BUBBFAN said:

---

historian said:

---

It all boils down to which is more important: should it be the conference championship winner or should it be the team with the best overall record? The way the playoffs are currently structured, I would think the latter but I see arguments both ways. Very good arguments have been made above.

All this points to the need for an expanded play off with conference champions getting automatic bids.

---

In the Big 12s case it should be the regular season winner because we don't have divisions

---

The lack of divisions was why it was dumb for this conference to institute a championship game. But having done so, the winner of the championship game is...the conference champion.

DanaDane said:

---

Shouldn't of happened. We deserved it. If not us, then TCU. Just made up some bs "criteria" that always changed from week to week. Guaranteed that if had been OU and UT tied with same conference record, 1 of them would have been in the playoffs without a 13th data point.

---

No, it should not have happened. The stupid committee made up new criteria every week & even elevated Minnesota to a quality team because TCU played them that year. That may have been the only time that Minnesota really mattered in the past decade.

Hotsauce said:

---

I'm loving the way this is shaping up because it continues to shine a light on how dumb this system actually is, and has been.

This really wasn't hard to figure out: let the major conferences pick their own rep to the CFP! You can have a CCG, you can do round robin...hell, you can draw straws for all we care. When that's all set, you can have your damned committee to determine at-larges.

Instead, we have this biased debacle.

---

Better yet, get rid of the stupid committee altogether & use a statistical model to determine the others: most wins, strength of schedule, etc. There should never be any nonsense about "datapoints", "eye tests", etc.

I, for one, would welcome back the computers with open arms. But most people hated the BCS back in the day hehe.

I think a big part of the hatred of BCS was that there were only 2 teams in the calculation. If it's a 12+ team playoff with conference champs getting auto bids, that issue should be eliminated. If you want to be sure you get in, win your conference. If you can't do that don't whine to everyone else. Sorry ND, you may need to join the ACC at least for football like you did in the covid year.

I think the conference game brings little value to the end of year ratings and playoff decisions.

The committee has been quite consistent, so everyone has been on notice for years in regard to what they need to do in order to make the playoffs. Some of these posts read as though the poster doesn't have over half a decade of committee decisions to look to for guidance.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The committee has been quite consistent, so everyone has been on notice for years in regard to what they need to do in order to make the playoffs. Some of these posts read as though the poster doesn't have over half a decade of committee decisions to look to for guidance.

---

So you're Affirming that they just pull **** outta their a$$

MrGolfguy said:

---

Should be a CFP rule. Tcu is 12-1 Big12 runner up, therefore they shouldn't make the CFP.

#FACTS

---

Who gets in then?

Georgia
Utah
K-state
Michigan/Purdue winner?


What about when it goes to twelve teams in a few years? There aren't 12 conferences.

In most years I would say a team that doesn't win their conference shouldn't get in over a conference winner if that conference winner is better.

But no one would say that Utah is a top 4 team.

Georgia would not have won it all last year.

Saban pulling more **** outta his A$$ right now! Suck Faban!

MrGolfguy said:

---

Golden Helmet said:

---

If their jerseys were green and gold vs Purple and white you'd be arguing the reverse…..

---

Wrong. Conf Champs only

---

Based on what exactly? Every major sport in the America has wildcard teams or at-large bids in its postseason. Why should college football not?

Hotsauce said:

---

I, for one, would welcome back the computers with open arms. But most people hated the BCS back in the day hehe.

---

Me too. Computers are much better than people at objective analysis.

7 Nattys

Golden Helmet said:

---

7 Nattys

---

What have you done for me lately

DanaDane said:

---

The real irony is that the primary reason the Big 12 championship game was created in the first place was due to some committee comment in 2014 about a 13th data point back when they were trying to figure out any excuse to exclude TCU and us. There never have been any official selection criterion and there never will be. That gives the committee and any television partners the ability to include who they want.

---

They definitely used a left hand to pull that one out.

Don't forget, they still have that left hand.

UM
OSU
Alabama
Georgia

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

DanaDane said:

---

The real irony is that the primary reason the Big 12 championship game was created in the first place was due to some committee comment in 2014 about a 13th data point back when they were trying to figure out any excuse to exclude TCU and us. There never have been any official selection criterion and there never will be. That gives the committee and any television partners the ability to include who they want.

---

They definitely used a left hand to pull that one out.

