Big 10 Interfering with Big 12 business
- Thread starter ColoradoMountaineer
- Start date
Who could blame the Big 10 or any of the other elite conferences for blocking it? They played by the rules and expanded. The Big 12 should do the same or live without the CCG.
The Big Ten didn't expand to "play by the rules", they expanded to make more money.
They are blocking the BIG 12 and ACC's proposal because they know the Big Ten is at the bottom of league strength and they won't be able to perpetually have one loss teams--so they want to disadvantage the BIG 12 and the ACC so that they cant' get playoff spots, and to weaken them for future raid attempts.
The Big Ten should have to play a round robin schedule because their league play is weak and unfairly advantages them over the BIG 12 in getting into the playoffs and related bowls.
They are blocking the BIG 12 and ACC's proposal because they know the Big Ten is at the bottom of league strength and they won't be able to perpetually have one loss teams--so they want to disadvantage the BIG 12 and the ACC so that they cant' get playoff spots, and to weaken them for future raid attempts.
The Big Ten should have to play a round robin schedule because their league play is weak and unfairly advantages them over the BIG 12 in getting into the playoffs and related bowls.
They were already at 12; they didn't expand to conform to rules or requirements. This is a dumb move. The ACC already said they would support it. It makes no sense to add weak teams and end up with a watered down conference.
And just what constitutes a watered down conference. Hasn't hurt the ACC, Big 10, PAC 12 or SEC. I think it is funny that a lot of WVU fans hold their noses at the sound of names like Cincinnati, Memphis or Houston when we were close to being in with them. The ACC didn't want us and picked a whole bunch of those others, so did the Big10 as in Maryland and Rutgers. Big 12 needs to come down off its high horse and get with the new alignment model.
They're not on a high horse Root, they just don't care for more than 12 teams or a conf champ game. And why should they be forced to do it? These larger conferences are quietly getting away with things by avoiding tougher matchups within their own conference because they have too many teams to play and obviously can't play them all.
With a better, more comprehensive and organized ranking system based exactly what a team has done on the field it shouldn't matter whether a school is even in a conf let alone how many a conf has and whether they have a conf champ game.
This committee business is a joke and the myth that you need a conf champ game was just destroyed by OU getting a slot.
It's none of the Big Ten's business what the Big 12 does or any other conf does withing that conf. In a court of law I don't see how the Big Ten, or any other conf would have a chance to dictate to someone else.
"Delany said the Big Ten's amendment was less of a blatant rejection of the proposal than it was the "straw man" in getting the discussion going.
"I'm sympathetic to what Bob wants to achieve, but we wanted to start the conversation and not just have one vote for total deregulation," he said.
Bowlsby said he wants the option of having a title game without the drastic measure of expansion -- though he is certainly willing to consider it."
http://espn.go.com/college-football...ort-conference-championship-game-deregulation
"I'm sympathetic to what Bob wants to achieve, but we wanted to start the conversation and not just have one vote for total deregulation," he said.
Bowlsby said he wants the option of having a title game without the drastic measure of expansion -- though he is certainly willing to consider it."
http://espn.go.com/college-football...ort-conference-championship-game-deregulation
The only two teams that have joined the ACC since 2004 are Pitt and Syracuse (they joined in 2013).
and Louisville.
Plus, in addition to Miami, BC and VT, over the years the ACC added Georgia Tech and FSU, so it would seem accurate to state the original ACC (which snubbed us at the formation as we were also in the Southern conference from which the ACC schools bolted) has added many teams without picking us despite many opportunities to do so.
Plus, in addition to Miami, BC and VT, over the years the ACC added Georgia Tech and FSU, so it would seem accurate to state the original ACC (which snubbed us at the formation as we were also in the Southern conference from which the ACC schools bolted) has added many teams without picking us despite many opportunities to do so.
The ACC didn't pick us, but the Big 12 did and they didn't pick any of those other schools that you mentioned. Be thankful for that miracle and that we didn't get stuck in the ACC Coastal Division which isn't any better than the old Big East.
Last edited:
The Big XII and WVU fans do NOT "hold their noses" and there is NOT a need for anyone to "come down off its high horse".
It is simply the options vs the status quo. IF you want to call it "watered down", fine, I call it appeal.
I ask a simple question. Do you buy season tickets?
If so you know an annual game at New Mountaineer Field vs any of Texas/Texas Tech/Oklahoma State or any of Oklahoma/Baylor//TCU/Kansas State is 1000 times more appealing than Cincinnati or Memphis. It's not even debateable.
