The Big 12 expansion groundswell

[Uncle Ted]

One of the concerns the Big 12 may have going back to 12 teams is losing an at-large selection. One would think that the Big Ten has thought about this as well. How will expansion and a likely championship game impact the Big Ten's at-large BCS hopes?

A title game ensures one more loss for one of the Big Ten's top BCS at-large hopefuls. If the Big Ten goes to a nine-game conference schedule, an option athletic directors are considering, it means nine more losses for the conference.

It's very likely the Big Ten won't have as many attractive candidates for BCS at-large berths as it did before expansion.

Could the Big Ten soon become a one-bid league?

"I’ve looked back at it and I don’t think you can quantify that [a championship game] has made a whole lot of difference," BCS executive director Bill Hancock said this week. "The jury’s still out on the effect of championship games of how many teams you get in the BCS. We’ll know more when Big Ten and Pac-10 go to championship games, but I don’t see a tremendous advantage or disadvantage."

It has worked out pretty well for the SEC:

The SEC has only two fewer BCS appearances (19) than the Big Ten and has received at-large berths in each of the last four seasons. While the loser of the SEC championship received at-large berths in each of the last two seasons, five of the SEC's at-large berths went to teams that didn't reach the league title game.

Translation: the Big Ten still could be in good shape for at-large berths, but the loser of the league championship game might want to make alternate plans.

"Conferences that deserve [at-large berths] are getting them," Hancock said. "The at-large spots are filled by the bowls, and they’re choosing those teams for the same reasons they’ve always used."

Those reasons include name recognition and size of fan base, two categories where the Big Ten [and the SEC] excels.

On the other hand, the Big 12's experience has been a little different:

Let's look at the Big 12, another league with a championship game. The Big 12 has made 17 BCS bowl appearances but sent multiple teams to the big bowls on only five occasions. The Big 12 title game loser has only reached the BCS once: in the 2003 season when Oklahoma qualified for the BCS championship game despite a 35-7 loss to Kansas State a month earlier.

In most years, a loss in the Big 12 title game seals a team's BCS fate. Missouri got passed up for Kansas in 2008 even though Missouri beat the Jayhawks to reach the Big 12 title game, where it got pummeled by Oklahoma. Colorado lost the Big 12 championship game in 2002, 2004 and 2005 and each time failed to receive a BCS at-large berth.

Of course, no one wants to watch Colorado and they will soon be no longer part of the Big 12.

[LiveCoug]

Of course, no one wants to watch Colorado and they will soon be no longer part of the Big 12.

Those years that CU went to the Big 12 champ game their record was:

2002 9-4
2004 7-5
2005 7-5

No matter what conference, no team with that record is going to get an at large bid regardless of the fact they made the champ game.....

[SoCalCoug]

Where did you dig up that old fossil, Norm Stewart? A noodling tournament down in Cooter Missoura? Missoura sowed a small breeze lifting her skirt to the Big 10 and reaped a dam Whirlwind.

I remember Norm Stewart making some sort of threat against another coach's daughter or something like that years ago. He's a bad guy, and I've always hated him since then.

[Uncle Ted]

More Big 12-2 speculation and how it may change BCS bowl bids:

But no one's hiding from the importance of scheduling. The headache of scheduling four nonconference games per season should be gone soon from the Big 12, but another headache might make a cameo in December if a weak nonconference schedule and a down year in the Big 12 leaves a conference team out of the championship or just out of the running for an at-large bid into the BCS.

"I know that because of the strength of schedule being factored into the computer rankings, I know that who you play makes a significant difference. And I know that coaches are aware of that," Hancock said. "And I suppose adding a conference game to your schedule and doing away with a nonconference game will change some people's thinking, but again, I think it's too early to speculate on how that change might be manifested."

Speaking of strength of schedule, Bleacher Report (take with a huge grain of salt) claims that Texas benefits the most from its 2010 "soft" schedule. BSU and TCU both benefit from their soft schedules as well.

[Babs]

More Big 12-2 speculation and how it may change BCS bowl bids:



Speaking of strength of schedule, Bleacher Report (take with a huge grain of salt) claims that Texas benefits the most from its 2010 "soft" schedule. BSU and TCU both benefit from their soft schedules as well.

Here's the thingofit. Assuming they're still coming out with 1-2 losses, any year that Texas is not the Big 12 champ, they're still going to a BCS bowl. This is because the Nacional Universidad de Mejico has a larger following and sells more stuff than any other school.

OTOH, in the rare years that Texas is the Big 12 champ, the other schools are going to have a really tough time picking up an auto-bid.

[jay santos]

Worrying about getting a second team in a BCS bowl seems like a short sighted reason not to expand. Conf champ game generates as much as a BCS game. And who knows if there will even be a BCS in 10 years.

[Uncle Ted]

Here's the thingofit. Assuming they're still coming out with 1-2 losses, any year that Texas is not the Big 12 champ, they're still going to a BCS bowl. This is because the Nacional Universidad de Mejico has a larger following and sells more stuff than any other school.

OTOH, in the rare years that Texas is the Big 12 champ, the other schools are going to have a really tough time picking up an auto-bid.

OU has been to more BCS bowls in the last 10 years than Texas. Although they should maybe not let Chokelahoma go any more given their BCS bowl record.

[Babs]

OU has been to more BCS bowls in the last 10 years than Texas.

That's because Oklahoma has won the Big 12 title six of those years. Texas has only won twice. Oklahoma has never had an at-large bid.

