Should Big 12/Notre Dame be eligible?

[Dauminator]

Again, it begs the simplest of questions... why did the big xii itself have so much trouble deciding that Baylor (not TCU) was the deserving 'one true champion' in 2014? Or, are you admitting that no matter which team was deemed champion, the entire big xii was unworthy of consideration for inclusion in the final four team playoff last year? Either way is okay because it clearly indicates that the big xii format is not perfect as some have stated in this thread.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I see no confusion. Baylor won it. I didn't address whether they were deserving of the top four at all.

In your scenario there would be a minimum of 72 teams. Go ahead and list those 72 teams that you are certain would be acceptable to everyone and let the debate truly begin. The concept is not 'more is better'. That, and participation awards are better suited for the overzealous PC crowd. We are talking highest level major college football.

And right now there are 120+. I'm reducing, not adding. And, to address the issue of who to include, I would go the distance and add promotion/relegation (example, worst Big Ten team plays MAC champion for a seat in the higher division the following season. A program could move up over time.

How many games per season are you proposing with your mega-football format? What crossover games will there be/not be? How will schedule quality/strength be compared? What about the so-called independents out there... how do they fit into your scenario? More teams just spoils an already good recipe that, with relatively minor refinements, can be the best model.

11 regular season games. National finalists would have 3 additional games, so max possible 14. There is no need to compare schedule strength; it's pure division winners. Crossover games, as I said, would be drawn at random, and are really just exhibitions to flesh out the schedule. There would be no independents.

Settle on the best 64 teams in major college football. Assemble four conferences consisting each of 16 of those 64 teams. Play divisional football with eight teams in each division. Determine a conference champion via an on-field playoff just like is currently the case for the ACC, the Big Ten, the Pac 12 and the SEC and then have the four conference champions play to determine the overall winner.

That post-season format is basically mine. My regular season just ensures the divisions are balanced, as no teams benefit from crossover matchups (or lack thereof).

Your opinion and assumption is that Iowa would be included. As recently as this time last week, there was very minimal support for Iowa among the supposedly knowledgeable personalities discussing the possibility of Iowa being in the final four.

We were #4 in the CFP ranking last week. In the what-if scenario of no MSU game, maybe it's different, but we'll never know.
.

 

[5Fan5]

The problem of understanding is all yours, no one else. Just because you would prefer not to address the reality of the situation from 2014 does not mean it ceases to be. Baylor may have 'won' in your world, but it was not as clear to the big xii at the time and their indecisiveness may have cost them a slot in the inaugural football playoff. No one, other than perhaps the committee knows for sure, but what is indisputable is that the ACC, the Big Ten, the Pac 12 and the SEC all were represented in that championship - the big xii was not. Now we have posters on HR that want to claim that the present big xii method is superior to all else and you seem to be in agreement with that. I am not agreeing with that for reasons already stated.

If you truly believe that any non-Power 5 team other than hallowed Notre Dame and perhaps one of the service acadamies is likely to ever see the light of day when it comes time to name a final four in major college football, then there is not much that can be done to help you. As previously stated there are roughly 64 teams now affiliated with one of the Power 5 along with special exception ND and a very few others. Not 120+. Not even the 72 you proposed earlier.

Wow. Eleven regular season games. Does that mean that some teams may only host what four or five home games each year? That should help promote fan interest in the game. Maybe the same theory can be applied to basketball and a thirteen game schedule can be formulated for the Big Ten (play each of the other member teams once and once only with the 'winner' earning the NCAA bid.) I am stunned that no one has thought of that before. And crossover games will be 'drawn at random'? That should work [/SARCASM]. Presently, the Big Ten scheduling is purportedly random too; thus far the Iowa Hawkeyes under Coach Ferentz have only began the conference season thirteen times in his tenure. If that is what passes for random then count me not in favor.

You have all of these hypotheticals which can be fun to banter about on occasion, but that is all that they are - what ifs. The issue here is that certain posters are stating opinions as if they are gospel (i.e. the big xii method is the best... or Baylor won the big xii and everybody was always in complete agreement with that...). I choose to question those assertions whereas you appear to want to acquiesce to an extent. We will agree to disagree.

 

[PlutoDroid]

You have no idea what you're talking about. You sounds like a demented Nebraska fan.

Sorry to be harsh, but that's just the fact.

But it's a free country.

Would ISU be open to a better deal? Hell, yes. So would Iowa and every other school in America. The question is what would be a better deal. For ISU, the BiG would be a better deal, for obvious reasons, most obviously geography and money.

