Will the Big XII have a conference championship game in 2015?

[8timechamps]

I don't want to take away from the therapeutic venting about the way our season turned out, but I found it incredibly crappy that TCU and/or Baylor got left out of the playoffs. What makes it even more ridiculous is that Ohio State got in, never mind that they play in the worst conference in the country or that they lost to Virginia Tech.

Baylor can only look at their own OOC scheduling to find out why they were left out. I think had they played a decent OOC, they'd be in. TCU on the other hand, just got screwed. I'm not sure they should have been in over Baylor, but the fact that the committee had them ranked #3 last week, and dropped them to #6 this week is just moronic.

In the end, the Big XII got hosed. I think the committee sent a message that if you don't play a conference championship game you better go undefeated, otherwise you're not getting in...

So, did Bowlsby hear the message? I don't think for a minute that the NCAA would make us add 2 teams to have a CCG. All the Big XII needs to do is form 2 divisions, and play a CCG.

Will it happen next year?

[BigDub]

Would love to see XII add a couple more teams for a conference championship. Just don't know who would fit the bill. Maybe just absorb another conference and make a SUPER CONFERENCE?

[8timechamps]

Would love to see XII add a couple more teams for a conference championship. Just don't know who would fit the bill. Maybe just absorb another conference and make a SUPER CONFERENCE?

BYU would join in a heartbeat.

The problem is that there isn't a second option to get to 12. Also, I don't think the school presidents/ADs are very interested in BYU and there past history with conference affiliation (apparently, they view themselves very highly).

I don't mind staying at 10 schools, and as I said above, I don't think the NCAA would deny a CCG just because we have 10. One way or another, it needs to happen. If not, it very well could affect us in the future.

[lexsooner]

I don't want to take away from the therapeutic venting about the way our season turned out, but I found it incredibly crappy that TCU and/or Baylor got left out of the playoffs. What makes it even more ridiculous is that Ohio State got in, never mind that they play in the worst conference in the country or that they lost to Virginia Tech.

Baylor can only look at their own OOC scheduling to find out why they were left out. I think had they played a decent OOC, they'd be in. TCU on the other hand, just got screwed. I'm not sure they should have been in over Baylor, but the fact that the committee had them ranked #3 last week, and dropped them to #6 this week is just moronic.

In the end, the Big XII got hosed. I think the committee sent a message that if you don't play a conference championship game you better go undefeated, otherwise you're not getting in...

So, did Bowlsby hear the message? I don't think for a minute that the NCAA would make us add 2 teams to have a CCG. All the Big XII needs to do is form 2 divisions, and play a CCG.

Will it happen next year?

North: OU, OSU, KSU, KU, ISU
South: UT, TCU, Baylor, TTech, WVU

What do you think, 8time?

[8timechamps]

North: OU, OSU, KSU, KU, ISU
South: UT, TCU, Baylor, TTech, WVU

What do you think, 8time?

That's the breakdown I had in mind too.

The conference could still keep the round robin format, just have the division winners meet again in the CCG.

Essentially nothing changes except the formation of division and the title game. Given the money it would bring to the conference, I can't think of a downside.

[UteSooner]

Does a championship game really make sense with a round robin schedule? It seems lame to me.

[soonercastor]

No. And they shouldn't.

[soonercastor]

I don't think the NCAA would deny a CCG just because we have 10.

Actually there is already a rule in play preventing them to have one with ten teams. The only way is to add teams, and I don't think they should. At least not the options currently available, unless the commish can pull something out of his *** and I doubt that.

[OUinFLA]

Not finding a suitable thread to post this in....

I would like to offer my congratulations to Baylor on an outstanding season.
Sorry you got hosed and don't get to play in the playoffs.
However, I know you are thrilled to be traveling to exotic Dallas and play in the Cotton Bowl as your reward.
I know you will find it much more fun than Miami or California.

yet, another screwing.

And to TCU, much the same, however, you will get to enjoy a vacation at the Peach Bowl.


Im sorry, but these alternate bowls seem more like third tier to me than second tier.
Crappier teams and fans get to enjoy much more fun filled environments.

[Jack T.]

We don't need one.

Ten teams.
Nine game.
One true champion.

Oh, wait.

[Eielson]

We had our CCG. By that breakdown KSU would have won the North, and Baylor would have won the South. They played each other, and Baylor won. The polls were just more impressed by tOSU's 59-0 beatdown.

It actually works in the Big XII's favor not to have an official CCG. That way, if KSU won, TCU would have been the outright champion. If TCU had then been selected, people would have complained that they weren't even in the CCG. This is a way to get out of the trap that CCG's present.

What Baylor needed was our commissioner to get behind the rules set in place, and publicly back Baylor as the rightful champion. His unwillingness to do that is what cost our conference. I'd bet that the committee was split between TCU and Baylor. Some probably had TCU above tOSU, while others probably had Baylor over tOSU. They just didn't have both, and that's what cost them.

[BoulderSooner79]

I agree it would have helped for our conference to declared BU the champion by a head to head tie breaker. I still doubt it would have overcome tOSU's beatdown of Wisky and the way they shutdown Gordon.

