Bill Self said today that the Big 12 is officially moving to 20 league games.

Keep in mind the Big 12 meetings were in Arizona last week, so this was likely confirmed there.

— Michael Swain (@MSwain247) May 6, 2024

So 5 opponents home and away and then 10 single games. I hope we get Houston twice, Kansas twice, Arizona twice, Iowa St twice and Texas Tech twice. That would be a cool schedule for home and away. But we'll probably get stuck with TCU, Oklahoma St, Utah, UCF and WVU as home and away.

historian said:

---

I like your choices but we will probably get TCU instead of Iowa State or Arizona. I prefer to keep the latter & only play the Clones once a year.

I'm going to miss the double round robin scheduled for a king time. Eventually, I will get used to it.

---

I know that doulbe round robin schedule was only because our conference has been on weak footing for years, but you're right it was the best conference slate in college basketball, and part of why the profile of our conference grew in basketball over the last decade. It just made conference play more fun when you knew there was a chance to get them back, or to go steal a road win.

In the current ESPN top 25, four of the top five teams listed were Big 12, and five of the top 10. https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/39895473/mens-college-basketball-way-too-early-top-25-rankings-2024-25-season

Big question is where they throw the extra two games.

Late December means needing warmup games after finals and trying to get finals done very early in December.

Or do they take the "break in the middle" and schedule a couple of games in early December before finals with some easy non-con games stuffed between con games 2 and 3?

Either method seems to put some squeeze on the early December neutral court matchups. And the Thanksgiving tourneys are basically set in stone from a date window perspective [limiting movement in that calendar direction]. More "start the season in the Dakotas" scenarios?

Related issue is impact on NET rankings. SOS definitely helped. If teams keep scheduling 3-5 tough OOC matchups, that doesn't leave many tune up games. Dumping the SEC/B12 matchup opened up one scheduling spot [good] but also dinged OOC offerings [replaceable].

Will be interesting to see how SEC tries to game the system [inevitable] with fewer conference games or some weird form of imbalanced schedule where the top teams in SEC only play one another once. And how do B10, B12, Big East, ACC reps on Tourney Committee respond when that inevitably happens.

If the SEC does that, they should get fewer teams in the tournament. No conference should get special favors (same with football). This doesn't mean it won't happen.

On the other hand, the Big 12 teams with soft ooc schedules also should be punished. Maybe that happened this year. Maybe more would have been in the tournament with a better schedule.

I mean tough toenails the SEC is on a mission to kill the NCAA tournament. I am afraid they'll eventually get what they want. Basketball isn't going to hold conferences together.

So Big Ten elects 18 conference games with 1 permanent HAH and 16 single play [8 home & 8 away] with Midwest teams guaranteed no more than 2 West Coast trips annually.



Will be interesting to see what the SEC does……solid bet they game the system.
Big East & ACC unlikely to change their current formats.

I suspect that Yormark's grand strategy as partly designed to counteract the totalitarian designs of the SEC. They want a monopoly, like ESPN, and they don't care about anyone else who doesn't further that goal. At least that's how it seems.

historian said:

---

I suspect that Yormark's grand strategy as partly designed to counteract the totalitarian designs of the SEC. They want a monopoly, like ESPN, and they don't care about anyone else who doesn't further that goal. At least that's how it seems.

---

The B12's 2 game schedule wasn't Yormark. The broadcasters wanted more quality content.

I was thinking more about expansion, media rights negotiations, etc than the 20 game schedule. An extra two conference games each year might not make a big difference in the big scheme of things if it helps keep the conference strong and helps it to survive. If the media wanted it then it should have accomplished that goal.

Then again, those two games could impact how many teams get into the tournament. Do their could be some harm.

historian said:

---

I was thinking more about expansion, media rights negotiations, etc than the 20 game schedule. An extra two conference games each year might not make a big difference in the big scheme of things if it helps keep the conference strong and helps it to survive. If the media wanted it then it should have accomplished that goal.

Then again, those two games could impact how many teams get into the tournament. Do their could be some harm.

---

It was a volume & quality issue. It was also a calendar issue.

Since broadcasters only acquire home game rights, Non-Con away games and the abundant Non-Con neutral court games are against their interest. Combine that with the fact that broadcasters want sports content between CFB conference championship games and bowl season and the "we will pay you to bump conference game volume" is a fairly easy combination to understand.

That said, the B12 will need to learn how to work the scheduling of that volume so that top of the pack teams are not dropping NCAAT seed lines and middle of the pack teams aren't dropping below the cut line. Definitely, the HAH scheduling for most teams projected in the top half of the B12 needs to primarily be against teams projected in the bottom half of the B12. Beat the SEC at their own game.

historian said:

---

I suspect that Yormark's grand strategy as partly designed to counteract the totalitarian designs of the SEC. They want a monopoly, like ESPN, and they don't care about anyone else who doesn't further that goal. At least that's how it seems.

