Big 12 'likely' to be able to have championship game without expanding, per source

[UConn Dan]

I'm pretty sure the compromise is only if you play a round robin schedule. The B1G amendment was really aimed at tweaking the ACC and preventing them from let's say ditching their divisions altogether (where some teams would not play) and then at end of season picking the top two CFB playoff ranked teams to play in their conf. champ game.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

How is 1 seed playing 2 seed a compromise? Isn't that the definition of a conference championship game? How else would they decide it in a non-division setup?

 

[Drew]

It is not a revenue issue, it is a perception issue. We can always get more revenue elsewhere. Worst case we can always ask our big uncle state of CT to get more funding. The problem is perception. Playing our blue blood basketball programs (Men and Women) in the AAC will kill both. Recruiting would be a challenge. I don't know how long we can keep the fans' interest with lousy AAC football opponents week after week. In addition to that, we have a national perception problem. AAC could be better than the ACC this year but no one outside the AAC would know that. I really don't know if we can survive 5 to 10 years like this.

Check the basketball recruits we have coming in for 2016-17. Ollie is killing it. Probably a top 5 class.

Houston just won the Peach Bowl and finished the season ranked #8 in the country. American football teams have won "NY6" level bowls 2 of the last 3 years. The league for almost the entire second half of the year had 3 Top 25 teams. This is with ECU and Cincinnati both having down seasons as well. Houston is already getting insane hype for next season. The teams aren't lousy for football. If you're saying the casual fan probably doesn't recognize the name and therefore it doesn't pique their interest to play ECU or UCF or SMU than sure, I could probably buy that argument. If we win I don't think it matters.


Consistently heard the exact opposite being spread regularly from national TV/radio people such as Taylor Zarzour, Greg McElroy, and Tim Brando, among others. People are noticing what the American is doing and this comes back to my point earlier- WIN!

Lastly I do agree that the issue is more financial than anything else. If this league somehow can get a pay bump to $8-$12mm per school then we would be able to continue to play the game. Hopefully we don't lose teams (unless UConn is leaving) before the look-in period and we can renegotiate for a better pay scale.

 

[Kolumbo]

Big 12: We want to have a championship game without divisions or expansion, but we are willing to compromise by having a championship without expansion or divisions.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I'm pretty sure the compromise is only if you play a round robin schedule. The B1G amendment was really aimed at tweaking the ACC and preventing them from let's say ditching their divisions altogether (where some teams would not play) and then at end of season picking the top two CFB playoff ranked teams to play in their conf. champ game.

It was partly aimed at that for sure. What I would propose as a compromise is that the Big XII can play a CCG only if it plays a round robin and there is a tie at the end, like last year.

 

[Dooley]

Maybe the compromise isn't on the B12's end, it's from all the other P5 conferences. They can keep their divisions but if the B1G wants OSU vs MSU, for example, go for it. Or the SEC wants Bama vs LSU, go for it. Best of all, if the ACC wants FSU vs Clemson every year (like they would), go for it.

If that's the case, this is rich. Virtually no shot for any program other than a select 10 or so to play in the Playoffs. Ever.

 

[Revrat]

Doesn't make sense to me. If you are the PAC12 and you have number 5 Stanford playing number 18 Washington and the Big12 gets to have Number 4 OK playing number 6 Baylor the PAC loses out every year. The other leagues have nothing to gain by the agreement other than making it easier for the Big12 to make the playoff

 

[Dooley]

Doesn't make sense to me. If you are the PAC12 and you have number 5 Stanford playing number 18 Washington and the Big12 gets to have Number 4 OK playing number 6 Baylor the PAC loses out every year. The other leagues have nothing to gain by the agreement other than making it easier for the Big12 to make the playoff

Bingo. Unless this type of arrangement is now available for every other power conference. And that's what I mean - there is no chance whatsoever for 95% of the NCAAF field to ever get to the Playoff if every power conference is allowed to pick their two best for their conference championship game.

 

[JSM1970]

If it's total deregulation all the leagues can adjust their CCG rules and do what the B12 wants to.

Bingo. Unless this type of arrangement is now available for every other power conference. And that's what I mean - there is no chance whatsoever for 95% of the NCAAF field to ever get to the Playoff if every power conference is allowed to pick their two best for their conference championship game.

 

[jostar1]

Its all falling into place.....for OU and TX to leave sometime in the next decade. The P5 will become the P4.

Isn't this HeinouseOne's theory?

 

[Dooley]

If it's total deregulation all the leagues can adjust their CCG rules and do what the B12 wants to.

Exactly. Which would cause irrefutable harm onto the NCAAF product as a whole. Why watch college football if your team isn't ranked in the preseason Top 10? Almost zero reason for any fanbase other than a few SEC schools, Ohio St, Oregon, USC, Clemson, FSU, and Notre Dame to ever watch.

 

[junglehusky]

There's another possibility... CFP expansion to 6 or 8 teams! Yay!

 

[Exit 4]

Isn't this HeinouseOne's theory?

