Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
Author Message
Knightsweat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,872
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 123
I Root For: OU & UCF
Location:
Post: #121
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
(05-14-2013 09:55 AM)Underdog Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:19 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-13-2013 08:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(05-13-2013 10:40 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Ask Oklahoma State fans how not having a CCG worked out for them in the 2011 season...
Oklahoma State would have been included in the 4 team playoff. So how is this relevant to the future?

It's relevant because it speaks to the perception of human beings on selection committees and how they basically punished OSU for not having a CCG. Not by design, but as an unintended effect. I think that perception will persist once the playoff systems begins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but being a conference champ doesn't guarantee a playoff spot. Rankings and selection does.

Just an opinion, but that's what makes his post relevant.

They punished OSU because they weren't a name school. Note that Alabama didn't play a ccg. If the schedules and results were switched, Alabama would still have gotten in, probably by a larger margin.

They refused to reward school from a conference unwilling to have a CCG.

I think both of you are correct, Underdog more so.
05-14-2013 10:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #122
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
In a 4 team playoff scenario, both get in. So I don't think it's that big an issue for the future. Any B12 team that runs through their schedule unbeaten will be included in the playoff - unless all P5 conference champions have unbeaten schedules and the B12 team played only cupcakes OOC - and the other conference champs didn't play all chumps OOC...
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2013 10:25 AM by bitcruncher.)
05-14-2013 10:25 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #123
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
(05-14-2013 09:55 AM)Underdog Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:19 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-13-2013 08:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  
(05-13-2013 10:40 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  Ask Oklahoma State fans how not having a CCG worked out for them in the 2011 season...
Oklahoma State would have been included in the 4 team playoff. So how is this relevant to the future?

It's relevant because it speaks to the perception of human beings on selection committees and how they basically punished OSU for not having a CCG. Not by design, but as an unintended effect. I think that perception will persist once the playoff systems begins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but being a conference champ doesn't guarantee a playoff spot. Rankings and selection does.

Just an opinion, but that's what makes his post relevant.

They punished OSU because they weren't a name school. Note that Alabama didn't play a ccg. If the schedules and results were switched, Alabama would still have gotten in, probably by a larger margin.

They refused to reward school from a conference unwilling to have a CCG.

WTF? The other poster correctly shot down the argument about OKST being hurt by not having a CCG to play in by noting that Alabama got into the title game despite not playing in one either.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that any pollster voted for Alabama over OKST to punish the Big 12 for not having a title game. There's no evidence pollsters care at all whether a conference has or doesn't have a title game. Good Lord. Wishful thinking run amok.
05-14-2013 10:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #124
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
It is wishful thinking. But you can't blame them. They want to be a part of the power structure, and aren't...
05-14-2013 10:33 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Knightsweat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,872
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 123
I Root For: OU & UCF
Location:
Post: #125
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
(05-14-2013 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:55 AM)Underdog Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:19 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-13-2013 08:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Oklahoma State would have been included in the 4 team playoff. So how is this relevant to the future?

It's relevant because it speaks to the perception of human beings on selection committees and how they basically punished OSU for not having a CCG. Not by design, but as an unintended effect. I think that perception will persist once the playoff systems begins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but being a conference champ doesn't guarantee a playoff spot. Rankings and selection does.

Just an opinion, but that's what makes his post relevant.

They punished OSU because they weren't a name school. Note that Alabama didn't play a ccg. If the schedules and results were switched, Alabama would still have gotten in, probably by a larger margin.

They refused to reward school from a conference unwilling to have a CCG.

WTF? The other poster correctly shot down the argument about OKST being hurt by not having a CCG to play in by noting that Alabama got into the title game despite not playing in one either.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that any pollster voted for Alabama over OKST to punish the Big 12 for not having a title game. There's no evidence pollsters care at all whether a conference has or doesn't have a title game. Good Lord. Wishful thinking run amok.

Not sure if you're being intentionally dense just to think you'll win the conversation, but if you remember, the voting that took place to get Alabama was indeed biased given Alabama's SoS vs. OSU's. key amongst was Nick Saban voting OSU as the 4th or 5th ranked team, ensuring OSU could not be selected. Total SEC bias, which was my point. As long as humans are in the decision loop, there will always be bias. Presently that is SEC bias, but the same could hold true for other conferences, depending on recent successes, etc...

