Big XII is run by gerrymandering fools

[Don Corlemahomes]

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

But as it currently sits, if No. 7 Baylor beats Kansas State Saturday, they would be conference's champions because Baylor beat TCU earlier this season. Because as everyone knows, in absence of a championship game, league winners are always decided first by conference record and second by head-to-head outcomes should teams have the same record. But since Baylor is rated lower than TCU, and therefore less likely to make the final four to get into the playoff, the conference will award "co-champions" so that the committee can choose which Big 12 team they think is better.

Only if TCU and Baylor are both left out of the top four would the league acknowledge Baylor's head-to-head win over TCU.

In other words the conference is saying: If TCU is rated in the top four, we'll forget Baylor beat them. But if TCU and Baylor fail to make the top four, we'll remember Baylor beat them.

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.

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

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.

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

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

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

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.

[Prison Bitch]

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

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

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.

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.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

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.

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by KC native

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

FFS this isn't hard.

O RLY?

Tiebreaker Procedures
Effective June 2014

The following procedure will determine the Big 12 Conference representative to the Sugar Bowl (or alternate College Football Playoff game when the Sugar Bowl is a semifinal) in the event of a first-place or alternate place tie (for the avoidance of doubt, only Conference records will be used throughout the process):
1. If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative.
...
3. The highest ranked team in the first College Football Playoff poll following the completion of Big 12 regular season conference play shall be the representative unless the two highest ranked tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the College Football Playoff poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the College Football Playoff.

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

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

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

O RLY?



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

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

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

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 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)

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

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

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Cochise

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

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

[Don Corlemahomes]

Originally Posted by KC native

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.

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.

If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative [to the Sugar Bowl (or alternate College Football Playoff game when the Sugar Bowl is a semifinal)]

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?

[Dr. Gigglepants]

Originally Posted by KC native

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

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

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

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?

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?

[Don Corlemahomes]

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

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Cunning Linguist

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.