college football 2014/2015/2016/2017/2018/2019

[Iowan]

OU and Texas should've joined the Big Ten when they had the chance

If it was OU or Texas at 11-1, they're in.

[cortez the killer]

OU and Texas should've joined the Big Ten when they had the chance

If it was OU or Texas at 11-1, they're in.

Or at least they would've made it harder for the committee to let OSU get in after that incredibly impressive 59-0 beat down over Wisconsin in a CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

[sg207]

The Big 12 did themselves in when they didn't pursue expansion while everybody else did. Them and the Big East just sat around and watched it happen.

Although I've read a lot locally this weekend talking about Big 12 expansion, and several local places have reported that it's a done deal, with Cincinnati and Memphis to the Big 12, to be announced in March. Who really knows though.

[Iowan]

OU and Texas should've joined the Big Ten when they had the chance

If it was OU or Texas at 11-1, they're in.

Or at least they would've made it harder for the committee to let OSU get in after that incredibly impressive 59-0 beat down over Wisconsin in a CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Yeah, I just don't get the Championship game thing at all. When you play every team in your conference, it just doesn't serve a purpose.

The committee/ESPN has made it clear that they're going to use it against the Big 12, so that means the Big 12 either creates championship on 10 teams, or adds 2 two more. If we add two more, ESPN will criticize us for not adding good enough programs and say that the "Big 12 has watered itself down" and use that as an excuse to keep the Big 12 out of the playoffs.

They're basically just taking an anti-Big 12 stance in hopes that it forces the league to it's demise, and if they keep at it, they very well could make that happen.

[Iowan]

The Big 12 did themselves in when they didn't pursue expansion while everybody else did. Them and the Big East just sat around and watched it happen.

Although I've read a lot locally this weekend talking about Big 12 expansion, and several local places have reported that it's a done deal, with Cincinnati and Memphis to the Big 12, to be announced in March. Who really knows though.

There wasn't much of a choice. The television partners explicitly told the league that they weren't going to pay us money to go beyond 10 teams. Hands were basically tied.

Again, it seems like a push from the top to kill the league off.

I would be fine with adding Cincy and Memphis. Both schools have a lot of potential, IMO. I just wouldn't want it to sow further seeds of discord that lead to people getting pissed off and leaving in a few years. The conference has been surprisingly unified in it's maneuvers the past few years and there aren't the types of rivalries and jealousy that lead to what happened in 2010-11.

[cortez the killer]

If it was OU or Texas at 11-1, they're in.

Or at least they would've made it harder for the committee to let OSU get in after that incredibly impressive 59-0 beat down over Wisconsin in a CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Yeah, I just don't get the Championship game thing at all. When you play every team in your conference, it just doesn't serve a purpose.

The committee/ESPN has made it clear that they're going to use it against the Big 12, so that means the Big 12 either creates championship on 10 teams, or adds 2 two more. If we add two more, ESPN will criticize us for not adding good enough programs and say that the "Big 12 has watered itself down" and use that as an excuse to keep the Big 12 out of the playoffs.

They're basically just taking an anti-Big 12 stance in hopes that it forces the league to it's demise, and if they keep at it, they very well could make that happen.

I'm not sure how you can say "it doesn't serve a purpose." The Big 10 championship game showed OSU, with it's 3rd string QB, is playing excellent football right now and throttled a talented Wisconsin team. The Big 12 doesn't have enough teams to have a championship game. Oh well. Even if they did, I don't see any way you select Baylor or TCU over Ohio State. I have no conference loyalty or dog in the fight here. The Big 12 obviously has some talented teams, with Baylor & TCU at the top of the heap. But in the current subjective system that has been set up, I don't see how you can make a case that the best 4 teams aren't playing for the championship. It still isn't a perfect system, but it is better than it was. Until the playoffs include at least 8 teams (and preferably 16), I guess we can call it a work in progress.

[Iowan]

Or at least they would've made it harder for the committee to let OSU get in after that incredibly impressive 59-0 beat down over Wisconsin in a CHAMPIONSHIP GAME.

Yeah, I just don't get the Championship game thing at all. When you play every team in your conference, it just doesn't serve a purpose.

The committee/ESPN has made it clear that they're going to use it against the Big 12, so that means the Big 12 either creates championship on 10 teams, or adds 2 two more. If we add two more, ESPN will criticize us for not adding good enough programs and say that the "Big 12 has watered itself down" and use that as an excuse to keep the Big 12 out of the playoffs.

They're basically just taking an anti-Big 12 stance in hopes that it forces the league to it's demise, and if they keep at it, they very well could make that happen.

