The unfairness of conference championships has finally reared its ugly head and been put on display for all those who refuse to see the light. The beacon of inequality and greed has now shone on the Big 12—the glare is blinding.
The Big 12 Championship will prove nothing if Oklahoma wins—it is the better team. If Missouri wins? Total chaos, and proof that conference championships don't reward an entire season, they reward one game.
The total absurdity of the situation is obvious—if Oklahoma wins, the Sooners go to the BCS championship game, but if Mizzou wins, it's the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl in Arizona. Two different games for the winner simply because both teams are not worthy of a title game berth.
It's No. 1 vs. No. 4, and it should be No. 1 vs. No. 2—after all, isn't a conference championship all about the two best teams playing for the crown? Unfortunately for the Big 12, it's all about a division's winner, not the best two teams in the conference. And that is the very problem of conference championships—they don't reward the best two teams in the conference.
Compounding the entire issue is the greed involved in this game. This isn't about crowning the true champ, it's about each Big 12 school getting at least $800,000 in payouts from this game. The very reason conferences race to get to that magic twelve-team number is to have a conference championship game and get a windfall even if their team isn't in the conference championship.
Baylor and Iowa State rake in a cool 1.6 mil for being dreadful this year. Life is good, isn't it?
Yes, this is about greed, but that greed is because of the lingering practice of scheduling soft non-conference games—the payouts each school has to pay to schedule these games is mind-boggling.
Nebraska had to pay Virginia Tech $300,000, Western Michigan $800,000, San Jose State $800,000, and New Mexico State $825,000 to play the Huskers. Think that $800,000 payout from the conference championship game helps soften the scheduling payout bills? Of course.
It's complicated, but also transparent—the softer the team you schedule, the more you have to pay to have them be your patsy. LSU, who had an easy non-conference schedule, paid three teams $750,000 each ( Troy, North Texas and Appalachian State) while Tulane got a measly $600,000, making their non-conference payouts total 2.85 mil.
So who was at the bottom of the list's bigger expense teams (page one) in terms of lowest conference payouts? A Pac-10 team—Arizona State. A team that doesn't have a conference championship. Coincidence? Hardly.
You don't have to be a genius to figure out what the thought process is here—schedule patsies, pay them tons of money to be a punching bag and therefore inflate your win columns. By being in a twelve-team conference, you will recoup a major part of that expense by the conference championship game's payout, even though your team never played in it.
The best part? Your three or four wins over the patsies will pretty much guarantee a bowl of some sort—since your team will only have to win two or three conference games—which translates to an additional six or seven figures. It's no longer athletic competition, it's greed.
The reality of all of this is that two teams in the Big 12—Texas and Texas Tech—have better records than Missouri. Proponents of conference championship games will say that if those two teams had "taken care of business," they would be in position to vy for the conference crown. But Mizzou didn't take care of its business, and is vying for the crown.
Three teams in one division all have one loss, while a team in another division, Missouri, has three losses—including a huge loss against Texas—yet it is in the big game.
Texas beat Oklahoma, yet the Longhorns are staying home to watch the the team they beat play the other team they beat. Fair? Hell no.
These twelve-team conferences need to jettison their flotsam—in the Big 12's case, Iowa State and Baylor—play everyone in their conference and only schedule three non-conference games. As long as they continue to have conference championships, there will never be a playoff in college football.
This fact remains—there cannot be an eight-team playoff without ditching conference championships games. It can't work with the current conference championship games scheduled in the first week of December, and that is the exact reason why the eight-game playoff suggestion was voted down this last spring in Florida.
Those who have conference championship games do not want to give up those payouts. Blame the 12-team conference commissioners for the lack of playoffs.
In the meantime, they are laughing their way to the banks and will continue to put on mythical conference championships, frustrating football teams who have been left out in the cold.
This year, no one is laughing.
Click here to see the list of non-conference games' payouts.
Copy and paste the following link to Richard Keenam's exceptional article, which is beautifully written and explains alternatives to stop the chokehold that conferences are putting on college football:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/89687-a-better-way-of-deciding-the-national-championship
102 comments Last one added 7 months ago — Leave a Comment
Nathan B 7 months ago
I'm curious -- is the amount they pay the schools public knowledge? Is there some kind of database somewhere that shows how much money each school pays for these individual games? I'm amazed at the $$$ ... I knew it was high; I never suspected it was THAT high. All I can say is ... wow.
Also, another question from ignorance -- is there an NCAA rule that says you MUST have 12 teams to have a conference championship game?
Great article; a refreshing break from the usual. Though I still like the conference championship games, as a fan. I guess it's a guilty pleasure. =)
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 7 months ago
The rules are that a confernce CAN have a conference championship as long as the confernce has at least 12 teams and 2 divisions. There is no rule stating that if they qualify that they have to have one.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Hi Nathan! If you click on the link at the bottom of the article, it takes you to the database and shows all the payouts for all non-conference games. The conferences that hold championships are the BIGGEST offenders. No surprise there.
The NCAA will NOT allow any conference to hold a conference championship unless it has 12 teams.
CC's are fun to watch, but they have drawbacks, and this year, it's obvious. The SEC has a good one this year, but last year's was a little suspect when Tennessee got in, and Georgia was left out. They aren't necessarily TRUE championships of a conference- they minimize the importance of the conference, and stress more importance on each division.
Thanks for the pick!
Edit Comment Cancel
Patrick Murray 7 months ago
Lisa, How was the SEC game suspect last year? Tennessee and Georgia had the same record and Tennessee smashed Georgia 35-14 earlier in the year. Sure, after that game Georgia really took off and was one of the best teams in the nation, but Tennessee earned the right to play in that game by beating Georgia. And if divisions were eliminated it still would have been Tennessee-LSU. It ended up being a good game too with LSU winning 21-14
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Oleszek 7 months ago
The conference championship games are often ridiculous and don't feature the 2 best teams in conference. Then you have teams that upset in CCG's and are over matched in their BCS games.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Mike-
I agree. The biggest beef I have with them is they place more importance on one game than an entire season.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jim Neveau 7 months ago
Thanks for the knowledge Lisa. The thing that no one can explain to me is how Texas beat Oklahoma during the regular season, and somehow their defeat of the Sooners in Dallas was less impressive than the Red Raiders' defeat of the Longhorns in Lubbock. At least that's what I'm thinking the voters were thinking when they put Oklahoma in front of Texas. College football has a lot of weird flaws and quirks, doesn't it?
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Yes..personally, I think they should ditch the computers- they are causing more havoc than good.
I don't think the pollsters were comparing Tech's win over Texas vs OU's loss to Texas. Tech's huge loss to OU was a blowout and barely escaping Baylor were the probable reasons for their drop in rankings.
But yeah, it stinks.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tim Seeman 7 months ago
why doesn't the NCAA establish something in college football like men's basketball's ACC-Big 10 challenge/Pac-10-Big 12 challenge/Big East-SEC challenge? you could match up conferences based on historic bowl rivalries if you wanted. it would eliminate cupcake scheduling.
