TCU left out

#101
#101
volwindy said:
Agreed! It baffled me you drop a team for their own convincing win.
Click to expand...

They really don't need to have a weekly rankings system. I get they're doing it because college football fans are familiar with it and they wanted the transition to be more favorable...but if the teams being considered are really in so much of a state of flux as they seem to be, a poll doesn't really relate that.

They don't need to have a weekly rankings, as much as college fans love the idea of "polls" being part of a system.

They might even be better served to release a "these are the teams being considered" statement like two weeks before the regular season ends or two weeks before the conference championships are played.
 
#102
#102
Volunteer_Kirby said:
That's a shame. This is why we need a 6 team system. You get your champions from their respected conferences and a wildcard (or two, depending of the strength of conference that year). Seed 6 vs Seed 3 and Seed 4 vs Seed 5 for the first round. The winner of those two face seed 1 & 2 in round 2, this way #1/2 get rewarded for their ranking. Then the winner of those two games plays for the national championship. In my book that's more ideal than an 4 team or 8 team playoff system.
Click to expand...

I don't know why a "bye" is being discussed in these things though.

It's one thing when the NFL does it and it's a team getting a week off before another matchup, but it's another thing when you're talking about one team getting a month off between games and another getting a month and a week off.
 
#103
#103
JCSvol said:
I would think their top 4 realistic candidates would be:

Boise/BYU or Memphis/Cincinati depending on whether they'd prefer to go east or west.
Click to expand...

BYU is the only realistic one in there.


Boise adds nothing. That's why the closest thing - even as more recognizable as they've become - to a major conference invite was the Big East's mad dash to fill in teams before the others decided to get rid of the BCS. (The PAC-12 won't touch them either).

Unfortunately, Memphis doesn't really bring enough to balance out an add without it being almost absolutely necessary (as in, for conference survival)....

I don't know how favorable Cincy would be to them, but I imagine not very much. (Nothing financial gain-wise is going to come out of either of the last, two, really.)
 
#104
#104
catchnburn said:
I just do not believe osu is that good. VA Tech doesn't think so.
Click to expand...

Didn't say OSU was good or would win the SEC.

Said they'd beat Missouri.

LibertyVol said:
No they wouldn't. OSU would lose at least three game playing Missouri's schedule.
Click to expand...

So did Missouri.

Again, wasn't saying they'd win the conference or that they were/weren't overrated. Was saying they'd beat Missouri.

----

They'd beat South Dakota St, Toledo, and UCF. They beat IU.

They'd lose to UGA.

That leaves South Carolina (6-6), UF (6-5), Vandy and UK, A&M (7-5), and UT (6-6).

Maybe (maybe) Arky wins, but that's another (6-6) team.

Trouble finding that 3rd regular season loss.
 
#106
#106
burntorangeVOLffle said:
Yep... Part of this is about eyeballs. Cinderella teams, even those smaller market teams from big conferences such as TCU and Baylor, will absolutely HAVE to be undefeated to get in.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Pretty much the big.

The bigger, more established teams generally get more benefit of the doubt / have current success viewed more favorably, mainly because of already being established through their past successes.
 
#107
#107
bowlinggreenvol said:
I'm not ignoring the payouts of other bowls. I realize that all bowls don't pay $15mil like BCS bowls. But I also don't have time nor the desire to look or put a pen to potential payouts for potential Big 12 tie-ins.

Did TCU add anything in terms of TV market money for the Big 12? They already had the Metroplex on lockdown.
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a different case, though.

When the Big 12 was looking to add a team at that point (which following not just the NEB/CU departures but A&M's as well):

1) they were doing it for conference survival and to make sure they didn't lose their television contracts,

2) the networks that had their contracts (FOX, ESPN) said they wouldn't get rid of/ change those those as long as the Big 12 had at least 10 teams,

and 3) when Neb and CU left the year before, the networks decided/let the Big 12 know they weren't going to reduce their television contract amounts (they would still keep paying the conference the amount it had previously agreed upon; 10 teams would now be receiving the same amount they had previously agreed to pay for 12 teams, or about 20% more each), likely to provide either some degree of stability or prevent further leaving that offseason.


There wasn't as drastic of a monetary/market consideration involved (or at least, a future one) when they were making this decision.