[UteSooner]

We don't need one.

Ten teams.
Nine game.
One true champion.

Oh, wait.

That was a silly slogan, but an easy fix assuming less than a 3-way tie for 1st. Won't help with the playoff or national perception though. I doubt a championship game will help with that either. There just aren't enough name brand programs left in the Big 12. No matter how good Baylor actually is that won't change. So let's leave. Pac 16 was a cool idea. Let's do that.

[Eielson]

I agree it would have helped for our conference to declared BU the champion by a head to head tie breaker. I still doubt it would have overcome tOSU's beatdown of Wisky and the way they shutdown Gordon.

It might not have. But that's not something a CCG would have fixed. Baylor effectively had the CCG against KSU.

If TCU's beatdown of Texas had taken place instead of the ISU beatdown, things also might have been different. We just had no idea that TCU would be in the national title picture, so we didn't give them a big matchup they way we did with OU, OSU, KSU, and Baylor. I think that's the way to go rather than a CCG.

[rock on sooner]

BYU would join in a heartbeat.

The problem is that there isn't a second option to get to 12. Also, I don't think the school presidents/ADs are very interested in BYU and there past history with conference affiliation (apparently, they view themselves very highly).

I don't mind staying at 10 schools, and as I said above, I don't think the NCAA would deny a CCG just because we have 10. One way or another, it needs to happen. If not, it very well could affect us in the future.

Given BYU's predilection of just how hot they are, I would have said CSU (before
McElwain's departure) and maybe Air Force (every so often they get pretty good)
but, there are some decent teams in the west. IMO, get someone quick, rejigger
all the schedules and get a CCG in place. Baylor and TCU got dissed, (tOSU doing
what they did to Wisky made a pretty strong case)...Free Shoes getting by on their
rep adds to Baylor and TCU's beef....but, having regurgitated all that, the Big XII
really has to get to 12! As long as we have co-champs, and that looks to be a long
time, we'll continue to be outside looking in. Either that, or OU needs to get back
where history dictates....jus' an ol' fart gettin' 'nother brew...Boomer!

[yermom]

FSU was undefeated. i don't know how you call that getting in by rep

tOSU got in because of their name and their fanbase.

and if KSU would have won, they also would have been co-champs. their other loss was to Auburn out of conference. this one true champion this was nonsense from the start. it has always been this way in round robin leagues as far as i know. tie breakers only worked for bowl berths, and this isn't really the same thing.

[8timechamps]

Keep in mind that OU could very easily find themselves in the same situation as Baylor/TCU did.

There's no real downside to having a CCG. Sure, whoever makes it in will have to play a rematch game, but that's not exactly uncommon. I'd have to go back and look, but I bet, out of all the conference championship games, at least half of them have been rematches of games from earlier in the season. We certainly played our share of rematch games when the conference did have a CCG.

The selection committee made it pretty clear that the lack of a CCG was taken into account. Sure, the Big XII can schedule a game on the last day of the season, but it's still not the same as a championship game.

If the Big XII currently had a CCG, then TCU would be out of luck. Baylor would play KSU, and the winner would get a boost in the rankings. It seems crazy that out of all the conferences, we're the only one that doesn't have one.

[yermom]

because the member conferences don't seem to care about adding to 12 teams to get the CCG back

this basically forces their hands

an extra OOC game would be nice too. remember when we would play two power conference teams?

[8timechamps]

because the member conferences don't seem to care about adding to 12 teams to get the CCG back

this basically forces their hands

Given the current environment (the P5 versus the NCAA), I think it would be very easy for the Big XII to tell (not ask) the NCAA that they were instituting a CCG. None of the other P5 conferences would care.

[Eielson]

We always won our CCG rematches, but that's because we were playing a team from the North. If we'd played Texas again, we might not have always won.

[soonercastor]

I just don't think they should rush and get crappy teams just to have a CCG. And keep in mind that teams can play themselves out of it with the CCG game. See Bama, FSU, OSU and Oregon this week. Unfortunately for Baylor and TCU they all won. Heck they could have both made it in.

[bluedogok]

No, one will not be added for 2015 and I do think the rules requiring 12 schools to have a CCG would be enforced and the other conferences would stick to that. BYU would be the only school that could be possibly added next season since they are independent but more than likely they couldn't before 2016.


Given BYU's predilection of just how hot they are, I would have said CSU (before McElwain's departure) and maybe Air Force (every so often they get pretty good) but, there are some decent teams in the west. IMO, get someone quick, rejigger all the schedules and get a CCG in place. Baylor and TCU got dissed, (tOSU doing what they did to Wisky made a pretty strong case)...Free Shoes getting by on their rep adds to Baylor and TCU's beef....but, having regurgitated all that, the Big XII really has to get to 12! As long as we have co-champs, and that looks to be a long time, we'll continue to be outside looking in. Either that, or OU needs to get back where history dictates....jus' an ol' fart gettin' 'nother brew...Boomer!
Air Force stated in the last round they had no interest in joining a big conference and would prefer to stay in a Mountain West type of league because they didn't feel they could be consistently competitive in a big conference. I think CSU even without McElwain would be a better pick up than Boise, they have good teams in other sports and seems to be an overall stronger program. The board of regents (or whatever they call them there) approved moving forward with the on campus stadium, all but one approved. There just aren't great options out there and at this point you're not pulling anyone out of the big conferences, the time for that was a few years ago when UT and OU decided to cut the pie into bigger slices. What is left? Cincy, Houston, LA Tech, UCF, USF. Just not great options.