Take a weekend in August or early September, and have a pac 10-big 10 challenge, for example. ohio state-oregon state. iowa-arizona. wisconsin-washington. stanford-michigan state. penn state-usc. so on and so forth.
and raise your hand if you wouldn't watch games from a big 12-SEC challenge. didn't think so
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
While that's a great idea, I don't think it will happen because the conferences who hold CC games are the biggest offenders in cupcake scheduling. TT had two FCS schools on their sked, and two ACC teams had two FCS schools- Florida State and Clemson.
And yeah, I'm not raising my hand!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
*When I said two ACC schools scheduled two FCS schools, I meant the two schools who scheduled them were Clemson and Florida State, not that those two schools were FCS schools. It didn't read right. Sorry.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tim Seeman 7 months ago
my thought is that it would eliminate a game in which a BCS conference team would schedule an FCS or "mid-major" team like troy or tulane.
they probably couldn't "force" the big 12 or ACC or SEC to take part, though.
i think a big 10-pac 10 challenge would be sweet except for the fact that a big 10 team would have to find something else to do that weekend...
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 7 months ago
Here this was like one of the first things I wrote so it isn't written real well but it is basically an article about conference challenges.
I didnt single out conferences and tried to use all the major 6 so see if it makes sense.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/40099-college-football-conference-challenge
Edit Comment Cancel
James Colt 7 months ago
This is a very good article. However, instead of doing away with Baylor and Iowa St. they should just do away with divisions. Baylor, while terrible in football (though not the cellar dweller in the South this year) is very good in many other sports. You have to remember that football, while it may seem like it, isn't the only sport around. I think that is why Baylor got in the Big XII over TCU. TCU has a better football program, but not athletic department as a whole. Very good article about the greed of college football. Maybe next time you delve into the greed of the BCS system.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
James!
I would like to see the disappearance of divisions in football, because the whole point of them is to be the beginning of a playoff process- see NFL for perfect example.
As far as Baylor, well, they can take Baylor out while keeping the school still in the Big 12. Notre Dame is a Big East school, with only their football team being independent.
Thanks for the props, and where do I even begin with the BCS? It would be a novel of an article, and it's so obvious that the whole point of it is to garner as much money as possible, it wouldn't be anything new. We all know it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Stephan 7 months ago
I'm not sure I get the objection to the championship game. Because schools make money off of it? As far as I'm concerned, conference championship games are entertaining and that's what is important to me. I think every conference should have one.
I agree though, that these arbitrary divisions are ridiculous. Either teams should play only teams in their division or there should be no divisions within conferences. If there were no divisions, we would be getting a very important Big 12 championship game.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Andrew-
We that is my point, kind of. My beef is that unless every team plays evervbody else, you cannot reward a 3 loss team over a 1 loss team. Moreover, CCs are solely for monetary gain- Alabama, being undefeated, should be the qualifying champ. But because they don't play everyone, they have a CC.
Someday, there is going to be a 7-5 division champ playing a no-loss or 1 loss division champ, and the 7-5 team wins because of a key injury or something. It's absurd to reward a team the crown based on ONE game rather than an entire season.
If a Pac-10 team beats every team in its conference, why should there be a championship game? They beat everyone. Case closed. They are the champs. They have nothing left to prove, correct? Why should they have to play a team they already beat in the regular season? By forcing that, you are eliminating the importance of regular season play and stressing one game, not the season.
Edit Comment Cancel
Cody Blubaugh 7 months ago
It's about time someone brought up these damn Championship games. Everyone blames the BCS and that's the easy way out. These championship games complicate the BCS more than they already are!
I've been wanting to write an article like this one for so long, but I've been so damn busy. So Thank You Lisa, delivering as always!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Cody- You are so welcome, and thanks! :)
Edit Comment Cancel
Patrick Murray 7 months ago
Good article, but I think college football has so many dilemmas that seem unsolvable, like this year's Big 12 championship. Missouri should not be playing in this game, but even if divisions did not exist, two teams would have to be chosen from Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech to play. If conference championship games were eliminated they would still have to somehow pick a champion between those three and it wouldn'e be decided on the field.
The cupcake scheduling is pretty ridiculous and should stop, but I would like to point out that several SEC teams did schedule at least one good opponent. Florida with Florida State, Georgia with Georgia Tech, Alabama with Clemson, and Tennessee with UCLA. Maybe other teams need to form a non-conference rivalry like UF-FSU, UGA-GT, SC-Clemson, Michigan-Notre Dame, etc
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Patrick-
True, but keep in mind, there are tie-breakers in place to ensure there is no mess. Margin of victory would knock out Tech, and Texas would go due to head-to-head.
And yes, the SEC has DEFINITELY stepped up the non-conference games! (But I still think FCS schools should not be scheduled). It's padding a schedule.
Edit Comment Cancel
CS 7 months ago
Really? Are we sure Jim De(vil)any of the Little 10 isn't the only soul opposed to playoffs? *End sarcasm*
I wonder if the SEC has a similar payout system in place. If so, the President of Georgia making a case for an 8 team playoff last year was possibly in direct conflict of the financial interests of his school's Athletic Department.
Considering the fact that the SEC and (now) the Big 12 get so much love from ESPN, I believe going forward there might be considerable perceptional advantage for those conferences in the BCS system. Playoffs? "Bah, humbug!", says Scrooge. Mythical conference and national championships are here to stay!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
The Big Ten and the Pac-10 are opposed to losing their bowl tie-ins, as well as Miami and their tie-in to the Orange Bowl. The SEC, and other 12-team conferences are opposed to playoffs that involve 8 teams because the conference championships would have to be eliminated in order for the playoffs to happen- that is what I deducted from the BCS meeting's notes in Florida in April.
As far as the championship game, I read somewhere there is around 13 mil to be shared, with each team getting a percentage of what they contributed to the SEC. The total revenues from the last year averaged around ten mil. But I can't verify the source, sorry.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
If that's what it takes... for the conference championships to be eliminated for the playoffs to happen... then there is clearly a path to take to that end. But it requires (1) action by the NCAA, specifically with regard to conference size and/or permissibility of a conference championship game, and (2) most likely anti-trust action involving at least two of the three branches of the federal government (and possibly all three, based on the President-Elect's views on the matter).
If the BCS conferences (and the three holding championship games in particular) can be considered an anti-competitive cartel restricting participation of not only "mid-majors" but also their own members (Texas is this year's model, but there are several others in the now-11-year-history of the BCS), then there is a case to be made for "busting" the BCS in a way Boise State or Utah never could.