A lack of CCG doesn't help the BIG12 in any form, given my above point.
05-14-2013 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MattofNazareth Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 180
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Houston Cougars
Location: Scott St and Holman
Post: #126
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/09/01/big-12-should-snap-up-the-university-of-houston/

'nuff said.
05-14-2013 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
1845 Bear Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation: 187
I Root For: Baylor
Location:
Post: #127
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
(05-14-2013 10:54 AM)MattofNazareth Wrote:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/09/01/big-12-should-snap-up-the-university-of-houston/

'nuff said.

Dosh has her opinions but most of her points can be argued for Cincy, USF, UCF, and Memphis to similar conclusions. UH adds some overall value but it isn't a question of that. It's a question of which addition adds the MOST. Whether UH does that is debatable.

In my opinion Dosh:

a- takes selective ratings data to assume a higher than reasonable typical rating. She simply throws out "Imagine if they could do that (tech game rating) five or six times a season" without any rationale to expect that high water mark to be the norm. It's a good evidence of what is POSSIBLE with a banner year but as any B12 team can tell you "banner year"s aren't frequent or easy to come by.

a2- Without a league network it's debatable how much value it is to have a 1.5 rated game in Houston vs opening a new market and getting a similar showing from another candidate.

b- does not consider the effect of grad/part time/nonresident students or 6 year grad rates on the expected fan/donor/alumni base. That 38k enrollment is only 55% full time undergrads which dampens the projections if we are being blunt. The profiles of the students in the other 45% are not very condusive to becoming diehard fans or future donors.

c- does not even look at budgets as even a partial a way to estimate future ability. This is something that should be looked at. UL, TCU, and others have transformed due to strong financial backing and it's not everything but it's a big puzzle piece that needs to be considered.

d- Uses an erroneous "percent of capacity" to measure attendance strength. I don't care if they fill their stadium if it's small. Give me UCLA (60k+ attendance in a 100k stadium) over Fresno St (much higher % of a 40k venue) any day. UH should be commended for selling out 32k robertson. Whether that is any advantage vs UCF, USF, UC, UConn, or BYU is debatable due to each drawing crowds that would do the same at 32k.

e- She makes a good point on postgrad research (points that also work for UConn and Cincy)

f- She throws reliant out there but competitors for that spot can say the same kind of thing too. USF plays in one, UCF can go to the Citrus Bowl, UC can use the Bengals stadium, etc. UConn is the only one that I don't think has a good backup plan but they are adding additional seats for their Michigan game so it's workable.

g- She points out upside with Houston businesses which is nice but also partially cut down by the Texans and Rockets limiting how much will get directed to UH. Also this works for some of the other candidates.

To say the omissions leave holes in her argument is pretty fair. I am not out to bash UH, I just think it isn't "nuff said" and that her analysis is in my opinion hit or miss. I'd welcome UH as a fan but I am not convinced it's the best move for the league.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2013 11:47 AM by 1845 Bear.)
05-14-2013 11:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #128
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
I do think the Big XII having nine conference games helps out their SoS at the end of the year. That might make the difference at the end of the year if they still draw their selection data from a computer formula.
05-14-2013 11:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #129
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
(05-14-2013 10:39 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:55 AM)Underdog Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:19 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  It's relevant because it speaks to the perception of human beings on selection committees and how they basically punished OSU for not having a CCG. Not by design, but as an unintended effect. I think that perception will persist once the playoff systems begins. Correct me if I'm wrong, but being a conference champ doesn't guarantee a playoff spot. Rankings and selection does.

Just an opinion, but that's what makes his post relevant.

They punished OSU because they weren't a name school. Note that Alabama didn't play a ccg. If the schedules and results were switched, Alabama would still have gotten in, probably by a larger margin.

They refused to reward school from a conference unwilling to have a CCG.

WTF? The other poster correctly shot down the argument about OKST being hurt by not having a CCG to play in by noting that Alabama got into the title game despite not playing in one either.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that any pollster voted for Alabama over OKST to punish the Big 12 for not having a title game. There's no evidence pollsters care at all whether a conference has or doesn't have a title game. Good Lord. Wishful thinking run amok.

Not sure if you're being intentionally dense just to think you'll win the conversation, but if you remember, the voting that took place to get Alabama was indeed biased given Alabama's SoS vs. OSU's. key amongst was Nick Saban voting OSU as the 4th or 5th ranked team, ensuring OSU could not be selected. Total SEC bias, which was my point. As long as humans are in the decision loop, there will always be bias. Presently that is SEC bias, but the same could hold true for other conferences, depending on recent successes, etc...

A lack of CCG doesn't help the BIG12 in any form, given my above point.

Dude, was my post a reply to yours? No it was not. 01-wingedeagle

But OK, since you bring up another argument: What on earth does Saban voting OKST 4th or 5th have to do with a CCG? That's a coach shamlessly trying to increase his team's chances of getting in to the title game and has nothing to do with it.