Please don't bring jn basketball, that don't matter. Football plays the bills.
As for local trips, Nippert is a dump in a part of Cincinnati you better not be in after dark. Oh and Memphis is in East Arkansas or the western most part of Tennessee if it makes you feel better, not that local.
Don't mess with happy!
quick question--what are so many ACC fans doing on this and other WVU message boards?
Do they not have boards of their own to chat on?
Do they not have boards of their own to chat on?
Back to the matter at hand--now that it is known that their will be opposition to the title game change, we could see expansion sooner than later.
There is now two years worth of playoff era evidence showing that not having a 13th game will continue to be a detriment to the BIG 12. Even with OU making it this year, had the Pac 12 had a one loss Stanford or had Notre Dame not lost two, the BIG 12 would have been precariously close to being left out again--and as it was the league got dropped again in the final poll.
So there will be a choice--if any of the legislation change goes through do you go with two five team divisions? Or do you go ahead and do what you must and add more schools?
With Delaney's wording it seems as though stopping the ACC from selecting whomever they want to be champion--or contending for it is the primary goal rather than affecting the BIG 12--but the result is the same.
The conference will have some tough decisions to make come January. Continuing to sweat it out through the season hoping someone else fails no matter your accomplishments doesn't make sense.
There is now two years worth of playoff era evidence showing that not having a 13th game will continue to be a detriment to the BIG 12. Even with OU making it this year, had the Pac 12 had a one loss Stanford or had Notre Dame not lost two, the BIG 12 would have been precariously close to being left out again--and as it was the league got dropped again in the final poll.
So there will be a choice--if any of the legislation change goes through do you go with two five team divisions? Or do you go ahead and do what you must and add more schools?
With Delaney's wording it seems as though stopping the ACC from selecting whomever they want to be champion--or contending for it is the primary goal rather than affecting the BIG 12--but the result is the same.
The conference will have some tough decisions to make come January. Continuing to sweat it out through the season hoping someone else fails no matter your accomplishments doesn't make sense.
The Big XII shouldn't make decisions based on what this idiot playoff committee thinks. They have said some of the stupidest things. Prior to Iowa losing in the Big Ten Conf Champ game, they were 12-0 and some committee members were saying they should be ranked as low as 8th. C'mon. And wanting to talk up a two loss Stanford team?
This post couldn't be less informed. The B1G is adding a ninth conference game for 2016, which will do nothing, but add to schedule strength. If it were to lose two games next season, Ohio State still would be in the playoff mix, given a schedule, which features road games at Oklahoma, Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Penn State, and home games vs. Michigan, Northwestern, and Nebraska. A round robin schedule vs. 13 conference opponents would be against NCAA rules. Finally, the Big 12 shouldn't have a championship game, unless it expands. What sense does it make to have a round robin schedule, then a conference championship game? It doesn't. I like the Big 12's size and round robin schedule, by the way.
It's not uninformed at all. Why should the Big Ten be able to dicatate how other conferences determine their champions? The Big Ten WILL have a 9 game schedule, but they don't now and haven't and have reaped rewards off of that.
Ohio State being good does not make the entire Big Ten good--the Big Ten west ranked at the bottom of conferences and the Big Ten and ACC regularly bring up the cellar. So an Ohio State or MSU runs through a bunch of mediocre to bad teams and gets the benefit of the doubt for victories, while the BIG 12 gets punished for playing a round robin schedule in one of the top two most difficult conferences.
You mention a bunch of "names" for the Big Ten--but those schools are down and/or just mediocre and have been for years now. Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan, Northwestern and Nebraska aren't world beaters by any stretch and none of them have been winning much against top notch OOC opponents for years now.
If the Big Ten is trying to dictate what must be done by other conferences to keep things similar to what they want to do, then the BIG 12 should be able to dictate to them that everyone in that conference must play each year just like the BIG 12.
The end game is the playoffs. Championships. The BIG 12 must maintain a strong role in that and win some championships and you can't do that if you aren't in the playoffs. The committee method is indeed extremely flawed with homers for certain conferences pushing the vote in their direction, but it is what it is and the BIG 12 is going to have to adjust. The conference can't continue with the negative press and in a vulnerable position to be on the outside every year unless someone else slips up.
They aren't dictating anything. The NCAA is the one that passed the rule. The rule was already in place, and they are just against changing it. Nothing wrong with that.
