2012-2013 Big 12 College Football

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Is the SEC the best conference at the top? Probably. Is the SEC the best conference from top to bottom? Please. Not even close. What I will give the SEC credit for is being the smartest conference. They make sure the top teams only have to play a couple games against each other so that all those teams only have one or two losses which insures they're in top 15. Plus, they only have an 8-game conference schedule so they can have one more weak non-con game. Since you have so many top 15 teams (even if they're not worthy of those rankings), that creates the delusion that the SEC is impossible to make it through (because so many people won't look back at those team's schedules and realize they didn't play each other). They make sure all those games get out of the way early to the middle of the season for two reasons: 1. if a team loses, that gives them plenty of time to move back up the rankings (look what happened this week, all the top SEC teams played weak non-con opponents, and now they have three or four teams in the top 5) 2. The illusion gets built by having the biggest games of the weekend be in the SEC when all the conferences are playing weak non-con opponents so they get 500 College Gamedays and all the hype all week. The fact that the top of the SEC is undefeated against the bottom of the SEC proves how wretched those teams at the bottom truly are. In the Big 12, you have the 2nd worst team in the league beating the #1 ranked team in the country. In the SEC, you have THREE teams who can't even get a win. The SEC has figured out the perfect way to game the system and everyone is falling for it. I tip my hat to them for it.

Kind of makes you wonder why we don't see other conferences doing the same thing.

True. I think maybe that's what the Big Ten is thinking with their potential additions.

I think we saw how TCU and WVU benefited from being the big fish in a small pond, kind of like K-State in 2012. It's easy to be good when the rest of the conference competition is fair to weak.

And, this is different from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, how exactly?

Not sure how adding 2 losing football programs upgrades the Big 12, but at least the Big 12 gained that coveted Charleston, WV TV market!

They're NOT losing programs. That's the point. They're perennially winning programs and they can't cut it in the Big 12. That shows how good the conference is. What did Missouri and Texas A&M add competitively? Both losing football programs. Mizzou's doing about the same as they did in the Big 12. Texas A&M's all of a sudden a world-beater. Maybe the SEC isn't as good as you think?

Interesting how you bash the SEC for playing weak opponents, but ignore how the SEC has a championship game, which you say you wouldn't want in the Big 12. But, I digress.

What does the SEC lose by having a conference championship game? If Florida beats Florida State, that will be two straight years where they have a one-loss team that's not in the conference championship game pretty much insuring that no matter what happens, they'll have a team in the national championship game. The SEC championship is completely meaningless, it just decides what SEC team advances. And, that has nothing to do with the quality of those teams but the make-up of their schedules.

There are some cases when a conference championship game can hurt. Like in 1998 with K-State, as you mentioned. Or like in 2007 with Mizzou. But, if there had been a championship game last year, Oklahoma State would have played for the national title with a win.

How do you figure that?

So, it is difficult to do decide right now whether a conference companionship game would help or hurt K-State right. We'll have to see how things play out before deciding. But, IMO, it's looking like K-State would need a championship game to play for the national title. But, we'll see.

We need teams to lose, not a championship game. How exactly would it help? Explain it to me. The SEC teams at the top only have a couple quality opponents each, why do we need another if they don't? K-State isn't going to jump anybody in the rankings with a win over Oklahoma in the mythical Big 12 Championship game. Nobody.

[AllThingsKC]

I think we saw how TCU and WVU benefited from being the big fish in a small pond, kind of like K-State in 2012. It's easy to be good when the rest of the conference competition is fair to weak.

And, this is different from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, how exactly?

The SEC has more teams in the Top 10 than the Big 12 has in the Top 25. Almost half of the SEC was ranked last week. So, the pond is about the same size, but there's more "big fish" to worry about.

Not sure how adding 2 losing football programs upgrades the Big 12, but at least the Big 12 gained that coveted Charleston, WV TV market!

They're NOT losing programs. That's the point. They're perennially winning programs and they can't cut it in the Big 12. That shows how good the conference is. What did Missouri and Texas A&M add competitively? Both losing football programs. Mizzou's doing about the same as they did in the Big 12. Texas A&M's all of a sudden a world-beater. Maybe the SEC isn't as good as you think?

So, how exactly do TCU and WVU "upgrade" the Big 12 over Mizzou and A&M? Mizzou and A&M aren't losing football programs. Mizzou could lose every game for the next 14 years, and K-State could win every game for the next 14 years, and Mizzou would still be one game better than K-Sate. My point is Mizzou isn't a "losing" program, historically. As far as A&M goes, when you've got a possible Heisman QB, anything is possible.