This may seem a long shot--but for those who doubt that it's possible, think back twenty years (before the most recent era of conference realignment) to 1988... The top four teams in the final (pre-bowl) AP poll were all independents (1. Notre Dame, 2. Miami-FL, 3. West Virginia, 4. Florida State) and SMU was in the second year of its "Death Penalty"... and consider what you would have said to someone from 2008 describing the current system. Of course, this is something that those under 30 or so may not be able to relate to; but just entertain the thought that *nothing* in college football is immune from change.
Edit Comment Cancel
Patrick Murray 7 months ago
I'm not advocating scheduling "cupcakes" but, I just thought of something interesting about it- the value of upsets. Seeing Appalachian State beat Michigan was amazing, but I realize this is a once every 50 years type of things, so scheduling FCS teams should not be allowed.
But, as for the smaller FBS schools from the MAC, Conf USA, and Mountain West, they make their money off of these games and it must be a great experience for some of these players to come in to historic powers and hold their own. No matter how miserable it was for me and fellow Vols fans, I'm sure the Wyoming players had the time of their lives coming into Neyland and beating the Vols and now they have a great story to tell their grandkids.
Just something to think about.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Patrick-
My only issue is with FCS schools. You can't always get BCS conference teams and some smaller schools from local FBS conferences are good with me- unless it's a perennial celler-dweller like Utah State. But yeah, MWC, MAC, CUSA etc are fine. It's teams like The Citadel that drive me nuts, or FOUR cupcakes like LSU's- that's embarrassing scheduling.
Edit Comment Cancel
Patrick Murray 7 months ago
Exactly, they should ban FBS vs FCS games. Florida State playing Chattanooga and Western Carolina is ridiculous, as well as Florida playing The Citadel. And yes LSU's non-conference schedule was laughable.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 7 months ago
Lisa I wrote a blog way back in the summer about Round Robin vs conference championships.
My main reasons for preference t Round Robin were
1. Possible co champions in both divisions and co-co-co champions even and of course thats what happenend.
2. The two best teams could be in the same divison. sometimes more than just the top 2.
3. Championship games being rematches from regular season games. (ACC)
4. Playing some but not all teams. The SEC can go on and on about how tough the conference is with all the great teams but how often do those teams actually have to play all the others?
5. i broke down to two parts.
the HAVE to play another TOUGH game
a) no rule saying it has to be played
b) they arent always that tough (BIG 12 Texas Colorado 2005 comes to mind. 70-3)
Very early post and probably not real well written. lots of stuff backing up my stance though.
http://community.foxsports.com/blogs/Olyduck/2008/06/29/Round_Robin_vs_Conference_Championship_Game_Pro_Round_Robin_Stance
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
David-
You kind of lost me with teams still being in divisions- that's my main gripe. As long as there are divisions in a conference, the champion will have to be determined by CCs.
The other problem is playing "tough games." Four years ago, Bama wasn't very good. Since they schedule sometimes five years in advance, what may look like a tough game five years ago, may not be the case now. Or vice versa.
Edit Comment Cancel
David Hedlind 7 months ago
I mentioned it earlier to another comment, the rules are a conference CAN have one if they have at least 12 teams and 2 divisions. there is no rule that says a conference has to have one and no rule saying that if there are divisions they have to have a conference championship game, just that they can. Then again it woundt make sense to have the divisions and not have one
I was refering to the argement that the championship game is always a "tough" game. those with it love to say that, but it isn't true
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Yes, I know David. But the whole reason why conferences try to have 12 teams is so they can have a CC- I don't know of any conference that has 12 teams and doesn't hold one.
Edit Comment Cancel
Aubrey Clark 7 months ago
Yada Yada Yada ... Okay, The Big 12 has a screwy system and we should be playing Texas. regardless, it doesn't matter to us ...
Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi .. Do you hear that Oklahoma? The fat lady's warming up ...
Go Gators!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Aubrey-
I hope you're right about the Gators...there have been some innuendo that Gators won't have enough points to jump Texas. I can't believe they wouldn't, but u never know in this messed up system. I hope they do.
Edit Comment Cancel
Richard Keenam 7 months ago
Hi Lisa,
I'm in total agreement with what you said and hope you came across my editorial "A BETTER WAY OF DECIDING WHOSE IN THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP?" My picture is about ten years old, so I'm old enough to remember the times when all of this was not quite such a big business. I understand that Bear Bryant insisted his salary was never higher than any faculty member and assume that was probably more or less the case nationwide, before greed completely took over.
I was fortunate enough to have been a member of Alabama Band in the 1954 Cotton Bowl, the game in which Tommy Lewis jumped off the sidelines and tackled Dick Moegel, who was well on his way to Rice's second touchdown. When any of our regular season opponents bands were not there, out of respect for them, we played their fight song when they ran out on the field. I've also lived in Big 10 and Big XII territory, whose fan base I always respected and at my first live home game in many years, definitely did not like the fan base, later understanding why SEC fans are considered the most obnoxious in the USA. I'm thinking of what I might compose that could spark a change in the way the SEC fan base operates, not to mention hoping to help blow to smithereens, the current BCS playoff system.
When I was in the Alabama Band, we were one of the bands of that time, which was considered the Golden Age of University Bands, when people most often stayed in their seats and watched the band performances. We were, at least during my time, rated second only to Ohio State. I have asked CBS about bringing up the "Golden Age" history of the bands of this time and have been told, that after the season is over, I will be helped in doing this.
Keep up the good work and let's see if we can help play a part in reversing the madness that has taken control of NCAA football. I'm currently pulling for Missouri, to help people realize how stupid this playoff system is.
Richard Keenam
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
I just read it, LOVED it, gave you pick of the day, and added the link to your article to my article. Thanks for sharing, and you and I think alike. Thanks for pointing me over there! :)
Edit Comment Cancel
Andrew Nuschler 7 months ago
Stellar work as usual.
I'm not sure how you fix the system b/c nobody wants to see student-athletes become de facto pro athletes and a lot of the revenue does go to schools, but it is ridiculous how big of a cash cow these major programs have become.
Think of all that money and it is being generated by players who get paid nothing. One might say they get an education for free, but not every kid is on scholarship and the ones who do receive one are probably the least likely to see heavy time in the classroom.
Then there's the tax-exempt status of the NCAA and the conference championships and the BCS and...
Something stinks but I can't put my finger exactly on it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Yep it stinks. And what you are smelling is the odor of fresh green cash.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
The BCS conferences in particular are already encouraging the development of what can only be described as "semi-professional" athletes. "Semi" in that they're currently not paid to play (but rather to attend school), "professional" in the size and scale of the athletic departments and their budgets relative to the universities to which they are theoretically affiliated.
And the profit, while it goes to the schools, does not enhance competition on the field; it detracts from it. A true competition would be less profitable, but then again, I don't watch sports with the aim of rooting for the richest or most profitable teams. College sports in particular should NOT be money-driven.
