As several of us already pointed out, Buck doesn't do math very well and he is programmed to repeat the same story 20,000 times no matter what anyone says. The 15-9 is also just a sample and not necessarily predictive. You can't tell me the outcome of game 25 with certainty, and after the 25th game is played the odds change again either slightly more in favor of the the winners or the losers. The odds are not even the same for all conferences and when 4 teams don't even belong to the BIG12 any more and it is 10 teams not 12 the methodology is even more flawed. So here is a question for you. What outcome from future BIG12 CCG matches would be considered a failure and what outcome would be a success? I think it is a given that everyone realizes there will be years when the rematch bites the Big12 in the ass. But what is the acceptable risk? I think if the Big12 could make the 4 team playoff 60% of the time they would be pretty happy. Making the playoffs 80% of the time would be nice but is probably not realistic. You also have to give it enough time so that the numbers are somewhat representative. Who plays in the CCG, who wins and who loses isn't nearly as important as making the playoffs. That is the metric and I don't know what they have as a target number.
Could be, but it would be stupid for any program to put there future in the hands of another that is only looking out for their own intereste
Almosst eveything you said is ture, however
I really don't know what they think. I do know that if the odds are equal then each of the power five conferences has an 80% chance of making the playoffs. We know things are not equal and that the Big10 and the SEC have a better chance than the other 3 conferences. 3 years out of 5 doesn't seem awful when a level playing field gets us there 4 years out of 5. I don't know that anybody has the patience to stay the course and look at it long term though. There are already people who are upset that the Big12 has been left out of 50% of the playoffs, even though we only have two data points. It might take 20 years to get data that has any accuracy.
You just flat out don't know how to count or do basic math.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Great research GoWVU. I don't believe past football history can predict the future, at least this might shut Bucko up one (although I doubt it)
As you like to regarding out blogs, stating a different the otherside, this is just his opinion, and it is not based on any facts.
The biggest problem with the Big12 network has always been the LHN. Not even a 9-1 vote could force Texas to give up their property. Obviously the numbers were never there showing how Texas could be kept whole. If Ohio State had ever had a Buckeye Network prior to the BTN, they would, and anyone would, fight tooth and nail to keep the rights to their resources and meet their projected budget needs. You can rail against Texas all you want but they understand their business model and strive to protect it.Wonder how all the resident morons now view the huge $$ the Big Ten is getting--after all they've been proclaiming since before the BIG 12 meetings the cable industry is dead and there's no more money.
Strange, the Big Ten was able to get a huge chunk--and will get to renegotiate again in 2023 before the BIG 12 even comes up. Huh, wonder how that could be --all the geniuses here proclaimed ESPN out of money and the cable industry dead......
Stating the obvious aren't you Buck
If and only if the numbers were there, TexA$$ might have been willing to give up LHN. However, it will need to go far above the 15m they are making now, because they love being 1 of 2 P5 programs with their own national network.
Nobody (except for our resident troll) is missing the point. Buckaineer is simply lying and trolling as usual to make his. We've already established he can't count or do basic math. Once his "40%" lie that he attempted to cite from his wrong reading of Big 12 history was exposed as a fraud, he then did a U-turn and tried to proclaim that very same Big 12 history he previously relied on as his authority was now suddenly "meaningless nonsense."
I do not believe this to be true. If you're referring to "underdog" in the gambling sense, historical betting lines are extremely difficult to find. However, poll rankings are not. In 4 of those 6 rematches, the higher-ranked Big 12 team won. In light of that, I'd say it is unlikely that 4 of 6 also were won by underdogs.
I was wrong on the numbers, I was looking at Wiki for just a quick check but they do show that in the past 5 championships, the lower ranked team won the game 3 times as I read it. #15 Wisconsin over #11 Michigan State in 2011, Unranked Wisconsin over #14 Nebraska in 2012, #10 Michigan State over #2 Ohio State in 2013. The point I was trying to make is that whether it is a rematch or some team that hasn't been played in the regular season, all favorites risk blowing their chance at the playoffs by playing in the championship game. The Big12 is not taking some inordinate risk by playing a CCG which happens to be a rematch. Sorry if I was unclear or slopped paint on you meant for someone else.
Fair enough, sky. Since the Big Ten has not even had 6 championship games to date and the Big 12 previously had exactly that many, your post referencing the two was indeed a bit unclear. No harm done, though.
Wonder how all the resident morons now view the huge $$ the Big Ten is getting--after all they've been proclaiming since before the BIG 12 meetings the cable industry is dead and there's no more money.
Strange, the Big Ten was able to get a huge chunk--and will get to renegotiate again in 2023 before the BIG 12 even comes up. Huh, wonder how that could be --all the geniuses here proclaimed ESPN out of money and the cable industry dead......
That is all well and good, but it is just a conjecture at this point that OU and Tex$$ want out of the BIG12, just as it is mine, they prefer to stay in a successful BIG12.
