I guarantee if Texas was one of the schools involved, their would be no Co- champ.

We won't have to worry about that for a while, Livestream. ;)

And why shouldn't they, all the other conferences do what benefits them. The conference title games are much more of a bull**** way of determining who the champion is than the way the Big 12 does it.

Conference football championship games are the equivalent of the Big 12 Basketball Tournament. Just because you won 3 games in 3 days and skirted having to play over half the league in it doesn't make you a champion. Same thing applies to a winner take all in what is sometimes the two best teams in the league and more often than not... not the two best teams in the league.

I actually agree about the conference championship games, but not for the exact same reason. If every conference had one, then you have a level playing field where you have to win your conference outright in order to get a title shot.

But since the Big 12-2 got rid of their championship game, you'll have a team that avoided a potential loss against a quality opponent jockeying for position against teams from the Big Ten and SEC that had to risk it all against a conference runner-up.

If the Big 12-2 were to somehow politic one of those teams into the playoff with "Well, ___ didn't win their conference, even though they are ranked ahead of ____ and ____, both of these teams are conference co-champions!" - so why would any conference have a championship game?

If the Big 12-2 is going to lower the bar for what a champion means, why should other conferences let them pull that nonsense?

(You might think of the bar being three notches lower for Big 12-2 teams, only having to finish ahead of 8 other teams instead of 11 or 15 others, by not having a championship game, and by allowing multiple teams to say they won their conference)

BS - Big 12 teams all take a shot from every team. SEC teams don't play every member, often missing several big boys each season. There's no guarantee the SEC opponent is any stronger than the top tier Big 12 teams. Big 12 also plays an extra conference game.

This is my whole point. It's supposed to be hard to go through the season and win a CCG to get to the playoff. If you don't make it, get better. The Big 12 just says "screw it, it's too hard" and moves the finish line up to where 20% of the conference gets a trophy.

You have no champion, only participants.

No argument here. I don't understand why the Big 12 can't pull their head out of their pussies and declare Baylor the champ if they beat KSU.


Baylor beat TCU head to head. Easy decision.


As for needing a championship game, they don't need one since everyone plays each other.

So what? That one extra game Big 12 teams play is essentially against a random team. Every other conference champ plays an extra game against a division champion.

not necessarily - the opponent often is one they didn't face during the regular season.

and hey dumbass, we get it. the Big 12 had a CCG for years when others didn't.

You're already the smallest league, so your champion only has to be the best of 10 teams. Without a CCG, you only have to play 11 games...and you get an extra off week. How many advantages do you need?

Turn them into independent schools.

how many conference games do SEC and B1G teams play? Pac14?

Wow...I don't remember anyone EVER saying that the champion wasn't legit because they didn't play a round robin. It's almost like this meme came about as an excuse after the conference crumbled.

Their champions play 9.