How to add meaning to the Big 12 Title Game

[808Husker in KCMO]

Source

 

I know this proposal seems crazy, because it would never be accepted, no matter how reasonable it sounds or how easy it is to implement.

 

But just consider the practicality of a simple solution that would help make BCS better, more exciting and more legit without compromising school schedules, bowl alliances, the Big Six or any of that other non sense used to justify the current system.

 

All this proposal will do is make the system more efficient, reducing waste and adding relevance where it currently doesn’t exist.

 

It’s like the plus one but easily accepted. No need to get the Big Ten or the Pac Ten on board.

 

Instead of having another meaningless Big 12 Conference Champion Game, we implement a regional championship that matches the Big 12 South winner with the highest ranked team between the Big 12 North or the MWC.

 

It’s that simple.

 

This would allow the MWC conference champion to play for all the marbles, make the Big 12 winner earn their place in the National Championship game, and actually, for the first time in a long time, make the Big 12 Championship a meaningful and compelling matchup.

 

And it even makes sense geographically. The top four teams (Utah, BYU, TCU and Air Force) all fall close to or well within Big 12 boundaries.

 

Who wouldn’t kill to see Texas vs. TCU battle it out for a shot at the crystal? Austin vs. Dallas. Colt McCoy and Jordan Shipley against Jerry Hughes and the nation’s most bruising defense.

 

Instead, we’ll have to settle for Texas vs. Nebraska or Kansas State.

 

Yawn.

 

Are those teams even ranked?

 

Wouldn’t you at least like to see Texas play SOMEBODY before they inherited a berth in the National Championship Game? Isn’t that actually fairer to the Florida/Alabama winner?

 

Think about it.

 

How sweet would Oklahoma vs. Utah have been last year?

 

All we did was make a simple realignment and instantly the BCS became more fair, more exhilarating and more profitable while actually adding meaning to the Big 12 Conference Championship Game.

 

When was the last time this game was even remotely entertaining? Or featured a game that wasn’t decided by halftime (or should I say kickoff)?

 

You’d have to go all the way back to 2001 when Nebraska and Colorado were both top ten teams. Those were terrific teams. But those days are long gone.

 

Right now, you might expect something more like 2004, when an undefeated Oklahoma team drubbed Colorado 42-3.

 

How thrilling.

 

Under the new system you would’ve seen have seen undefeated Oklahoma led by Adrian Peterson matchup against Urban Meyer, Alex Smith and the undefeated Utah Utes?

 

Or how about 2005, when Texas beat Colorado 70-3. Instead, fans could’ve been watching Vince Young face a 10-1 TCU, a team that had already beaten Oklahoma in Norman.

 

I know.

 

Nebraska fans would be upset. They’d dabble on and on about tradition, entitlement and week in and week out scheduling and how the system would be unfair.

 

That’s just typical BCS, Harvey Perlman talk.

 

It’s actually just the opposite. Isn’t less reasonable that a team like Utah has to go undefeated playing at Oregon, at TCU and at BYU just to get a sniff to a venue they are already 2-0 in, with two blowout victories?

 

While the Big 12 North champion, a division that is 1-4 overall in the BCS and hasn’t won a BCS Bowl since 1999, just has to go 5-3 or 6-2 in a mediocre conference to get the opportunity to go to the BCS.

 

We all know it would NEVER be considered. But doesn’t it make more sense. The BCS would have nothing to lose.

 

All it would do is add legitimacy, revenue and excitement to the college football while providing greater access to the “non-BCS” threats.

[In the Deed the Glory]

Major flaw: The Big 12 owns the CCG, not the BCS. So it is not that "simple to impose". What an idiot this guy is:

 

You’d have to go all the way back to 2001 when Nebraska and Colorado were both top ten teams. Those were terrific teams. But those days are long gone.

 

Wow, didn't know two North teams played in the '01 CCG.......

[newenglandhusker]

Dumb idea. Just because the North has been down recently versus the South. This is cyclical and the North will be elevating its level (hopefully mostly due to Nebraska) so it won't be thought of as it is now.

 

 

[huskers1]

Or how about you take the winner of the MWC and play the pac 10 winner? He mentioned all the great game that would have been played had they played the south winner, well it would have been just as good playing the pac 10 winner. 04 urban meyer led utes playing the leinart and bush led trojans. 05 a 10-1 tcu team playing the again leinart and bush led trojans. I know it probably makes more sense location wise to have the mwc tie into the big 12 but we already have a championship game the pac 10 doesn't so let them essentially have one by playing the mwc champion.

