The North (us) and South (TX and OK) is awful. I don't like the addition of the championship game. The maybe/maybe not factor of increasing chances of a playoff invite and a couple million per school aren't worth taking away the perfect round robin schedule. Especially if they did this North / South deal. Awful. http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/col...-look-pros-cons-ofnbspvarious-division-setups
Dallasnews.com on possible Big XII divisions
- Thread starter There goes the Major
- Start date
Yeah, the B12 honeymoon is over and it's time for WVU FB to start playing with an attitude and kick some butt!
Well then I am an idiot and stand corrected. I thought they were forcing division regardless of size. I don't know which would be better, 1 vs 2 or division champs
Found it....
--------
The new ruling, via the Big 12:
One conference championship football game conducted in either of the following ways:
i) A game between division champions of a member conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced as possible), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division; or,
ii) A game between the top two teams in the conference standings following a full round-robin regular-season schedule of competition among all members of the conference."
--------
The new ruling, via the Big 12:
One conference championship football game conducted in either of the following ways:
i) A game between division champions of a member conference that is divided into two divisions (as equally balanced as possible), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division; or,
ii) A game between the top two teams in the conference standings following a full round-robin regular-season schedule of competition among all members of the conference."
I can't imagine if the conference goes to divisions that OU and UT would be in the same division. I think the dream CCG from a TV standpoint would be OU/UT.
Initially being in the crappy division would actually be a perk. Same schedule as always but better odds at the championship game.
The issue comes if the conference eventually expands. Suddenly you may only have guaranteed games against your 'crappy' (in a relative manner) division unless the league completely reshuffles. Personally I'd like WVU to take an aggressive stand when it comes to who they get paired with.....
The issue comes if the conference eventually expands. Suddenly you may only have guaranteed games against your 'crappy' (in a relative manner) division unless the league completely reshuffles. Personally I'd like WVU to take an aggressive stand when it comes to who they get paired with.....
There is no doubt TexA$$ is OU will be in separate division. And with the thought of playing cross conference games early on the season, it keeps the Red River game around the normal time in the season.
Beyond OU and TexA$$ being in two different conferences, they just need to make the two balanced.
I like the idea of reseeding the conference every year or so to help maintain that balance.
Your posts are always so articulate and make it easy to understand the opinion you're expressing.
ALPHA - ISU/KU/OU/WVU/TT
OMEGA - BU/UT/TCU/OSU/KSU
First year only and then do the suggested re-ranking of the divisions based on prior year performance as mentioned in the article. There's always a work-a-round for scheduling.
OMEGA - BU/UT/TCU/OSU/KSU
First year only and then do the suggested re-ranking of the divisions based on prior year performance as mentioned in the article. There's always a work-a-round for scheduling.
The word is that the new divisions are not static but are determined based on the final conference ranking at the end of the season, with odd ranked teams in one division and even ranked teams in the other.
Taking last seasons final rankings of:
#1 - Oklahoma
#2 - Oklahoma State
#3 - TCU
#4 - Baylor
#5 - WVU
#6 - Texas Tech
#7 - Texas
#8 - Kansas State
#9 - Iowa State
#10 - Kansas
If the CCG was in effect for this year, the divisions for the 2016 year would be:
First Division:
Oklahoma; TCU; WVU; Texas; Iowa State
Second Division:
Oklahoma State; Baylor; Texas Tech; Kansas State; Kansas
At the end of the season your record against those in your division determine if you go to the CCG or not. Every team still plays every other team on a regular Round Robin as we do now, but the games that matter are those in your division for determining if you represent or not. All of the games determine your ranking at the end of the season as it always has.
At the conclusion of this season, the teams will be ranked 1-10 again. The odd teams will be in one division and even teams other for the next year. Each year your division members will shift based on last year's ending ranking.
