Waterboy! I'm for it, just don't think they will do it. I hope you are right and I'm wrong.

It hilarious to me to think that Division 2 can have a damn 16 teams playoff and division 1 can only have 4 teams.

The bowl game cronies are the ones blocking the bigger playoff scenerio in Division 1

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I agree, just follow the money trail. Waterboy, you're making so much sense you're making me uncomfortable. We never agree this much.

 

[skygusty]

The number of 5% increase was wrong (actually it is 21%) - Bowlsby was talking with out notes when he gave the figure. The info is in the following article http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...nce-expansion-football-playoff-chances-050616

I have a lot of questions about these numbers. As I have said in another thread, the chances cannot increase for one conference without lowering the chances for one or more other conferences. With only 4 slots available it is mathematically impossible to increase the odds for one conference without affecting the odds for every other conference. Hopefully the presidents will ask these consultants to show their work. That 21% gain has to be accounted for in the loss column for other competitors chances.

 

[Orlaco]

I have a lot of questions about these numbers. As I have said in another thread, the chances cannot increase for one conference without lowering the chances for one or more other conferences.

Well yea....obviously.

Are you suggesting that the Big 12 hired an inept third party to compile statistics ? .....because your point is very basic.

 

[skygusty]

Well yea....obviously.

Are you suggesting that the Big 12 hired an inept third party to compile statistics ? .....because your point is very basic.

I'm just asking them to show their work. If the Big12 sees their chances go up by 21% because they add two unnamed teams and a CCG, where do those percentages come from- the SEC the BIG, the PAC, the ACC, Notre Dame, the AAC, CUSA? Somebody loses ground and it won't be equally distributed. I doubt the SEC and the BIG have their chances affected much at all by the moves available to the BIG12, but the points have to come from somewhere. If the question is basic, the answer should be as well.

Let me simplify it for you. Make a spreadsheet. It has 5 rows labeled 1: No Changes 2: Stay at 10 teams and add a CCG, 3:Add Cincy and BYU with no CCG 4: add a CCG game to a 12 team league: 5. Add Cincy and BYU, a CCG and reduce the schedule to 8 games.

You have 8 columns labeled SEC, BIG10, PAC, ACC, BIG12, Notre Dame,AAC, CUSA.
All you have to do is fill in the numbers of the likelihood the conference gets into the 4 team playoff. The rows have to sum to the same number in every scenario. Very basic.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

I have a lot of questions about these numbers. As I have said in another thread, the chances cannot increase for one conference without lowering the chances for one or more other conferences. With only 4 slots available it is mathematically impossible to increase the odds for one conference without affecting the odds for every other conference. Hopefully the presidents will ask these consultants to show their work. That 21% gain has to be accounted for in the loss column for other competitors chances.

In the simplest of examples, you can see who benefited from the lack of these proposed changes to the Big 12. In 2014 either TCU or Baylor would have been in the playoffs with a CCG. Instead they were leapfrogged by another team with a CCG victory. That team would have lost out under the proposed changes.

 

[skygusty]

In the simplest of examples, you can see who benefited from the lack of these proposed changes to the Big 12. In 2014 either TCU or Baylor would have been in the playoffs with a CCG. Instead they were leapfrogged by another team with a CCG victory. That team would have lost out under the proposed changes.

That is 1 scenario and very valid. They are running 40,000 scenarios and coming up with a number across a 10 year period. I don't doubt that there will be dozens, maybe hundreds, maybe thousands of scenarios where the changes would be positive for the Big12. There would have to be to realize a 21% gain. Don't you want to know where their predictions place our chances vis a vis other conferences, see whose loss is our gain? This ought to be pretty simple to do and certainly something I would expect to get for the money paid to a big consulting group. It is hard to imagine that they DONT already know this if their methodology is sound. We on the outside may never know the numbers, but I am curious.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

An interesting counter-point: The Pac-12, which is doing all the things the world says the Big 12 should do (12 teams, title game), got LEFT OUT of the 2015 national playoffs. Oklahoma of the Big 12 got in.