[ironmike]

Or how about you take the winner of the MWC and play the pac 10 winner? He mentioned all the great game that would have been played had they played the south winner, well it would have been just as good playing the pac 10 winner. 04 urban meyer led utes playing the leinart and bush led trojans. 05 a 10-1 tcu team playing the again leinart and bush led trojans. I know it probably makes more sense location wise to have the mwc tie into the big 12 but we already have a championship game the pac 10 doesn't so let them essentially have one by playing the mwc champion.

 

Much better idea, IMO.

[Husker Richard]

Major flaw: The Big 12 owns the CCG, not the BCS. So it is not that "simple to impose". What an idiot this guy is:

 

You’d have to go all the way back to 2001 when Nebraska and Colorado were both top ten teams. Those were terrific teams. But those days are long gone.

 

Wow, didn't know two North teams played in the '01 CCG.......

 

i'm pretty sure he is referring to the fact that that was the last time two teams in the North division were actually decently ranked, posing a legitimate threat on paper to the South champion in the CCG.

[DJR313]

Sweet, so teams in the Big 12 North have no purpose for existing. What a douchenozzle.

[zoogs]

What determines "higher ranking"? Why the Big 12 North? eveything's in cycles. if the north teams dominate in a few years and the south teams are on a downswing, do you change the rules again? if the MWC starts sucking consistently what would even be the point? imo you simply cannot have structural decisions based on the current competitive landscape.

[Husker Richard]

What determines "higher ranking"? Why the Big 12 North? eveything's in cycles. if the north teams dominate in a few years and the south teams are on a downswing, do you change the rules again? if the MWC starts sucking consistently what would even be the point? imo you simply cannot have structural decisions based on the current competitive landscape.

 

he probably wants it based off of the BCS rankings.

 

 

otherwise, i agree completely with your post.

[General Blackshirt]

Overall, it's not that dumb of an idea. It can't work within the established context of the conferences, but I like the idea.

 

This is what I propose to adjust his idea:

 

1. Kick out Baylor

2. Add TCU, Utah, BYU, and Air Force

3. Create 3 new divisions of 5 teams each:

 

South

Texas

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

Texas A&M

Texas Tech

 

North

Nebraska

Mizzou

Kansas

Kansas State

Iowa State

 

Mountain West

TCU

Air Force

Utah

BYU

Colorado

 

4. Each team plays all 4 other teams in their division, and then 2 from each other division (with one home and one away game against each division).

 

5. 3 Divisional champions are crowned

6. The lowest ranked of the 3 divisonal champions is not considered. The remaining two play for the conference champion.

 

I like it better than what we have now. Possible? No. But I'm bored and I don't care

[brasky]

If this tool really thinks that Texas vs. Kstate or Nebraska will be a boring walk through the park, I'm thinking he will be in for a surprise come December. How f'ing arrogant can you be? How about the first half of the Big12's history? Who's side of the conference was better? Just wait a-hole.

 

Edit: Just looked him up, hes a mountain west homer. No wonder he thinks this is a good idea.

[junior4949]

First half of the Big 12? Isn't the South like 9-4? I know Texas won the very first Big 12 Championship. In fact, the South won 2 of the first 3 Big 12 Championships. It's impossible to argue that the North has owned the South at any time since the Big 12 was formed. In fact, the North has NEVER won back to back Big 12 Championships!

[Taylor]

Nobody had a problem when the north was taking it to the south when the big 12 first started. People seem to forget that Oklahoma sucked then and Texas was good but not great. It was Nebraska and Kstate even Colorado. Heck Iowa state was good to with wallace at qb. It will cycle out and the north will come back.

[junior4949]

When? The South has owned the North ever since the conference was formed. Go look at the Big 12 Champions. The South won 2 of the first 3. The North has never won back to back Big 12 Championships. The South is 9-4.

[808Husker in KCMO]

here's the records over the life of the big 12 conference for north teams vs south teams.

 

Colorado (21-18)

 

Iowa St. (8-31)

 

Kansas (8-31)

 

Kansas St. (21-18)

 

Missouri (21-18)

 

Nebraska (21-18)

 

These numbers do not count this year and are only regular season games.