Don't forget, they still have that left hand.

UM
OSU
Alabama
Georgia

---

They'll probably put Georgia, Alabama, LSU an A&M in

Go by rankings of recruits!

Aggies to the CFP!

Half the teams in the playoff did not win their conference, proving that it's not really a playoff. It's bullcorn.

Nailer said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

MrGolfguy said:

---

Should be a CFP rule. Tcu is 12-1 Big12 runner up, therefore they shouldn't make the CFP.

#FACTS

---

This is stupid. There shouldn't even be a conference championship game when you play everyone in your conference. TCu deserves to be in the CFP.

---

When you really think about it, it is ridiculous that a team goes 12-0, 9-0 in conference, beating every league member, but has to play a championship game vs an opponent they already beat and has two league loses.

---

This may be true in a year when a team is 12-0, 9-0 in conference play, but remember the championship game came about several years ago when Baylor and TCU had identical records, and there was not an "official" Big 12 champion, so the Big 12 was excluded from the playoff.

I doubt it will work against TCU this year. They had a great game, lost in overtime, and the quarterback probably burnished his Heisman credentials in the process. But - we will find out soon enough.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Actually, it's a legitimate question. Let's say your belief is true.

Now let's say Georgia and Michigan win and are in.

Who, in your mind, should get the final two spots?

---

There were 10 conference champions , which 4 get into the CFP?

Georgia
Michigan
K-State
Clemson
Utah
UTSA
Toledo
Fresno State
Tulane
Troy

Noname said:

---

Nailer said:

---

BellCountyBear said:

---

MrGolfguy said:

---

Should be a CFP rule. Tcu is 12-1 Big12 runner up, therefore they shouldn't make the CFP.

#FACTS

---

This is stupid. There shouldn't even be a conference championship game when you play everyone in your conference. TCu deserves to be in the CFP.

---

When you really think about it, it is ridiculous that a team goes 12-0, 9-0 in conference, beating every league member, but has to play a championship game vs an opponent they already beat and has two league loses.

---

This may be true in a year when a team is 12-0, 9-0 in conference play, but remember the championship game came about several years ago when Baylor and TCU had identical records, and there was not an "official" Big 12 champion, so the Big 12 was excluded from the playoff.

I doubt it will work against TCU this year. They had a great game, lost in overtime, and the quarterback probably burnished his Heisman credentials in the process. But - we will find out soon enough.

---

That's not why the Big 12 was excluded. That was just the inconsistent rationale the committee used in that particular season to put Ohio State in over one of those teams.

The committee picks its teams and builds a case around it, logic and past precedent be damned. There is no consistent criteria. It's just whoever the committee likes best.

Jack Bauer said:

---

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

Actually, it's a legitimate question. Let's say your belief is true.

Now let's say Georgia and Michigan win and are in.

Who, in your mind, should get the final two spots?

---

There were 10 conference champions , which 4 get into the CFP?

Georgia
Michigan
K-State
Clemson
Utah
UTSA
Toledo
Fresno State
Tulane
Troy

---

Georgia
Michigan
Utah
Clemson

6 at Bama

Apparently enough to be paid an average yearly salary over the length of the contract of $11.7 million.

They are unlikely to put 2 loss teams into the playoffs. If they did, Bama would be first.

BellCountyBear said:

---

MrGolfguy said:

---

Should be a CFP rule. Tcu is 12-1 Big12 runner up, therefore they shouldn't make the CFP.

#FACTS

---

This is stupid. There shouldn't even be a conference championship game when you play everyone in your conference. TCu deserves to be in the CFP.

---

I've been saying this ever since the Championship game was added. OkSt. and TCU won the title out right and shouldn't have had to play another game to win what was already theirs.

Why are people ok with a team winning their conference in basketball but losing the conference tournament and still making the field of 64?

What is the difference?

Just think how awful the playoff games would be if only the conference champions got in. Utah, Clemson or K-State would not be much of a challenge to the top 2. Heck TCU might not either but at least they seem to be a better team on paper having gone undefeated until the conference championship.

cowboycwr said:

---

Why are people ok with a team winning their conference in basketball but losing the conference tournament and still making the field of 64?

What is the difference?

---

They don't get in ahead of the Conference champion.