[FaninAma]

The Big 12 sucks. It much deserves this slap down by the playoff committee. A Big 12 team might have beaten out a 1 loss ACC team but that is it.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I don't want to take away from the therapeutic venting about the way our season turned out, but I found it incredibly crappy that TCU and/or Baylor got left out of the playoffs. What makes it even more ridiculous is that Ohio State got in, never mind that they play in the worst conference in the country or that they lost to Virginia Tech.

Baylor can only look at their own OOC scheduling to find out why they were left out. I think had they played a decent OOC, they'd be in. TCU on the other hand, just got screwed. I'm not sure they should have been in over Baylor, but the fact that the committee had them ranked #3 last week, and dropped them to #6 this week is just moronic.

In the end, the Big XII got hosed. I think the committee sent a message that if you don't play a conference championship game you better go undefeated, otherwise you're not getting in...

So, did Bowlsby hear the message? I don't think for a minute that the NCAA would make us add 2 teams to have a CCG. All the Big XII needs to do is form 2 divisions, and play a CCG.

Will it happen next year?

We should not even be in the same conference with Baylor and TCU. That our collective braintrust has allowed us to be aligned with C-USA-type schools tells you everything you need to know about where the future lies if we do not find the escape hatch...and soon.

As much as I hated the idea of going to the Pac-12 in 2011, I would now welcome it. We pooh-poohed going to the tougher conference, the SEC, and are shut out there. ACC has already scooped up Notre Dame, so there no inviting them, or joining them in the already crowded ACC. Therefore, I'd be begging the Pac-12 to take us at this point.

My fear is, we will settle for staying in the Big 12 and inviting more crap in: Boise State, BYU, or both. Worse, we could possibly really get the nightmare of inviting AAC schools like Houston or Cincinnati in. I know it sounds stupid, but...you seriously have to look at the history of the lame-brained moves that have landed us as Southwest Conference Lite over the past two decades.

Either way, those knuckleheads Boren and Castiglione have got to get over the idea of "having" to be in a conference with Texas and Oklahoma State. We played Texas for decades as an out of conference game; so, doing that again should not be an issue. And, we've already long ago let the Nebraska rivalry go, which was far bigger historically than this stupid "Bedlam" garbage that we've accepted as an annual substitute.

At some point, Boren and Castiglione have got to wake up and do what's best for OU, not what's best for OU along with Texas and/or Oklahoma State. Texas is fine on its own. And, Oklahoma State is welcome to fend for itself. Texas A&M didn't dry up just because it separated from Texas. Oklahoma State, for all its millions given by T. Boone, still is what it is - Aggy. And, we should let Aggy fend for themselves.

[FaninAma]

We should not even be in the same conference with Baylor and TCU. That our collective braintrust has allowed us to be aligned with C-USA-type schools tells you everything you need to know about where the future lies if we do not find the escape hatch...and soon.

As much as I hated the idea of going to the Pac-12 in 2011, I would now welcome it. We pooh-poohed going to the tougher conference, the SEC, and are shut out there. I'd be begging the Pac-12 to take us at this point.

My fear is, we will settle for staying in the Big 12 and inviting more crap in: Boise State, BYU, or both. Worse, we could possibly really get the nightmare of inviting AAC schools like Houston or Cincinnati in. I know it sounds stupid, but...you seriously have to look at the history of the lame-brained moves that have landed us as Southwest Conference Lite over the past two decades.
Exactly. Baylor and TCU derive significant benefit from being in the conference but do not add any value to the league brand. The entire proces of deciding to stay in the Big 12 was a political decision on Boren's and the board of regents' part and it will prove to be detrimental in the long run unless the Big 12 decides to voluntarily break up...something that I don't see ISU, KSU, Baylor, TT, OSU and TCU agreeing to. It's like being trapped in a marriage to an ugly girl that took place in Vegas while you were drunk.

[Pride1Mom]

The Big XII was penalized for having a Championship game, now it is penalized for NOT having one. People are not happy unless they have something to complain about.

[Eielson]

Exactly. Baylor and TCU derive significant benefit from being in the conference but do not add any value to the league brand. The entire proces of deciding to stay in the Big 12 was a political decision on Boren's and the board of regents' part and it will prove to be detrimental in the long run unless the Big 12 decides to voluntarily break up...something that I don't see ISU, KSU, Baylor, TT, OSU and TCU agreeing to. It's like being trapped in a marriage to an ugly girl that took place in Vegas while you were drunk.

Baylor and TCU are the two best football teams in our conference right now, so apparently this ugly girl is very smart and has a great personality.

