Big XII is run by unscrupulous fools
 

Baylor and TCU might be co-champs, despite Baylor winning head-to-head

Read full article: http://deadspin.com/big-12-announces...ons-1665741360

Edited to appease KC native because it's a huge deal and will improve the direction of discourse henceforth.

Who cares about that shit conference

flip flop
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports...cfp-committee/

People with surviving head coaches

:facepalm:

Terrible deadspin article is terrible.

Mods, please move this to DC. Thanks in advance.

And your title is incorrect. Gerrymandering doesn't mean what you think it means.

I thought gerrymandering was when a girl sits on a coffee table and shits while you lay under and beat off.

ger·ry·man·der
ˈjerēˌmandər

verb

gerund or present participle: gerrymandering

manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class.

achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency.
"a total freedom to gerrymander the results they want"


Checks out... clearly

BTW this is nothing new, they did the same with KSU/OU.

"One true champion". Unless it benefits us monetarily to have co-champions, in which case we will have co-champions, even if one of them beat the other head to head.

Exactly. It's like the 2011 season where LSU went 13-0 and beat Alabama (in their house no less). SEC champ. But Alabama was National champ.


They can't win their league but they are best in the nation. Stupid.

Why is it terrible? Seems pretty straightforward to me.


gerrymander
/ˈdʒɛrɪˌmændə/
verb
1.
to divide the constituencies of (a voting area) so as to give one party an unfair advantage
2.
to manipulate or adapt to one's advantage


But please, tell us why this is a terrible article. The Big XII is altering its rules in order to benefit its schools. Why not just crown Baylor as the champion?

there's nothing being altered here....they've done this before.

That article from November 9 does not help the Big XII. I think you get it, but your subsequent posts seem to be defending the idea.

Nov 9 article: Big XII would submit Baylor as the champion
Dec 1 article: Big XII will submit co-champions

Could that be because LSU and Alabama were 1-2, and were both placed in the national championship game, and Alabama won? :spock:

I am aware they have changed their tune (if the Nov 9 article was accruate). I am also aware this is not the first time the Big 12 has named co-champions.

Okie State was ahead of Bama in 4/6 computer polls, and in the composite. But we had to endure "eye testers" to give us that re-match. The result? LSU was champ of an 8 state area and Bama was champ of the other 42. Plus Guam and Puerto Rico

I don't see how that justifies them doing it this time, especially in the context of the looming playoff selection.

Just answer this: Why don't they give it to Baylor? Baylor won the head-to-head.

Because if they just gave it to Baylor then they would be altering their rules.

FFS this isn't hard.

O RLY?

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArtic...ATCLID=1546006

You are right. Talking out of your ass isn't hard.

That's only a tiebreaker for automatic bowl tie-ins. It has no bearing on the conference championship.

This isn't the first time the Big 12 has had this happen.

Next time you should read a little bit before opening your mouth and looking like a jackass.

because they believe having TCU in the playoff consideration in addition to Baylor benefits the conference. Which I think makes sense, as much as it sucks for Baylor (but who gives a **** about Baylor)

Because their "one true champion" rules allow for co-champions.

One true champion is an advertising slogan, not a rule.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The point is not that they want to honor two conference champions. Nobody gives a shit if they make TCU feel all warm inside. The point is how they present them to the committee because the committee has said it will favorably consider conference champions.

And, the Big XII explicitly addressed this in June 2014 for this very reason.

They are presenting them as 'co-champions' to the committee despite having procedures in place to present just one.

Why are you purposely being obtuse?

Big 12 slogan next year: Welcome to the Big 12, where the points are made up and the results don't matter.
Posted via Mobile Device

You are stupid.

They are co-champions because they have identical conference records (which is how the rules are written). The tiebreaker only applies to their automatic bowl tie-ins. The playoff is not an auto tie-in. If TCU and Baylor are left out of the playoff, then Baylor gets the auto-bid and TCU would get an at-large bid from whatever bowl.

What part of that isn't clear to you?

Acting like "representative" and "champion" are two separate things is total ****ing bullshit. In every practical sense, its the same damn thing.

In the Big 12's case, it isn't.

.

You must be one of the reeruned BayLOL fans.

The tiebreaker only applies to the auto tie-in.

The CFP committee is under no obligation to take a conference champion.

http://cuppygifs.com/wp-content/uplo...co-drought.gif

That was a direct quote from their website. I have absolutely no ties to Baylor, but I find the Big XII's neurosis incredibly odd in light of their "One True Champion" bullshit.