Edit Comment Cancel
John Barker 7 months ago
The Big 12 just needs to change their system by taking the BCS ranking out of the equation for determining who goes and have head to head matchups break the tiebreaker. It makes no sense to get rid of the championship game though. The big 10 & pac 10 should add a championship game. As a fan of an SEC team, our first goal is to get to the championship game. If you get there and win it, there is a good chance you're playing for the whole thing. That's the way it should be. The BCS may suck but at least we have a true conference champion that nobody can dispute.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Jihn-
Why should the Pac-10 and Big Ten get a championship game? Please explain why that is necessary? The Pac-10 is ONE OF THE FEW conferences in which everybody plays everybody. How else you can name a TRUE champions unless you play everyone in the conference? Please explain. And the Pac-10 can't hold a CC because they are two teams short. Did you not know that?
The only reason why teams race to get 12 teams is so they can have a CC....look at the ACC raping the Big East. Perfect example.
You cannot possibly believe the reason why the SEC holds a CC is because they want to have a championship. They did it for the extra cash.
You have a true conference champion? Are you sure? Did Florida and Alabama play everyone in the SEC? How can you be so sure that another team in the SEC that they didn't play might have beat them? Look at USC..they lost to Oregon State. IT HAPPENS!
Edit Comment Cancel
Nathan B 7 months ago
If the ACC "raped" the Big East, I don't think you could print the description of what the Big East did to Conference USA!
Edit Comment Cancel
John Barker 7 months ago
Lisa,
I am now more informed about the PAC 10 situation and therefore back off my call for you to have a CC game. I respect your conference but admittedly don't follow it very closely. However, I don't agree with you opinion about $$ being the only reason for a championship game. When you have interest in major sporting events, it only follows that money will be made. Money is not evil - especially when it's going to universities. There is never any controversy around the SEC championship game. This Big 12 CC game is boring as hell this year though.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
Other way.
I'd like to see the NCAA set a ten-team maximum (along with the requirement that teams in a conference play all other teams in their conference) and watch the SEC decide which two (or three) teams to jettison.
The logical choice would be the last two in: Arkansas and South Carolina... but somehow I have a feeling that one of them (or the third one) might be Vanderbilt...
Similar story with the Big XII. I'd be interested to see which two (or three) teams get the boot. Something tells me Texas wouldn't be one of them.
And I can think of one team that should never have been added to the ACC, regardless of the rules on conference size.
Edit Comment Cancel
Alex Ferguson 7 months ago
With the halftime score at 38-7 Oklahoma, I don't think that'll be the case
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
This Big 12 CC is a joke. A complete joke.
Mizzou doesn't look like they belong on the same field with Oklahoma. I rest my case. I was hoping they would show up, but OU is just too physical.
Edit Comment Cancel
Irish Mike 7 months ago
Lisa, if Mizzou didn't belong on the same field as OU(which you're correct, they didn't) why did you pick them to win the game in a previous article?
I'm not a huge fan of CCs either, and agree that they should be between the 2 best teams in the conference regardless of division....however, I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Irsih-
I was betting against Stoops' coaching them up for the game. He has been known to tank big games. (see BCS Bowl record in last five years and loss to Kansas State around 5 years ago)
Edit Comment Cancel
J Gator 7 months ago
I love the conference championships.
If 9-3 Missouri beats 11-1 Oklahoma, wouldn't it have the same effect as a playoff that everyone seems to want so badly? A clearly inferior team plays a great game and knocks off a team that had a better season.
Conference championships are a form of a playoff. In either, a great team loses to a lesser opponent and they're out.
I actually like most of your stuff Lisa, but I'm gonna have to go against you on this one.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
That's Ok. No worries. I maintain that Texas and Oklahoma should be playing for the crown, not Mizzou. It should be No. 1 vs No. 2, not No. 1 vs. No. 4.
CC games are not a form of a playoff, they are a form of generating revenues.
Edit Comment Cancel
Travis Hedgpeth 7 months ago
J, if 9-3 Missouri beats 11-1 Oklahoma, it will show exactly why conference championships are NOT a "form of a playoff." In a playoff system, winning a playoff game would get you closer to the goal of playing in the NC game. However, if Missouri beats Oklahoma (what I really mean is "if they would have beaten," since the game is over), they still stand no chance of getting to the title game. Sure, in OU's case it would be like a playoff because they would be knocked out of a run at the championship, but the same can be said of any big game (See Texas Tech vs. Texas).
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
Nope. Not the same effect as a playoff. If it were, Missouri would be in the BCS title game. After all, that's the spot reserved for Oklahoma right now, isn't it?
Conference championships are NOT a playoff. Whether or not a team "advances" depends on which team wins, which is antithetical to a playoff, in which a team such as Missouri (or Oklahoma, last year) would be eligible to participate in the national title game if it kept winning.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gerald Ball 7 months ago
Lisa:
Your thesis is untrue. First off, this notion of "playing cupcakes out of conference is bad" is new. It did not exist before the I-A/I-AA split in 1978. Before then, you had what are now I-AA teams such as Lou Holtz's William and Mary playing in major bowl games, so the idea that certain teams were cupcakes that the major powers should stay away from did not exist. The reason: there was no hard and fast such thing as a major power. The concept of "major", "mid major" and "lower major" did not exist before the ABC CFA contract forced conference realignments in 1991, including the formation of the Big East and pushing all the rest of the independents save Notre Dame and a few other dissenters into conferences. If it had, you do realize that Clemson, Georgia Tech, BYU and Miami would have been considered mid-majors and not been voted national champs, and FSU's rise to prominence would have been impossible. So teams did not stop playing mostly cupcakes out of conference because of conference title games. Rather, teams have always played weaker opponents out of conference. This practice of scheduling tough games out of conference is relatively recent, a product of BCS politics. And even there, you have the Pac-10's own Arizona scheduling Toledo, Idaho, and a New Mexico team that fired their coach. So, these schools have been doing what they always done. The only thing that has changed is the media (people like you) demanding that they do things different, usually to emulate whoever the media chooses as their favorite at a particular time. Right now it is USC, so we are supposed to believe that Florida playing the Citadel is so horrible even though Florida actually played more bowl eligible opponents than did USC. In the 1990s it was FSU ... the fact that they played Florida and Miami out of conference supposedly made them so much more deserving than Nebraska et al.
Lisa, this is why it happens. Only a few programs are actually competing for the national title every year, the so - called national programs like USC, Notre Dame, Miami, and FSU. Now Notre Dame, Penn State, Miami, and FSU developed this mentality in their days as independents when they had no conference to win, and also no major bowl tie ins. And as for USC, well I will leave that one alone.