As for SEC bias, maybe so. But again, that bias can help teams that play in the SECCG or don't (like Alabama in 2011). It's a bias for the SEC, not for having a CCG.

Given your above point, weak as it is, we can't conclude that having a title game or not having one will help or hurt the B12. Depending on circumstances, it can be a help or a hindrance.
05-14-2013 11:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LSUtah Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,139
Joined: May 2011
Reputation: 50
I Root For: LSU
Location: Salt Lake City
Post: #130
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
(05-14-2013 11:40 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I do think the Big XII having nine conference games helps out their SoS at the end of the year. That might make the difference at the end of the year if they still draw their selection data from a computer formula.

Only if Baylor, TCU, Kansas, Tech, Iowa St, etc remain at .500 or above every year. Even though the Big-12 has had a good run over the past 2 years, history suggests otherwise. This could just as easily become an albatross.
05-14-2013 11:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #131
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
(05-14-2013 11:54 AM)LSUtah Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 11:40 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  I do think the Big XII having nine conference games helps out their SoS at the end of the year. That might make the difference at the end of the year if they still draw their selection data from a computer formula.

Only if Baylor, TCU, Kansas, Tech, Iowa St, etc remain at .500 or above every year. Even though the Big-12 has had a good run over the past 2 years, history suggests otherwise. This could just as easily become an albatross.
True, but any D1 school should rate above an FCS school wouldn't they? I mean regarding a ninth game. I am not sure so I am asking.
(This post was last modified: 05-14-2013 12:39 PM by USAFMEDIC.)
05-14-2013 12:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Knightsweat Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,872
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 123
I Root For: OU & UCF
Location:
Post: #132
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
(05-14-2013 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 10:39 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:55 AM)Underdog Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  They punished OSU because they weren't a name school. Note that Alabama didn't play a ccg. If the schedules and results were switched, Alabama would still have gotten in, probably by a larger margin.

They refused to reward school from a conference unwilling to have a CCG.

WTF? The other poster correctly shot down the argument about OKST being hurt by not having a CCG to play in by noting that Alabama got into the title game despite not playing in one either.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that any pollster voted for Alabama over OKST to punish the Big 12 for not having a title game. There's no evidence pollsters care at all whether a conference has or doesn't have a title game. Good Lord. Wishful thinking run amok.

Not sure if you're being intentionally dense just to think you'll win the conversation, but if you remember, the voting that took place to get Alabama was indeed biased given Alabama's SoS vs. OSU's. key amongst was Nick Saban voting OSU as the 4th or 5th ranked team, ensuring OSU could not be selected. Total SEC bias, which was my point. As long as humans are in the decision loop, there will always be bias. Presently that is SEC bias, but the same could hold true for other conferences, depending on recent successes, etc...

A lack of CCG doesn't help the BIG12 in any form, given my above point.

Dude, was my post a reply to yours? No it was not. :wingedeagle:

But OK, since you bring up another argument: What on earth does Saban voting OKST 4th or 5th have to do with a CCG? That's a coach shamlessly trying to increase his team's chances of getting in to the title game and has nothing to do with it.

As for SEC bias, maybe so. But again, that bias can help teams that play in the SECCG or don't (like Alabama in 2011). It's a bias for the SEC, not for having a CCG.

Given your above point, weak as it is, we can't conclude that having a title game or not having one will help or hurt the B12. Depending on circumstances, it can be a help or a hindrance.

Well first, let me apologize. I thought your previous post had been a response to mine. So no harm no foul. Secondly the Alabama vs. OSU argument was to point out that Alabama had not won their conference championship and was still selected over OSU, who was the Big12 champ. The voting hurt OSU, because of human bias towards the SEC programs (the belief that an SEC team had to better than a Big12 team).

Would OSU have been voted in if they had won an additional game (CCG)? No proof, but the popular answer is probably yes. That's all I'm trying to get people to consider, who are saying that the Big12 benefits from a 10 team league. It's simply not a known truth, and I think a risk for the Big12 going forward. Agree or disagree, but it won't change my mind on this. Time will tell if its a help or hindrance, but at least you seem to agree that there is potential risk, which was my point.
05-14-2013 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bitcruncher Offline
pepperoni roll psycho...
*

Posts: 61,859
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 526
I Root For: West Virginia
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post: #133
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
The coaches poll will no longer have any bearing on the selection process. So SEC coaches will have a very hard time slanting things in their favor, unless they stoop to bribing the selection committee...
05-14-2013 03:13 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #134
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
(05-14-2013 01:29 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 11:47 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 10:39 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 10:26 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(05-14-2013 09:55 AM)Underdog Wrote:  They refused to reward school from a conference unwilling to have a CCG.