I'm not sure how you can say "it doesn't serve a purpose." The Big 10 championship game showed OSU, with it's 3rd string QB, is playing excellent football right now and throttled a talented Wisconsin team. The Big 12 doesn't have enough teams to have a championship game. Oh well. Even if they did, I don't see any way you select Baylor or TCU over Ohio State. I have no conference loyalty or dog in the fight here. The Big 12 obviously has some talented teams, with Baylor & TCU at the top of the heap. But in the current subjective system that has been set up, I don't see how you can make a case that the best 4 teams aren't playing for the championship. It still isn't a perfect system, but it is better than it was. Until the playoffs include at least 8 teams (and preferably 16), I guess we can call it a work in progress.

I get your point, and it's pretty clear where the committee stands too. The difference to me is that the Big 10 needs a championship because 14 teams don't all play each other. It's the only logical way to crown a champ. And really, the Big 12 had a champ. Baylor. And a good way to demonstrate Baylor being better than Ohio State is that their only loss came on the road in a place that is historically tough for road teams. Ohio State lost at home to a 6-6 team from the weakest of the power conferences. TCU only lost to Baylor, and thrashed a common opponent who Ohio State had a close call with.

Wisconsin probably wasn't that good either. They lost to a poor Northwestern team and their best non-conference game was a close loss to a fairly mediocre LSU team. Gordon is a straight-up beast, but he's the offense, and their defense isn't great. The Big 10 West might be the worst division in football.

I think that Big 12 is going to add a championship, be it with the current 10 teams (probably the preference) or via expansion AND the playoff moving to 8.

[cortez the killer]

I get your point, and it's pretty clear where the committee stands too. The difference to me is that the Big 10 needs a championship because 14 teams don't all play each other. It's the only logical way to crown a champ. And really, the Big 12 had a champ. Baylor. And a good way to demonstrate Baylor being better than Ohio State is that their only loss came on the road in a place that is historically tough for road teams. Ohio State lost at home to a 6-6 team from the weakest of the power conferences. TCU only lost to Baylor, and thrashed a common opponent who Ohio State had a close call with.

Wisconsin probably wasn't that good either. They lost to a poor Northwestern team and their best non-conference game was a close loss to a fairly mediocre LSU team. Gordon is a straight-up beast, but he's the offense, and their defense isn't great. The Big 10 West might be the worst division in football.

I think that Big 12 is going to add a championship, be it with the current 10 teams (probably the preference) or via expansion AND the playoff moving to 8.

I know in the world we live in (well, the current college football landscape), the transitive game is one of the primary barometers "we" have to use, but I've never been a believer in it with regards to football. It's a shame that there isn't a better way to settle this debate. Well, actually, there is - a more comprehensive playoff system, but we've obviously not there yet.

[Clams]

It's a shame that there isn't a better way to settle this debate. Well, actually, there is - a more comprehensive playoff system, but we've obviously not there yet.

An 8 team playoff would do the trick. But where we are today is much better than the BCS we had for all those years. I have no problem with the 4 teams picked. One-loss teams have no right to gripe. If you want to get in the 4-team playoff then what you have to do is go undefeated. Once you lose a game, you then get placed in the second tier where your fate is automatically left up to a committee or computer or whatever where some teams will get in and some will get left out. If you want to avoid that, then don't lose any games!

[Iowan]

I get your point, and it's pretty clear where the committee stands too. The difference to me is that the Big 10 needs a championship because 14 teams don't all play each other. It's the only logical way to crown a champ. And really, the Big 12 had a champ. Baylor. And a good way to demonstrate Baylor being better than Ohio State is that their only loss came on the road in a place that is historically tough for road teams. Ohio State lost at home to a 6-6 team from the weakest of the power conferences. TCU only lost to Baylor, and thrashed a common opponent who Ohio State had a close call with.

Wisconsin probably wasn't that good either. They lost to a poor Northwestern team and their best non-conference game was a close loss to a fairly mediocre LSU team. Gordon is a straight-up beast, but he's the offense, and their defense isn't great. The Big 10 West might be the worst division in football.

I think that Big 12 is going to add a championship, be it with the current 10 teams (probably the preference) or via expansion AND the playoff moving to 8.

I know in the world we live in (well, the current college football landscape), the transitive game is one of the primary barometers "we" have to use, but I've never been a believer in it with regards to football. It's a shame that there isn't a better way to settle this debate. Well, actually, there is - a more comprehensive playoff system, but we've obviously not there yet.

We agree there.

Clams, from where I'm sitting this new system looks every bit as biased, crooked, and skewed as the BCS was. I'd probably say the same thing your saying if my league was in though.

[beantownbubba]

It's a shame that there isn't a better way to settle this debate. Well, actually, there is - a more comprehensive playoff system, but we've obviously not there yet.