If CSU can remain competitive you can get the Denver market back and make BYU an offer they can't refuse and you grab a decent market in the West. It would be similar to ND but obviously on a smaller scale.
Click to expand...

CSU isn't going to get you Denver, unfortunately. No more than NC State or ECU would get you North Carolina.

And - unfortunately for both sides: BYU doesn't want to drop the TV contract ESPN just gave them...so it'd take a pretty massive one, likely much more than they're actually worth; while for whatever reason, also, the Big 12 doesn't really want to touch/do much with BYU, for some reason.

Plus, BYU doesn't really give them terribly much a market in the other western states...maybe some of Utah?

It wouldn't really be like a smaller scale ND though.
 
#108
#108
TrueOrange said:
They really don't need to have a weekly rankings system. I get they're doing it because college football fans are familiar with it and they wanted the transition to be more favorable...but if the teams being considered are really in so much of a state of flux as they seem to be, a poll doesn't really relate that.

They don't need to have a weekly rankings, as much as college fans love the idea of "polls" being part of a system.

They might even be better served to release a "these are the teams being considered" statement like two weeks before the regular season ends or two weeks before the conference championships are played.
Click to expand...

I'm not even talking rankings, I'm talking the four teams they had in last week should have stayed the same as tcu had just a convincing win as OSU. So look at the one loss they both have...losing to Baylor on the road at the end of a game vs not really being in it at home vs a crappy vt team. I don't agree with their decision, but that's my opinion. It is what it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#109
#109
The only thing this tells me is that the new college football playoff system is a joke. No improvement over the BCS at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#111
#111
TrueOrange said:
That's a bit of a different case, though.

When the Big 12 was looking to add a team at that point (which following not just the NEB/CU departures but A&M's as well):

1) they were doing it for conference survival and to make sure they didn't lose their television contracts,

2) the networks that had their contracts (FOX, ESPN) said they wouldn't get rid of/ change those those as long as the Big 12 had at least 10 teams,

and 3) when Neb and CU left the year before, the networks decided/let the Big 12 know they weren't going to reduce their television contract amounts (they would still keep paying the conference the amount it had previously agreed upon; 10 teams would now be receiving the same amount they had previously agreed to pay for 12 teams, or about 20% more each), likely to provide either some degree of stability or prevent further leaving that offseason.


There wasn't as drastic of a monetary/market consideration involved (or at least, a future one) when they were making this decision.




CSU isn't going to get you Denver, unfortunately. No more than NC State or ECU would get you North Carolina.

And - unfortunately for both sides: BYU doesn't want to drop the TV contract ESPN just gave them...so it'd take a pretty massive one, likely much more than they're actually worth; while for whatever reason, also, the Big 12 doesn't really want to touch/do much with BYU, for some reason.

Plus, BYU doesn't really give them terribly much a market in the other western states...maybe some of Utah?

It wouldn't really be like a smaller scale ND though.
Click to expand...


Assuming Mormons like football as much as Catholics there's a ton of them out west. 6 states in the west, not named Utah, have Mormon populations of 100k-500k. If there wasn't enough of a market for BYU and the Mormon population then why was it a lucrative enough deal for ESPN to jump into bed with them? ESPN isn't doing something that doesn't have a financial return for them.


I'm confused as to how you don't get the Denver market with CSU. They're not the #1 show in town but it's not like there's not CSU alums/fans in Denver that wouldn't tune in. Texas AM is second fiddle to TX and is in a state with numerous shows in town. Still have people all over the state tuning in.

If you have a way of analyzing how many households in Denver and outlying areas watch CSU games and can show that those households already tune into Big 12 games not adding anything then you have more time and resources than me.

I have a coworker who's a aTm alum and College Station resident who never followed SEC football before they joined, it was all Big 12. Now he watches/follows all SEC teams/games and asks me stuff all the time cause he's anxious to learn the conference more. I don't see how CSU alums/fans wouldn't be the same way. Unless they just don't take football that seriously. Which is very likely to an extent but I don't think you know the depth of that answer well enough.
 
#112
#112
I really wonder if the TCU/Baylor bickering that would have gone on if TCU got it played a factor in tOSU getting bumped in ahead of them.

To me TCU got hosed. They were #3, they hammered their opponent by 52 while #4 FSU squeaked by GT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#113
#113
This is a tough one. It's a shame FSU is undefeated because I really think TCU is a better football team. Had TCU beaten Baylor, I think they absolutely get the nod over Florida St.
 
