Many of the voters also heavily consider strength of schedule. "so what ya got a good record, you ain't played nobody!", etc. So, 1/3 is strictly analytical, then out of the voters they are heavily influenced by analytical considerations.

Overall its at least half, if not more.

Rename you Wickedstalkerson and you're on to something.

The facilities at Kansas rival that of any program in America. Could the stadium use upgrades? Sure. But moving one thing at a time is the responsible thing to do.

Yeah, I forgot Tech, but I don't understand why you included Baylor.

Here, take a look at last year's sagarin.

If you don't want to be destroyed by the computers, you need an SOS at least around the 30's. Notice how everyone in each conference seems to have roughly the same SOS, give or take 10 spots? Obviously, because of 8 or 9 conference games.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc11.htm

Big 12 was strong last year, so they are in single digits, SEC mostly in the teens which is plenty good enough to be rewarded. PAC 12 and Big 10 hanging in there. Then you see the horrid (for a supposed BCS conference) ACC, and take a look at whats coming with Pitt and Syracuse.

Want to see what happens to a 1-loss ACC team? Take Houston's BCS finish and bump them up, at most, maybe 11 or 12 spots. An ACC team would need to go undefeated with that horrible conference schedule to be top-4.

I point out board asshattery. It's not my fault you're among the biggest clowns.

Runs? IIRC, KU has won only a single NC since the Big 12 was formed.

Since then, there are 5 teams that have won multiple NCs.

Basketball national titles since the formation of the Big 12:
ACC: 5
SEC: 4
BEAST: 3
PAC, B1G, and 12: 1 each

Is that what you do?

To me you're just a weirdo that needs to chill out.

Because Baylor has been among the worst major conference teams in both football and basketball since the inception of the Big 12.

That is why I would rather KU be in the ACC.

The thing that speaks most loudly to networks are ratings and the public spoke loud and clear on the all SEC matchup: didn't want to watch it.

I think you'll see something like the three highest rated conference winners and a "wildcard" who is the highest rated once the three conference winners are identified. That gives an independent a chance, a fourth conference champion a chance, or a second conference team rated in the top four who wasn't a conference champion.

Now, maybe you add another qualifier, like a conference team must be in the top 6 or that spot could be given to another at-large.

Perhaps they put qualifiers on the said "at large" in that a conference cannot have more than two representatives.

Who knows. But, if last year, Alabama played OSU and Stanford played LSU, and then Alabama and LSU advanced, I bet the ratings would have been much better.

Just listened to that guy from FSU Petro had on today. He put KU Bball on par with UT and OU football. How dare he.

The San Francisco Texas World Series had terrible ratings. They should have had the Yankees play the Red Sox instead.

Indeed.

I see ESPN released a pre-season top 25 a few weeks ago. I bet you miss having Nebraska in the conference knowing at the end of the year you can atleast count on them and Oklahoma being ranked.

Just a quick sidetrack.

I keep responding because we're having a conversation. He's talking to me like a civil human being. I try to understand his point and where he's coming from, if I disagree then I make a good faith attempt to respond, without heated emotion, with just facts and my opinion.

At some point if we reach an impasse where we can't even agree on a set of facts, we'll probably just call it a draw and move on. Saul Good is a good poster who I respect.

I think the Big 12 will manage on having a few teams ranked at the end of the year. I mean the Big 12 is the last conference to have a National Title winner outside of the SEC. They play some pretty good football.