And basketball is a tournament, not a playoff. Don't call it a playoff if it's not a playoff. It's not a playoff if the conference champion stays home while a runner-up advances.

Also, I believe in this particular case, that Kansas State proved to be the best team in the conference at the end of the season. They won the legitimate title and they earned it. That doesn't qualify them for the fake playoff, but it means TCU isn't the champion and isn't entitled to that spot. They didn't earn it, and didn't deserve it over the legit conference champ.

Dia del DougO said:

---

Also, I believe in this particular case, that Kansas State proved to be the best team in the conference at the end of the season. They won the legitimate title and they earned it. That doesn't qualify them for the fake playoff, but it means TCU isn't the champion and isn't entitled to that spot. They didn't earn it, and didn't deserve it over the legit conference champ.

---

So TCU's regular season win over Kansas State meant literally nothing then? Same with Kansas State's loss to Texas?

Ignoring an entire season worth of work in favor of a championship game K-State had no logical claim to (they finished two games behind TCU in the regular season and lost head to head) seems really damn silly to me.

Dia del DougO said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Why are people ok with a team winning their conference in basketball but losing the conference tournament and still making the field of 64?

What is the difference?

---

They don't get in ahead of the Conference champion.

And basketball is a tournament, not a playoff. Don't call it a playoff if it's not a playoff. It's not a playoff if the conference champion stays home while a runner-up advances.

---

The name is different but it works the same.

The winner goes to the next round. The loser goes home.

Same thing in football. K-State doesn't stay home. They have a bowl to play in.

Is the point to get the best teams in the playoffs or just the winners of the conferences?

Dia del DougO said:

---

Also, I believe in this particular case, that Kansas State proved to be the best team in the conference at the end of the season. They won the legitimate title and they earned it. That doesn't qualify them for the fake playoff, but it means TCU isn't the champion and isn't entitled to that spot. They didn't earn it, and didn't deserve it over the legit conference champ.

---

TCU beat K-State in the regular season.

And everyone else.

K-State lost to Texas. And Tulane.

So perhaps Tulane should be in the playoffs now too....

TCU is the best team in the conference as they beat everyone in regular season.

cowboycwr said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

Also, I believe in this particular case, that Kansas State proved to be the best team in the conference at the end of the season. They won the legitimate title and they earned it. That doesn't qualify them for the fake playoff, but it means TCU isn't the champion and isn't entitled to that spot. They didn't earn it, and didn't deserve it over the legit conference champ.

---

TCU beat K-State in the regular season.

And everyone else.

K-State lost to Texas. And Tulane.

So perhaps Tulane should be in the playoffs now too....

TCU is the best team in the conference as they beat everyone in regular season.

---

This

bear2be2 said:

---

Dia del DougO said:

---

Also, I believe in this particular case, that Kansas State proved to be the best team in the conference at the end of the season. They won the legitimate title and they earned it. That doesn't qualify them for the fake playoff, but it means TCU isn't the champion and isn't entitled to that spot. They didn't earn it, and didn't deserve it over the legit conference champ.

---

So TCU's regular season win over Kansas State meant literally nothing then? Same with Kansas State's loss to Texas?

Ignoring an entire season worth of work in favor of a championship game K-State had no logical claim to (they finished two games behind TCU in the regular season and lost head to head) seems really damn silly to me.

---

We have reached a system of second or in some cases third chances, and in the case of Big XII basketball, perhaps a fourth time. It is not good enough to beat a team once, you have to beat them again. In other words, you need to win the game that counts regardless of how many times you beat them during the season. High schools in my day sent one team to bi-district. Everyone else was done. Now in the smallest of districts, you don't even have to have a winning record in district to go to the playoffs.

The only truly fair thing is to just have regular season champions move on. If you already played someone and lost, you had your chance. Cut out the plethora of bowl games, basketball tournament spots and playoff games for high school.....reduce the amount of participation trophies. But that will never happen. TV greed and hurt feelings will prevail.

We don't need close to 40 bowl games. You should have at least a record of 8-4 to play in what is left, and even that is questionable if all of this is based on competition. But we know it is not. It is all about money, and the gullible people that will fork it over to watch entertainment.

There are Over 40 bowl games. I think it is 42 plus the championship game from what I saw yesterday.

It's hilarious to me that TCU could potentially have a 12-0 regular season and end the year with zero trophies to show for it.

Go Blue.