Big 12 Conference Realignment

[HouClone]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the SEC and Big 10 stack the deck more in their favor by eliminating non-rivalry, non-conference games against the Big 12 and ACC.

It would only be Clemson-South Carolina, ISU-Iowa, FSU-Florida, Georgia-Georgia Tech, Louisville-Kentucky. The Big 12 comparison hopes would be on ISU beating Iowa and Iowa doing damage in the Big 10 schedule. The ACC has a much better comparison argument with more SEC games and with Notre Dame playing Big 10 and SEC teams.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

I think both arguments are true here and the extremes of the argument is wrong. Is the deck stacked in the SEC and B10’s favor. Absolutely. It can’t be argued otherwise.

Can and will the B12 get multiple teams in a year. Yes. There are very realistic scenarios where the B12 gets two teams in a year. 2022 B12 would have gotten 2 in (K-state as conf champ and TCU as at large), 2021 B12 would have gotten 2 in (Baylor as conf champ and Okie State as at large). So 2 of the last 3 years B12 would have gotten two teams in.

Whether that means I’ll enjoy the playoffs. No idea. I didn’t particularly enjoy them that much before as most games were blowouts and/or SEC rematches. So I’d either turn them off or skip altogether (especially the NYE evening time slots)

 

[IceCyIce]

What if...
KSU goes 11-1 only loss at ISU
ISU goes 11-1 only loss at Utah, goes to B12 championship avenges loss to Utah 12-1 (auto bid)
Utah goes 12-1 only loss to ISU in B12 championship.

Would the B12 get 3 teams in CFP?

No Iowa State would get left out

 

[tman24]

No Iowa State would get left out

Technically ISU would get in since they won the conference

 

[clonedude]

No Iowa State would get left out

Yep…. and some 3 loss B1G team like Iowa, with an easier schedule than ISU, would get in…. just because. It’s going to be a total joke.

 

[ClubCy]

No Iowa State would get left out

Yep…. and some 3 loss B1G team like Iowa, with an easier schedule than ISU, would get in…. just because. It’s going to be a total joke.

Either you guys dont understand how the playoff works or you’re being extremely over sensitive .

 

[AuH2O]

No Iowa State would get left out

By rule ISU gets in and unless ACC and a G5 champ is ranked higher, ISU would also get a bye.

 

[AuH2O]

My guess is most years between Big 12 and ACC there will be the two champs and one at-large

I’d put the typical breakdown as

P4 champs
- Notre Dame
- Top G5
-5 at large between Sec and Big 10
- 1 at large between ACC and Big 12

But as others said, a lot will depend on how too heavy the leagues are. We think the Big 12 is going to be more of a parity league this year, but we don’t really know. Best case for Big 12 is to have two teams clearly above the rest and get two in. I’ll worry about it if ISU goes 11-2 and gets left out. Otherwise I don’t really care.

 

[ClubCy]

What if...
KSU goes 11-1 only loss at ISU
ISU goes 11-1 only loss at Utah, goes to B12 championship avenges loss to Utah 12-1 (auto bid)
Utah goes 12-1 only loss to ISU in B12 championship.

Would the B12 get 3 teams in CFP?

Iowa State would get in at be the 3 or 4 seed and Utah who would have been ranked top 5 would get an at large probably hosting a first round game as a 7 or 8 seed. K state would be in the convo as the 10 or 11 seed but would likely be left out depending on the season.

For the record, I do think it will be very hard to nearly impossible for the Big 12 to get 3 teams in.

 

[MugNight]

I can’t help but think that the XII is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation with conference perception.

The talking heads have rattled on that the exit of OU and UT means there is no big dog anymore. GT-FSU broadcast even had to explain why #12 Utah would be in playoff with a bye if it happened today (assuming they are conf champ).

If XII has a runaway winner and a log jam of 4-5 loss teams then it’ll be painted as a weaker conference. Maybe the winner even gets critiqued for beating up on the weak.

If there is no runaway winner and a handful of 2-4 loss teams then it’ll be painted as a weak conference with a good but not great champion.

Conf champ gets in regardless, but discussion about our 3 loss teams will be completely different than the SEC/B1G.

Point blank: the XII will never be rewarded for its parity. See TCU/Baylor a few years ago.

 

[HouClone]

Point blank: the XII will never be rewarded for its parity. See TCU/Baylor a few years ago.

Captain obvious here but if we had any team but UT or OU be great, Big 12's reputation would have been better. Baylor and Briles were scum for the rape stuff. They also let the Big 12 down with it. They were building a power, getting high level recruits. They spanked North Carolina in the bowl game by running the ball every play since all their QBs were hurt. Amazing coaching job.

TCU had an great early run in the Big 12 and then Patterson inexplicably lost his mojo.

 

[RustShack]

Didn’t the B1G and SEC’s desire to get more auto bids get voted down? There’s still a committee that makes the rankings, with all conferences as well as ND and whoever else who get votes in the matter. Just because it’s reported the “P2” are pushing for something, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.