If I had my druthers, nothing would have changed. The Big Eight would still be the Big Eight; the Big Ten would still have 10 members; etc. But nobody asked my opinion.

I don't need affirmation on my opinion or the facts I know nothing about like the Longhorn Network taking precedence over a equally distributed Big 12 Network. I don't need to reiterate the fact that playing one extra game is a disadvantage in a physical affair like football. You are steadfast in your thinking and I respect that as an apple pie eating American!

I believe having independents is archaic in todays modern game and not having a conference title game is beyond silly. Texas owns your conference and views you and every other program in it except Oklahoma as a necessary evil to fill out their schedule. Look at the revenue split in every Power 5 conference and tell me who stands out there. I don't get what is being lost in translation here so I'll just agree to disagree with you.

 

[naturalmwa]

Oklahoma won their conference by playing all other teams and having the best record, why would they play a conference championship game?

My that standard, we won our conference too.

 

[Dauminator]

but it was not as clear to the big xii at the time and their indecisiveness may have cost them a slot in the inaugural football playoff. No one, other than perhaps the committee knows for sure, but what is indisputable is that the ACC, the Big Ten, the Pac 12 and the SEC all were represented in that championship - the big xii was not. Now we have posters on HR that want to claim that the present big xii method is superior to all else and you seem to be in agreement with that. I am not agreeing with that for reasons already stated.

Don't muddle last year's playoff decisions with a discussion of an ideal. If the Big XII couldn't decide, then they are frankly handicapped. It's clear as glass what happened on the field. Everyone played everyone else. There was a tie for most wins, so you look to the head to head result between those two. The conference may have interfered to try to position themselves for the beauty contest judges, but the on-field results are set in stone.

If you truly believe that any non-Power 5 team other than hallowed Notre Dame and perhaps one of the service acadamies is likely to ever see the light of day when it comes time to name a final four in major college football, then there is not much that can be done to help you. As previously stated there are roughly 64 teams now affiliated with one of the Power 5 along with special exception ND and a very few others. Not 120+. Not even the 72 you proposed earlier.

I am discussing what would be a perfectly meritorious system. There would be no naming of anyone. Again, you seem to be crossing your thought streams here. Stay focused.

Wow. Eleven regular season games. Does that mean that some teams may only host what four or five home games each year? That should help promote fan interest in the game. Maybe the same theory can be applied to basketball and a thirteen game schedule can be formulated for the Big Ten (play each of the other member teams once and once only with the 'winner' earning the NCAA bid.) I am stunned that no one has thought of that before. And crossover games will be 'drawn at random'? That should work [/SARCASM]. Presently, the Big Ten scheduling is purportedly random too; thus far the Iowa Hawkeyes under Coach Ferentz have only began the conference season thirteen times in his tenure. If that is what passes for random then count me not in favor.

11 games worked forever, why not now? Fan interest? You wouldn't want to see a system where every team has equal footing and opportunity, and you're guaranteed two cross divisional games against equal level opponents, vs three or four games against FCS teams?

Basketball would have an even better system because you can do a proper double round robin, home and home, with every team. That's 16 conference games plus whatever you want to do for your noncon exhibitions.

Yeah, random assignments would work. Please elucidate why it is so obvious they would not. Use a computer-generated random number generator with a couple restrictions (like no same division teams can be drawn together, and each team must have one home, one away). There you go, done in minutes. And if you run the program as soon as the division is set, you have nearly a year to plan logistics.

You have all of these hypotheticals which can be fun to banter about on occasion, but that is all that they are - what ifs. The issue here is that certain posters are stating opinions as if they are gospel (i.e. the big xii method is the best... or Baylor won the big xii and everybody was always in complete agreement with that...). I choose to question those assertions whereas you appear to want to acquiesce to an extent. We will agree to disagree.

I agree, it is evident you and I have different priorities in our evaluations. I am not, nor have ever in this thread, tried to tweak the current subjective system. Why do you insist on responding to my assertion in that vein?

In a discussion of what is the best way to determine a national champion, I laid out a system I believe to be the purest and cleanest way from a competitive viewpoint to run the sport. I am not interested in redecorating the current system, I'm seeking a total rebuild. I make no assertions when it comes to any other factor, and recognize it will never happen.

My that standard, we won our conference too.

Huh? We did not play every other Big Ten team, so it is not the same standard.

 

[Lone Clone]

I don't need affirmation on my opinion or the facts I know nothing about like the Longhorn Network taking precedence over a equally distributed Big 12 Network. I don't need to reiterate the fact that playing one extra game is a disadvantage in a physical affair like football. You are steadfast in your thinking and I respect that as an apple pie eating American!

