Big 12 2014 Season

[Future]

and for those following along that can at least use the internet to check schedules....

How 3-3 can be better than 7-3:

Number of Bowl wins over top 10 opponents: SEC 0, Big 12 1.
Number of Bowl losses to teams ranked outside the top 10: SEC 1, Big 12 0.
Head to Head in Bowls: SEC 1-Big 12 1 with the Big 12 winning the higher ranked match up and more marquee bowl game.

You're making this an argument about like the top 3 or 4 teams in a conference, ignoring the conferences as a whole. There were 4 more bowl teams from the SEC...which is a massive point talking about how a conference is good OVERALL that you are trying to diminish with what happened in two games.

 

[Future]

From a historical perspective, if you go back to 2000, it isn't even close. There has been 2 champions from the Big 12, OU in 2000 and Texas in 2005. In that same time period, LSU (2), Auburn (2), Alabama (3), and Florida (2) have all won. That's 9 out of 13 and none of those teams had more than 2 losses, which only happened once.

 

[joseephuss]

The games that were played?

The SEC didn't win a single Bowl game they were the underdogs in.
There were vastly overrated entering the Bowls and left without a championship and with their marquee school eating a 14 point loss.

The Big 12 was only 3-3 but those 3 losses were to #9 Oregon with an unranked team, #5 Missou with #17 OSU, and #10 UCF over #13 Baylor.

.

So you excuse the Big 12 bowl losses because they came against highly ranked teams, but you don't do the same for the SEC? That is illogical.

The SEC may have been overrated last season(this year, too). That doesn't mean they still weren't the better conference. Perhaps it wasn't by as wide a margin as some made it out to be(hence overrated), but they were still better.

That is great that you just don't follow the sheep, but that doesn't mean you are following a good path, either.

 

[jterrell]

So you excuse the Big 12 bowl losses because they came against highly ranked teams, but you don't do the same for the SEC? That is illogical.

The SEC may have been overrated last season(this year, too). That doesn't mean they still weren't the better conference. Perhaps it wasn't by as wide a margin as some made it out to be(hence overrated), but they were still better.

That is great that you just don't follow the sheep, but that doesn't mean you are following a good path, either.

I am not excusing anything.
I am posting basic facts.

On the whole the SEC was over-rated in 2013. That showed when their two best teams lost games where they were favored to win in Bowls.

Only 6 Big 12 teams were bowl eligible and the 6th beat a ranked P5 opponent by 2 TDs in a game that wasn't nearly that close.
Two of the ineligible teams were 7th and 8th place WVA and TCU... and we see how they've fared this season with largely the same casts.
That was the talent and depth the Big 12 had last year. Those two teams went 2-7 in the Big 12 which is why they weren't eligible.
The last two bowl eligible teams won by 30+ combined versus P5 opponents.
The ONLY Bowl losses for the conference were to top 10 teams.

The SEC is the better conference THIS year.
But not better to the extent people pretend.

I watch a ton of college football and while I am biased towards the Big 12 I see plenty of games that have nothing to do with the conference.
I watched Clemson go from early control of that game versus GT to nothing when they lost Watson. They literally couldn't get a 1st down with the banged up back up QB.
I watched FSU play normal 2014 FSU ball and suck for a half then do enough to win.
I've watched a ton of SEC football including every second of the Bama/LSU game where both teams tried to lose by dropping the football and playing just awful overall.
I've also seen Bama look like an NFL caliber team but it's been in spurts this year and no where near consistent including versus a middle of the pack Big 12 team.

 

[joseephuss]

I am not excusing anything.
I am posting basic facts.

On the whole the SEC was over-rated in 2013. That showed when their two best teams lost games where they were favored to win in Bowls.

Only 6 Big 12 teams were bowl eligible and the 6th beat a ranked P5 opponent by 2 TDs in a game that wasn't nearly that close.
Two of the ineligible teams were 7th and 8th place WVA and TCU... and we see how they've fared this season with largely the same casts.
That was the talent and depth the Big 12 had last year. Those two teams went 2-7 in the Big 12 which is why they weren't eligible.
The last two bowl eligible teams won by 30+ combined versus P5 opponents.
The ONLY Bowl losses for the conference were to top 10 teams.

And where is the corresponding fact about the SEC bowl losses last season? Again, you are excusing the BIG 12 losses because they came against high ranking opponents. The same thing happened in the SEC losses, but you don't phrase it the samemanner. Instead you say they lost to teams they were favored to beat. That is more editorializing than posting just the facts.

Edit: Also, FSU was the favorite in the BCS title game.

