The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Jeff Lebowski]

Bowlsby insists that expanding to 12 just to get a championship game would be a dumb move.

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writ...r-playoff-snub

Bowlsby reiterated there is no partner(s) for Big 12 expansion that make sense at the moment. The most mentioned candidates – Cincinnati, Connecticut, Memphis, BYU, South Florida, Central Florida – do not bring the equity to the table that matches the annual Big 12 per-school payout from the media contracts -- $22 million.

"That's right," he said. "Even more than that -- it's academic, it's competitiveness, it's geography, it's scope of program …

"Just getting to 12 so you can have a playoff is among the worst reasons to expand."

And claims that they will get an exemption from the NCAA anyway.

The Big 12 already is partnering with the ACC to sponsor legislation that would adjust the NCAA bylaw requiring conferences to have divisions of at least six teams (at least 12 total) to stage a conference championship game. Their initiative is expected to have wide support. But because of upcoming NCAA governance change it is not clear when the bylaw could be adjusted so that the Big 12 could have a championship game with only 10 teams.

[Crockett]

"Just getting to 12 so you can have a playoff is among the worst reasons to expand."

Well the Pac 12 expanded to get to 12 teams to have a playoff and now it is in the inaugural playoff and the Big 12 did not and is not. Yeah, worst reason ever.

[Commando]

Well the Pac 12 expanded to get to 12 teams to have a playoff and now it is in the inaugural playoff and the Big 12 did not and is not. Yeah, worst reason ever.

Seriously- that's what I was just scratching my head about. What other reason is there? Money? That's a better reason than getting into the playoffs? Secondly, getting into the playoffs doesn't ultimately make the conference money?

Someone's playing dumb until they actually get around to getting denied the 10 team championship game and then eventually expanding, if you ask me.

[Paperback Writer]

Bowlsby insists that expanding to 12 just to get a championship game would be a dumb move.

http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writ...r-playoff-snub


And claims that they will get an exemption from the NCAA anyway.

As others have stated, I doubt the Big 12 gets an exemption. Playing a CCG was the reason the PAC-12 and B1G expanded in the first place because they were being hurt by the BCS system with the Big 12 and SEC playing CCGs. If a conference only needed 10 teams to play a CCG, I wonder if the SEC would have expanded with Arkansas and South Carolina. The Big 8 could have gotten away with only adding Texas and Texas A&M and the PAC-12 wouldn't have had to add Colorado and Utah. If academics and geography were that important, West Virginia would not be in the Big 12. My hope is that the playoffs expand to 8 teams with a provision that only teams who win a P5 CCG get an automatic slot.

[Commando]

My hope is that the playoffs expand to 8 teams with a provision that only teams who win a P5 CCG get an automatic slot.

*Also, at-large teams who finish in the top 10 may also be selected?

[Joe Public]

I don't know. It's just one year. If FSU had lost to GT and OSU had lost to Wisconsin, then the BigXII would likely have two teams in and the ACC and B1G would have zero. It hurt them this year, but I still think it's riskier on average for the teams that are forced to play a quality opponent at the end via a CCG. Time will tell, perhaps.

[Donuthole]

I don't think they're going to get an exemption, but I do agree that expansion based on this year's B12 shutout would be short-sighted. It was pretty much a perfect storm that kept the B12 out of the playoff, and it's extremely unlikely that such a scenario ever happens again. And that doesn't even account for the fact that the playoff is all but destined to expand to 8 teams within the next decade, if not sooner.

[Pelado]

I don't know. It's just one year. If FSU had lost to GT and OSU had lost to Wisconsin, then the BigXII would likely have two teams in and the ACC and B1G would have zero. It hurt them this year, but I still think it's riskier on average for the teams that are forced to play a quality opponent at the end via a CCG. Time will tell, perhaps.

I don't think they're going to get an exemption, but I do agree that expansion based on this year's B12 shutout would be short-sighted. It was pretty much a perfect storm that kept the B12 out of the playoff, and it's extremely unlikely that such a scenario ever happens again. And that doesn't even account for the fact that the playoff is all but destined to expand to 8 teams within the next decade, if not sooner.

Unfortunately, I think you guys are both right.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't think they're going to get an exemption, but I do agree that expansion based on this year's B12 shutout would be short-sighted. It was pretty much a perfect storm that kept the B12 out of the playoff, and it's extremely unlikely that such a scenario ever happens again. And that doesn't even account for the fact that the playoff is all but destined to expand to 8 teams within the next decade, if not sooner.

Extremely unlikely? No way. I could see this happening rather frequently. And in some cases it could prevent a second team from being in the playoffs.

Less of an issue if you expand to an 8-team playoff. But even then you will always have controversy on the bubble.

[creekster]

Extremely unlikely? No way. I could see this happening rather frequently. And in some cases it could prevent a second team from being in the playoffs.

Less of an issue if you expand to an 8-team playoff. But even then you will always have controversy on the bubble.

but controversy on the bubble at 8+ teams probably won't implicate CCG as much as other deciding factors (whatever they end up being)

[Jeff Lebowski]

but controversy on the bubble at 8+ teams probably won't implicate CCG as much as other deciding factors (whatever they end up being)

Good point. Conf winners would probably be in top 4-5 slots anyway.

[Paperback Writer]

I don't know. It's just one year. If FSU had lost to GT and OSU had lost to Wisconsin, then the BigXII would likely have two teams in and the ACC and B1G would have zero. It hurt them this year, but I still think it's riskier on average for the teams that are forced to play a quality opponent at the end via a CCG. Time will tell, perhaps.

Totally agree - there's much more risk in playing a CCG because there's a fair probability that a highly ranked team can be knocked off. The Big 12 knows this quite well: 1996-Texas upsets Nebraska; 1998-Texas A&M upsets Kansas St.; 2001-Colorado upsets Texas; 2003-Kansas St. upsets OU; 2009-Nebraska is 0:01 from upsetting Texas.

The Big 12 doesn't want to take the risk of playing a CCG. But that's not fair to other conferences who play a CCG. And it's not fair to other conferences who have expanded in order to play a CCG.

As far as the argument that expansion dilutes payouts to the rest of the conference, I have only crocodile tears. Since all this conference realignment began, the only programs who may have added revenue, rather than dilute it, to the conference they joined are Nebraska and Texas A&M. Perhaps the Big 12 should have done more to keep them.

[Y84it]

What is the most frustrating part to me is he keeps talking about how no team out there produces enough influence/prestige to get the 22 million share. You can't tell me TCU, WVU. Iowa State. Kansas, etc produce 22 million each to the B12. In fact BYU probably brings in more revenue than Iowa State and TCU together. OU and Texas are supplementing those other teams. Why dont conferences kick teams out when they don't pull their weight?

[The_Douger]

Utah and Colorado didn't bring their share to the PAC. Neither did Rutgers and Maryland to the B1G. TCU and WVU are getting paid based on what the Big 12 was with TAMU, Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri. Those two didn't bring enough by themselves to make up for the loss of those four teams. It's a ridiculous argument.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What is the most frustrating part to me is he keeps talking about how no team out there produces enough influence/prestige to get the 22 million share. You can't tell me TCU, WVU. Iowa State. Kansas, etc produce 22 million each to the B12. In fact BYU probably brings in more revenue than Iowa State and TCU together. OU and Texas are supplementing those other teams. Why dont conferences kick teams out when they don't pull their weight?

This is a cute post.