So maybe it's not do cut-and-dried that 12 teams and a title game get you into the national playoffs. I agree that eventually there will be 8 teams (6 is too unwieldy). But for now, a Big 12 team has as much change of getting into the national playoffs as a team not from the SEC.

The PAC got left out because they had no teams with less than 2 losses. Had Stanford not been upset by Northwestern and ended up with the same number of losses OU, the BIG12 would have been left out again

 

[TexasforevEER]

Make the entire FBS vote it in, Waterboy! I'm for it, just don't think they will do it. I hope you are right and I'm wrong.

Why you refer to him as 'boy?' That's just wrong!

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

Why you refer to him as 'boy?' That's just wrong!

It's not a slam at all. Bobby Boucheer is the character Adam Sandler played in the football movie 'Waterboy'. It's actually a compliment, the 'waterboy' knocked many guys dead on their asses!

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

That is 1 scenario and very valid. They are running 40,000 scenarios and coming up with a number across a 10 year period. I don't doubt that there will be dozens, maybe hundreds, maybe thousands of scenarios where the changes would be positive for the Big12. There would have to be to realize a 21% gain. Don't you want to know where their predictions place our chances vis a vis other conferences, see whose loss is our gain? This ought to be pretty simple to do and certainly something I would expect to get for the money paid to a big consulting group. It is hard to imagine that they DONT already know this if their methodology is sound. We on the outside may never know the numbers, but I am curious.

The way I read it, it would not be conference based. Under the current format a Big 12 team ranked fourth or possibly third by the playoff committee would get knocked out of the playoffs by a fifth, sixth and possibly seventh ranked team who was their highest ranked conference member and won their CCG. That extra win is very compelling. They also beat up on each other much less throughout the season by playing only eight of twelve to sixteen members.

You can get a pretty accurate picture by going back to the rankings just before the bowl games since the FBS went to 12 games per season. Under the proposed changes, a Big 12 team ranked fourth and won the CCG is a lock for the playoffs. Therefore the team that could bump or leapfrog the Big 12 team now will nearly always lose out if the changes are implemented. Who loses out is random and changes from year to year.

 

[topdecktiger]

It has to be conference-based. Otherwise, they couldn't say the Big 12's chances increase by X percent.

 

[skygusty]

The way I read it, it would not be conference based. Under the current format a Big 12 team ranked fourth or possibly third by the playoff committee would get knocked out of the playoffs by a fifth, sixth and possibly seventh ranked team who was their highest ranked conference member and won their CCG. That extra win is very compelling. They also beat up on each other much less throughout the season by playing only eight of twelve to sixteen members.

You can get a pretty accurate picture by going back to the rankings just before the bowl games since the FBS went to 12 games per season. Under the proposed changes, a Big 12 team ranked fourth and won the CCG is a lock for the playoffs. Therefore the team that could bump or leapfrog the Big 12 team now will nearly always lose out if the changes are implemented. Who loses out is random and changes from year to year.

The consulting firm said that their statistical modeling resulted in a 21 percent increase in the chances that the BIG12 makes the playoff. This means that the net chances of all other conferences went down by 21 percent in their statistical models. The request to see their math is pretty simple. You want Gee and the other presidents to go back and look at rankings? I want them to carefully inspect the data that they just paid this consulting firm to come up with.

 

[BobbyBoucheer]

It's not a slam at all. Bobby Boucheer is the character Adam Sandler played in the football movie 'Waterboy'. It's actually a compliment, the 'waterboy' knocked many guys dead on their asses!

My user name gives him an excuse to condescend to me. I'm fine with it because I make fun of his leather vest pic which makes me laugh.

I don't take offense, its all in good fun. Mike is alright by me.

 

[skygusty]

The added wrinkle of going from a 9 game conference slate to just 8 is a little worrisome and not only because it would force a renegotiation of TV contracts. Another opportunity for Baylor and the like to add another patsy and weaken their SOS? Seriously, I thought all conferences were going to 9 games? These OOC games are already hard enough to schedule without now needing 4 of them. No, even if they expand by 2 and host a CCG I hope they leave this last bit alone. Hopefully the separate TV consultants will throw some cold water on this notion.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

4 Super Conferences with 2 Divisions each
Division Champs meet for Conference Championship
4 Conference Champs enter 4 team Play Off

Anything else will always be very messy.