WTF? The other poster correctly shot down the argument about OKST being hurt by not having a CCG to play in by noting that Alabama got into the title game despite not playing in one either.

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that any pollster voted for Alabama over OKST to punish the Big 12 for not having a title game. There's no evidence pollsters care at all whether a conference has or doesn't have a title game. Good Lord. Wishful thinking run amok.

Not sure if you're being intentionally dense just to think you'll win the conversation, but if you remember, the voting that took place to get Alabama was indeed biased given Alabama's SoS vs. OSU's. key amongst was Nick Saban voting OSU as the 4th or 5th ranked team, ensuring OSU could not be selected. Total SEC bias, which was my point. As long as humans are in the decision loop, there will always be bias. Presently that is SEC bias, but the same could hold true for other conferences, depending on recent successes, etc...

A lack of CCG doesn't help the BIG12 in any form, given my above point.

Dude, was my post a reply to yours? No it was not. 01-wingedeagle

But OK, since you bring up another argument: What on earth does Saban voting OKST 4th or 5th have to do with a CCG? That's a coach shamlessly trying to increase his team's chances of getting in to the title game and has nothing to do with it.

As for SEC bias, maybe so. But again, that bias can help teams that play in the SECCG or don't (like Alabama in 2011). It's a bias for the SEC, not for having a CCG.

Given your above point, weak as it is, we can't conclude that having a title game or not having one will help or hurt the B12. Depending on circumstances, it can be a help or a hindrance.

Well first, let me apologize. I thought your previous post had been a response to mine. So no harm no foul. Secondly the Alabama vs. OSU argument was to point out that Alabama had not won their conference championship and was still selected over OSU, who was the Big12 champ. The voting hurt OSU, because of human bias towards the SEC programs (the belief that an SEC team had to better than a Big12 team).

Would OSU have been voted in if they had won an additional game (CCG)? No proof, but the popular answer is probably yes. That's all I'm trying to get people to consider, who are saying that the Big12 benefits from a 10 team league. It's simply not a known truth, and I think a risk for the Big12 going forward. Agree or disagree, but it won't change my mind on this. Time will tell if its a help or hindrance, but at least you seem to agree that there is potential risk, which was my point.

First, apology accepted. 04-cheers

Second, there seem to be two perspectives in this thread: One, espoused by fans of AAC teams who desperately want the Big 12 to expand, is that not having a CCG is an advantage in placing teams in a national title game or playoffs over those that have one, and therefore the rest of the P5 will eventually force the Big 12 to add a CCG, thereby forcing them to expand (and select their school!).

The other is that having a CCG can sometimes help a conference place a team in the playoffs, but sometimes it can hurt, it cuts both ways. I am in the "cuts both ways" camp, because the evidence shows that during the BCS era, it did indeed cut both ways. We can think of times when a conference had a title game bid sown up but then blew it when the team lost a CCG (like the SEC losing a title game bid in 2001 when #2 Tennessee was upset in the CCG), but also when playing a CCG clearly helped a conference get a team in the title game (e.g., in 2007 when LSU leap-frogged their way to #2 after winning the CCG).

To your point: Would it have helped OKST get into the 2011 BCS title game over Alabama if the Big 12 had a title game that year? Yes, winning one more game against a good team would surely have made a positive impression in the polls and computers, maybe enough to move them past Alabama. But, that's true only if OKST won that CCG. If they lost it, then obviously all their hopes of passing Alabama in the rankings would have disappeared. So a CCG helps if you win, but it hurts if you lose. Cuts both ways. Which makes it extremely unlikely that the rest of the P5 care whether the Big 12 has one or not.

So while there might be other reasons that the Big 12 decides to expand and add a CCG (i don't think so, at least not in the next 5-10 years), pressure from other P5 because of an alleged advantage won't be one of them.
(This post was last modified: 05-15-2013 08:38 AM by quo vadis.)
05-15-2013 08:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JunkYardCard Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,875
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #135
RE: Per BurntOrangeNation: Big 12 looking at UH, SMU, CIncy or USF/UCF for expansion
(05-14-2013 03:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The coaches poll will no longer have any bearing on the selection process. So SEC coaches will have a very hard time slanting things in their favor, unless they stoop to bribing the selection committee...

You say that as if it is far fetched. 04-jawdrop
05-15-2013 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.