 

[jterrell]

And where is the corresponding fact about the SEC bowl losses last season? Again, you are excusing the BIG 12 losses because they came against high ranking opponents. The same thing happened in the SEC losses, but you don't phrase it the samemanner. Instead you say they lost to teams they were favored to beat. That is more editorializing than posting just the facts.

Edit: Also, FSU was the favorite in the BCS title game.

editorializing or not the facts are there.


you are correct on FSU/Auburn.
That was a loss as an underdog, they didn't win a single game as underdog. --overrated.

SEC:
#2 Auburn lost to #1 FSU
#4 South Carolina beat #22 Wisc by 10
#5 Missou beat #17 OKST by 10
#7 Alabama lost to #6 OU by 14
#14 LSU beat unranked Iowa by 7
#18 TAMU beat #23 Duke by 4
#24 Vandy beat unranked Houston by 17
Unranked Georgia lost by 5 to unranked Nebraska.
Unranked MissSt beat Unranked Rice by 37
Unranked Ole Miss beat unranked GT by 8

SEC Bowl record versus conf:
ACC 2-1
B1G 2-1
Pac12 0-0
Big 12 1-1
Scrub Conf 2-0

SEC Bowl record versus ranked:
3-2

SEC Bowl record versus top 10:
0-2

SEC Bowl record AS top 10:
2-2

SEC Bowl record as underdog:
0-1

SEC Bowl record as favorite:
7-2

So to summarize and editorialize the SEC was only .500; 1-1 versus the Pac 12 and Big 12 combined. Those being the 2nd and 3rd strongest conferences in 2013 by Ranking and FPI/FEI. But was 6-2 versus the softer conferences.

 

[Doc50]

I'm up for a decisive win by Baylor over K St, and a loss by the Ducks to Arizona -- the B12 will then have 2 teams in the playoffs.

 

[jterrell]

Power rankings: Big 12, not SEC, is No. 1

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/93344/power-rankings-big-12-not-sec-is-no-1

For the first time in years, the SEC has been knocked off its perch as the top conference in the nation in ESPN Stats and Information’s Conference Power Rankings.

The SEC was 0-4 in its SEC-ACC rivalry games, marking the first time since 2000 that Georgia, Florida and South Carolina each lost to its major in-state rival. The SEC is 5-6 (.455 win pct) in non-conference games against other Power 5 opponents, which ranks third among Power 5 conferences.

 

[jterrell]

Interesting stuff from Bowlsby. Said they'd revisit expansion and getting a playoff in place.
Also said they've discussed having strong non-conf games routinely.

This could end up being a great day for the Big 12.

7 Bowl eligible teams right now and we may well get our expansion wishes.
Believe me, teams are more eager than ever to be in a P5 conference if they are not currently.

 

[joseephuss]

Interesting stuff from Bowlsby. Said they'd revisit expansion and getting a playoff in place.
Also said they've discussed having strong non-conf games routinely.

This could end up being a great day for the Big 12.

7 Bowl eligible teams right now and we may well get our expansion wishes.
Believe me, teams are more eager than ever to be in a P5 conference if they are not currently.

A good day. A great day would have meant them getting a team into the playoffs.

 

[Rogah]

I think the Big XII outsmarted themselves with their whole "uh, yeah, we're going to recommend TWO teams as co-champions to the playoff committee.... sure we spent all season saying 'one true champion' but we got 2 teams here now ya see...." I think what happened was they split the vote of any members of the playoff committee who were sympathetic to the conference....

 

[jimmy40]

so SEC gets to wait to see what teams accept which Bowls and then pick which teams go where? SEC scared to let aggie play Texas.

 

[Doc50]

Power rankings: Big 12, not SEC, is No. 1

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/93344/power-rankings-big-12-not-sec-is-no-1

For the first time in years, the SEC has been knocked off its perch as the top conference in the nation in ESPN Stats and Information’s Conference Power Rankings.

The SEC was 0-4 in its SEC-ACC rivalry games, marking the first time since 2000 that Georgia, Florida and South Carolina each lost to its major in-state rival. The SEC is 5-6 (.455 win pct) in non-conference games against other Power 5 opponents, which ranks third among Power 5 conferences.

And yet the Big12 isn't represented in the playoffs. Just crazy politics.

Well, we knew that a 4 team playoff wasn't enough, and that one of the 5 superconferences would be shut out.

Considering those politics (see Art Briles' comments on no Big12 representation), the system is still flawed without a 6 team playoff format, which could also allow for an at large representative.

Other than all hopeful teams and conferences eliminating creampuff games, the Big12 doesn't need to do anything different.

We just need a six team format.

 

[yimyammer]

We just need a six team format.

