Big 12 "One True Champion" no really!

[Mazeppa]

How pathetic does the conference "leaders" look after running that dumb commercial several times on a game day and then go and name co-champions.



http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/25104194/bob-bowlsby-says-big-12-ads-in-favor-of-ditching-co-champions

[BoulderSooner79]

They looked silly, but I still don't think crowning Baylor would have sent them to the CFP. It didn't alter what happened on the field.

[tycat947]

People may not like it but it is One True Champion. The teams play every team in the conference. If there are 2 or 3 teams tied, it IS the "True" champion. They didn't tie because some of the teams didn't play each other. They tied because after everyone had played everyone in the conference, they were at the top with the same # of wins and losses. Of course, you'd have to have a tiebreaker to select a team for one spot available but I wouldn't call the luck of a tiebreaker the lone champion.

[EatLeadCommie]

The new commish's incompetence in handling the matter made it a lot easier for the CFB committee to just leave out the Big XII. That and Ohio State killing Wisconsin. Kind of the perfect storm. Taking OSU effectively killed any controversy over Baylor leapfrogging TCU (which they did). OSU winning the whole thing further got the committee off the hook, but they still shouldn't have been the 4th team in, IMO. A loss to VT should've been a dealbreaker.

[SoonerorLater]

The dumb mistake was the "One True Champion" line. The Big 12 needs to drop the propaganda, continue to play the way we have been. If two teams are tied so be it. They are co-champs. The committee is supposed to be selecting the best teams not deciding which conference champions should go to the playoffs.

[BoulderSooner79]

The new commish's incompetence in handling the matter made it a lot easier for the CFB committee to just leave out the Big XII. That and Ohio State killing Wisconsin. Kind of the perfect storm. Taking OSU effectively killed any controversy over Baylor leapfrogging TCU (which they did). OSU winning the whole thing further got the committee off the hook, but they still shouldn't have been the 4th team in, IMO. A loss to VT should've been a dealbreaker.

I think that tOSU win over Wisconsin combined with the fact it was a CCG sealed the deal. The committee did put Baylor over TCU which is exactly what the big12 would have done had they had a tie breaker rule. Just removing "co-" doesn't change anything. There were a lot of Baylor doubters because they gave up 58 points to TCU even though they won the game. Their loss to WVU wasn't much better than tOSU's loss to VT if you consider tOSU had to throw in a FR QB unexpectedly and how early in the season the game was played. WVU played some teams tough, but ended the year unranked and their only quality win was the Baylor game.

I would have chosen the same teams as the committee did and the only team that would have given me pause was FSU. But I would have included them too because I can't see how to justify leaving out an undefeated team that won it all the previous year. So I would have left out the big12 too, but not because they lack a CCG - because I think the other 4 teams were better (or more deserving in FSU's case).

[SoonerMarkVA]

What's incredible to me is after having the fiasco during football season, they doubled down on a horrible, ridiculous marketing strategy and continued it with basketball. That should have been suffocated with a pillow in December.

[Soonerjeepman]

Except it actually worked for basketball

[aurorasooner]

So what happens if 3 teams tie for the championship, like when Mack conveniently developed the ALZ and forgot about the Whorn L against tech when they chit the bed in Lubbock? The coaches are probably going to meet at some truck stop in Elk City and flip a coin.
The Big 12 is trying to squeak by by splitting the short term revenue 10 ways which props this league's school's individual regular season take up somewhat and the leadership doesn't have a clue about the long term.
And I agree about this crappy marketing campaign of "One true champion" carried over into BB season. This league was damn lucky this year we crapped our pants against ISU in Ames and Barnes did the same thing by putting his last TO of the tourney in his savings account and we didn't win the regular season title (or 3 or maybe more teams didn't tie for it--pr nightmare) and Texass, WVU, or Baylor didn't win the conference BB tourney. As a matter of fact, KU won the regular season title, and ISU won the tourney thus the automatic conference NCAA seed, so was there 1 true champion in BB?

[SoonerMarkVA]

Except it actually worked for basketball

If you're good with "1 True (Regular Season) Champion" and "1 True (Tournament) Champion", I guess it did.

[BoulderSooner79]

If you're good with "1 True (Regular Season) Champion" and "1 True (Tournament) Champion", I guess it did.

Hoops has always been this way for all conferences. Not a problem when there are 64+ slots.

[Soonerjeepman]

Hoops has always been this way for all conferences. Not a problem when there are 64+ slots.

yup...

and every other sport...baseball, softball, etc.

The whole 1 true champion thing was to save face in football...promote the big 12 - 2 so the national folks wouldn't use it against the league. Hopefully they'll come up with something better next year

[Widescreen]

"Some True Champions"?

[SoonerMarkVA]

Hoops has always been this way for all conferences. Not a problem when there are 64+ slots.

Making it even more ridiculous. There have always been 2 championship aspects, unless 1 team managed to win regular season and tourney.

I have no problem with how basketball conference championships are determined, BTW. I have a major problem with brain-dead marketing ploys that make the XII look like fools.