Conference schedule - Division champs

[huKSer]

Currently the division champion is the team with the best conference record. I can't remember any controversy over which team should go to the conference championship game, but I see a possible problem with the unbalanced schedule.

 

Take a North division team. Let's call it N for the sake of argument. The team blasts every other North division team by at least 25 points. But they play Texas, OU and TT. The team easily beats TT at home, but lose to Texas and OU at there place by less than 3 pts in multiple overtimes. Conference record: 6-2 and also undefeated OOC, so a 10-2 record.

 

Another team from the North, lets randomly pick M, loses big to N, but barely squeaks by all the other north teams. They play Baylor, OSU and AM, barely winning each game. Conference record: 7-1. Winning 1 OOC, so an 8-4 record.

 

Which team should represent the North? Current rules as I understand it would be M. But are they the best team in the north? Unfortunately these days, what would ABC think? I think the best record in your division should go to the championship game. Tie breakers: head to head, common other division opponent, then conference record.

 

Thoughts?

[Always a husker]

I'm not exactly sure, but I do know if you beat an opponent in your division it counts as two conference wins for you against that opponent and one loss for your opponent.

[Landlord]

Team with the best record wins. If there is a tie, the team that won the matchup between the two teams advances.

[jayhawk]

Yup, best record wins, then head to head. My hawks were M last year, and will be N this year, schedule wise for sure, and maybe record wise as well. We were 7-1 and we North Co-champs, but since we lost head to head to Mizzou (both were 7-1), they got to go to the title game, and rightfully so.

[huKSer]

Yup, best record wins, then head to head. My hawks were M last year, and will be N this year, schedule wise for sure, and maybe record wise as well. We were 7-1 and we North Co-champs, but since we lost head to head to Mizzou (both were 7-1), they got to go to the title game, and rightfully so.

But what if you beat Mizzou along with every other north team, and yet Mizzou still got the recognition as the best team in the north division?

[jayhawk]

Yup, best record wins, then head to head. My hawks were M last year, and will be N this year, schedule wise for sure, and maybe record wise as well. We were 7-1 and we North Co-champs, but since we lost head to head to Mizzou (both were 7-1), they got to go to the title game, and rightfully so.

But what if you beat Mizzou along with every other north team, and yet Mizzou still got the recognition as the best team in the north division?

 

If we had beaten Mizzou, we would have been 8-0. WIth our easier North Schedule last year, lets say we had the same result and been 7-1, but instead the beat us 100-0 instead of by 8 points (i think that is how much we lost by). LEts say they had not just been 7-1, losing to OU, but also lost to say, UT in OT on the road, so they came into the game 5-2 and beat us, going 6-2. We would win the North, they would stay home, tough break for them. You make a decent point, but that's life. Don't lose 2 games and complain I guess. If you are within 1 game and have the tiebreaker, then when you play eachother you control your destiny. If you lose to all of the good teams in the south, who you were unlucky enough to draw, you probably are not going to win in the title. In myt example above, Mizzou still seems to be the better team, due to point spread, but I would not want spread to be a factor, even though in this one case it would help, as it would encourage teams to run it up (Which they shoud not, and we did not do, even to NU)

[junior4949]

Yup, best record wins, then head to head. My hawks were M last year, and will be N this year, schedule wise for sure, and maybe record wise as well. We were 7-1 and we North Co-champs, but since we lost head to head to Mizzou (both were 7-1), they got to go to the title game, and rightfully so.

But what if you beat Mizzou along with every other north team, and yet Mizzou still got the recognition as the best team in the north division?

 

If we had beaten Mizzou, we would have been 8-0. WIth our easier North Schedule last year, lets say we had the same result and been 7-1, but instead the beat us 100-0 instead of by 8 points (i think that is how much we lost by). LEts say they had not just been 7-1, losing to OU, but also lost to say, UT in OT on the road, so they came into the game 5-2 and beat us, going 6-2. We would win the North, they would stay home, tough break for them. You make a decent point, but that's life. Don't lose 2 games and complain I guess. If you are within 1 game and have the tiebreaker, then when you play eachother you control your destiny. If you lose to all of the good teams in the south, who you were unlucky enough to draw, you probably are not going to win in the title. In myt example above, Mizzou still seems to be the better team, due to point spread, but I would not want spread to be a factor, even though in this one case it would help, as it would encourage teams to run it up (Which they shoud not, and we did not do, even to NU)

 

I think he means this year. What if KU beats Mizzou head to head, but loses to Texas, OU, and TT while Mizzou's only loss might be to you and maybe another Big 12 team? How will you feel if they represent the North even though you lost to them?

[Landlord]

If you lose to a team, and they represent the north, you can't complain...

[jayhawk]

Yup, best record wins, then head to head. My hawks were M last year, and will be N this year, schedule wise for sure, and maybe record wise as well. We were 7-1 and we North Co-champs, but since we lost head to head to Mizzou (both were 7-1), they got to go to the title game, and rightfully so.

But what if you beat Mizzou along with every other north team, and yet Mizzou still got the recognition as the best team in the north division?