 

[Charleston Mountie]

The added wrinkle of going from a 9 game conference slate to just 8 is a little worrisome and not only because it would force a renegotiation of TV contracts. Another opportunity for Baylor and the like to add another patsy and weaken their SOS? Seriously, I thought all conferences were going to 9 games? These OOC games are already hard enough to schedule without now needing 4 of them. No, even if they expand by 2 and host a CCG I hope they leave this last bit alone. Hopefully the separate TV consultants will throw some cold water on this notion.

You kind of have me here.

I think there is no doubt that the best way to determine a conference champion is playing every team in the conference but that is not the trend and we have to move from it.

The nine game conference model is a trend even in those conferences that do not need to do it but it is money and not competition that drives that decision. An OOC game requires one of three possible outcomes:

The deal is a One-and-done where the visiting rent-a-win is paid a pretty high fee for showing up to slaughter. The SOS usually takes a hit from these opponents.

The Two-for-1 deal has the same SOS hit and nearly the same high cost to rent-the-win if the university follows through on it.

If the return visit of the Two-for-one is bought out that adds to the cost to the program and a replacement on the schedule must be found, which is often a new opponent on a Two-for-one, that will later be bought out.

But, the reason the Big-12 had to go to a nine game format was because with such a small pool of teams we needed a total number of conference games to base the TV-package. If we add more games to the pool we can all play fewer times each season. At present the Big-12 plays 45 total games and has to provide marketability for 23 of them. If we expand by 2 and drop to 8 conference games we end up with 48 total games and can thus meet our current requirement for 23 marketable games.

The problem for ticket sales is no surprise, familiarity breeds contempt. Seeing the same teams in your stadium year-after-year lessens the drawing power the match up has and over time your ticket sales suffer. It also reduces the likelihood of a rematch in the CCG which is also heavily dependent on good ticket sales.

The one thing I would like to see the Big-12 do, is to not have a fixed site for the CCG, but instead to let it be set at the home field of the highest ranked team in the match up. A CCG following this format is always going to be sold out. I am sure we can recall all of the ACC-CCG where we all pointed and laughed.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

It's kind of funny that the future of the Big 12 will apparently all come down to the whims of an arrogant, overrated has been behemoth called UT. The consensus on this board seems to be that with a wink or a nod they can totally control the voting of their cronies, Texas Tech and TCU. Accordingly, if Texas chooses to kill the conference they actually saved they can do so with a no vote on the recommended changes.

I'm beginning to understand that if they choose to save the conference once again they must accomplish two things while doing so. First and foremost they must make Oklahoma look the fool, someway, somehow. Then they have to make it appear that whatever is finally agreed upon to save it was their idea. Do I finally have my mind right?

 

[Charleston Mountie]

It's kind of funny that the future of the Big 12 will apparently all come down to the whims of an arrogant, overrated has been behemoth called UT. The consensus on this board seems to be that with a wink or a nod they can totally control the voting of their cronies, Texas Tech and TCU. Accordingly, if Texas chooses to kill the conference they actually saved they can do so with a no vote on the recommended changes.

I'm beginning to understand that if they choose to save the conference once again they must accomplish two things while doing so. First and foremost they must make Oklahoma look the fool, someway, somehow. Then they have to make it appear that whatever is finally agreed upon to save it was their idea. Do I finally have my mind right?

This was very much what happened in the Big East. Miami bitched and moaned from 1999 through 2001 and then when votes came up that would alleviate some of the issues, Shalala started voting NO on everything because she had an exit plan. The only difference - imo - is that Texas is not leaving, they just like being BMOC. For those of you in other conferences that would sell your soul to get Notre Dame in your conference, this is a glimpse of what life would be with them. Some things are just not worth it and Rockne has been so not worth since 1988.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

This was very much what happened in the Big East. Miami bitched and moaned from 1999 through 2001 and then when votes came up that would alleviate some of the issues, Shalala started voting NO on everything because she had an exit plan. The only difference - imo - is that Texas is not leaving, they just like being BMOC. For those of you in other conferences that would sell your soul to get Notre Dame in your conference, this is a glimpse of what life would be with them. Some things are just not worth it and Rockne has been so not worth since 1988.