An 8 team playoff would do the trick. But where we are today is much better than the BCS we had for all those years. I have no problem with the 4 teams picked. One-loss teams have no right to gripe. If you want to get in the 4-team playoff then what you have to do is go undefeated. Once you lose a game, you then get placed in the second tier where your fate is automatically left up to a committee or computer or whatever where some teams will get in and some will get left out. If you want to avoid that, then don't lose any games!

What's the average number of undefeated teams per season since, say, 2000? I'm gonna guess it's less than 2. If that's even close, what's the point of having a standard if nobody can meet it? I know i could get an A in physics if I could only understand the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. But I can't. Yet every year, a number of people do. So does that mean that going undefeated is harder than understanding relativity? I don't know, it's all relative.

[ScottyC]

It's a shame that there isn't a better way to settle this debate. Well, actually, there is - a more comprehensive playoff system, but we've obviously not there yet.

An 8 team playoff would do the trick. But where we are today is much better than the BCS we had for all those years. I have no problem with the 4 teams picked. One-loss teams have no right to gripe. If you want to get in the 4-team playoff then what you have to do is go undefeated. Once you lose a game, you then get placed in the second tier where your fate is automatically left up to a committee or computer or whatever where some teams will get in and some will get left out. If you want to avoid that, then don't lose any games!

This is it. That is why 2004 auburn is the only legit bitch in the last 15 years. That's why I will always chose Saturdays over Sundays because they all matter and once you lose you forgo the control.

[Zip City]

ESPN wants the Big XII to fail? I'm not ready to don my tinfoil hat on that one

[Iowan]

It's a shame that there isn't a better way to settle this debate. Well, actually, there is - a more comprehensive playoff system, but we've obviously not there yet.

An 8 team playoff would do the trick. But where we are today is much better than the BCS we had for all those years. I have no problem with the 4 teams picked. One-loss teams have no right to gripe. If you want to get in the 4-team playoff then what you have to do is go undefeated. Once you lose a game, you then get placed in the second tier where your fate is automatically left up to a committee or computer or whatever where some teams will get in and some will get left out. If you want to avoid that, then don't lose any games!

This is it. That is why 2004 auburn is the only legit bitch in the last 15 years. That's why I will always chose Saturdays over Sundays because they all matter and once you lose you forgo the control.

2011 Ok State is a legit bitch.

Yeah, their loss was worse, but this year proved that the worst loss only matters when it helps the ESPN narrative. Ohio State had inarguably the worst loss of all 1 losses. Didn't mean shit because they play in an ESPN conference and have a strong brand.

[Iowan]

ESPN wants the Big XII to fail? I'm not ready to don my tinfoil hat on that one

You don't have to. They pushed realignment,ignore the conferences strengths when discussing college football and couldn't pull Ohio States dick out of their mouth the past 3 days, despite the worse loss of all one loss teams. It's very obvious, and almost completely open.

[Zip City]

But is the playoff selection committee employed by ESPN?

[Clams]

Penn State 94. Ki-Jana Carter and Kerry Collins. Undefeated but locked into the rose bowl so couldn't play for #1 where they would've been a10 point favorite.

[Iowan]

But is the playoff selection committee employed by ESPN?

Do you realize who airs the games?

[Zip City]

Penn State 94. Ki-Jana Carter and Kerry Collins. Undefeated but locked into the rose bowl so couldn't play for #1 where they would've been a10 point favorite.

Would've gotten out of the Rose Bowl auto-bid had they finished #1, but after a late season game where they pulled the starters against Indiana and only ended up winning by 7, they were dropped from #1 to #2 in the polls and never recovered.

[beantownbubba]

What about the year that then president Nixon took it upon himself to take the then mythical national champion title away from undefeated Penn State and hand it to Texas (I think)?

[Iowan]

Seriously, if the discrepancy between how Oklahoma State was treated in 2011 and how Ohio State was treated this year don't illustrate how the system isn't manipulated to justify pre-conceived biases, I don't know if you can be helped.

[Iowan]

What about the year that then president Nixon took it upon himself to take the then mythical national champion title away from undefeated Penn State and hand it to Texas (I think)?

Then mythical?

[beantownbubba]

What about the year that then president Nixon took it upon himself to take the then mythical national champion title away from undefeated Penn State and hand it to Texas (I think)?

Then mythical?

Well, yes. If you can't prove it by playing for it, it's mythical. At least in my dictionary.

[Iowan]

What about the year that then president Nixon took it upon himself to take the then mythical national champion title away from undefeated Penn State and hand it to Texas (I think)?

Then mythical?

Well, yes. If you can't prove it by playing for it, it's mythical. At least in my dictionary.

