ACC a better fit than Big 12?

[Buckaineer]

The people at Texas seem to be smarter than the people at Oklahoma. To the victors go the spoils. WVU is in good shape.

No, the people at Texas are more self centered than the people at Oklahoma.

When that mistake leads to the departure of the premiere program in the conference Oklahoma, then to the victor will go the spoils.

WVU is in good shape NOW. WVU will have to work on being in good shape long term after what has transpired.

 

[skygusty]

Oklahoma seems just as self centered, they just don't have the cards.

 

[Buckaineer]

In another article from 2012--this writer took a look at championship game results up to that time-the writer thinks its not that hard to win the second time--but the results bear out what has been stated:

excerpt:

What say you, history?

By my count, there have been 24 instances of two teams meeting in the conference championship game after meeting during the regular season. Teams that won the regular season game are 15-9 in the rematch.

http://www.ruleoftree.com/2012/11/2...ating-the-same-team-twice-pac-12-championship
15-9 in the rematch means the team that lost the first time won 60% of the time in the rematch btw.

 

[Buckaineer]

Oklahoma seems just as self centered, they just don't have the cards.

Oklahoma was trying to benefit every school in the conference from WVU, to Iowa State on down to UT-Austin. Not sure where you get "self-centered" from that.

Now, they'll do what is in their best interest.

 

[skygusty]

I say we watch the results of the CCG game going forward and calculate the statistics.

 

[skygusty]

They have always been involved in their self interest. So has Texas. That is how it works.

 

[Buckaineer]

I say we watch the results of the CCG game going forward and calculate the statistics.

I say there's no choice but to do that--but at the same time prepare as best you can for the fallout of current decisions in the years 2023-2025 and beyond.

 

[Buckaineer]

They have always been involved in their self interest. So has Texas. That is how it works.

OUs "self interest" was to benefit the entire conference. Texas--hold the entire conference hostage and disadvantaged to them until they can go somewhere else.

I'll take OU's form of self interest every day of the week.

 

[skygusty]

I say there's no choice but to do that--but at the same time prepare as best you can for the fallout of current decisions in the years 2023-2025 and beyond.

There is no choice but to do your best. Sometimes your are rewarded, sometimes not. WVU is not in the drivers seat.

 

[skygusty]

OUs "self interest" was to benefit the entire conference. Texas--hold the entire conference hostage and disadvantaged to them until they can go somewhere else.

I'll take OU's form of self interest every day of the week.

There is no difference when you are taking hostages. If OU and Texas want to leave. Buh Bye.

 

[Buckaineer]

There is no choice but to do your best. Sometimes your are rewarded, sometimes not. WVU is not in the drivers seat.

What the h#!! does that mean? Are you even a WVU fan? WVU isn't the only school in the conference that will be negatively impacted by these decisions. But WVU will be affected.

Some care about that--obviously you'd rather trumpet your love for UT-which just f'd WVU and multiple other schools.

 

[Buckaineer]

There is no difference when you are taking hostages. If OU and Texas want to leave. Buh Bye.

Yeah, good plan.

 

[skygusty]

Yeah, good plan.

Plan? Just reality. WVU is not in control of the self interest of Texas and Oklahoma.

 

[skygusty]

What the h#!! does that mean? Are you even a WVU fan? WVU isn't the only school in the conference that will be negatively impacted by these decisions. But WVU will be affected.

Some care about that--obviously you'd rather trumpet your love for UT-which just f'd WVU and multiple other schools.

The Big12 is just fine. WVU is in a great spot.

 

[Buckaineer]

Plan? Just reality. WVU is not in control of the self interest of Texas and Oklahoma.

OUs reality and plan was to remain in the conference and strengthen it. That's great for WVU and everyone else. Not sure how someone could be so naive as to not recognize that or comprehend what that meant---or how a WVU fan would not care, and instead celebrate someone trying to harm the future of the conference.

Explains alot about the "do nothing" agenda certain people have pushed heavily though.

 

[skygusty]

I think the Big12 is going to be fine. Some people seem to want it to fail. This is a great conference and WVU is very fortunate to be here. Maybe Oklahoma and Texas don 't feel so fortunate. Buh bye to the first and also second one to leave. I don't really give a crap about either one of them at this point if they don't know what they have. They will be fine if they stay together, the Big12 will be fine if one of them leaves, I won't shed a tear if both of them leave. Let them follow their self interest wherever it leads them.