 

If we had beaten Mizzou, we would have been 8-0. WIth our easier North Schedule last year, lets say we had the same result and been 7-1, but instead the beat us 100-0 instead of by 8 points (i think that is how much we lost by). LEts say they had not just been 7-1, losing to OU, but also lost to say, UT in OT on the road, so they came into the game 5-2 and beat us, going 6-2. We would win the North, they would stay home, tough break for them. You make a decent point, but that's life. Don't lose 2 games and complain I guess. If you are within 1 game and have the tiebreaker, then when you play eachother you control your destiny. If you lose to all of the good teams in the south, who you were unlucky enough to draw, you probably are not going to win in the title. In myt example above, Mizzou still seems to be the better team, due to point spread, but I would not want spread to be a factor, even though in this one case it would help, as it would encourage teams to run it up (Which they shoud not, and we did not do, even to NU)

 

I won't like it, but if we lose to all 3 of the best teams in the south, we aren't probably going to win the conference championship game. I would say at least somone who has not shown they can't beat those teams (in your example) should give it a whack.... I am happy with last year, in the end, if we wnated to go to the title game, we needed to win our game against Mizzou. We didn't. Mizzou could say the same thing about the BCS, Illinois is the team who had no business being there, but MU lost twice to OU and franky looked a little bad in how the championship game finished out.

[jayhawk]

If you lose to a team, and they represent the north, you can't complain...

 

I think his questions is that you beat the team, but you have a harder south schedule by a lot, so only because of that they still go instead of you.

[JGS30]

If you lose to a team, and they represent the north, you can't complain...

 

I think his questions is that you beat the team, but you have a harder south schedule by a lot, so only because of that they still go instead of you.

 

Since the schedule rotates every year, for every team in the Big 12, you can't complain about weak schedules. What goes around comes around. Handle your business and everything will take care of itself. No excuses.

[junior4949]

Yup, best record wins, then head to head. My hawks were M last year, and will be N this year, schedule wise for sure, and maybe record wise as well. We were 7-1 and we North Co-champs, but since we lost head to head to Mizzou (both were 7-1), they got to go to the title game, and rightfully so.

But what if you beat Mizzou along with every other north team, and yet Mizzou still got the recognition as the best team in the north division?

 

If we had beaten Mizzou, we would have been 8-0. WIth our easier North Schedule last year, lets say we had the same result and been 7-1, but instead the beat us 100-0 instead of by 8 points (i think that is how much we lost by). LEts say they had not just been 7-1, losing to OU, but also lost to say, UT in OT on the road, so they came into the game 5-2 and beat us, going 6-2. We would win the North, they would stay home, tough break for them. You make a decent point, but that's life. Don't lose 2 games and complain I guess. If you are within 1 game and have the tiebreaker, then when you play eachother you control your destiny. If you lose to all of the good teams in the south, who you were unlucky enough to draw, you probably are not going to win in the title. In myt example above, Mizzou still seems to be the better team, due to point spread, but I would not want spread to be a factor, even though in this one case it would help, as it would encourage teams to run it up (Which they shoud not, and we did not do, even to NU)

 

I won't like it, but if we lose to all 3 of the best teams in the south, we aren't probably going to win the conference championship game. I would say at least somone who has not shown they can't beat those teams (in your example) should give it a whack.... I am happy with last year, in the end, if we wnated to go to the title game, we needed to win our game against Mizzou. We didn't. Mizzou could say the same thing about the BCS, Illinois is the team who had no business being there, but MU lost twice to OU and franky looked a little bad in how the championship game finished out.

 

See, this is what I don't like about how the Big 12 is set up. Let's say you beat MU but then lose to 3 south teams. MU loses to KU and only 1 south team. If KU beats MU and lost to 3 of the south teams, then the odds of MU doing as well or better against 1 of those south teams in the championship game is slim to none. I would rather just have every Big 12 team play one another. By the conference viewpoint, KU wasn't the second best team in the Big 12 last year but they played in a BCS bowl. Just have everyone play one another then everything gets answered on the field.

[Igetbored216]

See, this is what I don't like about how the Big 12 is set up. Let's say you beat MU but then lose to 3 south teams. MU loses to KU and only 1 south team. If KU beats MU and lost to 3 of the south teams, then the odds of MU doing as well or better against 1 of those south teams in the championship game is slim to none. I would rather just have every Big 12 team play one another. By the conference viewpoint, KU wasn't the second best team in the Big 12 last year but they played in a BCS bowl. Just have everyone play one another then everything gets answered on the field.

 

I wouldn't be opposed to an extended season! Play the 11 other teams in the conference and then maybe 3 non-conference...hell yeah!

 

Never going to happen, but that would be grand...

[junior4949]

Actually, we don't need an extended season. Just have every Big 12 team drop 3 of their 4 non-conference games. The problem then would be that every big time program would try to schedule Baylor and ISU for the first 2 games.

[shyndy]

ive actually thought that the way you would get playoffs started (not that I want them, I just never see people suggest it this way) is that since everyone is power conferencing now, you have every conference in the 12-16 range. Each conference split in two, no interconference play, champ game, then you start squaring conference champs off based on seeding, maybe with some wildcards. would handle it like baseball regionals or something, having the bowls switch to regionals- thus a bowl game would get more games likely, and you still have all the non playoff bowls for all the nonqualifiers.

 

but back on topic, the inter league games and champ games hurt conferences that do them, like the big 12 and SEC no doubt, and it isnt fair that other conferences dont do it like the big 10. On the other side, maybe the reason OSU has lost two big games in a row is because these champ games prepared the SEC teams for the big games. I like the champ games, personally i think they shouldnt add them to your loss column tho.