But TexA$$ knows they will have a landing spot so they do not really care if B12 lives or dies. They will milk as much money and squeeze the life out of the B12 until it is no longer useful to them.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

..... Do I finally have my mind right?

As long as you think that UT is a "has been" your mind is not right.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

As long as you think that UT is a "has been" your mind is not right.

The last time Texas was TEXAS was 2009. Since then they have been a very average 41 - 35 with losing seasons in the last two years. I didn't say they weren't rich, just very average on the field. They will bounce back even if they have to pay someone the caliber of Nick Saban $15 million per year. They can afford it with a $19 million athletic budget surplus.

Currently they are not a very intimidating opponent. A 17 yr old recruit cannot remember when Texas was a national power. So as of right now they are a has been to me, just like Nebraska and USC.

 

[topdecktiger]

The last time Texas was TEXAS was 2009. Since then they have been a very average 41 - 35 with losing seasons in the last two years. I didn't say they weren't rich, just very average on the field. They will bounce back even if they have to pay someone the caliber of Nick Saban $15 million per year. They can afford it with a $19 million athletic budget surplus.

Currently they are not a very intimidating opponent. A 17 yr old recruit cannot remember when Texas was a national power. So as of right now they are a has been to me, just like Nebraska and USC.

The problem is you can't make decisions strictly on "right now." Just 9 years ago, Alabama was 6-7. Now, they've won 4 national championships in 8 years. Blue bloods have the means to get back on their feet. Aside from that, blue bloods on a down cycle, like Texas, still pull better ratings that teams like Baylor. In reality, Notre Dame hasn't been relevant in 20 years, but they STILL deliver big ratings. Same thing with Texas, which is why schools like that always have influence.

 

[michaelwalkerbr]

The problem is you can't make decisions strictly on "right now." Just 9 years ago, Alabama was 6-7. Now, they've won 4 national championships in 8 years. Blue bloods have the means to get back on their feet. Aside from that, blue bloods on a down cycle, like Texas, still pull better ratings that teams like Baylor. In reality, Notre Dame hasn't been relevant in 20 years, but they STILL deliver big ratings. Same thing with Texas, which is why schools like that always have influence.

Point taken. On the other hand, for a conference to remain power 5, they need schools in the top 25 now. I do understand what you are saying though.

 

[topdecktiger]

Point taken. On the other hand, for a conference to remain power 5, they need schools in the top 25 now. I do understand what you are saying though.

Yeah, but here's the problem. "Now" is going to be in the past pretty quick. Yeah, Baylor is a Top 25 team now. How long does that last?" The odds say it won't last. Not saying that's 100%, but you can't really bank your future on Baylor. A good example. South Carolina was 42-11 from 2010-2013, and was ranked as high as #4 in the nation. Just two years later, they're 3-9.

And actually, to remain a P5 conference, the only thing that distinguishes a P5 conference is money. To be honest, that's not really all that dependent on having Top 25 teams. Again, I go back to my Notre Dame example. They haven't been relevant in 20 years, but they have a TV contract on par with the P5 conferences. Heck, the Mountain West has had Top 25 teams consistently over the years, but they've never been a P5/BCS conference. Why? They simply don't have teams that pull ratings.

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers]

The PAC got left out because they had no teams with less than 2 losses. Had Stanford not been upset by Northwestern and ended up with the same number of losses OU, the BIG12 would have been left out again

I always respect your opinions, Steve. Your facts are correct and so are mine. I'm not sure, though, that Oklahoma would have been dropped for Stanford. That one would have been a very close call. Dissing Oklahoma is a lot tougher than dissing Baylor and TCU. I still think the Big 12 has it right and the other 4 Power 5 conferences have it wrong. There's nothing better than having EVERY team play EVERY team in the conference. Look at the Big 10: Iowa got into the conference title game because it didn't play Ohio State, Michigan or Michigan State. That's so absurd. Again, I respect your opinions, always. I just have a different slant on it than you do. Thanks for letting me weigh in.