An add on to this is that you would have scheduled all of the teams in the opposite division early in the conference schedule to keep as much time as is possible between that meeting and an eventually rematch in the CCG, for whichever two teams make to that contest.
This is way too much convoluted crap. It shouldn't take an accountant or math genius to figure out who should play in a college conference championship game. Just add two teams. Go to eight games in conference. Winner of one division plays the winner of the other. Anything else is just horse........stuff.
It doesn't take a math genius but it does take math. They aren't expanding right now and maybe never will. This is all about a plan for divisions with just 10 teams.
Obviously, #1 vs. #2 based on the playoff committee's rankings would be the best option. That enhances the chance of making the national playoffs, which is the whole point of this change. Well, that and money. $2 million more per school is not to be scoffed at.
If #1 vs. #2 is the conference championship game....then why have divisions at all? This whole round robin and CCG discussion is bogus.
I think you might be missing the point. This is one or the other. They will either split into division and have division champs play each other, or they play 1 vs 2 with divisions
Yes, if they could do 1 vs 2 based on the playoff rankings I agree, but it is more likely they have to base it on 1 vs 2 in the conference which may or may not be the same thing.
It will be the top division winners, OR the top two teams with no divisions at all. Bowlsby said they are going to go with two five team divisions more than likely.
Huh? I think it's simple and a great idea. Sure beats not playing a round robin schedule every year.
Texas
Kansas
TCU
Baylor
WVU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Iowa State
Texas Tech
tried to think of divisions with 4 potential winners in each division. That way you would have a better matchup in the Championship Game.
Kansas
TCU
Baylor
WVU
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Kansas State
Iowa State
Texas Tech
tried to think of divisions with 4 potential winners in each division. That way you would have a better matchup in the Championship Game.
Last edited:
I don't think it is convoluted at all... The divisions would be like a seeded bracket is done in the B12 basketball tournament each year but the only difference would be that they would use the previous year's performance to seed the current year's regular season and ultimately the championship game. Each year the divisions will be different based on the quality of the football team.
I think this will result in very even strength divisions that will be modified as some teams get better and some teams get worse. I like this much better than the old North and South divisions that were the same every year.
It is like preparing to fight the last war not the one you are facing. Kids finish school. Kids leave. Teams change from year to year...except in the elite programs. Sounds like an attempt to have an annual championship game between Texas and Oklahoma. But then again, there is no conference without those two. LOL
You are close to the target. Using this method, it is not about teams ranked 3 through 10, it is all about 1 and 2 from last year and making sure they are in separate divisions and playing as early as possible in the new season based on the trend that they will be 1 and 2 this year. That is what this whole process is about, everyone just gets caught up in the scenario.
Not at all. If an annual rematch between Texas and Oklahoma is their goal, then they'll do exactly what the ACC did--split Florida St and Miami into separate, idiotic, non-geographic, nonsensical divisions in an obvious attempt to engineer a contrived result.
Over a decade later, the ACC still hasn't gotten their FSU/Miami rematch and everyone still doesn't know what teams are in what divisions of that league. If the Big 12 pulls that same stunt, then this conference officially is a trainwreck.
Like if team A in the 'north' goes 4-0 in division and 0-5 cross division in the B12, and team B in the 'north' goes 3-1 in division and 5-0 cross division.
Lordy, lookee! Th' same dang thing done happened on the south side!!!
So, we got two red hot 4-0 (4-5 overall) B12 divisional champs in our lucrative champeeyunship game!!
Daggone shame about those two 8-1 division runner up also-rans. They just couldn't git er done when it counted!
Maybe that would be the joke?
You guys can fight it out, but overall conference typically trumps (not a political endorsement) division record. I see where you're going but it's really the wrong direction.
The real problem is that the second (maybe the third) best team might not make the championship despite playing an identical conference schedule based on pretty much nothing except the desire to eliminate teams playing again in a short timeframe.
Interesting scenario. At least no one gets knocked out of the Playoffs by losing the CCG.
