Horns247 Board

The argument for a CCG seems to be that it enhances a team's chances of being in the playoff and winning a NC. During the 15 years that the Big 12 had a CCG, that just wasn't the case.

In 5 of the 15 games, the higher ranked team lost the CCG. Even more important, every one of those 5 losers entered the game ranked in the top 3 in the country. The CCG did not enhance their positions.

In 11 of those 15 games, the lower ranked team was rated between 12th and unranked. The higher ranked team would not have enhanced its position by beating a team outside the top 10. As already mentioned, on 5 occasions, the higher ranked team lost.

There's been a lot of talk about whether OSU would have benefitted from a CCG in 2011. Based upon the traditional north-south alignment of the league, OSU would have played KSU, a team that finished the season with 3 losses and ranked in the middle of the second 10 teams.

Based on this, there is no evidence that a CCG has ever been a real benefit to the Big 12's best team. One third of the time, it has been a negative. When people at Texas or Oklahoma say that they don't see the benefit of a CCG, I think the data supports that opinion. It is a stretch to think that either Texas or Oklahoma thinks they are good enough to win a playoff, but not good enough (and thus scared) to play a CCG.

The best thing I have ever heard about CCGs is what Mack said. Either everybody should have one, or nobody should. After all, there is no requirement that a 12 team league have a CCG. They just do it for the money.

Probably because you are looking at it with one eye. Open the other and see what others already know.

FWIW there are rumors swirling ND is going to the ACC and the ACC is meeting tomorrow morning to vote on it.

That would the easiest route to 4 team playoff requiring teams be conference champs

Seriously? You're comparing L'ville and U of H. You need to go do some homework. All they have in common is a city-name.

L'ville is very strong if we're talking $'s. Kick-ass facilities and a willingness to invest in athletics. Hell, they would rank no worse than 4th in the current Big 12 in available $'s.

I have said the same thing for sometime now. I believe they would invest the additional Big 12 money back into the sports programs. You have to look at where they could be not just where they are today.

Agreed. I believe you can see a diifference between a team that is playing not to lose and one that is playing to win and expecting to win.

Well the gif worked when I uploaded it. Basically no.

http://b.asset.soup.io/asset/1522/7483_411c.gif

Not having a CCG is going to limit the Big 12 champs getting in the 4 game playoffs

An undefeated team in any conference won't be left out but a CCG could definitely help a 1 or 2 loss team get in.

When the Big 12 had a CCG, its best team (ranked no worse than 3rd each time) lost the CCG to a much lower rated team one year out of every three. Did it hurt Alabama that they didn't play in a CCG last year?

Are NFL teams that win a Super Bowl looked down upon if they didn't play the extra game in the wildcard round of playoffs? No. In fact, teams do everything they can to get the bye so that they can avoid the extra game.

Not really my point.

When you have a two highly rated teams such as LSU and Alabama, of course you're wanting to put them into the playoff.

What I was saying was that the B12 (actually Texas and OU) are looking at the CCG, the fact that both of them lost shots at the title because of losing that game, would prefer not to play it. But if you have to play, then the league is going to want OU to advance instead of Kansas State, Texas instead of Colorado.

Frankly, I'd rather that CCGs not be played rather than have people's credibility be questioned, and I think that will happen.