Quote:
Originally Posted by JayP
I think you're trying to say is that instead of Big 12 North vs. Big 12 South you simply would've had Texas vs. Oklahoma. The problem with that is that when you do that there's no point for the divisions with-in a conference. And when you do that in a 12-team conference the schedules become unbalanced and a team could have potentially gone this season without playing Texas, OU, and Texas Tech. When you do it like that it becomes very difficult to determine just who are the best teams in the conference.
|
First the way the big 12 does it's schedule it is impossible to not play OU or Texas just like it's impossible to not play Nebraska and Colorado (although that obviously needs to be updated, maybe they could do it yearly)
Quote:
|
Either way, when you try and say that you just take the best two teams in the conference you're getting subjective and you have the exact same issues you seem to have with the BCS.
|
Well with 120 teams there has to be some subjectivity I agree but this is better than the current system.
Quote:
|
You say you don't add BCS at-larges if there's a non-BCS school with a better record. Well then instead of Alabama and Texas you get Boise St. and Utah. I'm sure there won't be any people who are unhappy with that choice.
|
As a Texas alum I would not be upset that UT didn't make the playoffs if they got to play OU in the Big 12 championship and lost.