I believe having independents is archaic in todays modern game and not having a conference title game is beyond silly. Texas owns your conference and views you and every other program in it except Oklahoma as a necessary evil to fill out their schedule. Look at the revenue split in every Power 5 conference and tell me who stands out there. I don't get what is being lost in translation here so I'll just agree to disagree with you.

I confess I do not understand what you are saying, I guess. Let me take a stab at it:

1. Yes, Texas is arrogant and obnoxious and a general pain in the ass. So was Nebraska when they were in the Big XII. At least the rest of us only have to deal with one prima donna now (or Pre-Madonna, as some are wont to say).

2. The Longhorn Network was a deal-breaker for Texas, but IMHO the other schools are in many ways better off retaining Tier 3 rights, which is what enables TLN. I am able to watch all the Iowa State games and Hawkeye fans are not able to watch Hawkeye games that the Big Ten Network doesn't choose to pick up.

3. Iowa State gets one hell of a lot more from Texas than vice-versa. That is just the nature of things. So if anybody is getting used in the relationship, it is Bevo, not Cy.

 

[PlutoDroid]

I confess I do not understand what you are saying, I guess. Let me take a stab at it:

1. Yes, Texas is arrogant and obnoxious and a general pain in the ass. So was Nebraska when they were in the Big XII. At least the rest of us only have to deal with one prima donna now (or Pre-Madonna, as some are wont to say).

2. The Longhorn Network was a d-eal-breaker for Texas, but IMHO the other schools are in many ways better off retaining Tier 3 rights, which is what enables TLN. I am able to watch all the Iowa State games and Hawkeye fans are not able to watch Hawkeye games that the Big Ten Network doesn't choose to pick up.

3. Iowa State gets one hell of a lot more from Texas than vice-versa. That is just the nature of things. So if anybody is getting used in the relationship, it is Bevo, not Cy.

Okay my fine fellow or madam let me tell you of the reported revenue split for your former brethren to see how much your benefits are compared to Bevo's books.

1.Missouri and Texas A@M saw a 50% jump in revenue upon joining the SEC before the SEC Network was fully launched and all figures surely jumped up. Reported by the IRS obtained by USA Today The take from these former members was 12.05-12.50 million dollars in the last full year of participation 2010-2011. Their revenue in 2012-2013 was 19.00-19.50 million US dollars in their first full year under the SEC banner.

2. Nebraska as you yourself called Texas level greedy has not even seen the total windfall amount from the BIG 10 upon a probationary period or some technical mumbo jumbo I don't care to know or investigate. Why would Nebraska a fledgling member of the Big 8 decide such a move? Give me a T-E-X-As@ well you know the rest.

3.I previously stated you guys would jump at an offer from any other Power 5 conference to escape Texas and their dictatorship , believe me or not it's just an opinion. Ask yourself why if you get plenty of food from Texas you would do such a thing.....$$$$. Face the facts Cyclone fan you're living off scraps from Texas and until you are bold enough to provide an ultimatum along with the rest of what Texas calls the supporting cast (KSU,WVU,KU, OKST., Baylor) you will always be the bridesmaid.

I don't know if there is another viable option for you outside of the Big 12 but you should brace yourself for the new day of college athletics. Get ready or stay out of the fast lane. I have no interest or rooting interest so maybe I'm not seeing through the burnt orange sunglasses, but hey I wish you luck and hope everything you say is as equal as you say.

You may call me an uninformed blathering message board fool because I am precisely that. I have no insider knowledge and only base my opinions on what some Big 12 fans grumble about.

 

[PlutoDroid]

I just looked up your revenue sharing and you are correct the Big 12 does divvy up their shares equally except for television revenue. I tip my hat and apologize for my boorish remarks on which I was uninformed.

I do however claim Texas is a greedy pig and would leave you at the alter for a better partner. I also sustain you guys should have a conference title game to make everything equal.

I confess I do not understand what you are saying, I guess. Let me take a stab at it:

1. Yes, Texas is arrogant and obnoxious and a general pain in the ass. So was Nebraska when they were in the Big XII. At least the rest of us only have to deal with one prima donna now (or Pre-Madonna, as some are wont to say).

2. The Longhorn Network was a deal-breaker for Texas, but IMHO the other schools are in many ways better off retaining Tier 3 rights, which is what enables TLN. I am able to watch all the Iowa State games and Hawkeye fans are not able to watch Hawkeye games that the Big Ten Network doesn't choose to pick up.

3. Iowa State gets one hell of a lot more from Texas than vice-versa. That is just the nature of things. So if anybody is getting used in the relationship, it is Bevo, not Cy.