Conference Championships -- State of the Big XII in the Future

**Rogue52** · 12-04-2010, 05:36 PM

Anybody heard a word about the Big Ten today?

No, which will be the state of the Big XII in the future. We either need to move games to championship weekend or figure out a way to convince the NCAA to allow a conference championship game with 10 teams.

I don't even understand the minimum 12 team rule. Why? Are 6 team divisions really more balanced than 5 team divisions?

And I know Big XII coaches support no championship game...

I think ISU/KSU should take the initiative of moving the game assuming the conference allows it. I'm sure our attendance will be better first weekend in December vs. Thanksgiving weekend unless of course we come up with some excuse about it being the first weekend of some hunting season.

**acgclone** · 12-04-2010, 05:39 PM

It will get 2 B12 teams into the BCS games more often though. I'd rather skip this week and have a 2nd BCS team more frequently. I believe the B10 had 2 in the BCS more often then the B12.

**Rogue52** · 12-04-2010, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by acgclone

It will get 2 B12 teams into the BCS games more often though. I'd rather skip this week and have a 2nd BCS team more frequently. I believe the B10 had 2 in the BCS more often then the B12.

Not a bad point and you are probably right. Look at the 3 way mess with the Big Ten this year. More BCS teams = more quality bowl games available and more money.

**alarson** · 12-04-2010, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Rogue52

Not a bad point and you are probably right. Look at the 3 way mess with the Big Ten this year. More BCS teams = more quality bowl games available and more money.

Of course we counteract that a bit with the 9 game schedule.9 conference games changes 10 noncon games in which most if not all are easy wins into games where you generate, by default, 5 losses for the conference.

**dualthreat** · 12-04-2010, 05:59 PM

they used to talk about the big 10 all the time .. the years when ohio state was #1 or #2

that one year they even talked about a michigan ohio state rematch in the title game

the big 10 got to sit at home in comfort and watch everyone else beat themselves out of the national championship game.

in 2011 the big 12 gets the better deal

**CyForPresident** · 12-04-2010, 06:04 PM

The Big 12 would be really, really stupid not to move some games to this weekend in the future. The PAC 10 and Big East do it now anyway. In the future I think we'll see either Texas/Texas A&M or OU/OSU moved to championship Saturday. That would keep the Big 12 in the national title talk every year.

It would be awesome to have Farmageddon played this week in the future, but I'd put the odds of it happening at about 1%.

Something like this in the future would be awesome.
Thanksgiving Week
Border War - MU vs KU at Arrowhead
Farmageddon - ISU vs KSU
Baylor vs Texas Tech
Bedlam Rivalry - Oklahoma State vs Oklahoma

Championship Week
Lone Star Showdown - Texas vs Texas A&M

**jdoggivjc** · 12-04-2010, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by acgclone

It will get 2 B12 teams into the BCS games more often though. I'd rather skip this week and have a 2nd BCS team more frequently. I believe the B10 had 2 in the BCS more often then the B12.

Waiting to hear the excuses compile when it doesn't work out that way for the Big 12.

Since they changed the BCS format in 2006-2007, the Big 10 and the SEC both have exactly the same number of representatives - 8 (two a year). The SEC has a championship game - your theory that not having a championship game will equal more BCS representation is flawed. Perhaps if the Big 12 were to stop playing crap football (because face it, it's been crap for at least the last two years) we'd get more representation.

**HFCS** · 12-04-2010, 06:07 PM

We need to move a few games to this weekend. Not doing that is stupid.

Doesn't have to be all 5 games, but should be at least one or two played on the championship weekend every year.

OU/OSU is a big meaningful game today with no playoff involved. Pac 10 = good scheduling move

Big Ten games this weekend were Fresno St. beating Illinois and nothing else. Big Ten = bad scheduling move

**HFCS** · 12-04-2010, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

Waiting to hear the excuses compile when it doesn't work out that way for the Big 12.

Since they changed the BCS format in 2006-2007, the Big 10 and the SEC both have exactly the same number of representatives - 8 (two a year). The SEC has a championship game - your theory that not having a championship game will equal more BCS representation is flawed. Perhaps if the Big 12 were to stop playing crap football (because face it, it's been crap for at least the last two years) we'd get more representation.

Yes, but the SEC for the most part actually deserves two almost every year. The whole argument is that a lot of years the Big Ten only gets the second team because of the format where the best teams don't have an extra game against each other.

**acgclone** · 12-04-2010, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

Waiting to hear the excuses compile when it doesn't work out that way for the Big 12.

Since they changed the BCS format in 2006-2007, the Big 10 and the SEC both have exactly the same number of representatives - 8 (two a year). The SEC has a championship game - your theory that not having a championship game will equal more BCS representation is flawed. Perhaps if the Big 12 were to stop playing crap football (because face it, it's been crap for at least the last two years) we'd get more representation.

I'm not saying the B12 plays as good of football as the SEC (they've probably deserved 2 in the BCS each of those years), but my point is that it worked in the B10's favor. I would say that 2-3 of those years, the Big 10 wasn't playing the greatest football either, but not having a championship worked in their favor. From now on, both OU and UT just have to win 10 games a piece, regardless of who wins the conference and they're in the BCS most likely.

