"One TRUE Champion"

[Codaxx]

I disagree. The CCG does something to help. When the PAC had 10 teams, not having a CCG was given as a reason for a PAC team not making the NCG on at least a couple of occasions. It was said the extra "quality win" from the CCG gave the other team the needed "bump" to get in.

-
YOu mean like 6-6 UCLA? Fact is the CCG is double edged sword and most people seem blind to the downside. Oregon is getting 0 from this game. If there is no CCG for the Oregon, they are still in. Now they have a chance to lose a game and incur injuries for 0 benefit. Lots of people like to say the extra game would have made the difference, but in truth you have 0 idea. As for USC's view. I think you can say they are 1-1. Got in over Auburn and got left out for LSU.

 

[Sgt Brutus]

-
YOu mean like 6-6 UCLA? Fact is the CCG is double edged sword and most people seem blind to the downside. Oregon is getting 0 from this game. If there is no CCG for the Oregon, they are still in. Now they have a chance to lose a game and incur injuries for 0 benefit. Lots of people like to say the extra game would have made the difference, but in truth you have 0 idea. As for USC's view. I think you can say they are 1-1. Got in over Auburn and got left out for LSU.

Not blind to the downside. I see the big negatives if Bama, Oregon, or FSU lose. I'm not arguing that at all. I just don't think the current system of the power 5s playing a CCG is fair and Big12 doesn't. Big 12 could get really screwed getting no teams in or make out big and get 2 teams in. I just think they need to add teams and play a CCG or no of the other conferences play a CCG.

I think we are arguing over nothing. Do you see how we both agree? We are just looking at it different!

 

[Codaxx]

Not blind to the downside. I see the big negatives if Bama, Oregon, or FSU lose. I'm not arguing that at all. I just don't think the current system of the power 5s playing a CCG is fair and Big12 doesn't. Big 12 could get really screwed getting no teams in or make out big and get 2 teams in. I just think they need to add teams and play a CCG or no of the other conferences play a CCG.

I think we are arguing over nothing. Do you see how we both agree? We are just looking at it different!

WHY? Is it fair that the Big 12 Champion has to play 9 games vs the best 9 teams in the league? I think it is unfair that OSU can play 9 games and miss #3 and #4 in the conference.

 

[trojanfan12]

-
YOu mean like 6-6 UCLA? Fact is the CCG is double edged sword and most people seem blind to the downside. Oregon is getting 0 from this game. If there is no CCG for the Oregon, they are still in. Now they have a chance to lose a game and incur injuries for 0 benefit. Lots of people like to say the extra game would have made the difference, but in truth you have 0 idea. As for USC's view. I think you can say they are 1-1. Got in over Auburn and got left out for LSU.

You're cherry picking a statistical anomaly. Yes, a 6-6 UCLA made the CCG and there was definitely 0 benefit and potentially a huge cost for Oregon in playing that game. However, the only reason UCLA was in that game, was because USC (10-2) wasn't allowed to play because of the sanctions.

Minus those sanctions, you would have had a 10-2 USC vs. a 10-2 Oregon and that would have been a big benefit to the winner.

 

[Wheat]

 

[Sgt Brutus]

WHY? Is it fair that the Big 12 Champion has to play 9 games vs the best 9 teams in the league? I think it is unfair that OSU can play 9 games and miss #3 and #4 in the conference.

No it's not fair! That's the point we are both trying to make lol just different reasoning I think.

 

[Codaxx]

You're cherry picking a statistical anomaly. Yes, a 6-6 UCLA made the CCG and there was definitely 0 benefit and potentially a huge cost for Oregon in playing that game. However, the only reason UCLA was in that game, was because USC (10-2) wasn't allowed to play because of the sanctions.

Minus those sanctions, you would have had a 10-2 USC vs. a 10-2 Oregon and that would have been a big benefit to the winner.

-
It might have, but remember rematches do not increase SOS. Not sure how that game would have benefited Oregon. They werent going to the NCG and were pretty much locked into a BCS bowl. Now if USC wasnt on probation and there was no BCS bowl, what do you think the odds were that both USC and Oregon coudl have went to the BCS?