[Uncle Ted]

That's because Oklahoma has won the Big 12 title six of those years. Texas has only won twice. Oklahoma has never had an at-large bid.

In the 2008-2009 season Texas deserved the at-large bid given they beat OU at a neutral field but Oklahoma still got to play in the championship game instead of them. (Stoopid Tech)

In the 2004-2005 season Texas got the at-large bid given the selection committee knew that the horns would make an exciting game of it instead of losing by 30+ points like some other Big 12 team.

[Babs]

In the 2008-2009 season Texas deserved the at-large bid given they beat OU at a neutral field but Oklahoma still got to play in the championship game instead of them. (Stoopid Tech)

In the 2004-2005 season Texas got the at-large bid given the selection committee knew that the horns would make an exciting game of it instead of losing by 30+ points like some other Big 12 team.

You silly homer, you're missing my point.

You guys were arguing about whether Big 12 teams will still get at-large bids. I am arguing that Texas will (in years when it qualifies but doesn't auto-bid), but that the others won't. You said, "how's that? OU's been to the BCS loads of times!" I pointed out that while this is true, this is only because Oklahoma has dominated the conference. OU has never once been offered an at-large bid, and for good reason. OU offers nothing the execs look for: no novelty, no large tv market, and no guarantee of a competitive game. Texas, on the other hand, has a larger fan base and tv market than any other team in the country, sells oodles of gear, is a strong bowl team, and is a no-brainer as an at-large.

I think that with the changes in the Big 12, the other teams will have an uphill battle garnering at-large nods.

[Uncle Ted]

You silly homer, you're missing my point.

You guys were arguing about whether Big 12 teams will still get at-large bids. I am arguing that Texas will (in years when it qualifies but doesn't auto-bid), but that the others won't. You said, "how's that? OU's been to the BCS loads of times!" I pointed out that while this is true, this is only because Oklahoma has dominated the conference. OU has never once been offered an at-large bid, and for good reason. OU offers nothing the execs look for: no novelty, no large tv market, and no guarantee of a competitive game. Texas, on the other hand, has a larger fan base and tv market than any other team in the country, sells oodles of gear, is a strong bowl team, and is a no-brainer as an at-large.

I think that with the changes in the Big 12, the other teams will have an uphill battle garnering at-large nods.

OK, I agree with one of your points about OU.

BSU and Utah are comparable to OU with your other points but they seemed to somehow get at-large bids in the recent past. I would even throw in TCU but someone would argue they totally command the DFW tv market somehow.

Edit: FYI, I gave up on my Simpsonized avatar. You're right. He looked like a dork.

[Babs]

OK, I agree with one of your points about OU.

BSU and Utah are comparable to OU with your other points but they seemed somehow to get at-large bids in the recent past. I would even throw in TCU but someone would argue they somehow command the DFW tv market.

BSU, Utah, and TCU all offer novelty, which was the first criterion I mentioned that OU lacks.

you know, I do think there's potential for one of the other eight Big 12 teams to still make an at large game, like when the Jayhawks made the Orange Bowl a couple of years ago, but it won't happen very often.

[Jacob]

You silly homer, you're missing my point.

You guys were arguing about whether Big 12 teams will still get at-large bids. I am arguing that Texas will (in years when it qualifies but doesn't auto-bid), but that the others won't. You said, "how's that? OU's been to the BCS loads of times!" I pointed out that while this is true, this is only because Oklahoma has dominated the conference. OU has never once been offered an at-large bid, and for good reason. OU offers nothing the execs look for: no novelty, no large tv market, and no guarantee of a competitive game. Texas, on the other hand, has a larger fan base and tv market than any other team in the country, sells oodles of gear, is a strong bowl team, and is a no-brainer as an at-large.

I think that with the changes in the Big 12, the other teams will have an uphill battle garnering at-large nods.

How many times has OU been passed over for an at-large bid?

2009 - not deserving, not eligible
2006-08 - went to bcs bowls
2005 - highest ranking 23, not eligible or deserving
2002-2004 - BCS bowl games
2001 - 2 losses going into bowl game, lost to OSU in BIG 12 championship
2000 - BCS Bowl
1999 - 5 losses
1998 - more loses

Conclusion - OU has absolutely nothing to complain about. When they didn't make a BCS game, it was because they were not eligible, with one possible exception in 2001, but their final ranking was 11.

I suspect that OU would always get an at-large bid every year it end up in the top 5-8 and is not the Big 12 champ. Just like Texas.

[Babs]

lol. you guys are killing me.

[Uncle Ted]

BSU, Utah, and TCU all offer novelty, which was the first criterion I mentioned that OU lacks.

you know, I do think there's potential for one of the other eight Big 12 teams to still make an at large game, like when the Jayhawks made the Orange Bowl a couple of years ago, but it won't happen very often.

BSU may offer some novelty considering the short time they have been D1A.

You might have a point about the Jayhawks. They were selected over Mizzou who beat them during the regular season and won the north division. Kansas was still selected for the at-large even though they were ranked #8 and Mizzou was ranked #6. Of course, this is one of the reasons the Big 12 doesn't like the championship game and seemed like an obvious "hand picking" by the BCS. The BCS's argument was that Mizzou had lost two games (even though it was to the same team, OU) and, therefore, didn't deserve to be in a BCS bowl game. Of course, I would rather watch the Jayhawks play rather than the Tigers any day.