|
Intruder posted:Baylor or TCU would have gotten in last year if not for the refusal to back away from the co-champions thing God dammit how did this become the narrative? It was not a "refusal." The rules for determining champions were set out before the season started. The commissioner couldn't just unilaterally change those rules after all the games had been played, and obviously neither of the schools was going to vacate their title to help the other make the playoff. If the B12 had refused to name both of them co-champs, whoever got snubbed would have sued, and they would have won.
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
kayakyakr posted:The point I am making there is that the Big XII hedged and lost. They declared co-champs in the hopes they could sneak the two in, thinking there was a good chance for Wisconsin and GT to pull the upsets. Neither of those things happened and the commissioner wound up with egg on his face. No. No they did not. That did not happen, and as a B12 fan you of all people should know better. That decision was not made at the end of the season. It could not be made at the end of the season. It had nothing to do with Wisconsin or GT. The rules for the tournament and declaring a winner had been declared long in advance, and agreed upon by all the teams. The commissioner could not just unilaterally take back the hardware from a co-champ who won it fair and square under the rules everyone agreed to. I guess starting this narrative is not as bad as enabling rapists, but I'm still going to add it to the list of reasons I do not like football coach Art Briles. It was asinine of him to demand it, and it is asinine that everyone ran with his insane suggestion that it was possible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Pakled posted:The fact that the Big 12 rules allow for co-champions to exist and it wasn't just a plot to try to get two teams in the playoff and/or gently caress over Baylor doesn't change the fact that conferences having co-champions is dumb and should not happen in the twenty-first century. That goes double when you roll out a huge "ONE TRUE CHAMPION" ad campaign after having co-champs in 2012 and a near-miss in 2013.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Pakled posted:Is there anything preventing them from having tiebreaker conditions to determine the champion if multiple teams have the same number of wins? That exact thing was put in place prior to the 2015 season. No more co-champs. Also it sounds like there is discussion about the possibility of playing a round robin followed by a rematch between the top two teams for the championship. I go back and forth on whether that is awesome or the worst idea I have ever heard.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Pakled posted:It would be really cool, both because conference championship games own, and because of the shitstorm that would happen the first time a team beat someone in the championship that they lost to in the regular season. But I mean it's not like that scenario is so unlikely in a 12-team conference with divisional champions facing off after playing multiple cross-division games.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:It would have been easy for them to declare Baylor champion and TCU co-champion. Or even declared Baylor as the Big XII's #1 team (would have gone to Sugar Bowl in Champions Bowl years) without breaking the co-champions thing. They hedged by presenting the teams as proper co-champions, not putting one over the other. They lost. There was a tiebreaker in place to determine who got the BCS autobid in the event of co-champions during the BCS era. In 2014 there was not a BCS autobid involved, and there was no tiebreaker in place for the situation that arose. You wanted Bowlsby to just declare unilaterally that one of the champions was more champion than the other, and ask the committee to vote for them? That's ridiculous. He wasn't hedging a bet, he was just making the obvious choice not to do something he had no authority to do, which would have almost certainly kicked off litigation against the league and/or him personally.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
kayakyakr posted:There was a tiebreaker. There had to be a tiebreaker to determine who would represent the Big XII in the Champions Bowl. It was actually a really short tiebreaker, too, since it was just H2H. The rules said they would be declared co-champions but the winner of tiebreakers would represent the Big XII in the top auto-bowl. OK, now point out where an auto-bid was at issue and the B12 failed to apply the tiebreaker.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
god dammit I will not abide longhorns playing on smurf turf it is the most bush league poo poo ever it cheapens everything and everyone involved
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
MourningView posted:there are people still mad about the blue turf in 2016 lmao I'm not currently mad because I never have to look at it, but I would be annoyed if I had to watch B12 games played on it. I just hate looking at it for prolonged periods of time. It is grating to the eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
I think if it's two it has to be: 1) BYU for the national name recognition and also because I really hate their guts and hate games are more fun 2) UCF because they are a massive school with an ever-growing alumni base, situated in a football state/recruiting hotbed. They have all the pieces to build something there, and the road games would give us more of an in with recruits from Florida. ...and if we don't stop there I say: 3) Tulane because they are a good academic school and it puts trips to NOLA on our schedule, which is pretty goddamn huge in a conference that is wanting for sweet road trip destinations. Plus it helps us make inroads in Louisiana recruiting. 4) I dunno, Memphis? Might as well get a foot in the door in another Deep South football state. Houston is only acceptable if Baylor is gone, in which case I would love to see us make that trade. We don't need to dilute and divide this state any further, we need to expand our presence in recruiting hotbeds outside of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