You're a pig.

[Tear Down This Wall]

You are not understanding: the national perception of Baylor and TCU is what it is. Nothing can change that, okay?

It doesn't matter whether they are 11-1. When people look at the Big 12, they see Iowa State, Kansas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech...and that Texas is 6-6 and OU is 8-4.

That isn't impressive. Believe what you want to believe to believe, but the national people do not think highly of Baylor and TCU...and, again, why we shouldn't have our cart tethered to theirs. Ever.

[Eielson]

You are not understanding: the national perception of Baylor and TCU is what it is. Nothing can change that, okay?

It doesn't matter whether they are 11-1. When people look at the Big 12, they see Iowa State, Kansas, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech...and that Texas is 6-6 and OU is 8-4.

That isn't impressive. Believe what you want to believe to believe, but the national people do not think highly of Baylor and TCU...and, again, why we shouldn't have our cart tethered to theirs. Ever.

Perceptions change. It's not like Oregon has a long history of success.

If Baylor and TCU win impressively in their bowl games, that will change the national perception.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Baylor and TCU do not have Oregon's history of success, so it's a moot point. TCU had two losing seasons in a row before this year, and Baylor has only been in bowl games four times over the past two decades and only won twice.

It is what it is. But, whatever it is, we shouldn't be attached at the hip to it, that's for sure.

[rock on sooner]

FSU was undefeated. i don't know how you call that getting in by rep

tOSU got in because of their name and their fanbase.

and if KSU would have won, they also would have been co-champs. their other loss was to Auburn out of conference. this one true champion this was nonsense from the start. it has always been this way in round robin leagues as far as i know. tie breakers only worked for bowl berths, and this isn't really the same thing.

My point about "rep" is that other teams that stumble along, win by a few points
or not really put away who they're supposed would slide down the rankings. FSU
didn't but should have, imo.....

[IamBigRed]

Unless a team from this conference goes undefeated we will not get a team in without a championship game. Even if they use the head-to-head was the tiebreaker, as the should, that won't be enough. We need the national focus of a championship game to get a 1 loss team in.

[Eielson]

Baylor and TCU do not have Oregon's history of success, so it's a moot point. TCU had two losing seasons in a row before this year, and Baylor has only been in bowl games four times over the past two decades and only won twice.

It is what it is. But, whatever it is, we shouldn't be attached at the hip to it, that's for sure.

You missed my point. Oregon DOESN'T have a history of success. Chip Kelly made them "national powers" starting in 2009.

If Baylor continues with their current level of success for 2-3 more years, they'll be just as reputable as a team like Oregon. If they don't continue this success, then they won't be the team trying to get into the CFP, and it doesn't matter.

The same is true for TCU.

[8timechamps]

Unless a team from this conference goes undefeated we will not get a team in without a championship game. Even if they use the head-to-head was the tiebreaker, as the should, that won't be enough. We need the national focus of a championship game to get a 1 loss team in.

This is pretty much the standard now.

Now that a precedent has been set, it's going to be much easier for the committee to keep out a 1 loss Big XII team going forward.


For all those saying we are in a crappy conference, I'm not really in agreement, however, it doesn't really matter either way because we're stuck in this conference...at least for the foreseeable future. That ship sailed, and now we have to get things corrected so that we have a shot while we're in this conference.

[Tear Down This Wall]

You missed my point. Oregon DOESN'T have a history of success. Chip Kelly made them "national powers" starting in 2009.

If Baylor continues with their current level of success for 2-3 more years, they'll be just as reputable as a team like Oregon. If they don't continue this success, then they won't be the team trying to get into the CFP, and it doesn't matter.

The same is true for TCU.

How old are you? Oregon has been to 18 bowl games over that past 21 seasons: three Rose Bowls, two Fiesta Bowls, and a national title game. Mark Helfrich is the third coach to take them to BCS/Major Bowl games. The third coach in a row.

Mike Bellotti built Oregon, not Chip Kelly. Chip Kelly inherited what Bellotti began and kept it going. I mean, Bellotti's run alone encompassed five Baylor coaches - Chuck Reedy, Dave Roberts, Kevin "We Don't Kneel" Steele, Guy Morriss, and year one under Briles.

There is no comparison at any level between the Oregon and Baylor programs other than they both have human beings of the male sex on their rosters. Oregon is so far out in front of where Baylor is, it isn't even close.

Baylor was still crapping its grandpa diapers in the Southwest Conference when Bellotti took Oregon to the Rose Bowl.

[EatLeadCommie]

Oregon has been good for a while, but they were screwed back in 2001 when they were denied a shot at Miami. That may very well have been due to them not being a "traditional power". Instead, Nebraska, who gave up 60+ points and about a million yards on the ground to one-dimensional CU, had the honor of being killed by Miami.

[EatLeadCommie]

I'm not a big fan of expanding just as a reaction to getting screwed out of a playoff spot. It was kind of a perfect storm this year, with FSU going unscathed but struggling, OSU putting a beatdown on Wiscy, an inept conference commissioner, and the lack of a name school representing the Big XII.

