I just don't think it works when your conference championship game will always be a rematch and can never feature 2 unbeaten teams. Just two things that makes it far less intriguing than other conferences. Also, I think it would be sooner rather than later that the game screws the conference over. Think if Ok St. would have beaten OU this past season. Now this is inherent in most conference championship games but think it's moreso in a 10 team conference where it'll be a rematch 100% of the time.
It shouldn't surprise anyone given the state of their football program that UT and UT fans would be happy with a Bush league solution like that though.
This is exactly right - if they do this, it's not going to take long for people to say "WTF we were thinking?" Pretty much like everything else this conference does. No one wants to see a rematch a week after it just happened (as you'd have had with OU-OSU last year). At least with divisions, you can make the last game or two always be intra-divisional, so any potential rematch would at least have some time separation between them. Besides, the whole conceptual idea behind a championship game is that the teams played different schedules, so going 8-0 vs 6-2 isn't necessarily an equal reflection of the quality of the teams. If everyone played the same schedule, it doesn't make any sense to ask the two teams to play again.
When was the last time two undefeated teams faced each other in a conference championship? How many times has that happened in the last 20 conference championships? As I said, there is still a %50 chance that you get a repeat matchup in a 12 team conference and the pac 12 has had repeats 4 years in a row. You then weigh that against the advantages of giving your two best teams in the conference a chance to play their way into the playoffs. There will be certain odds in every scenario and you should gauge your decisions based on the most likely scenarios. Major, you know that the odds of a week to week repeat matchup are very low. Possible? Yes. Likely? No. You would have to factor the odds of a team to be one of the top two in the conference (%20) with the odds that they are playing X team on the last of a 10 week schedule. Those odds become complicated if you just assume that certain bigger programs have a higher likelihood of being good which is true but not a huge disruption in the odds. OU-OK St is a little more likely since it's the last game of the season so you are just weighing the odds that each one of those teams is in the top two which in a perfect world is %4 however the reality is college football has inherit advantages for certain programs. TLDR: You're making a big deal out of a very rare problem. Also, your logic is flawed. If your solution with divisions is to have cross division games in the last week because it's that important (even in a very unlikely scenario) that you have repeat matchups then you can schedule a non-conference game in the last game of the season of a 10 team conference. I don't believe the reason for a championship game is singular. Of course it helps balance the disparity between possible disparity in cross conference games (ex. Iowa St plays Oklahoma but not TCU) however the impact of that disparity is not as meaningful as the unchecked differences in non-conference scheduling which divisions can't fix. The +1 game forces a team that has uncontrollable advantages into having to win another game against a good opponent. Yes, that means the other team also has to play a game against a good opponent when they might have scheduled a stronger non-conf however you are at least giving them the chance to win instead of building in the advantage another team has. Non-conf games may not affect division record however it does impact the evaluation of a playoff committee. Why are you only talking about 1 out of the 2 years of this system? You really would not have wanted and seen the value in 2014? If TCU would have played Baylor again then the winner would have been in the playoffs. There is 0 doubt that ohio state would not have jumped them. Yes, it would have cost OU the playoffs last year but tough ****. Give teams the chance to play for it and win. The round robin makes sense conceptually however there is still unavoidable problems. The biggest factor is there is no home and home. College football has the biggest universal disparity in wins based on home field. Baylor beat TCU at home but lost to WV on the road. OU beat Ok St at home but lost to Texas on a neutral field. A championship game takes them to a neutral area that is a much fairer opportunity to see what team deserves the conference because it eliminates the disparity in an arbitrary home field advantage. Ex. Home teams win %60 of games in college football and Vegas puts those odds at %63. A 12 team conference is WAY worse because West Virginia could play OU, and TCU while Kansas St plays UT, Texas Tech. A championship game does not solve for that disparity within a single division (This point doesn't really matter if you are arguing for the 10 team conference with no championship vs 12 teams and a championship. I can't tell what your preference is). Do you ever wonder why you are the single most disliked member on this board? How many threads have been started either directly or indirectly complaining about you? It's also hard to take someone seriously that has this as a personal motto:
This is a perfect example of an ad hominem, you had nothing intelligent to say in response to what I said, so you attempted to attack me personally instead. I mean, it was a pathetic, feeble attempt, but that doesn't really make it any better. It's kind of hard to take you seriously if you're not better than that....and it's pretty clear you aren't.
Keep trying, Coogs, keep trying. It's really kind of sad how much your athletic well-being is mentally tied to a school that wants nothing to do with you. You should be incredibly proud of what you are building, but fans like bobby show the shortdick every time.
I never mentioned UH, yet another person that has nothing intelligent to add about the actual conversation so you make a half ass effort at trolling. It's just sad. Be better.
You're not fooling anyone, Skippy. Unfortunately you've migrated from the Texans forum to the Hangout to the D/D to the Astros to college football. Will you ever stop, or at least slow down, or at least be less of an internet prick, or is this an irresistible force vs immovable object kind of thing?
