Mitch Vingle: Big 12 meetings and other notes

[43rd Parallel]

AN EXCERPT:

Burda confirmed both WVU president E. Gordon Gee and athletic director Shane Lyons are attending.

“I don’t see a whole lot coming out of the meetings,” Lyons said late Tuesday. “In the last meeting we dealt with the [football] tie-breaking system and that goes to the presidents. But I think they’ll approve that.”

http://www.wvgazette.com/article/20150526/GZ02/150529434

 

[43rd Parallel]

Mike Casazza: Holgorsen plays the numbers

AN EXCERPT:

WVU can skim for a graduate student, a May transfer or someone who opts out of a NLI. The Mountaineers can also wait to apply the extras over the summer and in the fall, too. Either way, the difference between the present number, whatever it is, and the maximum is negligible and not necessarily a hindrance for the Mountaineers, who will take this scholarship situation over the one they were used to.

http://blogs.charlestondailymail.com/wvu/2015/05/19/dana-holgorsen-hits-the-under/

 

[GoWVU]

“In the last meeting we dealt with the [football] tie-breaking system and that goes to the presidents. But I think they’ll approve that."

Those fans who have been complaining about how Big 12 leadership is just as terrible as the Big East have all the evidence they need in that passage above.

We have conference leadership and decision-makers so impotent and myopic that they're about to approve a tiebreaker which incentivizes point shaving, yet they're all slapping each other on the back for having "dealt" with another problem and fully expect the change to sail through approval easily.

Why does this type of gross negligence only happen in conferences of which WVU is a member?

 

[pressvirginia]

Re: above Daily Mail blog, I'd find it more important to have a consistent QB who can initiate the Air Raid & who doesn't turn the ball over rather than having 85 or 89 players.

Backups & backups to the backups is a nice luxury - especially when unforeseen injuries occur - but there's plenty that remains to be seen from the starters as well as playing fundamentally sound & disciplined with fewer self-inflicted mistakes/turnovers; i.e. it still is mildly astounding that with the increase in depth, there's not been one dependable punt returner.

A marked improvement from a few key starting positions could be the difference in the W-L column, the only stat that really matters.

Whole depth thing has been intensified as a top priority when the regression began in 2012. Sure it was the Big East week to week, but depth wasn't this big a dark cloud over the program when it won 3 BCS bowls in 6 years. I'm confident those WVU teams could've held their own in this recent Big XII. One such beat OU by 20.

There's also been the bump up in NFL draftees of late. There were roster gaps, particularly on D, but I'm just not too sure about this notion that the cupboard's been so bare.

 

[skygusty]

Those fans who have been complaining about how Big 12 leadership is just as terrible as the Big East have all the evidence they need in that passage above.

We have conference leadership and decision-makers so impotent and myopic that they're about to approve a tiebreaker which incentivizes point shaving, yet they're all slapping each other on the back for having "dealt" with another problem and fully expect the change to sail through approval easily.

Why does this type of gross negligence only happen in conferences of which WVU is a member?

Please elaborate how their decision incentivizes point shaving and how potent and far-seeing administrators should have dealt with the problem and also the reasons that they should not fully expect the change to be approved easily. (Actually, no don't explain, I have read enough about it already.) IMO I think they will have to screw up on a global scale for at least a decade to even begin to whiff at the ineptitude of Tranghese and the old BE. I'd like to see a list of stupid decisions by the BIG12 compared to a list of stupid decisions by the OBE. Not even close.

 

[GoWVU]

Please elaborate how their decision incentivizes point shaving and how potent and far-seeing administrators should have dealt with the problem and also the reasons that they should not fully expect the change to be approved easily. (Actually, no don't explain, I have read enough about it already.)

Then if you have read enough about it, why ask?

Anyone who can't see that situation as a disaster in waiting doesn't have the requisite judgment or foresight necessary to operate a multi-million enterprise...especially given its far better-run competitors.

IMO I think they will have to screw up on a global scale for at least a decade to even begin to whiff at the ineptitude of Tranghese and the old BE. I'd like to see a list of stupid decisions by the BIG12 compared to a list of stupid decisions by the OBE. Not even close.