---

Not only is it "like ESPN" it is driven by ESPN. ESPN has been steering the SEC ship for a long time and is why the state of college football is what it is. ESPN has a vested interest in the SEC being the most successful college athletics conference since they own all of the television rights to the SEC. So they have steered the narrative towards that so hard that it has now come true (on the whole, Big 12 and ACC are still above it in men's basketball, but that's pretty much it).

I agree with you, Yorkmark's strategy is to steer into MBB to try and wrestle away some of that narrative.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

So Big Ten elects 18 conference games with 1 permanent HAH and 16 single play [8 home & 8 away] with Midwest teams guaranteed no more than 2 West Coast trips annually.



Will be interesting to see what the SEC does……solid bet they game the system.
Big East & ACC unlikely to change their current formats.

---

There isn't the same incentive to game the system in basketball that there is in football. You want a stronger conference strength of schedule because the reward for beating quality teams -- both in and out of conference -- is much greater than the penalty for losing such games.

To me, that's the biggest weakness in college football. We haven't incentivized competition the way we have in other college sports. In fact, we've actively dis-incentivized it by rewarding those who avoid it.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

So Big Ten elects 18 conference games with 1 permanent HAH and 16 single play [8 home & 8 away] with Midwest teams guaranteed no more than 2 West Coast trips annually.



Will be interesting to see what the SEC does……solid bet they game the system.
Big East & ACC unlikely to change their current formats.

---

There isn't the same incentive to game the system in basketball that there is in football. You want a stronger conference strength of schedule because the reward for beating quality teams -- both in and out of conference -- is much greater than the penalty for losing such games.

To me, that's the biggest weakness in college football. We haven't incentivized competition the way we have in other college sports. In fact, we've actively dis-incentivized it by rewarding those who avoid it.

---

Apples & Buicks.

CFB has been focused on accessing the Top 4.

MBB is focused on building the resume of the Top 12 but even more importantly is focused on limiting the negatives of teams in the 30-50 range. Hitting 20 wins is important. Avoiding 13+ losses is important.

Power conference teams have sufficient Tier 1 and Tier 2 opportunities. As long as they avoid Tier 3 and Tier 4 losses, getting to a 40-45% winning percentage in Tier 1 and Tier 2 usually works.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

So Big Ten elects 18 conference games with 1 permanent HAH and 16 single play [8 home & 8 away] with Midwest teams guaranteed no more than 2 West Coast trips annually.



Will be interesting to see what the SEC does……solid bet they game the system.
Big East & ACC unlikely to change their current formats.

---

There isn't the same incentive to game the system in basketball that there is in football. You want a stronger conference strength of schedule because the reward for beating quality teams -- both in and out of conference -- is much greater than the penalty for losing such games.

To me, that's the biggest weakness in college football. We haven't incentivized competition the way we have in other college sports. In fact, we've actively dis-incentivized it by rewarding those who avoid it.

---

Apples & Buicks.

CFB has been focused on accessing the Top 4.

MBB is focused on building the resume of the Top 12 but even more importantly is focused on limiting the negatives of teams in the 30-50 range. Hitting 20 wins is important. Avoiding 13+ losses is important.

Power conference teams have sufficient Tier 1 and Tier 2 opportunities. As long as they avoid Tier 3 and Tier 4 losses, getting to a 40-45% winning percentage in Tier 1 and Tier 2 usually works.

---

We're about to expand access to the CFP to 12 (or more) teams, and the two most powerful conferences are actively looking for ways to lighten their schedules rather than strengthen them.

It's very much a culture issue in college football that doesn't exist in other sports.

With an expanded playoff, the updated risk/reward evaluation for building challenging schedules should be pushing the sport farther in that direction, and it's doing the opposite.

Why? Because college football has always been based more on perception than competition, and it continues to be even in an era of unprecedented championship access.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

So Big Ten elects 18 conference games with 1 permanent HAH and 16 single play [8 home & 8 away] with Midwest teams guaranteed no more than 2 West Coast trips annually.



Will be interesting to see what the SEC does……solid bet they game the system.
Big East & ACC unlikely to change their current formats.

---

There isn't the same incentive to game the system in basketball that there is in football. You want a stronger conference strength of schedule because the reward for beating quality teams -- both in and out of conference -- is much greater than the penalty for losing such games.

To me, that's the biggest weakness in college football. We haven't incentivized competition the way we have in other college sports. In fact, we've actively dis-incentivized it by rewarding those who avoid it.

---

Apples & Buicks.

CFB has been focused on accessing the Top 4.

MBB is focused on building the resume of the Top 12 but even more importantly is focused on limiting the negatives of teams in the 30-50 range. Hitting 20 wins is important. Avoiding 13+ losses is important.