What's funny here is that you are the one being the prick, you are butt hurt about something accurate I said about UT's football program and it so wounded you that you are lashing out. Let it go kiddo, you can't possibly be that weak of a person.
In the Alanis Morissette sense of calling things ironic that aren't actually ironic, sure. For what I said to actually be an example of ad hominem fallacy, it would have to be responding to an argument with a personal attack ignoring the argument.....that wasn't the case. Anyway, I'm sure you did your best, so thanks for trying.
Butt hurt UT homers, if you are upset about what I said, try to be intelligent in your attacks. I don't mind your childish nonsense but so far you guys have embarrassed yourselves. Be better, don't ruin this board like the school on your T shirt is trying to ruin the Big 12.
I'm fine with 10 team round robin or 12 team with a conference championship - both are conceptually logical. I think a round robin with a championship game is just weird because every team got an equal opportunity to win already. That said, I think all 3 solutions suck for the Big12 simply because they have a bunch of uninteresting schools and are always behind the curve on everything. They replaced A&M, Nebraska, Mizzou, and Colorado with TCU and West Virginia. Those 2 new programs are fine right now, but over the long haul, I would take the first 4 in a heartbeat. They then sat by "happy with 10" while the ACC was sitting there waiting to be raided and when other potentially interesting schools like Louisville got grabbed up by other conferences. Then they decided "hey, maybe we should look at expansion!" after there are no really good schools available. Now, they are just starting to think about doing research on what a Big12 Network might look like long after everyone else already launched one. Everything they do is about 4 years later than they should because they have terrible leadership and a bunch of selfish big schools unwilling to do anything for the good of the conference (yes, Texas is one of them). We can always say "well, Texas should look out for itself", which is great in theory. But the reason the Big10 is so successful is that OSU and Michigan help make the conference strong instead of just maximizing themselves. Same with schools like Alabama and Florida in the SEC, etc. All the other conferences have happy members. The Big12 has a few big guns, several schools that ran or would run when the first good opportunity presents itself, and a bunch of schools that have no choice because no one else wants them. No other major conference is like that.
You had nothing intelligent to say in response to what he said, so you attempted to attack him personally instead. Your words, not mine.
Maybe we can get cangrejero, what and dadakota to chime in with bobby, get a real Algonquin Round Table going.
SMH, let me spell this out for you in crayon kiddo, what he said wasn't an argument, it was just a fairly feeble attempt to attack my credibility in response to the argument without actually addressing the argument. That's a pretty textbook example of an ad hominem. I merely pointed out what he did and suggested that going that route, instead of legitimate debate, hurts his credibility and continued nonsense like that would further hurt his credibility. That's not an example of ad hominem. I have the utmost respect for UT's academics, so you're really making the case here that you just wear the T shirts and you didn't actually go there. I hope you learned something and will be better in the future.
Haven't done the research but the frequency doesn't change the fact that you could never have it with the current model. It's definitely not the biggest consideration but just another factor IMO. Also, a conference championship game does not always give your two best teams in the conference a chance to play their way into the playoffs, it does however give your second best team chance team a second chance at a conference championship. There will be a lot of times where your second best team does not have a chance at the playoffs no matter the outcome of the game. Just for kicks, these would have been the would be championship games the last 4 seasons: 2015 - #3 OU versus #23 Ok St. 2014 - #5 Baylor versus #6 TCU 2013 - #6 Baylor versus #11 OU 2012 - #5 KSU versus #11 OU In each of these instances, it's debatable how much a championship game would've helped. In 2015, think it only would have hurt as OU was pretty much a lock. In 2012 and 2013, would wins over #11 OU been enough to jump them to #4? It's possible but wonder what a sloppy win would have done for them. But in any of those instances, an upset would have killed the conference's chance at the playoffs. 2014 is the one year I think it would have helped but just like your original question to me, you'd have to predict how many championship games would feature 2 highly rated teams (Top 10 for sure, probably Top 6 at the least to make a jump to #4). Not saying you are wrong and there are definitely pros/cons to the game. But IMO, I'm not sure there pros outweighs the cons at the given moment or at the very least, we have gathered enough info to make a definite determination.
Look Roberto, there was nothing in your post that was intelligent. It's sad Roberto that this is your definition of an intelligent argument that warrants analysis and debate. Roberto, I posted 4 paragraphs that incorporated odds, practical benefits, drawbacks etc and your response was that I like stupid things because my team sucks. I'm glad you're proud of this. I did no such thing. This was the guy who attacked your credibility: It's seems like you're the one Roberto that is lashing out emotionally because someone pointed out that you had the most threads saying that you make this website worse (which is factually true) and went on a spree insulting everyone. No one here is emotionally affected but you. We're all just annoyed at best.