 

[skygusty]

Let me be clear. Texas - if the BIG12 arrangement isn't good enough then **** YOU. Leave already. OKlahoma - if the BIG12 arrangement isn't good enough, then **** YOU. I'm sick of the prima donnas and their sycophants.

 

[Pitt4Life34]

It doesn't hurt at all.

You again explained that the market conditions are not good for a Big 12 network(with errors, but not the point of my posts)... ...after saying to another poster, '(It's) Not your go to market condition narrative'.

It's fun to watch you unwittingly debate yourself and the icing on the cake is when you do it after it's been pointed out to you.

The point is that the Big12 doesn't offer enough to justify anyone to invest into a Big12 network. The Big12 brand has absolutely no stick. Do you get that fool? Or just fighting over very general terms like your go-to "bad market conditions"? If some of you guys weren't so insecure you could see the warts associated with WVU and the Big12.

 

[GoWVU]

In another article from 2012--this writer took a look at championship game results up to that time-the writer thinks its not that hard to win the second time--but the results bear out what has been stated:

excerpt:

What say you, history?

By my count, there have been 24 instances of two teams meeting in the conference championship game after meeting during the regular season. Teams that won the regular season game are 15-9 in the rematch.

http://www.ruleoftree.com/2012/11/2...ating-the-same-team-twice-pac-12-championship
15-9 in the rematch means the team that lost the first time won 60% of the time in the rematch btw.

No, it doesn't. It means the team that won the first game swept the conference-championship rematch in 15 of 24 occurrences to that point.

That record is now up to 20-11 through the 2015 season.

 

[70eer]

Shaky math there Buck in your 9:59 p.m. post..... not 60%.....but 37.5%!

 

[skygusty]

Ummm, 9 is 60% of 15.

It is 9 divided by 24 you idiot. What an embarassment you are.

 

[Buckaineer]

It is 9 divided by 24 you idiot. What an embarassment you are.

Go F yourself @hole. The only embarassment here is you.

 

[skygusty]

There are 24 people at a party. 15 are men, 9 are women. According to you 60% of the men are women. And you are lecturing us about the math of expansion. What a joke.

 

[Beechurst]

Buck will destroy a conference to supposedly up conference playoff berth odds by 10-20% with methods that actually decrease the odds by a much greater percentage. The money-grab CCG 'ultra-necessary 13th data point' (a lie) will bite the B12 at least 1/3 of the time. It was not broken but Buck wanted desperately to fix something.

What a waste. Now WVU must beat the B12's best not once but TWICE to have any real chance to face other leagues' best. The key for B12 teams was always to lose none or one. Those odds decrease for all with a CCG. If two teams split, what has been decided? Right back to square ONE. But, so lucrative!

 

[topdecktiger]

FYI, the Big Ten signed its other deal with ESPN. With everything together, it comes out to about $38 million for the TV deal.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/06/20/Media/ESPN-Big-Ten.aspx

 

[GetYaNumbersUp]

Go F yourself @hole. The only embarassment here is you.

you are a dick

 

[Buckaineer]

Buck will destroy a conference to supposedly up conference playoff berth odds by 10-20% with methods that actually decrease the odds by a much greater percentage. The money-grab CCG 'ultra-necessary 13th data point' (a lie) will bite the B12 at least 1/3 of the time. It was not broken but Buck wanted desperately to fix something.

What a waste. Now WVU must beat the B12's best not once but TWICE to have any real chance to face other leagues' best. The key for B12 teams was always to lose none or one. Those odds decrease for all with a CCG. If two teams split, what has been decided? Right back to square ONE. But, so lucrative!

More moronic lies from the resident moron.

The best chance for the BIG 12 to make the playoff is NOT a 10 team conference playing round robin and a CCG--its a 12 team conference playing 8 conference games--but even playing 9 conference games is better than what they intend to do.

What you (and other unthinking people) are going to do is up the chances of the BIG 12 knocking itself out of the playoff greatly with a guaranteed rematch.