That's true, but this blunder coming immediately after last year's questionable handling certainly has them off to a very disturbing start.

WVU fans, having so recently lived through the Big East "experience", have more reason than most to recognize and be alarmed by what might in fact be ominous signs.

 

[skygusty]

I think any formula is fraught with potential problems. I don't see a lot of panic about this other than your post. Lots of posts about scenarios that are of the WTF variety that may or may not happen. Lots of scenarios where a CCG in a ten team league screws things up too. Lots of scenarios where expanding by 2 teams is problematic. I'm not that informed though. What do you think they should have done?

 

[topdecktiger]

What do you think they should have done?

Not let Texas form an individual network.

 

[LowFatMilk]

Not let Texas form an individual network.

i'm not sure that anybody could stop Texas from doing it, but it was obviously not in the best interest of the entire conference...... ...not even close.

The Longhorn Network has kind of been a failure (yes, Texas still gets their guaranteed money) ...... ... so maybe it's possible that it morphs into a conference network.... ...with a mostly incest like geographical footprint.

 

[topdecktiger]

i'm not sure that anybody could stop Texas from doing it, but it was obviously not in the best interest of the entire conference...... ...not even close.

The Longhorn Network has kind of been a failure (yes, Texas still gets their guaranteed money) ...... ... so maybe it's possible that it morphs into a conference network.... ...with a mostly incest like geographical footprint.

You couldn't really stop Texas, per se. What I was getting at is the Big 12 should have started looking at a network earlier, and buy up the Tier 3 rights, which would preclude Texas from starting the LHN.

Of course, there is always the chance that backfires, and Texas and co. left for the Pac 12. However, I think given the Pac 12's independent network model, Beebe/Bowlsby/whoever could have convinced Texas that an affiliated conference work would be more viable.

 

[skygusty]

You mean at this summers Big12 meeting, they should have traveled back in time and convinced Texas not to form the LHN? That was the alternative to a points based tie breaking decision for future ties? You lost me. It is either a formula to break ties, a CCG for a ten team conference, or expand to 12 and have a CCG. And you are saying if Texas didn't have the LHN then either TCU or Baylor would have been in the final 4? What have you guys been smoking? Wheeeee!

 

[Woody in Helvetia]

You mean at this summers Big12 meeting, they should have traveled back in time and convinced Texas not to form the LHN? That was the alternative to a points based tie breaking decision for future ties? You lost me. It is either a formula to break ties, a CCG for a ten team conference, or expand to 12 and have a CCG. And you are saying if Texas didn't have the LHN then either TCU or Baylor would have been in the final 4? What have you guys been smoking? Wheeeee!

Like most discussions on this board the topic morphed in something else. It is the curse of Topic View. It would have never digressed into to confusion in Thread View.

 

[skygusty]

Like most discussions on this board the topic morphed in something else. It is the curse of Topic View. It would have never digressed into to confusion in Thread View.

I've noticed some weird things, it seems like responses in one thread were intended for completely different posts, yet they include posts that keep the thread link. Bizarre.

 

[topdecktiger]

You mean at this summers Big12 meeting, they should have traveled back in time and convinced Texas not to form the LHN? That was the alternative to a points based tie breaking decision for future ties? You lost me. It is either a formula to break ties, a CCG for a ten team conference, or expand to 12 and have a CCG. And you are saying if Texas didn't have the LHN then either TCU or Baylor would have been in the final 4? What have you guys been smoking? Wheeeee!

No. The poster you were arguing with brought up a general comparison with the Big East. He said the leadership is the same. That's a general comparison that goes beyond one spring meeting.

Next time, I'll be sure to post a disclaimer so you won't get confused. I'll make sure to include a diagram and lots of pictures, with explanatory captions.

 

[skygusty]

No. The poster you were arguing with brought up a general comparison with the Big East. He said the leadership is the same. That's a general comparison that goes beyond one spring meeting.

Next time, I'll be sure to post a disclaimer so you won't get confused. I'll make sure to include a diagram and lots of pictures, with explanatory captions.

