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?
And that's the ultimate deciding factor.Originally Posted by yermom
Had OU or Texas been in the spot Baylor/TCU was in, it would have come out differently.
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.
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?
By that logic you must be one of the happiest people alive.
OSU in the North
OU in the South
Two division champions for the state.
Two wins per year over OSU (most years :-( ).
Ukraine: Not Our Fight.
More epicycles!
Not always. K-State won in a year that blew up a title hope.
There are risks to having an extra game.
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.
Ukraine: Not Our Fight.
More epicycles!
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.
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.
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.
Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb.
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:
It may not be as soon at 2015, but it sounds more likely to happen given the situation.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."
Posting Permissions