Certainly, there are more big time programs than those, right? Well, the other major programs, i.e. the Big 8/Big12, Big 10, and SEC football factories, all they are concerned with is winning their conference. If you are Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Auburn etc. then it is all about 1) winning your conference, 2) beating your rival, and 3) winning the bowl game that you get as a result of 1), and in that order. Everything else is gravy. No one cared two cents about the nonconference games - especially if it isn't against a rival - because those games had nothing to do with your winning your conference and getting to a New Year's Day bowl (again, this is pre-BCS, when the idea of a team that did not win its conference being rewarded with an "at-large" trip to the Orange or Sugar Bowl would have actually been considered to be highly offensive; the few "at-large" bids that were available went to top 10 teams that were either independent or belonged to conferences without major bowl tie-ins) and could actually hinder you from that goal by distracting your kids from focusing on conference games or suffering injuries. So, if you aren't a "national program" (which again were either independents or USC, who lets face it has never really cared about Pac-10 titles) then you build your program around winning your conference, and everything else is gravy. (Incidentally, that is why Tuberville was ultimately shown the door: one SEC title in 10 years. Please recall that Mack Brown was in the hot seat at Texas not long ago for the same reason.)
So what if you aren't a powerhouse? Well then your goal was not to get some at-large bid (which again did not exist). It certainly was not to win a national title, which are hard to come by even for the powerhouses. (Only Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Miami have won more than 2 national titles since 1980.) No, if you were not one of the upper crust, say an Iowa or Kentucky your goal was to simply have winning seasons, which allowed your program to fill its seats (the only way to make money in the era previous to the big TV contracts, which the NCAA actually used to forbid before Notre Dame, Georgia, and several other schools sued in the early 1980s, a development that ultimately led to the creation of the CFA, the megaconference, and the conference championship game, and the BCS) and retain their coach so your athletic budget wouldn't be in the red. So, going out and scheduling all these tough opponents that will beat you, have your team playing home games in half empty stadiums, and having a revolving door head coaching situation was the last thing that, say, an Oklahoma State or Georgia wanted to see happen. For schools like that, making every nonconference game basically a homecoming game was the way to continue having a "major" football program.
So what you are advocating, a college football landscape where more than just the major powers play 9 conference games plus 3 nonconference games against tough competition, it has never been what has been done in college football. It has always been the powerhouse teams aiming at winning their conference and everyone else aiming at stability and survival. What the Pac-10 and Big East are doing now is a recent phenomenon, and moreover one that hasn't gotten any of those conferences squat. You don't build programs by talking about how you played all these tough road games and finished 7-5 or 8-4. You build programs - and maintain them - by winning as many games as you can against whoever. After all, name the first person who knows or cares that Georgia Tech played two Division I-AA teams this year. Doing the same only became an issue with Texas Tech because of the 3 way tie in the Big 12 South!
For decades, everyone has always presumed that teams who put up good records in tough conferences are themselves pretty good. The only reason for the change, the now modern habit of dismissing teams that have done well in competitive conferences as "overrated" based on their nonconference schedule, is to prop up teams whose conferences are not competitive and therefore posting good records in them is no real accomplishment. That would have been FSU in the 1990s and USC today. At least with FSU it was somewhat plausible, because FSU played Miami and Florida teams that were generally the champions of the SEC or Big East and therefore could take the place of beating a strong contender for the conference title. But this USC thing is ridiculous. Go back to 1973 or 1983 and tell either a college football fan or member of the media that a team who beat #4, #9, and #15 in conference play should be called "overrated" and be forced to take a back seat to a team that has no one in the top 15 in their conference because they played a bunch of 6-6 or 8-5 teams out of conference with the line "hey, it isn't our fault that Notre Dame isn't any good anymore!" would have been laughed out of town. No one at all would have been willing to claim that beating a mediocre team from a BCS conference instead of a I-AA team is more impressive than beating a top ranked team from another conference. Back then, people had the novel idea of actually judging your superiority based on the strength of the BEST teams that you had played, top 10 teams that would basically trade wins and losses with each other, not the WORST teams that everyone else in the top 10 would have also beaten 9 tries out of 10. People also had the opinion that playing a tough team inside your conference was harder than playing a tough nonconference opponent because of the fact that conference teams are familiar with each other, play a similar style, and recruit against each other.
But now we want to go and throw away these assumptions built up over many decades simply because the media's favorite teams, FSU then and USC now, play in conferences that rarely produce more than 1 top 10 and sometimes only one top 15 team a year. Beating 6-6 Notre Dame is now more important than running the gauntlet in a tough conference.
Sorry, but I like a college football game where the powerhouses focus primarily on winning their conferences and everyone else focuses primarily on getting to 8 wins so they can sell tickets and keep their coaches. It is what keeps college football A) viable and B) watchable.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Gerald-
I tried to comprehend everything you said, but not ALL teams schedule cupcakes, and in fact, FIVE teams since the late seventies or early 80's have NEVER scheduled FCS teams: Michigan State, Notre Dame, Washington, USC and someone else I can't remember. Those five teams have strived to make sure they keep the level of competition up.
As far as perceptions in conferences, I really don't care if a top team in a conference that is perceived to be weak dominates. If they play tough non-conference games, and beat everyone in their conference, then they should be eligible to be considered.
Conferences' strengths are hard to gauge when they play cupcakes out of conference. The only way to gauge how good a team is, is by out of conference play. Otherwise, a 11-1 Sun Belt team would be playing in an NC game.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
"First off, this notion of "playing cupcakes out of conference is bad" is new. It did not exist before the I-A/I-AA split in 1978. Before then, you had what are now I-AA teams such as Lou Holtz's William and Mary playing in major bowl games, so the idea that certain teams were cupcakes that the major powers should stay away from did not exist."
The I-A teams didn't want to share the increasingly rich pie with their poorer cousins, and so pushed through a division of Division I into "1st class" and "2nd class".
The I-A programs grew richer, while I-AA began a playoff immediately upon its formation. And that even wasn't enough for the "powerhouses". No, they wanted further separation from the "riff-raff" and "pretenders". So along comes the lawsuit against the NCAA by Georgia and Oklahoma, the formation of the CFA (and the Big 10/Pac 10 alliance with a separate television contract) to restrict the "money pie" even further, to a few dozen teams.
Is it any surprise that teams from the "fat cat" club will then stoop to conquer, and schedule games against teams from other divisions (FCS) or less-privileged teams from their own division (mid-majors)?
The blame for the corruption of college football scheduling lies squarely at the foot of the "powerhouses" you so adore.
The BCS/non-BCS division is not a legal one; it's artificial and anti-competitive. As such, it is eventually going to be (a) broken by legal action, or (b) obtain legal status, formalizing the division of Division I into three tiers (for football only, of course... in no other sport are the anti-competitive forces so dominant).
Sorry, but college football as it currently exists is neither (a) competitive nor (b) watchable (especially the postseason). It's profitable, but then again, so is human smuggling and other organized crime.
Edit Comment Cancel
Jeffrey McDaniel 7 months ago
Lisa,
I disagree with you slightly. I see your point about Conference Championships. They do generate a lot of money for the member universities. However, money is not the ONLY factor in play. In the case of the SEC, the game is designed to crown a champion on the field. The SEC, prior to the first SEC title game, had seen several teams tie for the conference championship (1988 - Auburn, LSU
1989 - Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee).