I see you completely lack an ability to read and comprehend.

The Big 12 voted for no tiebreakers for conference champs (it helps coaches get paid more since they will be conference champs easier).

Nothing has changed about this since the Big 12 dropped to 10 teams.

The only neurosis, with regards to this, is yours.

K-State just needs to beat Bible Aggie and ISU needs to upset the frogs like they did Okie lite a few years back. Then K-State wins the conference out right and this is a non-issue.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Per Big 12, while league technically recognizes co-champs, winner of head-to-head would be submitted to playoff by Big 12 as champ</p>&mdash; Jake Trotter (@Jake_Trotter) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jake_Trotter/status/531575228410105856">November 9, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

November 9

What changed?

This is what is being argued. Not that your conference recognizes co-champs, but its policies on tie-breakers and statements about the CFP prior to this week were different.

Isn't this similar to when KU was declared the North co-champion in 2007?









???







ORANGE BOWL

The Big 12 is begging the conference to put Ohio State in if they win. The smallest conference is naming multiple teams champions.

Congrats to 20% of the Big (sic) 12 (sic). You're the one (sic) true (sic) champion (sic).

ROFL

This is ****ing hilarious.

some lawyer figured out it is better to not name a sole champ
<iframe style="display: none;" allowtransparency="true" scrolling="no" id="rufous-sandbox" frameborder="0"></iframe>

It's not too late for the SEC to declare all 14 teams co-champions.

actually it is

The conference clarified it.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Bowlsby clarifies “One True Champion” is about the round-robin schedule, not about having one champion at the end.</p>&mdash; Jake Trotter (@Jake_Trotter) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jake_Trotter/status/539474134213099520">December 1, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

3. Weeks. Later.

That's the most likely way MU gets to fly a SEC Champ banner next fall.

And

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Bowlsby says NY6 rec independent of CFP selection process - but committee would certainly know Big 12&#39;s preference. Would have to influence.</p>&mdash; Travis Haney (@TravHaneyESPN) <a href="https://twitter.com/TravHaneyESPN/status/532234985629966336">November 11, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I can't find the tweet I'm looking for. The Big 12 clarified their stance the next day or same day to Trotter.

Don't see what the big deal is about, by offering up both teams as co-champions it gives them the opportunity to get the best bowl available. It is the conference working in the conference and teams best interest. Nothing to see here.

By "clarified", you mean did a complete 180. That was an outright contradiction.

No it wasn't. Trotter ran with his interpretation. He was corrected later.

I think they should get rid of the league.

I didn't say I killed that hooker; that's just the way the cop interpreted it when I said I hit her with a crowbar and she died from blunt force trauma.

Fortunately, nobody has seen right through it, and it's been well received. I'm sure 11 win co-champions from a ten team league will get the nod over a 12 win conference champion from a 14 team league.

Nobody respects the Big 12 because they pull shit like this. They do everything they can to back into the playoffs, and it's pathetic. The smallest conference has the most self-proclaimed "champions". Give me a break. 20% of the Big 12 conference teams are champions whereas 7% of B1G teams are champions...and the B1G champ has to put its ass on the line against a power team in a championship game whereas the Big 12 teams get an extra bye week.

And as if that isn't enough, they try to puff out their chests about having one true champion...right up until they think it's going to make it harder for TCU to back into the playoff...and they immediately do a very public 180.

Embarrassing conference

Actually it has Ebolaids. Pussys can't even have a championship game.

Leadership of the big teneleve is comical.

I agree the Big Ten is a ****ing joke.

So now you're back on the league hate. Suffering the depressive state right now of the cycle huh?

The championship game ****ed KSU and Mizzou out of a title shot.


Why would they want it back?

I think it is bullshit that they don't have a declared champion.


KSU got the same treatment a few years ago.

The Big XII can't go anywhere.. Because its constituent members can't go to any greater conference.

The BIG and SEC can't go bigger than 14, and it doesn't make sense for Texas and OU to go to the PAC.

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.

lol @ this thread. whoops

bwahahahaha,

No one in the Big 12 will ever win the conference by beating exactly zero teams in the regular season with a winning record.

This could happen this Saturday in the SEC. LMAO

huh, so do the Big 12's

The Big 12 can get 2 teams into this years college football playoff.

It's almost not even that unlikely.

This is the strangest, double negativly roundabout way of saying something I've seen in a while.