There are some cases when a conference championship game can hurt. Like in 1998 with K-State, as you mentioned. Or like in 2007 with Mizzou. But, if there had been a championship game last year, Oklahoma State would have played for the national title with a win.

How do you figure that?

They should have been #2 without a championship game. With a championship game win, they would have had an extra win to recover from the Iowa State loss late in the season.

We need teams to lose, not a championship game. How exactly would it help? Explain it to me. The SEC teams at the top only have a couple quality opponents each, why do we need another if they don't? K-State isn't going to jump anybody in the rankings with a win over Oklahoma in the mythical Big 12 Championship game. Nobody.

At this point, KSU needs teams to lose, yes. But, a championship game would help show that KSU isn't the big fish in the small pond, which is how I think the Big 12 is viewed nationally. But, like I said, we'll have to see how things play out because there are situations where a championship game would hurt KSU, no doubt. I just think with a loss this late in the season, a championship game win would work in K-State's favor right now.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

The SEC has more teams in the Top 10 than the Big 12 has in the Top 25. Almost half of the SEC was ranked last week. So, the pond is about the same size, but there's more "big fish" to worry about.

That's the point. They don't play each other. K-State has played 4 and will play 5 ranked teams in Big 12 play. Alabama has played 3 and will play 4 ranked teams in SEC play. Georgia has played 2, will play 3. Florida has played 3. Yet, those SEC teams have more "big fish" to worry about. Okay, sure.

So, how exactly do TCU and WVU "upgrade" the Big 12 over Mizzou and A&M? Mizzou and A&M aren't losing football programs. Mizzou could lose every game for the next 14 years, and K-State could win every game for the next 14 years, and Mizzou would still be one game better than K-Sate. My point is Mizzou isn't a "losing" program, historically. As far as A&M goes, when you've got a possible Heisman QB, anything is possible.

You used to be a good poster. This is just becoming sad.

They should have been #2 without a championship game. With a championship game win, they would have had an extra win to recover from the Iowa State loss late in the season.

At this point, KSU needs teams to lose, yes. But, a championship game would help show that KSU isn't the big fish in the small pond, which is how I think the Big 12 is viewed nationally. But, like I said, we'll have to see how things play out because there are situations where a championship game would hurt KSU, no doubt. I just think with a loss this late in the season, a championship game win would work in K-State's favor right now.

This is not how things work. Beating Oklahoma again gains K-State absolutely nothing and would do nothing to dispel the "big fish in the small pond" viewpoint that doesn't exist outside of your head. Same for Oklahoma State last year.

[shinatoo]

Lot of MU fans jumping on the K-State Bandwagon last week. And, well, you see what us MU fan's are fated too. Sorry to ruin your party EMAW.

[KCMax]

Boy, Kansas City really missed out not having an exciting KU-MU game at Arrowhead between two college football juggernauts.

[bobbyhawks]

The entire argument over the title game helping the SEC teams and other conferences is pretty funny. If ye who newly embrace the SEC as THE ONE TRUE CONFERENCE would remember your roots, you could recall just as many times where the championship game ruined a team's chances at a title shot.

In fact, I seem to remember a time in the not-too-distant past when a #1 MU team choked vs. OU when faced with a one-game shot to play in the national title. KSU ruined a natinal title shot in 2003, etc. It happens both ways.

If Georgia Tech somehow upset Georgia, and (the more likely thing to happen) FSU beats Florida, then the SEC title game becomes a huge problem for the SEC. Alabama would face the SEC East tiebreak winner in a must win for the SEC's title hopes, then we are back to splitting hairs between KSU and Oregon. If Notre Dame chokes under the pressure, then KSU is sitting pretty without having to play a title game, while Alabama was knocked out by one. This is not likely, but I don't see a title game propelling a team from out of the picture to in the picture without someone ahead of them losing.

[AllThingsKC]

In fact, I seem to remember a time in the not-too-distant past when a #1 MU team choked vs. OU when faced with a one-game shot to play in the national title. KSU ruined a natinal title shot in 2003, etc. It happens both ways.

Right. We've covered that.

There are some cases when a conference championship game can hurt. Like in 1998 with K-State, as you mentioned. Or like in 2007 with Mizzou. But, if there had been a championship game last year, Oklahoma State would have played for the national title with a win.

So, it is difficult to do decide right now whether a conference companionship game would help or hurt K-State right. We'll have to see how things play out before deciding. But, IMO, it's looking like K-State would need a championship game to play for the national title. But, we'll see.

[KC-wildcat]

In fact, I seem to remember a time in the not-too-distant past when a #1 MU team choked vs. OU when faced with a one-game shot to play in the national title. KSU ruined a natinal title shot in 2003, etc. It happens both ways.

For the record, OU still played for the NC after the KSU loss in 2003.