Power conference teams have sufficient Tier 1 and Tier 2 opportunities. As long as they avoid Tier 3 and Tier 4 losses, getting to a 40-45% winning percentage in Tier 1 and Tier 2 usually works.

---

We're about to expand access to the CFP to 12 (or more) teams, and the two most powerful conferences are actively looking for ways to lighten their schedules rather than strengthen them.

It's very much a culture issue in college football that doesn't exist in other sports.

With an expanded playoff, the updated risk/reward evaluation for building challenging schedules should be pushing the sport farther in that direction, and it's doing the opposite.

Why? Because college football has always been based more on perception than competition, and it continues to be even in an era of unprecedented championship access.

---

You jumped from "is" to "about to". A 4 team system and a 12 team system are fundamentally different.

Unless you have a crystal ball or can time travel, opining on what will happen in a 12 team system is guesswork not fact.

I can safely state that no can can predict with absolute certainty the precise way that selection in the 12 team format will work out [because I don't believe in either crystal balls or time travel].

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

So Big Ten elects 18 conference games with 1 permanent HAH and 16 single play [8 home & 8 away] with Midwest teams guaranteed no more than 2 West Coast trips annually.



Will be interesting to see what the SEC does……solid bet they game the system.
Big East & ACC unlikely to change their current formats.

---

There isn't the same incentive to game the system in basketball that there is in football. You want a stronger conference strength of schedule because the reward for beating quality teams -- both in and out of conference -- is much greater than the penalty for losing such games.

To me, that's the biggest weakness in college football. We haven't incentivized competition the way we have in other college sports. In fact, we've actively dis-incentivized it by rewarding those who avoid it.

---

Apples & Buicks.

CFB has been focused on accessing the Top 4.

MBB is focused on building the resume of the Top 12 but even more importantly is focused on limiting the negatives of teams in the 30-50 range. Hitting 20 wins is important. Avoiding 13+ losses is important.

Power conference teams have sufficient Tier 1 and Tier 2 opportunities. As long as they avoid Tier 3 and Tier 4 losses, getting to a 40-45% winning percentage in Tier 1 and Tier 2 usually works.

---

We're about to expand access to the CFP to 12 (or more) teams, and the two most powerful conferences are actively looking for ways to lighten their schedules rather than strengthen them.

It's very much a culture issue in college football that doesn't exist in other sports.

With an expanded playoff, the updated risk/reward evaluation for building challenging schedules should be pushing the sport farther in that direction, and it's doing the opposite.

Why? Because college football has always been based more on perception than competition, and it continues to be even in an era of unprecedented championship access.

---

You jumped from "is" to "about to". A 4 team system and a 12 team system are fundamentally different.

Unless you have a crystal ball or can time travel, opining on what will happen in a 12 team system is guesswork not fact.

I can safely state that no can can predict with absolute certainty the precise way that selection in the 12 team format will work out [because I don't believe in either crystal balls or time travel].

---

We don't need a crystal ball to determine or judge what the SEC and Big Ten have already done and are currently doing.

And we've already seen this on a smaller scale with the move from the BCS to the CFP.

Expanded access should lead to greater competition, and it's done the opposite in college football, where power, influence and tradition trump all else.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

So Big Ten elects 18 conference games with 1 permanent HAH and 16 single play [8 home & 8 away] with Midwest teams guaranteed no more than 2 West Coast trips annually.



Will be interesting to see what the SEC does……solid bet they game the system.
Big East & ACC unlikely to change their current formats.

---

There isn't the same incentive to game the system in basketball that there is in football. You want a stronger conference strength of schedule because the reward for beating quality teams -- both in and out of conference -- is much greater than the penalty for losing such games.

To me, that's the biggest weakness in college football. We haven't incentivized competition the way we have in other college sports. In fact, we've actively dis-incentivized it by rewarding those who avoid it.

---

Apples & Buicks.

CFB has been focused on accessing the Top 4.

MBB is focused on building the resume of the Top 12 but even more importantly is focused on limiting the negatives of teams in the 30-50 range. Hitting 20 wins is important. Avoiding 13+ losses is important.

Power conference teams have sufficient Tier 1 and Tier 2 opportunities. As long as they avoid Tier 3 and Tier 4 losses, getting to a 40-45% winning percentage in Tier 1 and Tier 2 usually works.

---

We're about to expand access to the CFP to 12 (or more) teams, and the two most powerful conferences are actively looking for ways to lighten their schedules rather than strengthen them.

It's very much a culture issue in college football that doesn't exist in other sports.

With an expanded playoff, the updated risk/reward evaluation for building challenging schedules should be pushing the sport farther in that direction, and it's doing the opposite.

Why? Because college football has always been based more on perception than competition, and it continues to be even in an era of unprecedented championship access.