The entire system needs an overhaul, but to suggest that conferences that play a championship game should stop, is absurd because of the financial implications. A more likely solution, speaking in realistic terms, is for conferences like the Big 10 and Pac 10 to begin playing one as well. I realize that that may never happen, but the SEC and Big 12 will not kick member schools out.
And if a playoff won't work because of the conference championships, then scale the regualr season back to 11 games.
By the way, I think the fifth team not to schedule FCS teams is Tennessee.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
Jeffrey,
Even before the title games were implemented, and when the conferences were 10 teams (such as the SEC), they didn't play complete conference schedules. The excuse? That would leave them with just two conference games, instead of three or four.
Requiring teams to play complete conference schedules, capping conference size at 10 teams, and retaining the 12 game regular season (to allow three non-conferenc games... still a quarter of the schedule) would not eliminate ties for the conference championship, but it would significantly reduce them.
And as far as the conference championship games, they really aren't necessary EXCEPT in case of ties for the conference championship. Anything else demeans the regular season.
Edit Comment Cancel
Colonel Mike 7 months ago
Well stated!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Thanks Colonel.
Edit Comment Cancel
RedRaider Red 7 months ago
An excellent point, Lise.
Today, if Bama had won, they would've been the undisputed SEC champions. Now that Florida won, they can they both Bama and Florida have 1 SEC loss and H2H tiebreaker goes to FL. So again, no dispute here.
However, this is a rare and ideal situation which normally doesn't happen. Look at Ball St. yest who had one bad game and a 6-3 (conf record) Buff team gets the MAC over an 8-1 Ball St. team.
Thats just unfair.
Conf. championship games are bullshit.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
TT-
Thanks, and I agree. Some folks like the games, and they ARE exciting, but if their true goal is to crown a true champ, then they have missed the mark. Oregon State is a perfect example of why playing EVERYone in your conference is important. It leaves no lingering doubts about the legitimacy of the first place team- they played EVERYONE.
Edit Comment Cancel
Gray Ghost 7 months ago
Lise,
I won't take the time to add to all of the comments that have already been posted. I will say that this is the best article I have read on the mess that CFB is in as far as determining a champion is concerned. I have nothing but respect for Oklahoma, but Texas got ripped big time. GREAT article POTD!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
GG-
Thanks, and your Dawgs kinda got the short straw last year, so I am sure you can relate. LSU and Georgia were CLEARLY the two best teams in the SEC last year, but by virtue of division, only one could go from the East. SIGH.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 7 months ago
Lisa,
Competition -- I feel only the Big 12 C.C. was not representative of the best two teams in their conferences. The SEC's Florida and Alabama were their best. Arguably, BC and Va Tech were their best, though any of 4-5 teams might qualify.
Financial Benefit -- You're right about all the benefits. $800,00 per team is almost a million dollars total. As I pointed out in one of my articles, only 16 teams out of the 119 in FBS over three years turned a profit (without having to relying on "direct institutional support" money from their university). LSU can make $4-5 million per home game and had eight home games this year, paying lesser teams to play them. TV contracts, bowl monies divided equally, athletic gear contracts and increased ticket price incomes still, for most teams, do not make them profitable.
A beneficiary of this largesse is the smaller teams who use these games like against LSU to meet their budgets, especially for small state schools in budgetary crisis times.
So everyone is hooked, but especially non-BCS schools. Those schools' teams (55 teams) take in only 14% of all bowl money, do not have large stadiums, cannot increase ticket prices without worrying about less fans, and still have increased transportation, recruiting and coaching costs.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/64077-americans-love-the-little-guy-too-how-the-chattanoogas-win-the-money-games/show_full
(also cites the Des Moines Register article on payouts)
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
There is no doubt the patsies benefit from being the bigger school's punching bags. It's a win-win for them. However, it diminishes the legitimacy of these so-called elite teams playing inferior teams. Sure there's an upset every now and then, but it's rare.
The BCS IS cracking down on cupcake scheduling- if you sked more than 2 FCS teams, only one win counts. Clemson and FSU will drop, and so will Texas Tech.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Collins 7 months ago
My point as far as the conference championships was that, in the larger financial picture, it helps make almost all BCS college football programs nearly profitable - as well as funding small football program budgets (and other BCS school's smaller athletic programs/teams).
Do away with the Conference Championships and you will have to cut costs somewhere to keep programs afloat.
Besides, three of four C.C.s were competitive (including the MAC). I can't help thinking that the Pac-10 will be forced to expand and play a C.C., especially with the California economy. Purists still think of it as the Pac-8.
Edit Comment Cancel
Aubrey Clark 7 months ago
I believe that each BCS voter, and pundit should have their vote put to the "puppy" test before voting. The puppy test is very simple. Imagine that you were tied up by a crazed Mafia boss "Tony" who is holding a shotgun on your cute fuzzy little puppy.
You can save Sparky by uttering ONE word, and that word is the name of the best team in college football. The ONE team that is most likely to beat the others on any given day. If you say ANYTHING other than the name of the winning team, Sparky takes a dirt nap.
So, for Sparky's sake ... what one word are you going to utter ... Florida,Texas, Alabama, USC or Oklahoma
So, all we really need in order to fix the BCS without a playoff system is Tony Soprano's Crew, a box of fuzzy puppies and the names of those with a BCS vote...
Go Gators :-)
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
OU and Florida would be an offensive fireworks show. USC and Florida would be the best match-up, but SC didn't convince me they need to go. Texas has shown everyone that OU can be beat. It's a rough call, but I won't be shocked if it's OU and Texas.
Go Gators!
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
Unintended reinforcement of my previous point about human smuggling and organized crime (see above).
So the way the Gators won their back-to-back basketball titles is a total sham, I take it... as opposed to this much more "colorful" (particularly red) way of determining who belongs in a title game. ;-)
Edit Comment Cancel
Luke Sullivan 7 months ago
I'm not a Texas fan, but Texas got snubbed, NCAA Football needs a complete overhaul, and fast.
(playoff advocate talking)
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
amen.
Edit Comment Cancel
Kevin 7 months ago
Lisa-
I disagree with you there, the schools from the Big 12, SEC, ACC do schedule big games out of conference. OK played Cinci and FL played Florida State. You complain about non-conference games but yet your USC trojans schedule San Jose Sate in 2009 and Hawaii in 2010. The PAC-10 is no different than the SEC, Big 12 or ACC, they all schedule an easy game somewhere in the schedule. The biggest reason is because of scheduling. You can't always get the big games on the open dates you have so you have to take what is left.
What is any difference in playing easy non-conference games vs playing easy conference games out of conference? Hell people could say the same thing about scheduling Washington or Washington State this year.
I would put money on the citadel beating Washington or Washington State this year :).
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
The difference is you have no choice in playing your teams in a conference. Cincy escaped a win at Hawai'i. I wouldn't be touting Cincy too much. The Pac-10 plays everyone in their conference- there is no choice involved.
