Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[dayooper]

All reports I've seen say that if the Big XII were to go to divisions, UT and OU would be on the same side and if you look at the geograhy, it makes sense that they would. Perhaps part of the compromise is to break away from the traditional method of creating division (i.e. geography).

The Big10 did this and it was a complete fail. We all hated it.

Here were the divisions:

LEGENDS: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern

LEADERS: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin

It was crap. The Big10 thought the same thing, put the two kings (at the time) in opposing divisions so they could play each other in the conference championship. Do not work.

 

[whaler11]

All reports I've seen say that if the Big XII were to go to divisions, UT and OU would be on the same side and if you look at the geograhy, it makes sense that they would. Perhaps part of the compromise is to break away from the traditional method of creating division (i.e. geography).

Everyone can make their divisions however they want.

Missouri is in the SEC East for example.

The ACC is geographically random.

 

[BlueHen]

Isn't that what the ACC wants to do? Slightly different.

Allowing the Big XII to stay in one 10-team division, play a full round robin and have a CCG would greatly increase the chances that the two best teams would meet in the CCG. It's not exactly what the ACC is supposedly asking for, but it's very close (like you said, slightly different, but only slightly); and it gives them an edge over P5 schools that play in a two division format.

 

[noeynox]

Allowing the Big XII to stay in one 10-team division, play a full round robin and have a CCG would greatly increase the chances that the two best teams would meet in the CCG. It's not exactly what the ACC is supposedly asking for, but it's very close (like you said, slightly different, but only slightly); and it gives them an edge over P5 schools that play in a two division format.

It really does. If a 12-0, Ohio State team loses to an 8-4, Wisconsin team it could lose a playoff spot to the winner of a Baylor 11-1, VS TCU 11-1, game because there were no divisions and instead they stage a game against their 1st and 2nd place teams.

 

[FDNY99]

If you follow this issue on twitter and in the media...the BIGGEST thing that both OU and UT want is to play each other every season..which means they would be in the same division. They don't want to be in separate divisions. The compromise that they will agree to is doing a round robin season like they do now and have he 1st and 2nd place teams play each other again. The one thing they can say is that they play each other from top to bottom right now.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I dont know what the original Big 12 proposal was... did it include some sort of round robin scheduling to avoid the ccg and the minimum required teams per division?

That is the original Big 12 proposal. They already do a round robin. No one wants to allow 1 vs. 2 because that gives the Big 12 a MASSIVE advantage. If the SEC had 1 vs. 2, they would be guaranteed a playoff team every year. Divisions or bust.

 

[shizzle787]

That is the original Big 12 proposal. They already do a round robin. No one wants to allow 1 vs. 2 because that gives the Big 12 a MASSIVE advantage. If the SEC had 1 vs. 2, they would be guaranteed a playoff team every year. Divisions or bust.

I disagree. For instance, the 1/2 matchup this year would have been Oklahoma/OKSU. Oklahoma was in anyway without a championship game, but if OKSU had won a hypothetical championship game, both would have been out.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I disagree. For instance, the 1/2 matchup this year would have been Oklahoma/OKSU. Oklahoma was in anyway without a championship game, but if OKSU had won a hypothetical championship game, both would have been out.

Whatever. It isn't happening, no matter what the UT shill says.

 

[dwalks93]

The original Big12/ACC proposal allowed for complete conference deregulation. Essentially each conference could decide how the teams for the CCG were selected. It also allowed the Big12 to play a CCG with 10 teams.

Logic suggests most years the top 2 teams would play but that would not be guarenteed. If this were to pass it would give conferences (particularly the Big12 who is completely unstructured) the ability to select their team based on the best situation at that moment. For example, if the Big12 had an undefeated Oklahoma ranked #1 and their next highest ranked team was a 2 loss #10 TCU team it might make sense to select another team which Oklahoma could more likely beat (thus insuring a Big12 team gets into the playoffs) and would also allow for additional revenue if it was a big draw like Texas. In this example, to use a blackjack term, the Big12 is essentially staying on 17 to get a team in the playoff.

Bottom line is deregulation would strongly benefit conferences without any structure (Big12) or conference looking to change their structure (ACC wants to move to 3 divisions). If this passes, the PAC10, Big10 and SEC would have to consider changing their structure.

 

[Ha Who]

Paging Fishy

 

[noeynox]

UConn's Big-12 aspirations get boost from NCAA vote

http://www.centralctcommunications....cle_d759f9dc-b8da-11e5-960d-6b69b8048c8c.html

 

[coachcap]

The original Big12/ACC proposal allowed for complete conference deregulation. Essentially each conference could decide how the teams for the CCG were selected. It also allowed the Big12 to play a CCG with 10 teams.

Logic suggests most years the top 2 teams would play but that would not be guarenteed. If this were to pass it would give conferences (particularly the Big12 who is completely unstructured) the ability to select their team based on the best situation at that moment. For example, if the Big12 had an undefeated Oklahoma ranked #1 and their next highest ranked team was a 2 loss #10 TCU team it might make sense to select another team which Oklahoma could more likely beat (thus insuring a Big12 team gets into the playoffs) and would also allow for additional revenue if it was a big draw like Texas. In this example, to use a blackjack term, the Big12 is essentially staying on 17 to get a team in the playoff.

