The people at Texas seem to be smarter than the people at Oklahoma. To the victors go the spoils. WVU is in good shape.
Oklahoma seems just as self centered, they just don't have the cards.
I say we watch the results of the CCG game going forward and calculate the statistics.
They have always been involved in their self interest. So has Texas. That is how it works.
There is no choice but to do your best. Sometimes your are rewarded, sometimes not. WVU is not in the drivers seat.I say there's no choice but to do that--but at the same time prepare as best you can for the fallout of current decisions in the years 2023-2025 and beyond.
There is no difference when you are taking hostages. If OU and Texas want to leave. Buh Bye.OUs "self interest" was to benefit the entire conference. Texas--hold the entire conference hostage and disadvantaged to them until they can go somewhere else.
I'll take OU's form of self interest every day of the week.
There is no choice but to do your best. Sometimes your are rewarded, sometimes not. WVU is not in the drivers seat.
There is no difference when you are taking hostages. If OU and Texas want to leave. Buh Bye.
Plan? Just reality. WVU is not in control of the self interest of Texas and Oklahoma.Yeah, good plan.
The Big12 is just fine. WVU is in a great spot.What the h#!! does that mean? Are you even a WVU fan? WVU isn't the only school in the conference that will be negatively impacted by these decisions. But WVU will be affected.
Some care about that--obviously you'd rather trumpet your love for UT-which just f'd WVU and multiple other schools.
Plan? Just reality. WVU is not in control of the self interest of Texas and Oklahoma.
It doesn't hurt at all.
You again explained that the market conditions are not good for a Big 12 network(with errors, but not the point of my posts)... ...after saying to another poster, '(It's) Not your go to market condition narrative'.
It's fun to watch you unwittingly debate yourself and the icing on the cake is when you do it after it's been pointed out to you.
No, it doesn't. It means the team that won the first game swept the conference-championship rematch in 15 of 24 occurrences to that point.In another article from 2012--this writer took a look at championship game results up to that time-the writer thinks its not that hard to win the second time--but the results bear out what has been stated:
excerpt:
What say you, history?
By my count, there have been 24 instances of two teams meeting in the conference championship game after meeting during the regular season. Teams that won the regular season game are 15-9 in the rematch.
http://www.ruleoftree.com/2012/11/2...ating-the-same-team-twice-pac-12-championship
15-9 in the rematch means the team that lost the first time won 60% of the time in the rematch btw.
It is 9 divided by 24 you idiot. What an embarassment you are.Ummm, 9 is 60% of 15.
It is 9 divided by 24 you idiot. What an embarassment you are.
you are a dickGo F yourself @hole. The only embarassment here is you.
Buck will destroy a conference to supposedly up conference playoff berth odds by 10-20% with methods that actually decrease the odds by a much greater percentage. The money-grab CCG 'ultra-necessary 13th data point' (a lie) will bite the B12 at least 1/3 of the time. It was not broken but Buck wanted desperately to fix something.
What a waste. Now WVU must beat the B12's best not once but TWICE to have any real chance to face other leagues' best. The key for B12 teams was always to lose none or one. Those odds decrease for all with a CCG. If two teams split, what has been decided? Right back to square ONE. But, so lucrative!
There are 24 people at a party. 15 are men, 9 are women. According to you 60% of the men are women. And you are lecturing us about the math of expansion. What a joke.
False. Conference-championship game rematch history shows that the first game winner has gone 20-11 (.645) in the rematch.As usual you miss the point.
You focus on unimportant things in order to ignore what matters.
What matters is that by playing a 10 team CCG with a round robin schedule, the BIG 12 has a guaranteed rematch that history shows quite often goes the opposite way in a rematch.
The team that won the first match, often loses the second--and for the BIG 12 that will mean knocking itself out of the playoff several times--and that is not a good thing.
If instead they moved to 12 teams they'd have a much greater chance of making the playoff.
I don't think you should try to do math anymore until you bring yourself up to Junior high competency.As usual you miss the point.
You focus on unimportant things in order to ignore what matters.
What matters is that by playing a 10 team CCG with a round robin schedule, the BIG 12 has a guaranteed rematch that history shows quite often goes the opposite way in a rematch.
The team that won the first match, often loses the second--and for the BIG 12 that will mean knocking itself out of the playoff several times--and that is not a good thing.
If instead they moved to 12 teams they'd have a much greater chance of making the playoff.
FYI, the Big Ten signed its other deal with ESPN. With everything together, it comes out to about $38 million for the TV deal.
http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2016/06/20/Media/ESPN-Big-Ten.aspx
False. Conference-championship game rematch history shows that the first game winner has gone 20-11 (.645) in the rematch.
I don't think you should try to do math anymore until you bring yourself up to Junior high competency.
You simply like to argue baseless points. Its a 50-50 shot. If you think its not-explain how its not.
It is difficult to beat the same team twice. In five previous years when the conference had a rematch, the team that lost the first game won the second game 40% of the time. In your world that didn't happen? It did and its in the history books.
If a team lost to its counterpart already in conference play, then its probably not going to be the higher ranked team unless the counterpart LOST another game or more. If that happened, then winning in a CCG against a team with multiple losses isn't going to be as impressive as beating an undefeated or one loss opponent in another conference anyway.
As to your last asinine statement, what should be happening is the league should have two divisions of six teams with the winners facing off in a CCG. There'd still be a slight disadvantage to 14 team conferences--but It would be a much higher chance of getting into the playoff than a 10 team conference playing a round robin schedule with a CCG.
BIG 12 history shows that 40% of the time the team that won the first lost the second. Its a 50-50 shot who will win the rematch.
You have no facts to base this on. If team a is stronger than team b, and they played 10 times, team a would win a majority. So depending on how much stronger team a is over team b will give you a better number.
Stanford played USC twice last year and had no problems winning both games.
The premises that it is harder to beat a team twice, isn't based on fact but based on your opinion and can't be proved any more than I can disprove it
I agree with other poster, you just pulled these numbers out of your butt, just to make some type of point.
One last item and something that I can't prove one way or another. I believe your numbers are an anomaly the BIG12 faced during that period. If you go back to the other 4 conference and compared the same type when they were at 12 teams, I am sure you will find a different % for each conference