 

[Buckaineer]

There are 24 people at a party. 15 are men, 9 are women. According to you 60% of the men are women. And you are lecturing us about the math of expansion. What a joke.

As usual you miss the point.

You focus on unimportant things in order to ignore what matters.

What matters is that by playing a 10 team CCG with a round robin schedule, the BIG 12 has a guaranteed rematch that history shows quite often goes the opposite way in a rematch.

The team that won the first match, often loses the second--and for the BIG 12 that will mean knocking itself out of the playoff several times--and that is not a good thing.

If instead they moved to 12 teams they'd have a much greater chance of making the playoff.

 

[GoWVU]

As usual you miss the point.

You focus on unimportant things in order to ignore what matters.

What matters is that by playing a 10 team CCG with a round robin schedule, the BIG 12 has a guaranteed rematch that history shows quite often goes the opposite way in a rematch.

The team that won the first match, often loses the second--and for the BIG 12 that will mean knocking itself out of the playoff several times--and that is not a good thing.

If instead they moved to 12 teams they'd have a much greater chance of making the playoff.

False. Conference-championship game rematch history shows that the first game winner has gone 20-11 (.645) in the rematch.

 

[skygusty]

As usual you miss the point.

You focus on unimportant things in order to ignore what matters.

What matters is that by playing a 10 team CCG with a round robin schedule, the BIG 12 has a guaranteed rematch that history shows quite often goes the opposite way in a rematch.

The team that won the first match, often loses the second--and for the BIG 12 that will mean knocking itself out of the playoff several times--and that is not a good thing.

If instead they moved to 12 teams they'd have a much greater chance of making the playoff.

I don't think you should try to do math anymore until you bring yourself up to Junior high competency.

 

[Buckaineer]

FYI, the Big Ten signed its other deal with ESPN. With everything together, it comes out to about $38 million for the TV deal.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/06/20/Media/ESPN-Big-Ten.aspx

So for the Big Ten going forward through 2023 we have:

tv rights: $29.3 million per school per year
(Fox, ESPN, CBS) ($440 mil div. by 14 members + conf)

BTN rights (from various articles appears to be in the $8-$10 mil per school per year
range w/ advertising $)

They will also have bowl, Rose Bowl and NCAA payouts
Right now:

Rose Bowl-$40 mil per year for 5 years between now and 2026
Orange Bowl-$27.5 per year for up to 2 more years between now and 2026
current NCAA payouts $21 million or around $1.4 mil per team per year
current bowl game payouts are about $4 million per school per year.

 

[Buckaineer]

False. Conference-championship game rematch history shows that the first game winner has gone 20-11 (.645) in the rematch.

BIG 12 history shows that 40% of the time the team that won the first lost the second. Its a 50-50 shot who will win the rematch.

 

[Buckaineer]

I don't think you should try to do math anymore until you bring yourself up to Junior high competency.

I don't think you should try to think anymore since you are at kindergarten level.

You ignore what is important in your twisting of every word in your desperate attempt to make a bad situation good.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

You simply like to argue baseless points. Its a 50-50 shot. If you think its not-explain how its not.
It is difficult to beat the same team twice. In five previous years when the conference had a rematch, the team that lost the first game won the second game 40% of the time. In your world that didn't happen? It did and its in the history books.

If a team lost to its counterpart already in conference play, then its probably not going to be the higher ranked team unless the counterpart LOST another game or more. If that happened, then winning in a CCG against a team with multiple losses isn't going to be as impressive as beating an undefeated or one loss opponent in another conference anyway.

As to your last asinine statement, what should be happening is the league should have two divisions of six teams with the winners facing off in a CCG. There'd still be a slight disadvantage to 14 team conferences--but It would be a much higher chance of getting into the playoff than a 10 team conference playing a round robin schedule with a CCG.

You have no facts to base this on. If team a is stronger than team b, and they played 10 times, team a would win a majority. So depending on how much stronger team a is over team b will give you a better number.

Stanford played USC twice last year and had no problems winning both games.

The premises that it is harder to beat a team twice, isn't based on fact but based on your opinion and can't be proved any more than I can disprove it

I agree with other poster, you just pulled these numbers out of your butt, just to make some type of point.