USC also has Boston College, Ohio State on their sked coming up. Please tell me who your team is and I'll match up USC's non-conference sked against it sight unseen.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
Until complete conference schedules are implemented, the point is moot.
For example, last year (2007) Kansas shouldn't have played Southeastern Louisiana (FCS), Toledo (mid-major), or Florida International (mid-major); it should have played Texas, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech.
The rule is scheduling weak non-conference opponents, and the "big" games are the exceptions that prove the rule. In fact, have Cincinnati claim as a conference champion a right to be in an eight team playoff (instead of limiting the postseason to a "two-team" playoff) and see how teams such as Oklahoma react.
This year Kansas should have played Oklahoma State, Texas A&M, and Baylor instead of Florida International, Louisiana Tech, and Sam Houston State. South Florida was the only meaningful non-conference game, as well as the only one that was on the road--and Kansas lost that game.
Really, it's not that complicated. Reduce non-conference schedules, or reduce conference size. But play complete conference schedules; there are legitimate reasons to form a conference in the first place, but holding a conference championship game isn't one of them.
Agreed with Lisa; there is a BIG difference between playing easy non-conference games and easy conference games.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
Lisa,
Thanks for coming around to my point of view.
No conference should have more than 10 members. No exceptions.
That allows for three non-conference games. There are 12 games allowed in a season now. No excuses for not playing every team in a 10-team conference.
Set a minimum of 8 members--I assume that's already the case for the "BCS" conferences, since the Big East had to scramble and recruit three "mid-majors" on short notice when the ACC nicked three of their teams.
All conferences should play complete conference schedules. No exceptions.
In return for conferences abiding by this rule, they *could* still hold championship games, provided that they matched the teams with the two best records--or if there's a three-way-tie, use something from actual competition such as point differential (eight or nine common opponents in that case, instead of the current FIVE?!?!).
Require that teams in "BCS conferences" have only wins against BCS conference opponents count as bowl-eligible (particularly for "BCS bowls"). Note that teams would still be free to schedule weak teams from non-BCS "mid-major" conferences or even the FCS (I-AA); just that those games won't count toward bowl eligibility. That would mean that teams that pad their non-conference schedule must find those magic six wins inside their conference, instead.
This rule would also apply to Notre Dame, of course. Army, Navy, and other independents (should there be any) would be required to drop to "mid-major" status if their schedules didn't include at least *nine* BCS conference opponents. Simple, isn't it?
For "mid-major" conferences, wins against any FBS (I-A) count as bowl-eligible, but those against FCS (I-AA) opponents do not.
So, for example, the Kansas Jayhawks would drop from 7-5 to 4-5 in terms of bowl eligible games, and thus be ineligible for a bowl (the requirement should stay at 6 wins); two of the seven wins came against "mid-major" teams, and one win came against an FCS (I-AA) team.
By contrast, Southern Miss would remain at 6-6 and still be eligible for a bowl, since it didn't schedule any FCS (I-AA) opponents.
If the case of Kansas is considered too harsh, then perhaps the differentiation between "BCS" and "non-BCS" conferences is artificial to begin with. Or to look at it from the other end: if the division between "BCS" and "non-BCS" is supposed to be a clear one, then the case of Kansas (and similar teams) losing bowl eligibility is *not* too harsh.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Scott! we agree! There is a God!
Edit Comment Cancel
Alex Ferguson 7 months ago
Hey Lisa,
I noticed your school - Florida- paid out $1.4m for weak-assed opponents....
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
Florida is not Lisa's school.
Lisa: he don't know you very well, do he? X-D
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Goar 7 months ago
it's her second fave, scott.
Edit Comment Cancel
Digital Sniper 7 months ago
I see resemblance to Urban Meyer in both appearance and personality. I think you're onto something here.
There is something illogical in this though. Urban Meyer attended the University of Cincinnati and she has a real problem, and the big east for some odd reason.
Nevermind that Big East teams beat SEC, ACC and Big 12 teams in their last 3 bowl appearances LOL, they don't deserve any bowl games.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Alex-
Florida is NOT my school...I didn't attend that school, although I do love their football program. I'm an SC girl. And there ya go...they paid a lot for weak opponents, although...Fla State and Miami aren't what I would call cupcakes. They are very respectable. The Citadel takes them down a notch though.
Edit Comment Cancel
Aubrey Clark 7 months ago
BANG!!! Sparky is dead ... Next puppy out of the box is Fluffy, let's try it again, ONE word.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
Playoff. :-p
Edit Comment Cancel
robert allred 7 months ago
Why is it that every article written about the Big XII have to take pot shots at Baylor? We weren't the worst team in the Big XII this year, or even the Big XII South? How about we show A&M some love?
And despite Baylor not having what I would call a successful season, to call them dreadful only proves to me you didn't watch the games, and are instead making that claim based on Baylor's past performances.
Baylor was a dropped INT away from beating Missouri. Instead Mizzou was able to kick a field goal that put them up for good. On the next drive, our true freshman QB threw his first interception of the season, and the game was lost. Not a great game, but I certainly wouldn't call it "dreadful".
Baylor also had Texas Tech on the ropes ON THE ROAD late into the last game of the season. In addition, Baylor had nothing to play for (as they had no hopes of post-season play) and Tech had EVERYTHING to play for (they still had MNC hopes). Baylor made some mistakes down the stretch that cost them the win, but I certainly wouldn't call that game "dreadful".
They lost by three in a game at Connecticut (now 7-5) in a game that could have gone either way. "Dreadful?"
They lost at Nebraska by 12 after giving up a halftime lead. More "dreadful" than the other three games I mentioned, but I still would certainly not call it "dreadful".
Baylor is by no means a world-beater, but for a perennial bottom-feeder with a true freshman quarterback and a new coach/system that is playing in the toughest conference AND division in the league, the Baylor Bears were anything BUT "dreadful" this year. Start watching the games, why don't you
By the way, the premise of this article makes no sense. What next, are we going to have only NFC teams in the NFL playoffs when the NFC is superior to the AFC. Are we going to have only the Western Conference in the NBA playoffs since the East has been down for so long?
That is the point of a conference championship. One division winner plays the other division winner in a "playoff" game for the conference championship. Makes sense to me!
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
robert-
I'll make this short and sweet. Baylor football has been irrelevant to BIG 12 football. At least Washington and Stanford have won Pac-10 championships this decade. Baylor is good at other sports, but when your asst coach gets caught peeing on a bar, ON A BAR, it kinda shows the reality of its football program.
Edit Comment Cancel
robert allred 7 months ago
Lisa: Let me make THIS short and sweet. I will completely acknowledge that we have been irrelevant in football since joining the Big XII. I didn't argue that. But I find it funny and sad that you, a "professional journalist", can't back up your claim that they had a "dreadful" year THIS YEAR!