Just add 2 teams and be done with it. So tired of the "but there's nobody good to add" argument. Find me two teams to add and I bet there's a good if not great chance they are better than Kansas and probably Iowa State. Honestly how can anyone say Houston would hurt the conference when Kansas plays Big12 football. Houston, Memphis, Temple, UCF, Cincinnati, Northern Illinois, UConn all bring as much to the table as Kansas does.
Duke is a perfect example of the backwards mentality of some. The only thing they added to the ACC for years was a dominant basketball program (UConn) and with ACC revenue and the right coach the became a solid football program. Forget wins and losses ok. Its about 1. The Name 2. Money they already have 3. TV sets in the area 4. Potential for growth. It has nothing to do with strictly success on the field. Plenty of options for the Big12.
There is something wrong with it. Delaney specifically states that others shouldn't be able to do something different than what his league does up to a point. Yet, his conference feels its ok to do something completely different than what the BIG 12 does, and up to a season or two now, different than what the Pac 12 and BIG 12 do--9 conference games per season.
There's no reason for a change not to happen and it doesn't affect the Big Ten except competitively--they don't want other conferences to be able to have the ability to structure themselves for further success--and that is dictating what others can and can't do.
Of course they are, and they are doing so to keep what they see as an edge in the field of competition. I am sure there is a measure of pride involved in it as well; using their weight to influence a committee to make selected decisions that align with their long term goals. Of course someone like you might have missed the bigger picture. I see you on many boards and you do not come across as anything but a gadfly. I see no reason for you to be on this one, but that is the call of the mods. I for one would not miss you.
No, there isn't anything wrong with it. Delany disagrees with the idea. That's his right. As I said, this is a rule that the NCAA put in place, not the Big Ten. The reverse could also be asked. Why should everyone else have to change the rules just to cater to the Big 12? It's not the fault of the Big Ten that other schools wanted to leave the Big 12.
Also keep in mind, Delany said he didn't have a problem with the number of teams.
Resorting to personal attacks just illustrates that your argument can't stand on its own merits.
Well, hell, let's have Oklahoma whipass in both games and the Big 12 will have the national champ and everyone else will be talking about the perfect arrangement when you play EVERY team in your conference every season.
Hmm, it seems in addition to being a gadfly you can't separate issues in a reply. Did you attend any institution of higher learning? Let me be clear, I don't like you. I have seen you attack WVU on other boards more than once, especially Texas' Rivals board.
No you haven't. I don't "attack" other schools.
You dodged the issues I brought up. Just goes to show you can't have a rational discussion.
Oh but you have and I did not dodge your issues because your issues have nothing to do with WVU except to further your bias against it. You have no business being here.
Delaney is trying to make a power play to keep his league in a power situation above the BIG 12. He is trying to destabilize the BIG 12 so he'll be able to try and lure BIG 12 (and/or ACC) schools to his conference in the future. He has no business worrying about how the ACC or BIG 12 choose their champion-especially when his conference doesn't play a round robin schedule and skates teams like last year's Ohio State or this years Iowa through on the basis of skipping playing any tough teams in conference - and up to next year only playing 8 conference games.
He wants an advantage--after all what does he have to fear? What are these "unkown consequences"? If he wants things similar then he should have his league similar to what the BIG 12 does, or have less teams to be more similar to the Pac 12 and BIG 12. After all, no one forced him to expand, that was his choice. Now, he's upset because others don't have a CCG or divisions, while ignoring the benefits his league's schools realize from a biased media, lack of schools playing one another in a round robin format, etc.
QUOTE="Charleston Mountie, post: 594443, member: 11672"]Oh but you have and I did not dodge your issues because your issues have nothing to do with WVU except to further your bias against it. You have no business being here.[/QUOTE]
The entire discussion is about the Big 12, not just West Virginia. You didn't answer my point about the fact the Delany isn't the one who made the rule. It was the NCAA. You also didn't address how it's hypocritical to complain that Delany wants the rules to suit him, but you don't complain that Bowlsby wants the rules changed to suit the Big 12.
Actually, Delany was forced to expand. He had to expand with Nebraska in order to have a championship game. The Big Ten did appeal for the NCAA to make an exemption to allow the Big Ten to have a CCG with just 11 teams, and was denied. (The ACC was also denied in 2004.) Neither the Big Ten or ACC got an exemption to have a CCG with fewer than 12 teams, but now the Big 12 wants one. That's actually unfair. If you want to go by strict fairness, the Big 12 should have to play by the same rules as every else and go to 12 teams if they want a CCG.