 

[topdecktiger]

I always respect your opinions, Steve. Your facts are correct and so are mine. I'm not sure, though, that Oklahoma would have been dropped for Stanford. That one would have been a very close call. Dissing Oklahoma is a lot tougher than dissing Baylor and TCU. I still think the Big 12 has it right and the other 4 Power 5 conferences have it wrong. There's nothing better than having EVERY team play EVERY team in the conference. Look at the Big 10: Iowa got into the conference title game because it didn't play Ohio State, Michigan or Michigan State. That's so absurd. Again, I respect your opinions, always. I just have a different slant on it than you do. Thanks for letting me weigh in.

You're making sort of an "ethical" argument, vs. a practical argument. You mentioned Iowa not having to play the other good teams, which is precisely why the other leagues adopted the division format. That format allows your teams to have better records, since they aren't all facing each other. Iowa ended up finish in the Top 10, when the otherwise would not have. It helped the Big Ten end up with four teams in the Top 12, and put them in lucrative bowl games. It's a completely effective strategy, more so than the round robin. They Big 12 might have it right "morally," but it's the effectiveness that matters (and pays the bills).

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers]

You're making sort of an "ethical" argument, vs. a practical argument. You mentioned Iowa not having to play the other good teams, which is precisely why the other leagues adopted the division format. That format allows your teams to have better records, since they aren't all facing each other. Iowa ended up finish in the Top 10, when the otherwise would not have. It helped the Big Ten end up with four teams in the Top 12, and put them in lucrative bowl games. It's a completely effective strategy, more so than the round robin. They Big 12 might have it right "morally," but it's the effectiveness that matters (and pays the bills).

Good points. But I still prefer that every team play all the other teams in the conference every year. A few more Iowas and even the Big 10 will be wiping egg off its face. Can you imagine if Iowa had been in the national playoffs in 2015? I know money drives the engines and morality takes a back seat. But not with me.

 

[topdecktiger]

Good points. But I still prefer that every team play all the other teams in the conference every year. A few more Iowas and even the Big 10 will be wiping egg off its face. Can you imagine if Iowa had been in the national playoffs in 2015? I know money drives the engines and morality takes a back seat. But not with me.

Yeah, but see that's the thing. They don't care what you think. They aren't going to structure their conferences to please you. The Big Ten would have a Iowa every year, and they would be completely happy. They wouldn't have egg on their faces. They would be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[Cuyahoga Falls Eers]

Yeah, but see that's the thing. They don't care what you think. They aren't going to structure their conferences to please you. The Big Ten would have a Iowa every year, and they would be completely happy. They wouldn't have egg on their faces. They would be laughing all the way to the bank.

Or you. So what's your point, other than attacking a poster for giving his opinion? I think Iowa was an embarrassment to the Big 10. Not playing the better teams set that up, and will again and again. In the Big 12, if you are in first place, it's because you beat the other good teams. That's a more reliable indicator. I'm not talking money, but common sense.

 

[topdecktiger]

Or you. So what's your point, other than attacking a poster for giving his opinion? I think Iowa was an embarrassment to the Big 10. Not playing the better teams set that up, and will again and again. In the Big 12, if you are in first place, it's because you beat the other good teams. That's a more reliable indicator. I'm not talking money, but common sense.

I'm not saying that to attack you. What I'm saying is, the line of thinking you are talking about simply doesn't interest the Big Ten. They don't care some people think Iowa was an embarrassment. The model the Big Ten uses is simply how college football functions in modern times. To bounce off your words, in today's college football world, money matters, common sense doesn't. I'm not telling you that's a good thing. I'm simply telling you that's the reality of our world today.

It's kind of like in baseball, back in the old days, it was considered a sign of weakness for a pitcher to come out early. Well eventually, some manager figured out that using a fresh pitcher simply works better that have a tired guy on the mound. Whether it was "weak" or not, using relievers is simply more effective than using one pitcher the whole game. Now, the entire baseball world follows that practice.

In the same way, the football world simply doesn't look down on "dodging" opponents like in the old days. The SEC has been making a living of it for 20+ years. Some people think that's soft, but in all honesty, it's effective.