And if anyone still thinks adding Houston is the right move, consider this: https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/756151963947892736 If Greg Abbott is for it, you can be pretty sure it's a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
I think this video makes pretty decent case for inviting BYU and Memphis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdkJhdToTsg Make it an annual tradition, along with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU7D5bhJZDA Then invite Michigan and Ohio State to join the Big Brawl Conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuoIgEw3fLw
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Numlock posted:I wonder how much it will cost ESPN to drop the LHN, last article I read on it the LHN only hit the break even part last year and I can't see it expanding beyond that point with the accelerating abandonment of cable for streaming services. At some point its going to cost ESPN less to take whatever fine they suffer from dumping it than to keep it around, as surly a Big 12 network (that includes UT) makes them more money. I am astounded to hear that it is breaking even.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
TipTow posted:Kicking out a school versus deciding on letting one in really aren't equivalent. I'm kind of torn here because I don't want to support a lot of the stuff BYU stands for, but my extreme dislike of BYU makes me want to see my team beat them that much more. We've already got Baylor and OU, but I'd always like to see more teams I hate on the schedule. No matter what your record is, no matter where you are in the season, it's pretty easy to get hype for a game when you hate the other team. You think there's any way we could get PSU and ND in on this? Texas would certainly be pulling our weight in the Hate Belt Conference. I mean everyone who is not a Texas fan hates Texas, right? It could be like how the SEC has been known to say every week is a championship game, except we could say every week was a rivalry game. Thermos H Christ fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Aug 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:gently caress Kansas State so hard. They are one of the 15 FBS schools with a winning record against us (9-7), so every win over them is a step toward erasing a team from that list.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:OK so Tulane, UCF and SDSU for maximum cool road games, and then gently caress the rest. Big 13. Oh man, if we got Tulane, UCF and BYU I would be so happy. BYU because they are the biggest brand up for grabs and and they embarrassed us so badly in our recent home-home, so it's a pseudo-rivalry game. UCF because it's a fun trip and gets us in to the biggest recruiting hotbed in the country and it's a school in Florida with a massive enrollment which probably equals football success in the long run if they commit to it. Tulane because it's a fun trip and gets us in to Louisiana. In a dream world we would somehow win Colorado back and ditch BYU because fall-winter Boulder trip with Texas Football game gently caress yes. When you get right down to it, adding a lesser team from a sweet vacation destination is the most baller move. It means you can plan a dope vacation that (probably) includes watching your favorite football team win a game. And your team can expand their recruiting territory as a bonus. Although tbf Provo appears to have some gorgeous nature too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I think I can accept Memphis as a possible 4th vacation destination for the Big 12. So UCF, Memphis, SDSU and Tulane are the ideal additions. I would definitely take Colorado State over Memphis as a vacation spot. Hell, are we sure Colorado doesn't want back in?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Well I mean Colorado occasionally won a game in the Big 12 so that's something
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
I guess Cincy and UCF would be my picks. BYU makes sense in a lot of ways but I don't feel that great about promoting the brand of another another weirdo private religious school known for silencing rape victims by threatening to discipline/publicly shame them for drinking or being unchaste. So, now that I've typed that out and actually thought it through, gently caress BYU forever. And Baylor. If we could trade Baylor for Houston and then add Cincy and UCF I'd be pleased as punch. Add Tulane and Memphis if we want to do 14.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Whatever, I'd take Houston and Cincy to fill the conference out until we get the end of the GOR and figure out if we're doing 4 megaconferences or playoff expansion or what. I hate adding yet another P5 school to the mix in Texas, but we don't really recruit well in Houston as it is. Would still rather see Tulane and UCF though. I just want to be able to go on vacation and see Texas win a game while I'm there. We currently have zero conference-mates based in cities where I would consider vacationing. And pulling some extra recruits out of SEC country would be a nice bonus.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
General Dog posted:They look dumb, but not as dumb as if they'd expanded by adding any of the current pool of candidates. Not without an extension of the GOR. How does extending the GOR make the current candidates more attractive options? If you don't like the available options, shackling yourself to them long-term sounds like about the dumbest thing you could do. Better to just let them hang out for a few years to gently caress our media partners out of extra money because they're obligated to pay full price for any team we add, plus it lets us do divisions and a CCG which is an extra chunk of change. Seems like plenty of teams would jump at a few years of extra cash and at least a remote possibility a nice landing spot in the aftermath.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 21:06 |
|
|
I have no idea what the source of this is, but if it's genuine it would seem to indicate BYU is in. Significantly, this purports to be a message from the B12. In theory the Cincy thing could've been printed up by the school so they'd have it if they ended up needing it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2016 20:09
|
|