If, however, they were to expand to 8 teams in the next few years, a CCG for a few years might not be a bad thing. Choosing to water down the conference by adding Cinci or Memphis would be unwise and rash, to say the least.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I'm not a big fan of expanding because there is no one available that can make the conference better. That's why we need to bail on it. It has become the old Big East...but, with only one real basketball power.

[8timechamps]

Here's what Bowlsby had to say on today's conference call:


In a phone interview on the College Football Playoff Selection Show, Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby told ESPN's Rece Davis: "It's clear that we were penalized for not having a postseason championship game. It would have been nice to have been told that ahead of time."


First, I think that the issue was raised when the playoffs were first announced, so his excuse falls on deaf ears. Secondly, it sounds like he's resigned to the fact that we need a CCG.

[FaninAma]

Baylor and TCU are the two best football teams in our conference right now, so apparently this ugly girl is very smart and has a great personality.

You're a pig.

Did I hurt you're feminine sensabilities? LOL. I assume you were trying to be funny but didn't see any smilies.

[Eielson]

Oregon has been good for a while, but they were screwed back in 2001 when they were denied a shot at Miami. That may very well have been due to them not being a "traditional power". Instead, Nebraska, who gave up 60+ points and about a million yards on the ground to one-dimensional CU, had the honor of being killed by Miami.

Yes, Oregon was very good when they had Joey Harrington. Other than those 2 years, they were top 10 exactly one year before 2008, and that was 1946. They followed that 2001 success up by finishing 8th in conference the following year, unranked the next, and then 5-6 to wrap a forgetful 3 year stretch.

[FaninAma]

You missed my point. Oregon DOESN'T have a history of success. Chip Kelly made them "national powers" starting in 2009.

If Baylor continues with their current level of success for 2-3 more years, they'll be just as reputable as a team like Oregon. If they don't continue this success, then they won't be the team trying to get into the CFP, and it doesn't matter.

The same is true for TCU. If OU and Texas continue to perform at their current level of mediocrity it won't matter. You are missing the point. TCU and Baylor could be the best teams in the nation but they play in a crappy conference with no tradition or cache(TDTW's term) outside of OU and Texas. They will always be considered 2nd tier programs. You don't wipe out 70 years of suckage by winning a few years in an inferior conference.

Oregon won The PAC 12 that has USC, UCLA, Washington, Stanford and several Universities that are the primier program in their state. The Big 12 has OU , Texas and who else?

[Eielson]

If OU and Texas continue to perform at their current level of mediocrity it won't matter. You are missing the point. TCU and Baylor could be the best teams in the nation but they play in a crappy conference with no tradition or cache(TDTW's term) outside of OU and Texas. They will always be considered 2nd tier programs. You don't wipe out 70 years of suckage by winning a few years in an inferior conference.

It sounds like you agree that OU is fine at 1 loss, but that TCU and Baylor might not be. I don't really care what happens to the rest of the Big XII, as this isn't like the SEC cult. All I care about is OU.

[FaninAma]

It sounds like you agree that OU is fine at 1 loss, but that TCU and Baylor might not be. I don't really care what happens to the rest of the Big XII, as this isn't like the SEC cult. All I care about is OU.

Yes, OU is fine at one loss. But eventually the mediocrity of the conference will drag the Sooners down as players go elsewhere to play in leagues that have more appeal. In fact, I think we are already a few years into the process since we are already seeing the perception of lowered expectations take root in the program.

[SoonerMarkVA]

Secondly, it sounds like he's resigned to the fact that we need a CCG.

If that's true, then I guess it means he goes all out to fill in 12 teams with two nobodies. There's just no one left, and no one is leaving any of the other conferences to join us.

What a fine mess OU's in here.

[FaninAma]

If that's true, then I guess it means he goes all out to fill in 12 teams with two nobodies. There's just no one left, and no one is leaving any of the other conferences to join us.

What a fine mess OU's in here.

Yep, the door was wide open 3 or 4 years ago. Boren and OU refused to walk throught the door for whatever politically expedient reason and now we are seeing the results.

[SoonerMarkVA]

Yes, OU is fine at one loss. But eventually the mediocrity of the conference will drag the Sooners down as players go elsewhere to play in leagues that have more apopeal. In fact, I think we are already a few years into the process since we are already seeing the percetion of lowered expectations take root in the program.

Agreed. The transition began very quickly after NU and A&M left. I think CU and Mizzou have been essentially irrelevant.

[BoulderSooner79]

I wonder what would have happened had OU just been more disciplined and more tightly managed during games? Say OU did win against TCU and KSU in tight games, but the rest of the season played out the same. Baylor would have been co-champ with OU instead of TCU with a convincing head-to-head win on the road. Would Baylor have been selected over tOSU in that case putting the CCG issue to rest? My guess is they would have, but there is no way to know for sure.