I'm sorry, I didn't understand your reply this time either. Please post a diagram and lots of pictures with explanatory captions. Send me some ribs from that little roadside barbecue outside of town while you are at it. It is hard to digest the weighty points you make when I'm hungry.

 

[GoWVU]

I think any formula is fraught with potential problems. I don't see a lot of panic about this other than your post.

I think the main reason for that is that most fans are as yet unaware of how disastrous the tiebreaker they selected actually is. Other than the reddit posts linked in one ESPN column, I haven't seen it discussed. Were it more widely-publicized, I think you'd see more objections and outrage.

Lots of posts about scenarios that are of the WTF variety that may or may not happen.

The trouble is the new tiebreaker seems designed to achieve a specific result using what actually did happen in 2008. That is a major problem, especially when remembering that the party who felt "screwed" in 2008 is A) the conference's unquestioned power broker and B) absolutely wrong about saying they got "screwed" that season.

Lots of scenarios where a CCG in a ten team league screws things up too. Lots of scenarios where expanding by 2 teams is problematic.

You're dead on with this. I never wanted a conference-championship game, and the evidence so far in the leagues that have one shows roughly twice as many examples of teams who were knocked out of national-championship scenarios by the conference-title games as there were teams who played their way into one because of it.

I'm not that informed though. What do you think they should have done?

There are several more equitable tiebreaking scenarios that could be adopted, all of which would be light years more fair than what they're about to adopt. These are my 2 favorites, although they're not the only ones:

1) Use the "points comparison" tiebreaker they're about to adopt the proper way, i.e. the best point differential among the 3 tied teams is declared the winner--rather than the worst differential being eliminated as they're going to do. When used correctly, this method neutralizes 2 problems in the current one...it is both more simple (one step instead of two), and it also eliminates any possibility of the team who stands to win needing to shave points in order to prevail in the tiebreaker.

2) Decide between the 3 tied teams based on which one played the strongest non-conference schedule. Now you could argue that using non-conference games to break a tie for purposes of conference play is contradictory, and that claim does have some merit. However, since the overarching concern in all this seems to be that we as a conference want to send the strongest overall team into a potential playoff scenario, then rewarding the tied team which also tested itself more strenuously in out-of-conference play seems geared to achieving that goal.

Certainly there are other tiebreaker methods as well, e.g. if one of the 3 tied teams had to play both of the games against the other 2 tied teams on the road then they would be declared the winner...and so forth.

Sorry I took so long to reply. Your question was a good one, but it also demanded a lengthy response and I did not have the time to do so until today.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Let's see ... um ... hmmm .... At one time both the Big East and the Big 12 were simultaneously in the cross hairs of conference realignment. Currently the Big East as a football conference no longer exists and the Big 12 members all make a ton of money off of football.

I guess that's because the two conferences had/have the same kind of myopic leadership. And, apparently, that is why WVU gained no clear advantages jumping conferences before the Big East football boat sank.

I, for one, am glad that I have been forewarned of the shame connected to the widespread point shaving scandal that is certain to rock the Big 12.

For more insight into this issue I suggest that you read THIS.

 

[GoWVU]

Let's see ... um ... hmmm .... At one time both the Big East and the Big 12 were simultaneously in the cross hairs of conference realignment. Currently the Big East as a football conference no longer exists and the Big 12 members all make a ton of money off of football.

I guess that's because the two conferences had/have the same kind of myopic leadership. And, apparently, that is why WVU gained no clear advantages jumping conferences before the Big East football boat sank.

Since you're joining the discussion late, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed it upthread where skygusty and I said this:

IMO I think they will have to screw up on a global scale for at least a decade to even begin to whiff at the ineptitude of Tranghese and the old BE. I'd like to see a list of stupid decisions by the BIG12 compared to a list of stupid decisions by the OBE. Not even close.

That's true, but this blunder coming immediately after last year's questionable handling certainly has them off to a very disturbing start.

WVU fans, having so recently lived through the Big East "experience", have more reason than most to recognize and be alarmed by what might in fact be ominous signs.

In other words, I agree the Big 12 leadership is not that bad yet...but these are some troubling developments.