 

[trojanfan12]

-
It might have, but remember rematches do not increase SOS. Not sure how that game would have benefited Oregon. They werent going to the NCG and were pretty much locked into a BCS bowl. Now if USC wasnt on probation and there was no BCS bowl, what do you think the odds were that both USC and Oregon coudl have went to the BCS?

Who says re-matches don't increase SOS? A win over a quality team is a win over a quality team. I'd argue that it could actually help SOS because beating a good team twice in the same season is tough to do. Just ask LSU.

As for your question, I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking if I think they both could have gotten into the NCG? Are you asking if I think they both would have made the playoff if it existed? Or are you asking if I think they would both get into a BCS bowl?

 

[Codaxx]

Who says re-matches don't increase SOS? A win over a quality team is a win over a quality team. I'd argue that it could actually help SOS because beating a good twice in the same season is tough to do. Just ask LSU.

basic formula is ((2*opponent record)+opponents opponents record)/3. So rematches are not factored in. Only counts an opponent once.

I was saying that in this made-up scenario that a top 10 USC and top 10 Oregon team both could have made a BCS bowl. With a CCG game one is knocked out. With or without a CCG both were out of the NC game. So I was saying that the CCG would have added very little value to the PAC 12 and potential hurt them.

 

[trojanfan12]

basic formula is ((2*opponent record)+opponents opponents record)/3. So rematches are not factored in. Only counts an opponent once.

I was saying that in this made-up scenario that a top 10 USC and top 10 Oregon team both could have made a BCS bowl. With a CCG game one is knocked out. With or without a CCG both were out of the NC game. So I was saying that the CCG would have added very little value to the PAC 12 and potential hurt them.

I'm not so sure that both would be knocked out of a BCS bowl. The winner would go to the Rose Bowl, but the loser could still end up in a BCS bowl. There is actually precedent for that happening.

In 2002, USC and Washington St. were tied for the PAC title. Washington St. won the head to head so they went to the Rose Bowl. USC went to the Orange Bowl. I forget which year, but there was also a year when Oregon St. finished 10-2, wasn't the PAC champion and went to the Fiesta Bowl.

In that scenario, say Oregon wins the CCG and goes to the Rose Bowl, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that a 10-3 USC would get picked up by a BCS bowl because of name recognition.

On the math: How do we know what the committee is going to do about re-matches? They may weigh a win in a CCG that is a re-match between teams with 10 or 11 wins higher than a CCG that features an 10 or 11 win team beating an 8 or 9 win team.

 

[Codaxx]

I'm not so sure that both would be knocked out of a BCS bowl. The winner would go to the Rose Bowl, but the loser could still end up in a BCS bowl. There is actually precedent for that happening.

In 2002, USC and Washington St. were tied for the PAC title. Washington St. won the head to head so they went to the Rose Bowl. USC went to the Orange Bowl. I forget which year, but there was also a year when Oregon St. finished 10-2, wasn't the PAC champion and went to the Fiesta Bowl.

In that scenario, say Oregon wins the CCG and goes to the Rose Bowl, I'd say there's a pretty good chance that a 10-3 USC would get picked up by a BCS bowl because of name recognition.

On the math: How do we know what the committee is going to do about re-matches? They may weigh a win in a CCG that is a re-match between teams with 10 or 11 wins higher than a CCG that features an 10 or 11 win team beating an 8 or 9 win team.

I am simply stating a fact that rematches are not beneficial to the SOS formula. Not a debate. Whether the committee considers it is another question.

Both at 10-2, 1 is guaranteed to go to a BCS bowl in either scenario. That we agree on
Chances of a 10-2 USC getting in are better than 10-3 USC getting in. If you believe Pac gets 2 in either way, than it is clear that there was no benefit to the CCG per your own words.

 

[TexasExes98]

Who is talking about games?

I prefer having a game where the best teams from each division battle it out for a no question champ as opposed to "well A beat B who beat C who beat A so lets just say everyone is the champ".