**jdoggivjc** · 12-04-2010, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by HFCS

Yes, but the SEC for the most part actually deserves two almost every year. The whole argument is that a lot of years the Big Ten only gets the second team because of the format where the best teams don't have an extra game against each other.

Since 2006-07, the Big 12 is 2 bids shy of the Big 10. The two years we didn't get two teams was 2006-07 and 2009-10. In 2006, the teams with the four best records were Oklahoma (11-2), Nebraska (9-4), Texas (9-3), and Tech (9-3). We didn't deserve a second bid that year. In 2009, the best four records were Texas (13-0), Oklahoma St (9-3), Missouri (8-4), and Texas Tech (8-4). Once again, we didn't deserve a second bid in 2009. In fact, had Nebraska pulled off the upset in the title game, we would likely have gotten a BCS representation WE DIDN'T DESERVE because of the title game last year.

Like I said, if the Big 12 wasn't playing crap football, we would have gotten more representation in the BCS. The "Oh, the Big 12 Title game is costing us BCS spots" is a bull**** excuse - we just think we're better than we really are.

**HFCS** · 12-04-2010, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

Since 2006-07, the Big 12 is 2 bids shy of the Big 10. The two years we didn't get two teams was 2006-07 and 2009-10. In 2006, the teams with the four best records were Oklahoma (11-2), Nebraska (9-4), Texas (9-3), and Tech (9-3). We didn't deserve a second bid that year. In 2009, the best four records were Texas (13-0), Oklahoma St (9-3), Missouri (8-4), and Texas Tech (8-4). Once again, we didn't deserve a second bid in 2009. In fact, had Nebraska pulled off the upset in the title game, we would likely have gotten a BCS representation WE DIDN'T DESERVE because of the title game last year.

Like I said, if the Big 12 wasn't playing crap football, we would have gotten more representation in the BCS. The "Oh, the Big 12 Title game is costing us BCS spots" is a bull**** excuse - we just think we're better than we really are.

The Big Ten hasn't been any better but has 2 more teams in than the Big 12.

Part of it is media bias and part of it is the format. It's pretty simple.

Unless you seriously think the Big Ten has deserved more BCS teams than the Big 12. I don't.

**jdoggivjc** · 12-04-2010, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by HFCS

The Big Ten hasn't been any better but has 2 more teams in than the Big 12.

Part of it is media bias and part of it is the format. It's pretty simple.

Unless you seriously think the Big Ten has deserved more BCS teams than the Big 12. I don't.

The only "questionable" bid the Big 10 has gotten since 2006-07 was Illinois in 2007-08 with a 9-3 record.

2006-07: Ohio St (12-0), Michigan (11-1)
2007-08: Ohio St (11-1), Illinois (9-3)
2008-09: Penn St (11-1), Ohio St (11-1)
2009-10: Ohio St (10-2), Iowa (10-2)

Not only that, but the one year the Big 10 got a bid they didn't deserve (2007-08), the Big 12 got two bids (Oklahoma, Kansas). And every single one (except Illinois) has had a better record than those teams that got "left out" that I pointed out earlier.

Really, it's time to stop with the hating. You may hate the Big 10, but they have earned the bids they have received (with the lone exception).

**cy4prez7** · 12-04-2010, 07:12 PM

[QUOTE=CyForPresident;2036201]The Big 12 would be really, really stupid not to move some games to this weekend in the future. The PAC 10 and Big East do it now anyway. In the future I think we'll see either Texas/Texas A&M or OU/OSU moved to championship Saturday. That would keep the Big 12 in the national title talk every year.

It would be awesome to have Farmageddon played this week in the future, but I'd put the odds of it happening at about 1%.

From what I've been told..all rumor I don't know how true it is..the ISU KSU game is supposed to be played that weekend in two years...I think they want to take that game back to arrowhead. Once again that's just a rumor.

**nhclone** · 12-04-2010, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

The only "questionable" bid the Big 10 has gotten since 2006-07 was Illinois in 2007-08 with a 9-3 record.

2006-07: Ohio St (12-0), Michigan (11-1)
2007-08: Ohio St (11-1), Illinois (9-3)
2008-09: Penn St (11-1), Ohio St (11-1)
2009-10: Ohio St (10-2), Iowa (10-2)

Not only that, but the one year the Big 10 got a bid they didn't deserve (2007-08), the Big 12 got two bids (Oklahoma, Kansas). And every single one (except Illinois) has had a better record than those teams that got "left out" that I pointed out earlier.

Really, it's time to stop with the hating. You may hate the Big 10, but they have earned the bids they have received (with the lone exception).

There is potentially a good argument here for why not having a championship game helped the Big 10 get more teams in. In 06-07 and 09-10, the two teams here are in different divisions of the new league. If the Big Ten had a championship game, one of the teams mentioned above would have a loss the last week of the season, which could potentially put them out of the BCS. Not saying that it would happen for sure, but it certaintly could have hurt the Big 10 in those years.