Not having a Big XII CCG...

[ouwasp]

At some point, maybe even this yr, not having a ccg will cost a Big 12 team a shot at the mnc. Perhaps then Beebe will not act so smug about "not considering adding teams".

Do you all think Dan might be working behind the scenes? Or does he truly have his head in the sand?

btw, if it were :mack: or [hairGel] left out of the mnc, I would be greatly amused. I'm only worried about the Sooners.

[Collier11]

In 03 it should have cost us a shot...it also should have cost Neb a shot in 01...well, that is if the BCS was worth a crap

[goingoneight]

The BCS is a crapshoot. Every now and then, there's some logic behind it's selections like 2005 and 2008. On any given year, though... I wouldn't bet the farm on the champion of the Sugar Bowl not being better than the eventual National Champion. It needs to be played out.

[silverwheels]

The problem is adding two teams who add enough quality and enough revenue-producing potential, and the pickings are slim in this region of the country.

[Collier11]

Give me Notre Dame and Louisville

[JLEW1818]

has never hurt Ohio State... ?

[ouwasp]

has never hurt Ohio State... ?

Agreed. Just think how much stronger a case the Big 10 Champ can make now...

[SoCaliSooner]

The only thing that's important is playing on the same weekend as the other conference championship games. It hurt usc not playing when we got our butts handed to us by ksu. We were able to squeak into the BCS game against LSU.

After that, they always played UCLA on that same weekend as the conference championship games. Heck, announcers even would refer to them "playing for the PAC 10 championship".

[SoonerRoy]

The Big 12 NC almost cost Texas a shot at the NC just 2 seasons ago. They stopped the clock just in time (according to the refs) to make a FG to win and play Alabama.

[BoulderSooner79]

At some point, maybe even this yr, not having a ccg will cost a Big 12 team a shot at the mnc. Perhaps then Beebe will not act so smug about "not considering adding teams".
...


Just like having one will cost a conference team when the underdog knocks off the team that is already a shoe in. (NU upset by UT, KSU upset by aTm). Which edge of the sword do you prefer? I wouldn't take "not considering adding teams" as chiseled in stone either. Everything happens all the time.

[BoulderSooner79]

has never hurt Ohio State... ?


Agreed. Just think how much stronger a case the Big 10 Champ can make now...

Either you missed the point or I did.

[Mr. Nuke]

I wouldn't take "not considering adding teams" as chiseled in stone either. Everything happens all the time.
Agree with you on the first part, the short history of the Big XII/BCS has shown us conference's with the championship game are far more likely to play their way out of the BCS title game than a non-champ game conference is of having a team left out. I disagree pretty strongly about the adding teams part though. Their aren't two teams out there (and likely won't be for the foreseeable future) that are realistic targets for the conference and add economic value.

[BoulderSooner79]

The Big 12 NC almost cost Texas a shot at the NC just 2 seasons ago. They stopped the clock just in time (according to the refs) to make a FG to win and play Alabama.

Yep and it would have cost OU in '03 with the current day rules (changed because of OU in '03). But Beebe will not be moved by BCS MNC implications - ultimately it will be money. The 2 are not completely independent, but you can argue the CCG game both ways in terms of advantage of making it to the title. A CCG is more money, so I would expect it to return *if* the right teams can be enticed.

[silverwheels]

We also knocked Missouri out of the BCS title game in 2007 by beating them (for the 2nd time that year) in San Antonio.

[humblesooner]

The only way any teams are added will be if they are significant enough to make the networks rework contracts immediately. The impetus for the current B12 teams staying together was that they could split the original revenues 10 ways instead of 12 ways. They will not add teams without a revenue increase.

[soonervegas]

Well we may have to replace A&M soon...

[landrun]

Not having a CCG never hurt usc, oregon, michican or osu. And you can throw in miami and fsu too before the new acc was formed.

This is a good thing! We now have an easier road to the championship game like these schools all used to have. It was really frustrating to have to beat the second best team in our conference in order to win a chance to play for the nc while these other teams could sleepwalk backward into the nc game.

I'm looking forward to discussing this again this year with some PAC ten friends I have. They used to say it was unfair to them to play EVERYONE IN THIER CONFERENCE -- that was their justification. As though that was a more difficult task then playing in a conference championship game. And considering the PAC ten sucks... it was an even bigger joke of a justification.

The shoes on the other foot now. I'm looking forward to watching them get mad that they have to beat Michigan/OSU USC/Oregon to get a chance to play for the NC game. Especially when they've already beat them once earlier in the year.

I like not having a CCG. It is to our advantage.

[KantoSooner]

I'd love the B12 to get back to 12 or even 16 teams, but really, who'd we add? Unless you think there's some way to raid the SEC, the PacXX or the Big10/11/12/13, there are just not too many elite teams out there that also make geographical sense.

[rekamrettuB]

You might be right about it costing a team in the Big XII but it won't be OU. Maybe Ok State or a Texas Tech type team that usually starts behind the 8-ball.

[JLEW1818]

Either you missed the point or I did.

what's the point?

[BoulderSooner79]

what's the point?

I told you - I missed it.


I thought you were pointing out that tOSU has *not* been hurt by a lack of CCG. They have been to 3 and never been left out in a controversial close vote - therefore they haven't needed a stronger case to be in the title game.

Or maybe your point was 5-7 !

[Spray]

I'd love the B12 to get back to 12 or even 16 teams, but really, who'd we add? Unless you think there's some way to raid the SEC, the PacXX or the Big10/11/12/13, there are just not too many elite teams out there that also make geographical sense.


I think we should go after Nebraska and Colorado.

[ouwasp]

Either you missed the point or I did.

I guess what I was trying to point out was the fact that, yes tOSU has been in the mnc game before. They probably won't be again for awhile, but that's another thread :)

Anyhow, imagine an undefeated Wisconsin beating someone in their ccg to win the Big 10. Say the SEC champ is 12-1 or so, also winning a ccg. ESPiN's talking heads would go into overdrive...

Seems like the Big XII is now at a disadvantage, whereas before we had our own ccg to help bolster OUr case. I'd just feel better if Beebe would act more concerned about strengthening the Big XII rather than saving his own position.

[Sooner_Tuf]

It would be nice to get Nebraska back but there is probably no chance of that unless they get even more butthurt in the Big 10. Colorado won't really be missed.

The two schools that make the most sense to add to me are Arkansas and LSU, neither of which will be joining the Big 12 in our lifetimes.

So really if the Big 12 adds teams it will just be doing it to add teams. There really aren't any good choices. Maybe one day UTSA will be viable. Would be way down the road and I'm not sure we want another Texas team anyway.