I, for one, am glad that I have been forewarned of the shame connected to the widespread point shaving scandal that is certain to rock the Big 12.

You are making the mistake of assuming anyone discussing this subject is talking about "point shaving" just in the gambling context. We're talking about it primarily from a competitive standpoint, because that's what the tiebreaker forces coaches to do in order to prevail in the tiebreaker.

The Big 12 is about to adopt a tiebreaker that, in a 3-team tie, virtually eliminates the team who does the best in a point-differential comparison while the 2 teams who did worse are still alive to prevail and be declared conference champion. There is no situation in which that makes sense. It is a competitive failure for the coaches, players, and fans.

For anyone here who is still unaware of this looming problem, do not take my word for it. Read for yourself at the following links:

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/99020/big-12-mailbag-tiebreaker-concerns-more-predictions

http://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/354rgy/new_big_xii_tiebreak_is_a_recipe_for_point_shaving/

Had the new tiebreaker been in place in 2008, it basically would have allowed Bob Stoops to choose which opposing team he wanted to advance to the Big 12 title game between Texas and Texas Tech. Anyone with a brain who isn't being a sarcastic naysayer should easily be able to see why this new tiebreaker is such a disaster in waiting. Unfortunately our conference administrators don't seem to be among them.

 

[skygusty]

Hopefully they will get the impetus to tweak the formula before a situation like this arises again. There are probably a lot of permutations of schedule and record where they get away with it, but it seems like it could be fixed, if people want it fixed. I appreciate the explanation.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Thanks for the links. But you still waaaaay overplayed the Chicken Little card.

My guess is that, based on my observations of the B12, sooner or later, the B12 will adjust for the better .... which is not something the BE was wont to do.

 

[doctom4]

Until they decide to expand to 12 and have a playoff, we're going to see more Big 12 exclusions from the top 4. So, anything they're talking about other than that is shortsighted.

 

[GoWVU]

Thanks for the links. But you still waaaaay overplayed the Chicken Little card.

Obviously I disagree. If anything, this situation has not gotten enough publicity as the easily foreseeable embarrassment that it stands to be.

If, in a future season, WVU somehow finds itself in the situation Oklahoma would've been in under this tiebreaker in 2008, then I can promise you this entire board would be screaming bloody murder and ready to form a lynch mob for Bob Bowlsby and the other conference leaders who approved it.

 

[HurdyGurdyEer]

Obviously I disagree. If anything, this situation has not gotten enough publicity as the easily foreseeable embarrassment that it stands to be.

If, in a future season, WVU somehow finds itself in the situation Oklahoma would've been in under this tiebreaker in 2008, then I can promise you this entire board would be screaming bloody murder and ready to form a lynch mob for Bob Bowlsby and the other conference leaders who approved it.

Uh ... even if this develops into an awkward situation, that will NOT translate into the B12 leadership being the equal to the old BE leadership. As someone else said ... give them about a decade to prove they are clueless before you equate them with the BE.

You waaaaaay overplayed the Chicken Little card. Your original point was that WVU moved from one conference with inept leaders to another of the same quality. One awkward incident, even a significant one, won't make B12 leaders the equal of the BE.

 

[GoWVU]

Uh ... even if this develops into an awkward situation, that will NOT translate into the B12 leadership being the equal to the old BE leadership. As someone else said ... give them about a decade to prove they are clueless before you equate them with the BE.

You waaaaaay overplayed the Chicken Little card. Your original point was that WVU moved from one conference with inept leaders to another of the same quality. One awkward incident, even a significant one, won't make B12 leaders the equal of the BE.

We're actually on the same page here, HurdyGurdy. As I stated before, I agree with both you and skygusty that the list of bad decisions by the Big 12 is not nearly as lengthy as the Big East's rap sheet...and won't be for a while.

My original post cited those fans who have complained about Big 12 leadership already, and that this tiebreaker is simply another data point in favor of their case. That case can't be made quite yet, but it seems like those posters have more fuel for the fire each time the conference changes direction--so I can certainly sympathize with the viewpoint.

...and, yes, my initial Chicken Little angle with conference leadership was partly hyperbolic as you guessed...but it was also partly grounded in truth.