Bob Bowlsby Says Big 12 ADs In Favor Of Ditching Co-Champions, LINK!

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

I am guessing but looks like the Big-12 will not get a Conference Championship Game Approval with just 10 Teams and refuses to expand to 12 Teams, so they plan to designate a Champion even if Teams tie in wins and losses so they be put in the CF Playoff hunt?

Having Two Teams last year with Baylor and TCU as Big-12 Co-Champs hurt them as OSU went on to win Big Ten and Big Ten Conference Champs Game, and then swept the CFB Playoffs!

Looks like Bowlsby is keeping his conference in Headlines because even if TCU or Baylor would have been designated the Big-12 Champion I still don't see how they would have made the Playoffs without an additional game?

ARTICLE LINK:

Bob Bowlsby says Big 12 ADs in favor of ditching co-champions Well, it looks as though common sense will prevail in the Big 12 after all. According to Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, the conference's athletic directors are in favor of doing away with the conference's co-champion policy. Instead, get this, a conference that has a true round-robin scheduling policy is actually going to let head-to-head results serves as a tie-breaker. Crazy, right? Seriously, it is the only logical way to go, and it's not a surprise that the Big 12 is changing its tune on the subject following its exclusion from the first College Football Playoff.

For those of you with short-term memory loss, both Baylor and TCU finished the 2014 regular season with 11-1 records and 8-1 in conference play. The two teams were deemed co-champions, and when the time came for the College Football Playoff Selection Committee to choose four playoff teams, both were excluded.

Had the Big 12 had a tie-breaker in place for 2014 then Baylor would have been the Big 12 champion thanks to its 61-58 win over TCU in October. Now, had Baylor been the one true champion of the Big 12, there's no guarantee it would have received a playoff spot over Ohio State, Oregon, Alabama or Florida State, but the fact the Big 12 had co-champions made the decision a lot easier on the committee, giving them a convenient reason to omit both teams.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25104194/bob-bowlsby-says-big-12-ads-in-favor-of-ditching-co-champions

This post was edited on 3/13 4:27 AM by CaptainSidneyReilly

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

Maybe, but I'm still hoping they deregulate the rules so the acc could possibly rotate the schedules more so Pitt can get teh atlantic teams a little more.

 

[vietvet1]

Unless a team is undefeated the chances don't look good. Even that record may not be enough depending on other teams records and strength of schedule. Looks like the Big 12 (10) doesn't want to dilute the cash!

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Re: The WVU Dude Cannot Be Pleased!

Holgorsen promised last year the Mountaineers are near winning the Big12, just before Dana recruited more players than scholarships he had to give them?

Still paying off the Loan that got WVU in the Big-12 too, and out of Luck now?

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Originally posted by TIGER-PAUL:
Maybe, but I'm still hoping they deregulate the rules so the acc could possibly rotate the schedules more so Pitt can get teh atlantic teams a little more.

Not me. I think it's clear that such a change would definitely HURT Pitt.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

I think it depends on how they do it.
Keeping divisions and rotating even one extra game would get fsu, clem here more than every 12 years.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Right, but those are only two out of seven teams in that division. It would also mean more games versus Wake Forest, Boston College, NC State and Louisville. We play Syracuse annually anyway.

That, in and of itself, isn't that big of a deal. The problem comes when you factor in who we would NOT play as a result of those extra games versus Wake, BC, etc.

If the ACC sticks at eight conference games, which I think they will because of all of the traditional OOC games its teams have (and which I favor, BTW) that means fewer regular games against Miami, Virginia Tech, etc, for more games against Wake, BC, etc.

That is NOT a good deal for a program which relies on the opponents' rep to help it sell tickets.

If the league moves to nine games, as some are lobbying to happen, that gives Pitt one less decent to marquee OOC opponent to play NC State, Wake, etc.

Even FSU and Clemson is not that big of a deal. Instead of them coming here once every 12 years or so, they'll come here once every seven or eight years or so.

I just don't get the appeal of this at all - at least from Pitt's perspective.

We need rivals to sell tickets. We don't have any real rivals on our schedule right now and that, as much as anything else, has hurt the buzz around the program as a whole.

I look at Virginia Tech and Miami and I could easily see those schools becoming rivals of ours because of our shared history together. I also think Georgia Tech could blossom into a rivalry as they are STRIKINGLY similar to us in many ways.

To build up those rivalries, we need to play those teams more frequently, not less frequently. And certainly not less frequently so that we can play Clemson slightly more regularly.

 

[OriginalEther]

I would imagine going 31-29 the past 5 years, with appearances in the Compass Bowl (3 times), Detroit Bowl, and Armed Forces Bowl has done far more to hurt the buzz of the program.

WVU was on the schedule in the 90's. Pretty sure adding Penn State and Notre Dame to those slates wouldn't have increased the buzz then either.

Frankly, the whole we need other schools to help sell tickets notion is almost as damaging.

If the goal is more conference rotation, simply eliminate the crossover game. Only Florida State-Miami garners any consistent national interest.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Unquestionably, all of that is true. However, I think people are whistling Dixie if they don't think that this program needs rivals. It is a very naïve point of view. I don't care about playing Clemson every eight years instead of every 12 years. That helps raise interest in our program once every eight years - if Clemson is good during that year.

I care about cultivating games within the league that mean something to our fans every single year. That is my point.

Obviously, the team has to win for any of this to matter. However, if they do start winning and we are still not drawing fans, and I don't think we will if we don't have teams on the schedule that our fans recognize, respect and loathe, that will be a REAL problem.

This post was edited on 3/14 4:02 PM by Dr. von Yinzer

 

[topdecktiger]

Why not do like North Carolina and Wake Forest did, and schedule some Atlantic teams as non-conference games?

 

[PittPanthers90]

The ACC needs to go to 9 games for conference.

From a Pitt perspective:

6 Games against Coastal
1 against Syracuse every year
Rotate the other 6 teams in groups of two, see each team once every 3 years

For the 3 OOC games

Every year:
WVU
Group of 5 team (preferably buy a game deal with a bottom of the group 5 team, still better than a 1-AA team, and still a cupcake win)
ND (or a home-away with power 5 team in non ND years)

Yes I left of State Penn, Screw them, we should never play that disgusting institution, EVER!

That schedule would sell tickets!
(Notice NO 1-AA team, and YES I still use that older more accurate term!)

 

[topdecktiger]

Originally posted by PittPanthers90:

The ACC needs to go to 9 games for conference.




Won't happen. Too many key schools oppose it.