---

You jumped from "is" to "about to". A 4 team system and a 12 team system are fundamentally different.

Unless you have a crystal ball or can time travel, opining on what will happen in a 12 team system is guesswork not fact.

I can safely state that no can can predict with absolute certainty the precise way that selection in the 12 team format will work out [because I don't believe in either crystal balls or time travel].

---

We don't need a crystal ball to determine or judge what the SEC and Big Ten have already done and are currently doing.

And we've already seen this on a smaller scale with the move from the BCS to the CFP.

Expanded access should lead to greater competition, and it's done the opposite in college football, where power, influence and tradition trump all else.

---

In 10 years of the 4 team CFP, the SEC had two participants twice [2017 & 2021]. No other conference has ever had two participants.

The bump to 12 participants will change that dynamic. But no one can reasonably offer an informed opinion of 12 team selection without assuming that it will automatically follow the voting patterns of the old system where the "almost teams" were simply landing in the remaining NYD 6 bowls. It can be safely assumed that the SEC will never again have 50% of the participants.

Rather than assume that voting patterns will remain the same, it seems far more likely that a new system will alter [to some degree] voting patterns (and thus voting results). After the SEC & B10 squeeze on the financial aspects, don't be surprised if the B12, ACC, G5, and Notre Dame "balance the books" through their voting.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

So Big Ten elects 18 conference games with 1 permanent HAH and 16 single play [8 home & 8 away] with Midwest teams guaranteed no more than 2 West Coast trips annually.



Will be interesting to see what the SEC does……solid bet they game the system.
Big East & ACC unlikely to change their current formats.

---

There isn't the same incentive to game the system in basketball that there is in football. You want a stronger conference strength of schedule because the reward for beating quality teams -- both in and out of conference -- is much greater than the penalty for losing such games.

To me, that's the biggest weakness in college football. We haven't incentivized competition the way we have in other college sports. In fact, we've actively dis-incentivized it by rewarding those who avoid it.

---

Apples & Buicks.

CFB has been focused on accessing the Top 4.

MBB is focused on building the resume of the Top 12 but even more importantly is focused on limiting the negatives of teams in the 30-50 range. Hitting 20 wins is important. Avoiding 13+ losses is important.

Power conference teams have sufficient Tier 1 and Tier 2 opportunities. As long as they avoid Tier 3 and Tier 4 losses, getting to a 40-45% winning percentage in Tier 1 and Tier 2 usually works.

---

We're about to expand access to the CFP to 12 (or more) teams, and the two most powerful conferences are actively looking for ways to lighten their schedules rather than strengthen them.

It's very much a culture issue in college football that doesn't exist in other sports.

With an expanded playoff, the updated risk/reward evaluation for building challenging schedules should be pushing the sport farther in that direction, and it's doing the opposite.

Why? Because college football has always been based more on perception than competition, and it continues to be even in an era of unprecedented championship access.

---

You jumped from "is" to "about to". A 4 team system and a 12 team system are fundamentally different.

Unless you have a crystal ball or can time travel, opining on what will happen in a 12 team system is guesswork not fact.

I can safely state that no can can predict with absolute certainty the precise way that selection in the 12 team format will work out [because I don't believe in either crystal balls or time travel].

---

We don't need a crystal ball to determine or judge what the SEC and Big Ten have already done and are currently doing.

And we've already seen this on a smaller scale with the move from the BCS to the CFP.

Expanded access should lead to greater competition, and it's done the opposite in college football, where power, influence and tradition trump all else.

---

In 10 years of the 4 team CFP, the SEC had two participants twice [2017 & 2021]. No other conference has ever had two participants.

The bump to 12 participants will change that dynamic. But no one can reasonably offer an informed opinion of 12 team selection without assuming that it will automatically follow the voting patterns of the old system where the "almost teams" were simply landing in the remaining NYD 6 bowls. It can be safely assumed that the SEC will never again have 50% of the participants.

Rather than assume that voting patterns will remain the same, it seems far more likely that a new system will alter [to some degree] voting patterns (and thus voting results). After the SEC & B10 squeeze on the financial aspects, don't be surprised if the B12, ACC, G5, and Notre Dame "balance the books" through their voting.

---

The SEC is still playing eight conference games in 2024 -- a total ***** move -- and chose to do so knowing that the playoff was expanding. The Big Ten is sticking with nine for the foreseeable future, so props to them there.

And I can't see either conference significantly altering their nonconference scheduling conventions to include more power conference opponents, but we'll wait and see on that.

It has not been a tradition in college football for those with power, influence and access to voluntarily cede any of that to those without. I don't see any reason to believe that will change in the 12-team playoff era. But I remain disappointed that the sport has made such little progress in incentivizing high-profile cross-conference matchups, while virtually every other college sport has managed to do so.