However, Delany said he has no problem with 10 teams, and the proposal by the Big Ten actually would allow a CCG with only 10 teams.
The entire discussion is about the Big 12, not just West Virginia. You didn't answer my point about the fact the Delany isn't the one who made the rule. It was the NCAA. You also didn't address how it's hypocritical to complain that Delany wants the rules to suit him, but you don't complain that Bowlsby wants the rules changed to suit the Big 12.
Actually, Delany was forced to expand. He had to expand with Nebraska in order to have a championship game. The Big Ten did appeal for the NCAA to make an exemption to allow the Big Ten to have a CCG with just 11 teams, and was denied. (The ACC was also denied in 2004.) Neither the Big Ten or ACC got an exemption to have a CCG with fewer than 12 teams, but now the Big 12 wants one. That's actually unfair. If you want to go by strict fairness, the Big 12 should have to play by the same rules as every else and go to 12 teams if they want a CCG.
However, Delany said he has no problem with 10 teams, and the proposal by the Big Ten actually would allow a CCG with only 10 teams.
The entire discussion is about the Big 12, not just West Virginia. You didn't answer my point about the fact the Delany isn't the one who made the rule. It was the NCAA. You also didn't address how it's hypocritical to complain that Delany wants the rules to suit him, but you don't complain that Bowlsby wants the rules changed to suit the Big 12.
It's his job to do things that suit the Big-12.
The entire discussion is about the Big 12, not just West Virginia. You didn't answer my point about the fact the Delany isn't the one who made the rule. It was the NCAA. You also didn't address how it's hypocritical to complain that Delany wants the rules to suit him, but you don't complain that Bowlsby wants the rules changed to suit the Big 12.
Actually, Delany was forced to expand. He had to expand with Nebraska in order to have a championship game. The Big Ten did appeal for the NCAA to make an exemption to allow the Big Ten to have a CCG with just 11 teams, and was denied. (The ACC was also denied in 2004.) Neither the Big Ten or ACC got an exemption to have a CCG with fewer than 12 teams, but now the Big 12 wants one. That's actually unfair. If you want to go by strict fairness, the Big 12 should have to play by the same rules as every else and go to 12 teams if they want a CCG.
However, Delany said he has no problem with 10 teams, and the proposal by the Big Ten actually would allow a CCG with only 10 teams.[/QUOTE]
the Big Ten didn't HAVE to have a CCG-they CHOSE to have a CCG. The ACC wants CCG deregulation and co sponsored the proposal so no its not unfair the BIG 12 wants the proposal to pass. The Big Ten took teams from the BIG 12 and now wants to mandate that the BIG 12 add more schools--probably hoping that destabilizes the conference in some way so they can try to poach more teams for themselves and their kissing cousins in the Pac 12.
Again if Delaney wants things "similar" then he should drop schools and play a round robin schedule. Stop having teams bypass a tough schedule and skip teams from divisions. He chose to expand-no one forced him and now he should live with the outcome of that and stop blaming the BIG 12 which is doing what it sees as its best interest.
And the Big 12 doesn't HAVE to stick with 10 teams either. If the Big 12 wants a CCG, nothing is stopping them. They can expand to 12 to have a championship game, just like everyone else had to do. The Big 12 doesn't deserve special treatment.
Expansion is a complicated process and involves huge sums of money and legal issues. Delaney knows this well and is hoping to cause instability in the BIG 12- knowing there are some that may not desire expansion. There's no reason for Delaney to care what the ACC or BIG 12 do to select their champion, he is simply trying to hold those conferences back and to advantage his conference. If he wanted things the same he would not have expanded beyond 11 and would have played a round robin schedule. He changed, and now wants the BIG 12 to change to fit his pro Big Ten agenda.
If you want to watch boring games every year fine. I personally like watching us play EVERY team in the conference EVERY year.
Who's rules? The whole purpose of P5 having more autonomy from the other conference is so they can make rules that better fit this group.
What good is the split if you can't make changes.
Yes on Stanford, no on Notre Dame. ND was already ranked behind OU with only 1 loss, and they don't have a 13th game. Unless the CPC is making up rules as the go, ND does not have a 13 point it should not pass OU with a win.
However you are correct. Two years in a row we seen a BIG12 team drop because they don't have the 13th point. As LONG as there are no upsets, that will continue to be the case.
I still think some type of reform will pass allowing B12 to have 10 team CFG. However if it does not pass, expect the B12 to make a change.