EDIT: Obviously I'm assuming that if we had 1 loss, we would have cared more against OSU and not screwed up that game. But even if we had, Baylor's win against us would have been against TK with everything on the line, and the committee would not really of cared about our last game with no viable QB.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Yes, Oregon was very good when they had Joey Harrington. Other than those 2 years, they were top 10 exactly one year before 2008, and that was 1946. They followed that 2001 success up by finishing 8th in conference the following year, unranked the next, and then 5-6 to wrap a forgetful 3 year stretch.

That's not true. Oregon has finished in the Top 10 three times under each coach beginning with Mike Bellotti:
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/pac10/oregon/in_the_polls.php

Mike Bellotti built Oregon into a powerhouse, then handed off the Chip Kelly. Kelly handed off to Mark Helfrich.

Oregon has been an excellent program for the past 20+ years. Baylor is nowhere near Oregon.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Since Bellotti took over at Oregon in 1995, the Ducks: 185 wins, 65 losses = .740 winning percentage
Baylor over the same span: 97 wins, 138 losses - .412 winning percentage

Oregon, Top 25 finishes: 12, will be 13 after this season
Baylor, Top 25 finishes: 2, will be 3 after this season

Oregon, Top 10 finishes: 7, will be 8 after this season
Baylor, Top 10 finishes: 0, will be 1 after this season

Oregon, Top 5 finishes: 4, possibly 5 after this season
Baylor, Top 5 finishes: 0, maybe 1 after this season

[Tear Down This Wall]

Oregon Bowl Record since 1995: 9-8 in 17 appearances, 6 "BCS/Major Bowls" - 2014 is the 18th Bowl, and 7th Major Bowl appearance since 1995

Baylor Bowl Record since 1995: 2-2 in 4 bowl appearances, 1 "BCS/Major Bowl"

[Tear Down This Wall]

Again, to somehow try to say Oregon has been just a woebegone as Baylor over the past two to three decades is simply to deny reality.

It's simply laughable to try to sweep Mike Bellotti's tenure there under the rug.

[Eielson]

Yes, Oregon was very good when they had Joey Harrington. Other than those 2 years, they were top 10 exactly one year before 2008, and that was 1946. They followed that 2001 success up by finishing 8th in conference the following year, unranked the next, and then 5-6 to wrap a forgetful 3 year stretch.


That's not true. Oregon has finished in the Top 10 three times under each coach beginning with Mike Bellotti:
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/pac10/oregon/in_the_polls.php

You told me I'm wrong, and then posted information that supports exactly what I said. I don't know what to say other than to repeat myself.

Other than the two Joey Harrington years, 2008 was the first time Oregon had finished top ten since 1946. That's 62 years. It's not impressive that Oregon was a mediocre program for a long time while Baylor was just flat-out bad. Between now and 2008, Oregon has developed a reputation as a National Powerhouse.


Oregon has been an excellent program for the past 20+ years. Baylor is nowhere near Oregon.

They've been excellent for less than 10 years. From 1996-2006, they finished unranked 7 times.

[Sooner95]

After reading all the opinions, I was leaning towards grabbing a couple of teams, making it 12 but I agree with alot of the sentiments the conference is losing it's moxy.

It has replaced the "Old Big east" in football now. OU and Texas is not enough anymore, not with the other Power 5 dding so many more teams, upping their "star power" and just creating more interest.

I wish we would have taken the Pac12 jump a few yrs ago now, I feel like the Big12 days are numbered unless something drastic happens.

Adding BYU and Houston is not going to do it...

[Tear Down This Wall]

You told me I'm wrong, and then posted information that supports exactly what I said. I don't know what to say other than to repeat myself.

Other than the two Joey Harrington years, 2008 was the first time Oregon had finished top ten since 1946. That's 62 years. It's not impressive that Oregon was a mediocre program for a long time while Baylor was just flat-out bad. Between now and 2008, Oregon has developed a reputation as a National Powerhouse.



They've been excellent for less than 10 years. From 1996-2006, they finished unranked 7 times.

Do you seriously not see that Oregon finished in the Top 10 in 2000 and Top 5 in 2001? I mean, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here; but, it's difficult if you can't read.

I'll spell it out for you here, then ask a couple of basic questions:

2000: 10-2, AP rank #7, Coaches Poll #9
2001: 11-1, AP rank #2, Coaches Poll #2

Now, those are facts. But, you keep saying Oregon's 2008 Top Ten finish was their first since 1948. So, my question is, chronologically speaking, did the years 2000 and 2001 occur before or after 1948? I'll spot you that both 2000 and 2001 occurred before 2008.

So, if you are able to accept that the years 2000 and 2001 were both years that occurred in history, and that they occurred somewhere between 1948 and 2008, you can see that 2008 was not Oregon's first top ten finish since 1948, but actually Bellotti's third in the opening decade of the 2000s.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Oregon has been a good team since 1994. During that 21 season span, they are 194-69. That's hardly mediocre, and certainly far better than anything Baylor has strung together in any 21 year period in their entire history.

Bellotti himself was 116-55 from 1995-2008. That's not mediocre. Oregon has had one losing season since 1993. Baylor, the school you pretend to compare Oregon to?

This isn't even a discussion.

