American Athletic Conference

[mattdalt]

The Big 12 is absolutely going to have to expand. It's only "suspected" because Texas and Oklahoma have so much power there, and they'll continue to think their brands will be enough to get in themselves. The B12 will continuously be left out if they don't expand. The B1G is one of the worst P5 conferences I've ever seen this year and they STILL got in over them.

And the Big 12 might have been fine if Big 12 teams would actually schedule someone out of conference. Look at who Baylor played this year and who they plan on playing every year from here through 2018. Baylor will never make the playoff without going undefeated or the B12 creating a championship game. They have decided they don't have to play real opponents out of conference and the committee has decided that playing real opponents out of conference is important. That's not a fight they can win.

Perhaps much simpler:

Each of the 4 playoff schools bring unique viewing audiences. TCU and Baylor were really only in competition with OSU. They do not bring as many viewers to the table, therefore they get left out.

[60Shock]

No way in hell would KU/KS ever support us being in the Big 12 for all sports, baseball only, BB only, or even Tiddly Winks, PERIOD!

Like death and taxes, this you can take to the bank.

[AZ Shocker]

No way in hell would KU/KS ever support us being in the Big 12 for all sports, baseball only, BB only, or even Tiddly Winks, PERIOD!

Like death and taxes, this you can take to the bank.

I don't know if all the Big-12 schools would have to vote on it and sure KU would fight tooth and nail against Wichita St. joining the Big-12...but would schools like Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma St, Oklahoma, Iowa St. West Virginia and Texas be against Wichita St. joining??? I don't think those schools would necessarily cry about it like KU would. If it came down to a vote...KU would be making a fool out of themselves arguing why Wichita St. shouldn't be in the league while fellow Big-12 schools would be asking KU..."What's the big deal"???

[MoValley John]

Sometimes a look back gives great perspective. Here is a great thread regarding the Big 12 and staying at 10 teams.
http://texas.247sports.com/Board/21/...nsion-10624172

One of the most ironic posts from the thread:

The Big 12 champion will always be held above the Big 10/ Pac 12 champ as well. Big 12 is the 2nd best conference in college football, there is no denying it.
Today, they've done a 180 on their board.

[AZ Shocker]

That's simply because the winner of the league this year DIDN'T have Texas or Oklahoma on their jerseys. College Football is such a travesty to the competition of sport. Tv sets will always rule who plays for the Big-game. Ohio St........goodness gracious. Both Baylor and TCU deserve to be in over Ohio St. Such a sham.

[The Mad Hatter]

That's simply because the winner of the league this year DIDN'T have Texas or Oklahoma on their jerseys. College Football is such a travesty to the competition of sport. Tv sets will always rule who plays for the Big-game. Ohio St........goodness gracious. Both Baylor and TCU deserve to be in over Ohio St. Such a sham.

This times a million. It had nothing to do with no championship game and everything to due with football being an old boys club where Ohio State will always be given every benefit over the TCUs and Baylor's of the world. Nike money is the only saving grace that keeps the same thing from happening to Oregon.

[MoValley John]

That's simply because the winner of the league this year DIDN'T have Texas or Oklahoma on their jerseys. College Football is such a travesty to the competition of sport. Tv sets will always rule who plays for the Big-game. Ohio St........goodness gracious. Both Baylor and TCU deserve to be in over Ohio St. Such a sham.

I think you might be half right on Texas and Oklahoma, but also half wrong. An undefeated Texas or Oklahoma may trump a one loss conference championship winning team, but an 11-1 Texas or Oklahoma will not trump a 12-1 conference championship game winner.

[FlyingWheat]

That's simply because the winner of the league this year DIDN'T have Texas or Oklahoma on their jerseys. College Football is such a travesty to the competition of sport. Tv sets will always rule who plays for the Big-game. Ohio St........goodness gracious. Both Baylor and TCU deserve to be in over Ohio St. Such a sham.

I loved hearing the committee justify OSU, saying they were undefeated against teams with winning records. That just means they lost to a team without a winning record!!

[AZ Shocker]

I think you might be half right on Texas and Oklahoma, but also half wrong. An undefeated Texas or Oklahoma may trump a one loss conference championship winning team, but an 11-1 Texas or Oklahoma will not trump a 12-1 conference championship game winner.

Agree to disagree. :) I do believe Texas or Oklahoma would have trumped Ohio St. this year had Texas or Oklahoma had the identical records as Baylor or TCU. Ohio St. had the WORST loss of the three teams (TCU, Baylor, Ohio St.)...and the Big-10 sucks. Look at their schedule...Ohio St. got in cuz their sexy name and tv sets. As a whole...the Big-12 was a better conference (again) than the Big-10 or whatever their calling it these days.

[ShockTalk]

This times a million. It had nothing to do with no championship game and everything to due with football being an old boys club where Ohio State will always be given every benefit over the TCUs and Baylor's of the world. Nike money is the only saving grace that keeps the same thing from happening to Oregon.