Sorry, but I don't know who you are referring too. I'm sorry I'm dense.

 

[CallMeBruce]

There's another possibility... CFP expansion to 6 or 8 teams! Yay!

If we end up with only four power conferences, it seems like there's little incentive to expand the playoffs.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

Exactly. Which would cause irrefutable harm onto the NCAAF product as a whole. Why watch college football if your team isn't ranked in the preseason Top 10? Almost zero reason for any fanbase other than a few SEC schools, Ohio St, Oregon, USC, Clemson, FSU, and Notre Dame to ever watch.

This scenario is just insane. It would only protect top 10 teams or so. Why even bother to have a conference at this point? All other teams, including many in the P5 conferences now, will have no chance of EVER playing in the playoff. What's the point of having a playoff? Just has 10 teams or so to play each other every year and pick 4 to play in the "playoff" at end of each year.

 

[Waquoit]

So it's over?

 

[Jimdish255]

I'm calling BS on this "story". Not sure Brown as plugged in as a McMurphy (or a Thamel or Tramel). Big Ten/Delany want 2 divisions of at least six for the CCG. Delany can say "we don't want to force another league to expand" all day long, but there's no need for a CCG if you already play everyone else.

"A high-ranking official at a voting conference told SB Nation it is "likely" that the Big Ten proposal will be amended to allow for a conference with round-robin scheduling to hold a football championship of its own, so long as that conference's top two seeds compete in the game. That appears similar to what Dallas Morning News reporter Chuck Carlton floated last night as well."

I agree. Not to say it couldn't come to pass and it may. But people (and interested journalists) float things that are in their best interest to influence public perception and the votes of those that can be swayed.

 

[Seaa Blue]

Isn't this HeinouseOne's theory?

H1 is a rather prolific poster on several sites.

His latest theory (I think) is more like:

For me, personally, the best scenario of expansion ISN'T including Oklahoma. For me it is actually full expansion to the East. That way Iowa stays in a division with it's longest rivals. Going to watch Iowa vs Wisconsin is just plain awesome. The line vs line play is top notch, for those that understand and appreciate such. Iowa vs Minnesota is always a great game for anyone involved with either school. We are eventually going to more divisions, not less. So if Iowa is in a four team division and The Big Ten expands entirely in the West then that means Iowa most likely ends up in a division with three other teams that they have very little history with. The division of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Iowa and Kansas looks great but that is quite a change for Iowa and quite a sacrifice as well. If you are going to go forward a build new historical rivalries then honestly I cant think of a better group of schools. Iowa has a lot in common with Nebraska and Kansas. Not so much so with Oklahoma but both school's and programs have very strong followings so eventually it would build.

For me though, I would rather see The Big Ten expand with Virginia Tech and Missouri while The SEC expands with UNC, UVA and Duke. That would allow the big 12 to then build up with whats left from the ACC, which by no means is small change. You are talking about having some strong brands join you.

The problem with that scenario though is that The PAC is entirely left out and I just don't see the Networks preferring that option to the option that divides up the big 12. That is why I talk about Oklahoma and Kansas to The Big Ten. It is not some personal agenda of mine, it is just that I see it as part of the easiest scenario to sell across the board.

I Want to see conference tournaments. I Want smaller divisions that get back to having strong rivalries within them. Divisions have gotten too big. I would actually prefer no divisions to what we have now or further expansion with just two divisions remaining the way conferences work.

I also completely understand why some OU folks would prefer the SEC or the PAC in sports. Conference Realignment isn't just about sports though. I think some folks don't realize that or they purposefully ignore it because it leads them to think things that they don't want to think about. So, I wont be upset at all if OU doesn't ever join The Big Ten. I am happy to see OU having success this year and I think OU will continue to be competitive for years to come no matter which conference they move to, if they move. I have never bought the idea of Oklahoma recruiting suffering if they leave the Texas schools. If OU leaves the big 12 it will be because the big 12 no longer exists or because it has no where near the strength it has now due to multiple departures. I don't think OU ever leaves unless Texas is leaving too. If Texas is ready though, OU is gone. OU can recruit much of Texas better than most of the Texas schools if Oklahoma football is having success. I just don't buy into the fear talk when it comes to what if's and the Oklahoma football program. It isn't really my place though to call out people for that kind of thinking and that is where I have been wrong here in the past. I'm not trying to be confrontational with anyone here and hopefully chsguy has seen that with how I have been with him the past few pages. I will call out the fraudulent Notre Dame fan though, so pardon me for that if it goes too far.

Edit: Oh and one more thing that I saw in CHS's post that I didn't respond to yet, so I will just post it here as well. I don't live in The Big Ten's geographical fingerprint anymore. I have lived in SEC Land and now I live out West in Arizona. I rarely get back for Iowa games so for me to go back for one, it has to be a big deal. Just thought I would add that for reference.

I think he doesn't see a lot of value in expanding the Big Ten's footprint in New England. Thus, not much talk about UConn from him.