[8timechamps]

If that's true, then I guess it means he goes all out to fill in 12 teams with two nobodies. There's just no one left, and no one is leaving any of the other conferences to join us.

What a fine mess OU's in here.

I really don't think the NCAA would turn down a request for a CCG (with 10 teams). The NCAA isn't exactly in a position to tell a Power 5 conference "no" on something like that.

Right now, there aren't 2 worthy programs out there, so unless he can pull a rabbit out of his hat, he'll have to go to work on the NCAA for a 10 team CCG,

[Eielson]

Do you seriously not see that Oregon finished in the Top 10 in 2000 and Top 5 in 2001? I mean, I want to give you the benefit of the doubt here; but, it's difficult if you can't read.

I'll spell it out for you here, then ask a couple of basic questions:

2000: 10-2, AP rank #7, Coaches Poll #9
2001: 11-1, AP rank #2, Coaches Poll #2

Now, those are facts. But, you keep saying Oregon's 2008 Top Ten finish was their first since 1948. So, my question is, chronologically speaking, did the years 2000 and 2001 occur before or after 1948? I'll spot you that both 2000 and 2001 occurred before 2008.

So, if you are able to accept that the years 2000 and 2001 were both years that occurred in history, and that they occurred somewhere between 1948 and 2008, you can see that 2008 was not Oregon's first top ten finish since 1948, but actually Bellotti's third in the opening decade of the 2000s.

That's cool. Once again, your posting facts that back up my position EXACTLY. I'm not even going to bother rewording it this time. I'm just going to requote what I said the last two times.


Other than the two Joey Harrington years, 2008 was the first time Oregon had finished top ten since 1946. That's 62 years. It's not impressive that Oregon was a mediocre program for a long time while Baylor was just flat-out bad. Between now and 2008, Oregon has developed a reputation as a National Powerhouse.


Yes, Oregon was very good when they had Joey Harrington. Other than those 2 years, they were top 10 exactly one year before 2008, and that was 1946. They followed that 2001 success up by finishing 8th in conference the following year, unranked the next, and then 5-6 to wrap a forgetful 3 year stretch.

[8timechamps]

I wonder what would have happened had OU just been more disciplined and more tightly managed during games? Say OU did win against TCU and KSU in tight games, but the rest of the season played out the same. Baylor would have been co-champ with OU instead of TCU with a convincing head-to-head win on the road. Would Baylor have been selected over tOSU in that case putting the CCG issue to rest? My guess is they would have, but there is no way to know for sure.

EDIT: Obviously I'm assuming that if we had 1 loss, we would have cared more against OSU and not screwed up that game. But even if we had, Baylor's win against us would have been against TK with everything on the line, and the committee would not really of cared about our last game with no viable QB.

I don't think the CCG would even be a conversation topic had Baylor made it in (under the scenario you mentioned). I agreed with what Joey Galloway said the night of the selection; "Rather than having the committee select between Baylor and TCU, it was much easier to take Ohio State".

Bowlsby screwed up by not naming a conference champion. That could have been foreseen long before they got to that point...in fact, once the playoffs were announced, the conference should have written a rule to address how a champion would be named in the event of a tie (and with a two way tie, it wouldn't be difficult).

Bowlsby did neither of those things, and he tried to pass it off on the committee to sort out. The committee was having no part of that, and used the CCG as an easy excuse. However, they also set an important precedent in the process. If in the future, the winner of the Big XII (with one loss) ends up close to (for the sake of this example, let's say Ohio State is in the same situation), then they would have to take tOSU based on the fact that they put extra importance on a CCG.

I think the committee, indirectly, has forced the Big XII's hand. Either petition for a 10 team CCG, expand to 12, or take your chances that you'll continue to be left out if there are 4 qualified teams from the other P5 conference (with a CCG).

[yermom]

Baylor or TCU needed a good out of conference win. then they might have gotten over the hump of tOSU's CCG win and name

it's tough to argue with tOSU's draw for traveling and TV sets compared to Baylor's

[SoonerorLater]

Bottom line is the committee was looking for any reason to put Ohio St. in over Baylor or TCU. They got it and they did it. The takeaway from all of this is the Big 12 is the redheaded stepchild of the P5 Conferences in the eye of this committee.... Exit strategy anybody?

[8timechamps]

Baylor or TCU needed a good out of conference win. then they might have gotten over the hump of tOSU's CCG win and name

it's tough to argue with tOSU's draw for traveling and TV sets compared to Baylor's

And that's the ultimate deciding factor.

Had OU or Texas been in the spot Baylor/TCU was in, it would have come out differently.

[Eielson]

No matter how we set this up, it's hard to overcome tOSU beating Wisconsin 59-0. Baylor would have gone had they beaten KSU 59-0 I would imagine.

[TheUnnamedSooner]

Personally I don't think a CCG would have changed anything. Does anyone really think the committee would have put a b12 team in over any of the four selected?

[TheUnnamedSooner]

The Big XII was penalized for having a Championship game, now it is penalized for NOT having one. People are not happy unless they have something to complain about. By that logic you must be one of the happiest people alive.