I'm saying it still is. When inclusion is based off program value and not on-field results, you ain't playing for it.

[Zip City]

Seriously, if the discrepancy between how Oklahoma State was treated in 2011 and how Ohio State was treated this year don't illustrate how the system isn't manipulated to justify pre-conceived biases, I don't know if you can be helped.

If there was such a pro-Ohio St, anti BigXII bias, how come Ohio State didn't make the Top 4 until the last moment, while TCU was #3 last week? Why not just have OSU in the top 4 all year while keeping the Big XII teams in the bottom half of the Top 10?

Seriously, this is a little crazy, Iowan. I respect that you're sticking up for your conference, but you're coming at this with extreme bias

[beantownbubba]

Then mythical?

Well, yes. If you can't prove it by playing for it, it's mythical. At least in my dictionary.

I'm saying it still is. When inclusion is based off program value and not on-field results, you ain't playing for it.

Yeah, i was waiting for your response to be sure 'cause I thought i figured out what you meant well after I posted. Better late than never i guess. I'm w/ you on this one, but at least they're attempting to determine the champion on the field, however misguidedly.

[beantownbubba]

Seriously, if the discrepancy between how Oklahoma State was treated in 2011 and how Ohio State was treated this year don't illustrate how the system isn't manipulated to justify pre-conceived biases, I don't know if you can be helped.

If there was such a pro-Ohio St, anti BigXII bias, how come Ohio State didn't make the Top 4 until the last moment, while TCU was #3 last week? Why not just have OSU in the top 4 all year while keeping the Big XII teams in the bottom half of the Top 10?

Seriously, this is a little crazy, Iowan. I respect that you're sticking up for your conference, but you're coming at this with extreme bias

Just because he's biased (and foaming at the mouth) doesn't mean he's wrong. I agree w/ him. It doesn't really matter whether the 4 best teams got in or whether the Big 12 teams got screwed: I don't see how anyone can look at the "system" and not see systemic bias at work on a regular basis. And the reason is always the same: The determination of the champion is not left to the teams on the field. Until that changes the appearance of bias and chicanery will be an absolute given and imho actual bias and chicanery will be a continuing reality as well.

[Iowan]

Seriously, if the discrepancy between how Oklahoma State was treated in 2011 and how Ohio State was treated this year don't illustrate how the system isn't manipulated to justify pre-conceived biases, I don't know if you can be helped.

If there was such a pro-Ohio St, anti BigXII bias, how come Ohio State didn't make the Top 4 until the last moment, while TCU was #3 last week? Why not just have OSU in the top 4 all year while keeping the Big XII teams in the bottom half of the Top 10?

Seriously, this is a little crazy, Iowan. I respect that you're sticking up for your conference, but you're coming at this with extreme bias

So are you, as an Ohio State fan. Ohio State's resume is inferior in almost all objective categories to TCU, yet they got in. Their home loss to a 6-6 team is being completely ignored by mainstream media. Why is this happening? In 2011, we were told OK State was left out because they lost to 6-6 ISU on the road. Yet in 2014 that doesn't matter when it's Ohio State. What's the difference? The difference is that Ohio State is a Big 10 blue blood and not a Big 12 upstart. Maybe the "blue blood vs. upstart" is more culpable than the "Big 10 vs Big 12" part of the equation, but either way its horseshit.

How can you deny any of this? Literally nothing I have said is inaccurate. Is anything I've said inaccurate? If I'm not inaccurate, how is what I'm saying crazy?

[cortez the killer]

Maybe the "blue blood vs. upstart" is more culpable than the "Big 10 vs Big 12" part of the equation, but either way its horseshit.

The "blue blood vs. upstart" angle plays better than the "Big 10 vs. Big 12" one. I agree that it plays a HUGE role in OSU's inclusion and the Baylor's and/or TCU's exclusion. However, I think you are flat out dismissing the crescendo aspect of OSU's play. If they won ugly, in a close battle with Wisconsin, I'm not so sure they get in. Of course, due to the subjective nature of the whole process, we'll never know, but I wouldn't discount that.

[Zip City]

Well the first thing that you said that's inaccurate is that I'm an Ohio State fan. I'm not....at all. I'm a Penn State fan.

Second, the committee has said they'd be using the "eyeball" test all year. They've also said that they were going to pick the "four best teams", not the "four most deserving". At the end of the season, they felt that Ohio State was "better" than TCU or Baylor.

To BTB's point.....how many teams does it take to remove chicanery and bias? I don't think there's a number. I do think this is a good start. If we were still in the BCS system, Oregon would be playing Ohio State in an exciting (though completely meaningless) Rose Bowl, while FSU and Bama would play for the title. At least this year we get a few more teams in the mix