 

[HouClone]

Didn’t the B1G and SEC’s desire to get more auto bids get voted down? There’s still a committee that makes the rankings, with all conferences as well as ND and whoever else who get votes in the matter. Just because it’s reported the “P2” are pushing for something, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.

It got voted down as the national media jumped in and said it was a joke. Then the Big 10 and SEC pivoted with highly unequal CFP revenue. What did the national media say about it? Nothing.

 

[Buster28]

The national narrative changes when the Big 12 starts to win and becomes a consistent, competitive player for the title game. Simple, right?

 

[HFCS]

Yep…. and some 3 loss B1G team like Iowa, with an easier schedule than ISU, would get in…. just because. It’s going to be a total joke.

We even had some idiot contrarians on here defending the committee when the year 12 games "wasn't enough" to qualify but then a few years later said 6 was enough when most other teams had 9-11 games. I don't care if Ohio State was 6-0 with a cumulitive score of 900-0. You can't make a big deal about 12 vs 13 "data points" one year then turn around and say 6 data points is perfect vs 11 data points some other year, if 12 vs 13 mattered at all playing a meager 6 games should have been automatic disqualification.

It's been transparent since the day one the committee only exists to boost the Big Ten. You can just look at the makeup of the members year after year too.

 

[HFCS]

It got voted down as the national media jumped in and said it was a joke. Then the Big 10 and SEC pivoted with highly unequal CFP revenue. What did the national media say about it? Nothing.

How many automatic bids would the Big 12 have deserved in the last decade of basketball dominance? 7 automatics when we were 10 team and maybe 8-11 in the 14/16 team era?

Somehow there was no push for that from the Big Ten and SEC.

 

[2speedy1]

Respectfully, I semi disagree. It's all about viewership. As ESPN still holds ACC, B12, and SEC, they can't IMO ignore total conference viewership. As many have stated on here before, they'll watch the playoffs if the B12 is represented. If that's the premise, then it only makes sense to get the broadest demographic into the playoffs. I think things will be slightly out-of-favor with the B12, but not as much as some on here believe.

The issue with what you are saying is, they pay a LOT more for the SEC than they do the B12, They even pay more being the only partner for the ACC than they do the B12.

So, with that, they need to promote and make a lot more from their SEC content than the rest. So they will promote that brand and push its superiority far more than they do the others. Hence they will be content getting 1 team from each of the ACC and B12, but push to get as many as possible SEC teams in. This goes the same for Fox and the B1G. They need to and do make far more from those brands.

 

[Cloneon]

The issue with what you are saying is, they pay a LOT more for the SEC than they do the B12, They even pay more being the only partner for the ACC than they do the B12.

So, with that, they need to promote and make a lot more from their SEC content than the rest. So they will promote that brand and push its superiority far more than they do the others. Hence they will be content getting 1 team from each of the ACC and B12, but push to get as many as possible SEC teams in. This goes the same for Fox and the B1G. They need to and do make far more from those brands.

So, if I were to understand correctly, the SEC viewership would have to exceed that of the ACC or B12. Right? I can only see ESPN wanting that if 'local advertising' is the cash cow. However, I believe in the playoffs the national advertising will be the cash cow. Who cares where they get the money from, just as long as they get it. Also, if there's too much B1G and SEC, how many fans/revenue will be lost at the end of their regular season due to the "why pay now when I can watch them in the playoffs" attitude. Of course, I'm an advocate for parity and I think favoritism is the natural enemy of that. Somewhere, some bean counters will be figuring this out season by season.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

We even had some idiot contrarians on here defending the committee when the year 12 games "wasn't enough" to qualify but then a few years later said 6 was enough when most other teams had 9-11 games. I don't care if Ohio State was 6-0 with a cumulitive score of 900-0. You can't make a big deal about 12 vs 13 "data points" one year then turn around and say 6 data points is perfect vs 11 data points some other year, if 12 vs 13 mattered at all playing a meager 6 games should have been automatic disqualification.

It's been transparent since the day one the committee only exists to boost the Big Ten. You can just look at the makeup of the members year after year too.

You said this same thing when TCU got in two years ago and were adamant that there was no way due to SEC bias. Then they got in and you were very quiet about it. The wins loses matter and have always mattered, covid year was absolutely wild and we can learn nothing from it as their was a global pandemic going around. Using that as an example just doesn’t make sense unless you see that situation happening again in the near future.

 

[HFCS]

You said this same thing when TCU got in two years ago and were adamant that there was no way due to SEC bias. Then they got in and you were very quiet about it. The wins loses matter and have always mattered, covid year was absolutely wild and we can learn nothing from it as their was a global pandemic going around. Using that as an example just doesn’t make sense unless you see that situation happening again in the near future.

Yeah, they are not wrong every single year. There have been several years I think they picked the best four in a non-biased way where they weren't making up new rules on a weekly basis to transparently help specific teams.

However, when a reasonable person sees them change the rules specifically for Ohio State several years and in a polar opposite way of their previous criteria changes, it's wise to think it may happen again or even expect it.

You brought up the most stupid argument too btw on the covid thing. Keep going on that, do you know where you'll step in it? Please keep going, want to see if you can catch yourself. It has to do with who is in control of what. Testing your self awareness.