#114
#114
90 Vol said:
The only thing this tells me is that the new college football playoff system is a joke. No improvement over the BCS at all.
Click to expand...

It's a step in the right direction but here we are in the first year and there is already obvious that this thing needs to go to 8 teams eventually.

We are probably going to see a good 3 - 5 years of a four team playoff while the playoff committee gets themselves sorted out. One question that will need to be answered is if being a member of the playoff committee is going to interfere will athletic directors doing their jobs.
 
#115
#115
OOC Schedule or not in every sport that head to head trumps common opponents. BAYLOR should be your Big12 Champs and have a better ranking than TCU.
 
#116
#116
The Baylor coach Art Briles pretty much said the Big 12 was screwed. He said the Big 12 had no voice in the Bowl committee.
 
#117
#117
TCU got the best game of the post season. Who gives a crap about that 4 team profit taking event? The chick bowl is the national championship. That's what I will be watching. Winner of that game gets my trophy, and it's more prettier than your sponsored golden football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#119
#119
IluvdoubleD's said:
TCU got the best game of the post season. Who gives a crap about that 4 team profit taking event? The chick bowl is the national championship. That's what I will be watching. Winner of that game gets my trophy, and it's more prettier than your sponsored golden football.
Click to expand...

But what if either team doesn't care and loses 30-0 in a game that doesn't count? Are you going to hand out two trophies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#120
#120
I'm not sure how adding two teams to a conference somehow loses them money, especially if it's a Houston or CSU. It may not be a huge gain per se, but it wouldn't be a loss either. Because smaller TV shares due to two teams would be made up for by having a conference championship game.

I definitely don't think a waiver needs to be allowed. That makes zero sense in a conference that plays every other team during the year... only to have a rematch? What? The Big 12 only has their stupid Commissioner to blame on this debacle. He should not have panicked in October and just had faith that the rankings would play out. That and the completely unpredicted result of the Big 10 champ game where a team went out and blew the doors off a highly ranked team. I mean OSU beat the 13th ranked team worse than TCU did Iowa St with their 3rd string QB.

In this single case, I disagree with the ratings argument. Not at all saying that is not the reasoning that was used, but to me it doesn't make sense. TCU along with Boise St. have been the darlings of everyone because of their Cinderella image. I think the fact that TCU finally gets their shot was intriguing enough to attract viewers. And when they went to the rose bowl, they definitely had half the stadium filled. Unlike Mizzou who seemed to only have about a quarter of the Georgia Dome filled for the Champ game.

I still don't think an 8 team playoff would do anything but just make the season unnecessarily long and water down the importance of the regular season games. In that scenario we would have 2 loss teams playing for the whole thing, and that just doesn't sit well with me. I don't care how good those teams' conference appears to be. The only thing I would hope for is a system that allows a run-off game next week between Conf #4 and Conf. #5 to determine the fourth slot in the playoffs.
 
Last edited:
#121
#121
iuvol2012 said:
Losing to Virginia Tech at home is better than losing to Baylor? I just don't buy that argument. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I know that it's basically universally accepted, but I think the idea of comparing the quality of losses is really kind of silly. A loss is a loss. So one team got upset and the other didn't... but then that same team that got upset can turn around and say we won every big game we played. The whole comparing loss quality puts too much emphasis on the one time each year that a team failed and detracts from the whole body of work.

They should use 1) objective OVERALL strength of schedule/resume (last weekend shouldn't count for anymore than week 1 in this criteria) 2) the human eyeball test to settle "ties" (or more objectively, who would Vegas favor on a neutral field.)
 
#122
#122
Meh the real team that got screwed was Baylor. In any normal persons world Baylor would have been Big 12 champs. The conference screwed themselves by claiming co champs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#123
#123
knoxville's finest said:
IMO, no conference championship caused them to be left out.
Click to expand...

It's because a NC winning coach lead a premier CFB named team to a blowout win over a very solid Wisconsin team. The name Meyer and Ohio state paired with the dominant performance vaulted them. That said Big 12 needs a CCG.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#124
#124
What doesn't help TCU is their loss to the other team they were tied at the hip to. People keep saying TCU is more deserving than Baylor but how is that possible if you lost to the team? Had they had a championship game then Baylor is the division winner and thus has an extra game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top