Bottom line is deregulation would strongly benefit conferences without any structure (Big12) or conference looking to change their structure (ACC wants to move to 3 divisions). If this passes, the PAC10, Big10 and SEC would have to consider changing their structure.

An example of "give conferences the ability to select their team based on the best situation at the moment":
Back in the early 70's the B1G had a rule for sending a team to the Rose Bowl. If 2 teams were tied for 1st place at the end of the season, the team that hadn't represented most recently would be sent. As it happened, Ohio State & Michigan were tied for first going into their final game & OSU had represented the previous year. The game ended in a tie, but the Michigan qb sustained a separated shoulder to end his season in the game. The B1G sent OSU to the Rose Bowl citing that injury as a factor even though it was the Wolverines turn to represent by conference rule.

 

[HuskyHawk]

The "compromise" is the Big12 has to play their 2 top ranked team in CCG. The original Big12 proposal did not specify how the 2 teams would be selected so theoretically the Big12 could have pick any 2 they wanted for the CCG. That said, If the Big12 gets to play a CCG with 10 without any divisions they have an advantage over the other P5.

That's ridiculous. They specifically wanted to play the top two to boost the odds of getting in the playoff. It provides more points for the rating system for whoever wins.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I disagree. For instance, the 1/2 matchup this year would have been Oklahoma/OKSU. Oklahoma was in anyway without a championship game, but if OKSU had won a hypothetical championship game, both would have been out.

Last year it would have been TCU vs Baylor and the winner would likely have bumped Ohio State out.

 

[dwalks93]

The Big12/ACC original proposal is in the article below:

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...-conference-title-game-byu-houston-cincinnati

 

[Seaa Blue]

Gee, thanks for opening that wound

The game ended in a tie, but the Michigan qb sustained a separated shoulder to end his season in the game. The B1G sent OSU to the Rose Bowl citing that injury as a factor even though it was the Wolverines turn to represent by conference rule.

http://btn.com/2013/11/12/tiebreaker-how-1973-ohio-state-michigan-changed-big-ten/

“It was tough to never go to a bowl despite all we did,” said Franklin, who as the starter from 1972-74 won three Big Ten titles and went 30-2-1 but never went to a bowl. “But at least we sparked change.” - See more at: http://btn.com/2013/11/12/tiebreake...ichigan-changed-big-ten/#sthash.CxuwYkJs.dpuf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Ohio_State_vs._Michigan_football_game

It was rumored that Michigan State University voted for Ohio State in retaliation for Michigan's "no" vote in 1949 against admitting Michigan State to the Big Ten. There was also a rumor that Michigan State had voted for itself for the same reason. Neither of these charges were ever substantiated. For months afterward, Ohio State newspapers would be flooded with letters from angry Wolverine fans, and threats of lawsuits.

 

[The Viking]

Other than going two divisions of five what compromise can there be?

 

[noeynox]

Other than going two divisions of five what compromise can there be?

I think that's it. Not forcing them to have divisions of 6 members each that is required now.

 

[junglehusky]

I think that's it. Not forcing them to have divisions of 6 members each that is required now.

A rule that originated in I-AA, if I'm not mistaken...

 

[Doggie Style]

The Big10 did this and it was a complete fail. We all hated it.

Here were the divisions:

LEGENDS: Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern

LEADERS: Illinois, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin

It was crap. The Big10 thought the same thing, put the two kings (at the time) in opposing divisions so they could play each other in the conference championship. Do not work.

Good buddy of mine played at Iowa and he thought this was a joke as well!!

 

[Marty Jackson]

Stupid....

Round robin means everybody plays everyone once.
Having a championship means somebody is playing twice.
And somehow, when the schools split the games, they think this will help determine a champion?

 

[Marty Jackson]

The B-12 has never been against splitting into 2 divisions to have a CCG with 10 teams...if I'm not mistaken that may have been why they originally asked for deregulation. It's the ACC that wants to pick who plays in the ACC Championship game..that's why Delaney and the B1G added that addendum about 2 divisions. It was a direct shot at the ACC...not the B-12. It just works better with 2 6 team divisions instead of 2 5 team divisions.

Big12 is publicly against divisions. They want the top 2 teams. Period.
Divisions mean the top two teams could be in the same division.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Thousands of threads of open Internet to mindlessly debate big 10 divisions and yet it's in key tweets.

Stop the madness!

 

[FDNY99]

Big12 is publicly against divisions. They want the top 2 teams. Period.
Divisions mean the top two teams could be in the same division.

Just like the ACC then...

 

[jostar1]

Kirk Bohls ‏@kbohls · 28m28 minutes ago
Big 12 commish Bob Bowlsby on Wed vote to have right to play conf title game: "I think we will negotiate an outcome with which we can live."