But that doesn't determine who the best is in the conference all the time in the CCG. Refer to '03. KSU destroys OU in the CCG, but OU still goes on to play for the NC, probably b/c the voters knew KSU got lucky one night and pulled an upset. Doesn't mean KSU was the best team in the Big 12 that year. Just using that as an example.

 

[fordman84]

But that doesn't determine who the best is in the conference all the time in the CCG. Refer to '03. KSU destroys OU in the CCG, but OU still goes on to play for the NC, probably b/c the voters knew KSU got lucky one night and pulled an upset. Doesn't mean KSU was the best team in the Big 12 that year. Just using that as an example.

I don't think I have claimed it gives the best. It's a system that gives a singular Champion. The only way you ever get the guaranteed BEST team would be to have a very long season where everyone plays everyone else multiple times in multiple locations. Even round robin you aren't going to get the best team some of the time, because the sample size is so small.

So what you CAN get is a high likelyhood two top teams will play for the undisputed Championship. No co-champ garbage. I agree the best team could get passed over. but that is what happens in every sport. It's why we have Wild Card spots. CFB should too, the top 4 and then 4 wildcard spots. We could choose the, and just spitballin here, by taking the next 4 best teams

 

[Codaxx]

I don't think I have claimed it gives the best. It's a system that gives a singular Champion. The only way you ever get the guaranteed BEST team would be to have a very long season where everyone plays everyone else multiple times in multiple locations. Even round robin you aren't going to get the best team some of the time, because the sample size is so small.

So what you CAN get is a high likelyhood two top teams will play for the undisputed Championship. No co-champ garbage. I agree the best team could get passed over. but that is what happens in every sport. It's why we have Wild Card spots. CFB should too, the top 4 and then 4 wildcard spots. We could choose the, and just spitballin here, by taking the next 4 best teams

Basically people are annoyed that the Big 12 is pulling a fast one and using a loophole to bolster an additional resume.

 

[fordman84]

Basically people are annoyed that the Big 12 is pulling a fast one and using a loophole to bolster an additional resume.

Considering I don't htink it makes a difference, I think you are mistaken. I started this thread, and I did so not because of any perceived "loophole" being used but because it is damn funny that your slogan has already failed...in less than a year.

 

[Codaxx]

Considering I don't htink it makes a difference, I think you are mistaken. I started this thread, and I did so not because of any perceived "loophole" being used but because it is damn funny that your slogan has already failed...in less than a year.

I would run over the slogan too. Why wouldnt you? Big 12 is looking to secure a bid. TCU is in front of OSU and Baylor is behind. Why would you try to force Baylor through and risk getting 0 in? Why wouldnt try to call both Champs and save a shot at 2? Whats more important, your stupid commercial or getting a team in the playoffs? At the end of the day the Big 12 is better off naming Co-Champs, than naming Baylor its Champ. Its just a simple cost-benefit analysis.

 

[theboardref]

That is completely false. Both teams will get championship trophies, and be officially recognized as co champions by the conference. It was the same way in 2012 with KSU, and OU.

So the Big 12 should change it to: "Multiple True Champions, enough trophies to go around so everyone feels special". I don't give a flippling shit what the conference says, Baylor is the true champ according to the bs motto.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

So the Big 12 should change it to: "Multiple True Champions, enough trophies to go around so everyone feels special". I don't give a flippling shit what the conference says, Baylor is the true champ according to the bs motto.

Well, they have to WIN Saturday night...but yeah, and I might add: DEFENDING, true champion...

 

[Codaxx]

So the Big 12 should change it to: "Multiple True Champions, enough trophies to go around so everyone feels special". I don't give a flippling shit what the conference says, Baylor is the true champ according to the bs motto.

so why are your panties in a bunch then?

 

[theboardref]

Fans of the Big 12 are so contradictory in their stances it is comical. All I hear is how no conference championship game is 'proper' and conference titles are stupid. Yet NOW split champions is correct for THIS circumstance. It's funny. The Big 12 is the only conference where head to head means nothing.