[TAFBSooner]

North: OU, OSU, KSU, KU, ISU
South: UT, TCU, Baylor, TTech, WVU

What do you think, 8time?

OSU in the North
OU in the South

Two division champions for the state.
Two wins per year over OSU (most years :-( ).

[Peeb]

We always won our CCG rematches, but that's because we were playing a team from the North. If we'd played Texas again, we might not have always won.
Not always. K-State won in a year that blew up a title hope.

There are risks to having an extra game.

[TAFBSooner]

I agree it would have helped for our conference to declared BU the champion by a head to head tie breaker. I still doubt it would have overcome tOSU's beatdown of Wisky and the way they shutdown Gordon.

I keep hearing how Big XII has more often than not had ties for division or conference, and the head-to-head winner was always the champion. Not so. If there was a tie, there were co-champions, and the representative for the prize game* was determined by a set of rules, starting with head-to-head. Those rules constituted the conference chhosing its representative, albeit by rule rather than by committee. In this year's set-up, the conference had no say.**

* CCG or Fiesta Bowl as the case may have been.

** and shouldn't have said anything along the lines of "One True Champion." Talk about your lack of foresight.

[SoonerorLater]

I keep hearing how Big XII has more often than not had ties for division or conference, and the head-to-head winner was always the champion. Not so. If there was a tie, there were co-champions, and the representative for the prize game* was determined by a set of rules, starting with head-to-head. Those rules constituted the conference chhosing its representative, albeit by rule rather than by committee. In this year's set-up, the conference had no say.**

* CCG or Fiesta Bowl as the case may have been.

** and shouldn't have said anything along the lines of "One True Champion." Talk about your lack of foresight.

This type of thing happened multiple times in the old Big Eight I think. Really only in the recent past has there been this hyper focus on head to head. It's something to look at but not some type of divine revelation. The fact that some team drops a field goal game on the road doesn't mean all that much.

[BoulderSooner79]

I keep hearing how Big XII has more often than not had ties for division or conference, and the head-to-head winner was always the champion. Not so. If there was a tie, there were co-champions, and the representative for the prize game* was determined by a set of rules, starting with head-to-head. Those rules constituted the conference chhosing its representative, albeit by rule rather than by committee. In this year's set-up, the conference had no say.**

* CCG or Fiesta Bowl as the case may have been.

** and shouldn't have said anything along the lines of "One True Champion." Talk about your lack of foresight.

Just semantic quibbling - I think everyone knew that "declare a champion" really meant "choose the representative". And that it was different this year in that the conference had no say.

Absolutely the "One True Champion" was silly from the get go because there are often ties, even n-way ties. The horns and TT are still tri-co-champions of the south division in 2008. OU was deemed the representative in the CCG by virtue of higher BCS rating over the horns. I think there are some dusty airplane banners about that in storage around Austin. So even in that case, the conference deferred to outside powers to help determine a champion. But the conference regained control with the outcome of CCG, but only with respect to the Fiesta Bowl. The BCS title teams were still determined by outside powers.

I think the perception here that the big12 spin on things hurt the outcome was due to the difference between the BCS and the selection committee. The "committee" in the BCS system was a large group of voters that blindly mailed in their ballots without talking to each other. That would tend to cancel out biases one way or another by the average of large numbers. That outcome was further watered down by multiple computer rankings using pre-determined algorithms. With the committee, there are 12 people locked in a room that must discuss and justify their rankings and can talk about how stupid the big12 PR campaign comes across. Personally, I doubt they were swayed by the "one true champion" slogan one way or another, but we'll never know unless some member writes a book about it. Now if the conference had rules that declared a champion via tie breaker, that might have made a difference. But that rule would have to be in place before the season started and as you said, we've never had such a rule.

[Eielson]

Not always. K-State won in a year that blew up a title hope.

There are risks to having an extra game.

If I remember correctly, you're referring to the year that we went to play USC in the MNC. I also don't think that was a rematch.

[Salt City Sooner]

If I remember correctly, you're referring to the year that we went to play USC in the MNC. I also don't think that was a rematch.
LSU was the NCG opponent, & you're right, it wasn't a rematch.

[8timechamps]

Well, the ground work is being set...maybe. It certainly sounds like the conference is not interested in adding 2 addition members (unless they are qualified), so it'll come down to the conference seeking a decision to play a CCG with 10 teams:


Big 12 athletics directors met with commissioner Bob Bowlsby for 2½ hours in New York City on Monday.
Bowlsby said West Virginia athletic director Oliver Luck, a voting member of the playoff selection committee, briefed the room, one day after the conference was shut out of the first College Football Playoff.
After visiting with Luck, Bowlsby said he believes the Big 12 not having a title game "had a bearing" on co-champions Baylor and TCU missing out. The other four power conferences have title games.
Bowlsby said no decision was made about if the conference would have a 13th game in the future if permitted by the NCAA. He added that the conference would not expand by two programs just to have 12 teams, as that would be a "poor reason."


It may not be as soon at 2015, but it sounds more likely to happen given the situation.