 

[Jimdish255]

If we end up with only four power conferences, it seems like there's little incentive to expand the playoffs.

Actually I could see a larger Gxxx Conference being formed maybe 20 teams, 10 East and West and a CCG that would likely produce a Top 10 team (or 2) consistently. That would produce better TV contract than our present situation and could be enough to keep us afloat and even "competitive" for the forseeable future. It is a last option compared to inclusion because the damage of a P4 is the perception of long-term relegation might really hurt our sports that have perennially gotten national attention. But this is all speculation at this point. Back to the carwash.

 

[hardcorehusky]

It is not a revenue issue, it is a perception issue. We can always get more revenue elsewhere. Worst case we can always ask our big uncle state of CT to get more funding. The problem is perception. Playing our blue blood basketball programs (Men and Women) in the AAC will kill both. Recruiting would be a challenge. I don't know how long we can keep the fans' interest with lousy AAC football opponents week after week. In addition to that, we have a national perception problem. AAC could be better than the ACC this year but no one outside the AAC would know that. I really don't know if we can survive 5 to 10 years like this.

Houston was better than any Big East team that came to the Rent sans West Virginia. Better than Louisville, better than Pitt, better than Syracuse and Temple is light years ahead of where they were. . The uniforms and names are different, the football is actually better.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

"A high-ranking official at a voting conference told SB Nation it is "likely" that the Big Ten proposal will be amended to allow for a conference with round-robin scheduling to hold a football championship of its own, so long as that conference's top two seeds compete in the game. That appears similar to what Dallas Morning News reporter Chuck Carlton floated last night as well."

I agree. Not to say it couldn't come to pass and it may. But people (and interested journalists) float things that are in their best interest to influence public perception and the votes of those that can be swayed.

I am skeptical about expansion, but the "reporters" pushing the compromise story are two UT mouthpieces and a blogger I have never heard of whose source is likely one of the UT mouthpieces.

The SEC and Big 10 commissioners are on the record.

 

[NYUConn]

I am skeptical about expansion, but the "reporters" pushing the compromise story are two UT mouthpieces and a blogger I have never heard of whose source is likely one of the UT mouthpieces.

The SEC and Big 10 commissioners are on the record.

Just curious, but why do you think Chuck Carlton is a UT mouthpiece? For starters he writes for the Dallas Morning News, not the Statesman. He's based out of Dallas and his beat is to cover the entire Big 12.

Nothing in his history has ever indicated he's a mouthpiece or homer for UT.

He's actually a really good reporter.

 

[Athlete94]

This guy is a fool, I trust my car wash source more than him.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Just curious, but why do you think Chuck Carlton is a UT mouthpiece? For starters he writes for the Dallas Morning News, not the Statesman. He's based out of Dallas and his beat is to cover the entire Big 12.

Nothing in his history has ever indicated he's a mouthpiece or homer for UT.

He's actually a really good reporter.

You are starting an argument over Chuck Carlton? Who do you think his source is on this? Why aren't non-Texas based reporters leading this story?

Texas doesn't want expansion. Texas controls Bowlsby, so Bowlsby doesn't want expansion. Texas appears to have outmaneuvered Oklahoma into making Big 12 expansion dependent on this vote, and Texas is doing everything in its power to get any kind of compromise that ends up avoiding expansion.

So a bunch of whoevers from Texas that I never have heard of all come out with almost EXACTLY the same story about a "compromise" days after both the SEC Commissioner and Big 10 Commissioner said that Big 12 proposal was unacceptable. It certainly sounds like all three have exactly the same source.

I find it unlikely that the other majors will tolerate the Big 12 picking whoever it wants to play in the 13th game. I do think that two 5 team divisions have a fighting chance.

 

[NYUConn]

You are starting an argument over Chuck Carlton? Who do you think his source is on this? Why aren't non-Texas based reporters leading this story?

Texas doesn't want expansion. Texas controls Bowlsby, so Bowlsby doesn't want expansion. Texas appears to have outmaneuvered Oklahoma into making Big 12 expansion dependent on this vote, and Texas is doing everything in its power to get any kind of compromise that ends up avoiding expansion.

So a bunch of whoevers from Texas that I never have heard of all come out with almost EXACTLY the same story about a "compromise" days after both the SEC Commissioner and Big 10 Commissioner said that Big 12 proposal was unacceptable. It certainly sounds like all three have exactly the same source.

I find it unlikely that the other majors will tolerate the Big 12 picking whoever it wants to play in the 13th game. I do think that two 5 team divisions have a fighting chance.

Actually, I'm not starting an argument. I'm just curious as to why you are writing his reporting off as being a "mouthpiece" for UT when he doesn't cover UT as his regular beat.

My point is that he's a good reporter. I don't think you can just write off what he's reporting as what UT wants him to think. I think if he's going to print something he probably has multiple sources to back it up.

You're probably right that some of his sources are affiliated with UT, but that doesn't necessarily mean you should dismiss what he's writing as inaccurate.