My post was NOT about last year or the past decade. It was about THIS year. Baylor was not "dreadful" THIS year. The coach that was peeing on the bar was NOT this year, yet another pot shot by a "journalist". That was a coach on last years staff, which is no longer at Baylor University.
All I want from you is to explain how Baylor's season, a season with a new coach/system and a true freshman quarterback, was "dreadful" THIS year. We are talking about a team that was picked by most media outlet to win ONE game, and they won four, along with being VERY competitive against two teams that were at one point this season top 10 teams.
And your article still sucked, BTW
Edit Comment Cancel
Digital Sniper 7 months ago
LOL, the truth hurts so they removed my post, LOL.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
You mean the truth hurts "when" they remove your post.
Edit Comment Cancel
Kiah Jackson 7 months ago
I understand the anger towards a game like the one we had to watch last night. In all honesty though we all would have prefered a re-match of Texas Oklahoma but that would have been wrong, every conference that has a championship game has 2 sides to it and never does the game show 2 in the same side. Colt McCoy didn't get mad he said well we should have taken care of Tech and we wouldn't be in this situation, he's right.
I don't think its a joke, remember all the upsets that the Big 12 championship has had ? Its beautiful when the powerhouse team walks in and thinks they don't have to show up and they get beat.
Especially in the Big 12 its common
1996 #3 Nebraska lost to unranked Texas
1998 #2 was beat by #10 Texas A&M (Double OT)
2001 #3 Texas lost to Colorado (By 2 points)
2003 #1 Oklahoma was blown out by Kansas State
Regardless I love it.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
THEY BOTH HAD ONE LOSS. There should be no reason why one should be ranked higher than the team they lost to. NONE. Sorry. And Colt has class.
Edit Comment Cancel
Joey Coleman 7 months ago
All this talk is for nothing because when it comes down to it. All that matters is when you lose. Lose early you can come back from that.... Lose late and your national championship hopes are all but shot...
Edit Comment Cancel
John Barker 7 months ago
Lisa,
In reply to your comment below in quotes - how did the dogs get the short end of the stick last year? Tenn dominated them in the head to head matchup. This is exactly why our SEC championship system works. You allude to the sentiment that it is sad that the 2 best teams didn't play for the title. The beauty of competition is that upsets can happen. Jeez, it's not a popularity contest??? Every conference game is huge and the head to head matchups count. Our tiebreaker works. The Big 12 needs to adopt our tiebreaker system (which I think we'll see next year). Ah but I forget, it's only about money....
"GG-
Thanks, and your Dawgs kinda got the short straw last year, so I am sure you can relate. LSU and Georgia were CLEARLY the two best teams in the SEC last year, but by virtue of division, only one could go from the East. SIGH."
Edit Comment Cancel
Ryan J. 7 months ago
Yeah, I've been saying this for a couple of years now. The 12 team, 2 division conference setup is far from perfect. Though fans of teams in those conferences would try to convince you otherwise.
Edit Comment Cancel
Andy Crews 7 months ago
Lisa, you're a frickin' idiot. Baylor THRASHED both Iowa State (38-10) and Texas A&M (41-21) this year. You wanna talk dreadful football? Find a recording of an A&M game from this season. They were truly horrible. They lost to Arkansas State and very nearly lost to Army!
Somehow it has become fashionable to bash Baylor, usually by those who generalize the past 10-12 years into the whole history of Baylor football. The truth is, Baylor has had much more success historically than some of the other Big 12 teams - Kansas State, Kansas, & Iowa State to name three.
If Baylor had played A&M's schedule, the Bears would be playing in a bowl game. Ending up with a 4-8 record after playing the 13th toughest schedule of all FBS teams in the first year under a new coach hardly qualifies as "dreadful." (Did you happen to notice that Baylor plays Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech every year, and where those teams were ranked this year?) We actually improved over last year and expectations are high for continued improvement. Now, if only your research and writing could improve...
Edit Comment Cancel
Irish Mike 7 months ago
I agree Baylor gets bum-kicked a lot because of all the baggage they have to tote around ffrom previous years.
I also think Baylor has one of the most exciting new players in college football in Robert Griffin. If he can stay healthy, and Briles can continue to bring in new talent around him, they could be something special in a couple years.
However, I do think that the basic premise of the article is spot on.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
So let me get this straight...you are touting Baylor because Baylor beat a "truly horrible" A &M team? You sure you wanna brag about beating Iowa State? That makes sense. Baylor is a good 4-8 team? Are u kidding me?
Edit Comment Cancel
Digital Sniper 7 months ago
Ok, Cincy escaped a win in Hawaii. Therefore, Cincy doesn't deserve a bowl bid.
So, let's continue with similar reasoning.
Florida lost to Mississippi.
Vanderbilt beat Mississippi.
But, Mississippi State beat Vanderbilt.
Alas, Mississippi State lost to powerhouses (LOL) Louisiana Tech and Kentucky.
Therefore, Florida should be playing in the Grandma's Cookie bowl and Texas and Oklahoma should be playing in the national championship game simply because they lost only to good teams. Nevermind they play in the same conference, it's immaterial in a discussion that attempts to derive a formula that used in a set of fairness equations.
Now, is this absurd. Well yes it is.
But it is no less absurd than applying 1st grade arithmetic to derive fairness in a system where random variables so often interfere with outcomes.
It's the unpredictability of football games that keeps us watching. If it weren't, then watching the Harlem Globe trotters would be more interesting.
Edit Comment Cancel
Kevin 7 months ago
If you are going to go with that argument then Alabama has more rights to the NCG than either Texas or OK.
Edit Comment Cancel
Digital Sniper 7 months ago
Ok, I know what I'm dealing with here.l
(1) I used an absurd example not inconsistent with the thinking that is represented by what is written on these boards.
(2) It's really not that complicated.
Edit Comment Cancel
Lisa Horne 7 months ago
Cincy has TWO losses, while other undefeated teams and one-loss teams don't get to go BCS bowling.
Florida has one loss. There isn't a comparison. Sorry.
Edit Comment Cancel
Scott Pusich 7 months ago
Last I checked the NCAA Div. I basketball PLAYOFF was unpredictable, too.
Nothing unique about FBS football, dude. Except the fact that it's too corrupt to hold a playoff.
Edit Comment Cancel
Aubrey Clark 7 months ago
Andy, Baylor? The 4 teams they beat this year had 20 wins combined, and only one of those teams was batting better that 500. Seriously, Baylor? "If Baylor had xyz's schedule they would've done what? Knock Knock, Hello Mcfly .. it's Baylor.
Andy, the bright moment you have had on this board is when you failed to fill out your bio, and I really cant blame you. Baylor?
Edit Comment Cancel
Joey Coleman 7 months ago
I agree that CC do not always feature the best of teams, but the whole non conference thing is kind of off topic because it has no influence on who plays in the CC b/c it is all based on your record in the conference...
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.