They need more than that imo. The playoff has made so many more games meaningful and interesting going down the stretch. This would only be enhanced if the number of spots were expanded.

I'd prefer 16 (or even 20 where the bottom 8 teams have to play to make it in to the top 16), there are a myriad of ways to expand the field. Regardless of all the BS the NCAA likes to spew, the larger the field for the playoffs the more interesting and enjoyable for everyone involved.

In the old system, if a team lost a game early, they were pretty much out of the hunt, in a larger playoff field, that team stays motivated plus other teams that are young but improve as the season progresses could make for some surprising/exciting outcomes at the end as well as throughout the season.

 

[Doc50]

They need more than that imo. The playoff has made so many more games meaningful and interesting going down the stretch. This would only be enhanced if the number of spots were expanded.

I'd prefer 16 (or even 20 where the bottom 8 teams have to play to make it in to the top 16), there are a myriad of ways to expand the field. Regardless of all the BS the NCAA likes to spew, the larger the field for the playoffs the more interesting and enjoyable for everyone involved.

In the old system, if a team lost a game early, they were pretty much out of the hunt, in a larger playoff field, that team stays motivated plus other teams that are young but improve as the season progresses could make for some surprising/exciting outcomes at the end as well as throughout the season.

Yeah, I'd love that, too.

The problems lie with the existing bowl structure, which has huge tradition, dollars, and commitments.
The current scene is not disrupted at all by the 4 team plan, and the season is only extended by 1 week and one non-bowl venue (Arlington).
Eight teams could be workable by getting a couple of other major bowls to play a week earlier, or offering that increased revenue and importance to current minor bowls that already play in that timeframe, elevating their status.

The evolution of the playoff format will not advance without incorporating the bowls.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

What a mess!

 

[yimyammer]

Yeah, I'd love that, too.

The problems lie with the existing bowl structure, which has huge tradition, dollars, and commitments.
The current scene is not disrupted at all by the 4 team plan, and the season is only extended by 1 week and one non-bowl venue (Arlington).
Eight teams could be workable by getting a couple of other major bowls to play a week earlier, or offering that increased revenue and importance to current minor bowls that already play in that timeframe, elevating their status.

The evolution of the playoff format will not advance without incorporating the bowls.

I agree, this has been an issue for years. However the solution seems so simple to me and would make the bowls involved even more money because attendance and interest would go through the roof.

Simply assign a bowl to each playoff game and still allow all the other non playoff bowls continue like they always have (they're fun for players and fans but does anyone actually believe they mean much beyond that?)

What am I missing, why is this so hard to do? Aren't they assigning a bowl game to each playoff game already?

 

[yimyammer]

A 20 team playoff system where the bottom eight teams have to play each other to earn their way into the top 16 would take 19 games to create a champion and I'd be interested in every single game.

When is the last time you had even a passing interest in 19 bowl games?

 

[jterrell]

I think the Big XII outsmarted themselves with their whole "uh, yeah, we're going to recommend TWO teams as co-champions to the playoff committee.... sure we spent all season saying 'one true champion' but we got 2 teams here now ya see...." I think what happened was they split the vote of any members of the playoff committee who were sympathetic to the conference....

no, it didn't.
the very same committee had no problem placing those teams in the remaining new years 6 bowls.

baylor and tcu were hurt by being small, private schools.
if ou and texas were both 11-1 they'd probably have both been in and i guarantee you one of them would have.

baylor was hurt because it didn't play a p5 non-conf game.
tcu lost to a contender for the final 4 which should be a bonus as "best" loss but instead killed them as baylor whined and cried over head to head.

it is what it is.
now we see how these teams fare.
the big 10 is an underdog in ALL 10 games they play which is really pretty amazing.

ohio state had no business being in the top 4 but the wisconsin lay down job was a good one.

vegas considers tcu the 3rd best team in the country.

what's clear is this 4 team deal still can't say it truly crowns the best team national champ.
it is still about human voters picking amongst fairly equal participants.

 

[jterrell]

A 20 team playoff system where the bottom eight teams have to play each other to earn their way into the top 16 would take 19 games to create a champion and I'd be interested in every single game.

When is the last time you had even a passing interest in 19 bowl games?

that would be too many teams and too many games for the same teams.

the bowl season should still reward teams not eligible for the playoffs.
you don't need a national following to make bowls work. locals and two fan bases make it work just fine.

but they certainly should include more than 4 teams. 8 or 12 would be perfect. I prefer 12 because it gives a benefit to the regular season with a BYE for the top 4.

what needs to not happen is teams taking dives because it is better for the conference.
wisconsin's complete lack of any effort to win was appalling.