 

[Mountaineer Steve]

BIG 12 history shows that 40% of the time the team that won the first lost the second. Its a 50-50 shot who will win the rematch.

WOW, really?

First off, you are using numbers from a 12 team conference to prove your point we need to expand from 10 to 12 teams.

Second and to help you with Math just a bit, 100% - 40 % = 60%. which means there is a 40-60% chance the loser of the 1st game wins the 2nd not 50-50 chance, or the winner of the 1st game has a 20% greater chance of beating the loser of the 2nd game.

One last item and something that I can't prove one way or another. I believe your numbers are an anomaly the BIG12 faced during that period. If you go back to the other 4 conference and compared the same type when they were at 12 teams, I am sure you will find a different % for each conference

 

[Buckaineer]

The BIG 12 rematches show that 40% of the time the team that won the first matchup lost the second matchup. If that happens between 2017 and 2026 that is going to mean 3 -4 more seasons with no playoff for an already disadvantaged conference.

And it can happen again--because a CCG guaranteed rematch is a 50-50 proposition as to who wins the game. That in itself wouldn't be so much of a problem if it weren't for the fact that in a 10 team league with a round robin schedule, its more difficult to have more than one team with just one loss.

Since 2011 only one year did the BIG 12 have more than one team at 11-1 and they haven't had ANY teams go undefeated. So with a 10 team rematch in a CCG your looking most years at a 50-50 shot the champion finishes with 2 losses.

 

[Buckaineer]

You have no facts to base this on. If team a is stronger than team b, and they played 10 times, team a would win a majority. So depending on how much stronger team a is over team b will give you a better number.

Stanford played USC twice last year and had no problems winning both games.

The premises that it is harder to beat a team twice, isn't based on fact but based on your opinion and can't be proved any more than I can disprove it

I agree with other poster, you just pulled these numbers out of your butt, just to make some type of point.

Your argument is just pulled out of your butt. In a rematch anything can happen --and in reality when the BIG 12 had rematches (5 years) the loser of the first game WON the second game 40% of the time. But it could have been worse.

No manner of spin changes that.

The consultants studies bore it out without question. The conference playing with 12 teams and an 8 game schedule and a CCG is far more likely to make the playoff than a 10 team one with a round robin schedule that plays a CCG. Again, no manner of spin changes that either.

A guaranteed rematch is a disadvantage no one else must face.

 

[Buckaineer]

Here's a former UT player who sees the bigger picture:

Babers: In spite of recent news the Big 12 appears doomed

 

[topdecktiger]

One last item and something that I can't prove one way or another. I believe your numbers are an anomaly the BIG12 faced during that period. If you go back to the other 4 conference and compared the same type when they were at 12 teams, I am sure you will find a different % for each conference

Here's the breakdown of sweep vs. split for each conference:

ACC: 2 sweep - 2 split
Big Ten: 0-2
Pac 12: 3-1
SEC: 5-1

A lot of it depends on who's rematching. In the SEC, Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Auburn were the sweepers. In the Pac 12, it was all Stanford. So what it looks like is that the probability of a sweep is high if it involves a conference heavyweight.

 

[skygusty]

At least the CCG is a reversible decision. If it doesn't work out they are not committed to it. Unlike Texas giving up the LHN and adding two unspecified teams from the G5 , which are irreversible decisions. Over the next 8 years without a CCG and just ten members lets say the Big12 had a chance of making the playoffs about 60% of the time. Just a guess. Buck, this means that on average the Big12 would have missed the playoffs two years out of every 5. (You probably need about 20 years of data before you can come up with reliable averages, but this level of math is probably over your head.) If you believe the consultants numbers, the chances of making the playoffs increased by about 4 or 5 % just by adding the CCG. I know you are math challenged Buck, but this means that the odds of having a team make the playoffs went up by adding the CCG. If it was 60% before it is 64-65% with the CCG. Plus they added about 3 million in revenue per school (This number will continue to go up) as long as they stay together and keep playing the CCG.

I think the money of the playoffs will be too much to resist a look-in to expand the field to 6 or 8 within the next 10 years. Adding more teams to the playoff field will also increase the chances that the Big12 makes the playoffs even if the rematches in the Big12 result in upsets at a higher than acceptable rate.