I loved hearing the committee justify OSU, saying they were undefeated against teams with winning records. That just means they lost to a team without a winning record!!

Listened to the Committee Chairman and all he could tout was Ohio St's big win over a Wisconsin powerhouse. What rubbish.

That Wiskie team lost to 8-4 LSU, the only quality non-con on their schedule and lost to Northwestern (that speaks volumes) and barely got by Iowa.

Ohio St also lost to the only "quality" opponent on their non-con, 6-6 VA Tech, 35-21 and beat (6-6,2-6) Penn St in 2OT.

TCU won all their non-con games including now ranked Minnesota 30-7 while Ohio St beat them only 31-24 in conference.

Their decision had nothing to do with having the best teams and is worse than the BCS system because of it.

[MoValley John]

The real problem is a four team "championship" doesn't include enough deserving teams. 16 is too many, but an eight team tourney would have ended this nonsense.

[1972Shocker]

The Big 12 should say wait a minute, we aren't done yet. We will have a playoff between TCU and Baylor next Saturday to determine our champion.

As far as Wichita State being invited to join the Big 12....I assume that was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion.

[Rlh04d]

Perhaps much simpler:

Each of the 4 playoff schools bring unique viewing audiences. TCU and Baylor were really only in competition with OSU. They do not bring as many viewers to the table, therefore they get left out.

I don't buy this. It fits the narrative that B12 fans will want to present, but here's the part that really gets me:

Ohio State – 84-60 (10 bowl teams)
TCU – 61-70 (7 bowl teams)
Baylor – 61-70 (6 bowl teams)

Those are the teams those three teams played. They all had the same record, yet Ohio State played the better schedule by miles.

It has nothing to with viewing audiences. Ohio State played one more game than either of those two teams. Baylor had to be ranked ahead of TCU, because they are the actual B12 champions ("co-champions" will never fly). Baylor does not, in any way, compare positively against Ohio State. For one thing, Ohio State played three bowl teams out of conference, while Baylor played zero. VT and West Virginia are comparable losses. Ohio State played one more game than Baylor. Ohio State has three wins over current top 25 teams, Baylor has two. And on and on and on.

I don't buy the audience angle, as I can compare their records myself and see that Baylor is pretty clearly above TCU, and Ohio State is pretty clearly above Baylor.

[Rlh04d]

TCU won all their non-con games including now ranked Minnesota 30-7 while Ohio St beat them only 31-24 in conference.

But they did not win their conference, and the committee has very explicitly stated that conference championships are weighted very heavily.

Baylor won the head-to-head with TCU and won the conference. You can't compare TCU to Ohio State, you have to compare Baylor to them. There was never any legitimate argument for TCU being over Baylor, other than that Baylor hadn't played KState yet. Once Baylor played KState, they became identical to TCU in all ways except TCU had a win over Minnesota, and Baylor had a head-to-head win over TCU and a conference championship. Baylor clearly wins that comparison.

The committee very clearly refused to buy into the "co-champion" idea. If they had, there would be no argument for Ohio State over TCU. Conference championships matter, and TCU did not win theirs.

That Wiskie team lost to 8-4 LSU, the only quality non-con on their schedule and lost to Northwestern (that speaks volumes) and barely got by Iowa.

Come on, man. TCU's best win of the season was against 9-3 Kansas State. The same team that lost to 8-4 Auburn, the only quality non-con on their schedule, and barely got by 2-10 Iowa State.

So Ohio State's second best win of the season is invalidated for being a 10-2 team that lost to an 8-4 SEC team, but TCU's best win of the season is a glowing example of excellence at 9-3 that lost to an 8-4 SEC team?

Meanwhile both beat Minnesota, and ... oh yeah, then there's a top 10 win @Michigan State that TCU has nothing comparable to. Not to mention that you're comparing a home game against Minnesota (TCU's) to an away game (Ohio State's) as if those two things are equivalent, and the MOV is the only difference. That's a dishonest comparison.

The committee isn't the reason TCU isn't in the playoff. TCU choking monumentally against Baylor and allowing 24 points in the 4th quarter is the reason they aren't in the playoff, plus scheduling Samford and SMU in the noncon. Here's the question I have ... if you know that your conference doesn't play a conference championship game, thus limiting you to playing one less game than everyone else, why would you still schedule FCS opponents? Drop the FCS opponent, play one more real opponent, and suddenly the other conferences don't have that extra game as an advantage. Then when you're going up in front of the press with talking points from a PR firm, you point out that you're the only conference in the country not scheduling guaranteed wins against FCS teams, and your 12 games are just as valuable as their 13 because of it. That is a winning argument.

[Rlh04d]

The real problem is a four team "championship" doesn't include enough deserving teams. 16 is too many, but an eight team tourney would have ended this nonsense.

Absolutely.

I think you make an eight team playoff with five guaranteed spots for P5 champions, one spot for a non-P5 team, and two wildcard teams. And then you base seeding heavily on nonconference schedule strength. That gives every team in the country a chance to win the championship and ensures the value of every individual game in the football season.