Jimbo Fisher Comment on Big 12

[YNot]

^^ This is the rule that the Big 12 and ACC are trying to amend. They want to have the right to stage a conference game regardless of the number of members in the conference and without having to have two separate divisions.

Such a scenario would enable the Big 12 to have a conference championship game with the current configuration, if wanted. It would also allow the ACC to avoid conference championship matchups like Florida State-Duke in 2013.

Another potential advantage with the rule change would allow a conference's members to play each other much more often. For instance, Instead of being required to play the 6 other teams in your division and just 1 or 2 cross-division games, you could play 8 or 9 teams out of 13 each year, such that you are playing EVERYONE in your conference at least once every other year. In most cases, you would play everyone in about 2 out of 3 years, or at least 3 out of 5.

[scott715]

Okay, here is an idea, the BIg12 gives us and some one else a scheduling agreement for 8 games. The two new schools keep their tv contract and split the championship money. They get the CG game, keep their split of the tv contract and add games to the tv inventory to keep their media partners happy.

[Cougarfan87]

The other thing to consider is, why do you have to go to twelve teams to have a championship game? You can still have two divisions of five each, play the other four in your division, three of the other five in the other division and schedule deals with the PAC12, ACC, SEC, and Big10 and maybe one instate non-power school to fill in the holes.

Even assuming a championship game is required, expansion is not the only way for the Big 12 to have a championship game and not have to split the pie anymore. It helps, but it is far from a sure thing.

Personally, I hope they do expand to pick up BYU, but if I were the conference commisioner, I would probably go with my plan above to avoid splitting the revenue even further and demonstrate that the conference is willing to schedule games with the other conferences.

NCAA rule 17.9.5.2 (c) states “a conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division.”

I see. Although, technically, this is just the exception to the 12 game cap. They could all play 11 games and still have a championship game, but I doubt they would seriously consider cutting one game of revenue to avoid expansion. It is more likely they will seek a change in the rule, like the PAC10 wanted four years ago before they backed off and added Utah and Colorado. Hopefully, we have a similar result and the Big 12 adds BYU and someone else, or in the alternative, we get a scheduling alliance that allows us to beef up our SOS and have a legitimate chance at a playoff spot. I actually would prefer the latter because I do love BYU coming out East every year so I get to see a game live now and then. When they were in the MWC, I only saw one game...the Las Vegas bowl. Independence has been great for my access to the team, both in person and on TV.

[scott715]

Stoops Big 12 vs Saban SEC

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... ion-remark" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[imuakahuku]

One funny thing with playing everyone once is the chance (that seems to happen quite often) of three teams tying with the same record and each sharing a win over one of the others (eg. OK beat TX, who beat Baylor, who beat OK and all finish 11-1 or 10-2 with only one conf loss). In this case it could only go on SOS for the tourney to pick one of the three or none. Also, it would put to rest the moniker "One true champion". Or worse yet, a team going 9-3 but going undefeated in conf and winning it over a team with only one loss (e.g. TX goes 11-1 with one conf loss to OK and OK goes 9-3 with 3 OOC losses).
They are going after the rule change so they can stay at 10 but it also puts them in a bind because if things turn out that way (more power to the 5) the Big 12 would have the least power of the 5 because they would have the least total # of votes (provided the 5 go to some sort of representative figure per institution per conference. The $ won't mean squat if they end up the weak conference. If this happened I could see the Pac trying to gobble up Tx and OK and two others.

[Cougarfan87]

One funny thing with playing everyone once is the chance (that seems to happen quite often) of three teams tying with the same record and each sharing a win over one of the others (eg. OK beat TX, who beat Baylor, who beat OK and all finish 11-1 or 10-2 with only one conf loss). In this case it could only go on SOS for the tourney to pick one of the three or none. Also, it would put to rest the moniker "One true champion". Or worse yet, a team going 9-3 but going undefeated in conf and winning it over a team with only one loss (e.g. TX goes 11-1 with one conf loss to OK and OK goes 9-3 with 3 OOC losses).
They are going after the rule change so they can stay at 10 but it also puts them in a bind because if things turn out that way (more power to the 5) the Big 12 would have the least power of the 5 because they would have the least total # of votes (provided the 5 go to some sort of representative figure per institution per conference. The $ won't mean squat if they end up the weak conference. If this happened I could see the Pac trying to gobble up Tx and OK and two others.

They have seemed to figure out how to keep colleges from jumping with the grants in TV rights. I think the biggest argument for expansion is to get close to sixteen so that your conference isn't gobbled up by all of the other conferences that only need two more teams. Think about it. Pac12 needs 4 to get to the magical 16 teams, SEC, ACC, and Big 10 need two more each (I think). So, after these 10 year TV deals are up, the Big 12 seems like the perfect conference to be gobbled up by the other big conferences--or at least take all of the good teams so there is nothing left. Then you have four superconferences, each with a lock on one of the four playoff spots...with some qualifying criteria (10 wins or something). To prevent it, the Big 12 should expand to 14, so that the conference at least appears stable and will not be the one that is picked apart should another round of cannabilization occur after this 10 year period.