[bobbyhawks]

In fact, I seem to remember a time in the not-too-distant past when a #1 MU team choked vs. OU when faced with a one-game shot to play in the national title. KSU ruined a natinal title shot in 2003, etc. It happens both ways.

For the record, OU still played for the NC after the KSU loss in 2003.

Thanks. Bad example.

I do find it iinteresting that, in the BCS rankings, the only SEC schools (in the top 25) that are not "overrated" in comparison to the computer averages are Florida and SC. No Big 12 team is ranked as high as their computer rankings indicate. The SEC clearly has some strong teams at the top this year, but I think this shows how the round robin makes a conference look weaker to an outsider than it actually is. The great thing about the SEC is that you are almost always more likely to get a bump from the voters. The average bump in the top 25 right now is a half spot, and the reason it isn't higher is in large part because people somehow don't think Florida's resume is more impressive than Alabama's (it totally is). The computers have Florida at #2, while the BCS ranks them at #4 due to a pretty heavy bias with the voters, who want to put them at #6. The average bump for a Big 12 team is -2. KSU actually ends up with the closest ranking to the computer average at -1.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

In fact, I seem to remember a time in the not-too-distant past when a #1 MU team choked vs. OU when faced with a one-game shot to play in the national title. KSU ruined a natinal title shot in 2003, etc. It happens both ways.

For the record, OU still played for the NC after the KSU loss in 2003.

Thanks. Bad example.

I do find it iinteresting that, in the BCS rankings, the only SEC schools (in the top 25) that are not "overrated" in comparison to the computer averages are Florida and SC. No Big 12 team is ranked as high as their computer rankings indicate. The SEC clearly has some strong teams at the top this year, but I think this shows how the round robin makes a conference look weaker to an outsider than it actually is. The great thing about the SEC is that you are almost always more likely to get a bump from the voters. The average bump in the top 25 right now is a half spot, and the reason it isn't higher is in large part because people somehow don't think Florida's resume is more impressive than Alabama's (it totally is). The computers have Florida at #2, while the BCS ranks them at #4 due to a pretty heavy bias with the voters, who want to put them at #6. The average bump for a Big 12 team is -2. KSU actually ends up with the closest ranking to the computer average at -1.

I disagree on Florida. Have you seen what they've done the last three weeks? If they beat Florida State then I think that should get them the NCG spot over Alabama but right now, I'd still give it to Bama. Really, I'd give it to K-State (slightly biased), then Oregon, then Bama, but whatever.

[bobbyhawks]

I disagree on Florida. Have you seen what they've done the last three weeks? If they beat Florida State then I think that should get them the NCG spot over Alabama but right now, I'd still give it to Bama. Really, I'd give it to K-State (slightly biased), then Oregon, then Bama, but whatever.

If the rankings are treated as a measurement of "lately," then I might agree, but I think this is a huge flaw in how most people apply their votes in the coaches poll and in the AP. The rankings are designed to determine who had the best season. The team with the best wins on the board and one loss, in my opinion, is absolutely Florida. People looking at the records are having it both ways in justifying Alabama because of impressive victories against overhyped teams. The Gators, for the most part, haven't won pretty, but they have amassed the most impressive resume. I don't think it is really close on paper, and if you are ranking who has had the best season, the eye test should only break a tie on paper.

Florida:
Won @#9
Won vs#7
Won vs#12
Lost vs#3
If they win @#10, that is four top 15 victories out of five tries with two away games.

Alabama:
Won vs#19
Won @#7
Lost vs#9
Those are the only top 25 teams in today's BCS rankings that Alabama played. I'll hear the margin of victory argument, but #19 Michigan is the only top 25 team that Alabama really handed it to. The loss at home to #9 when compared to Florida's loss at home to #3 is the nail in the coffin.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

I disagree on Florida. Have you seen what they've done the last three weeks? If they beat Florida State then I think that should get them the NCG spot over Alabama but right now, I'd still give it to Bama. Really, I'd give it to K-State (slightly biased), then Oregon, then Bama, but whatever.

If the rankings are treated as a measurement of "lately," then I might agree, but I think this is a huge flaw in how most people apply their votes in the coaches poll and in the AP. The rankings are designed to determine who had the best season. The team with the best wins on the board and one loss, in my opinion, is absolutely Florida. People looking at the records are having it both ways in justifying Alabama because of impressive victories against overhyped teams. The Gators, for the most part, haven't won pretty, but they have amassed the most impressive resume. I don't think it is really close on paper, and if you are ranking who has had the best season, the eye test should only break a tie on paper.

Florida:
Won @#9
Won vs#7
Won vs#12
Lost vs#3
If they win @#10, that is four top 15 victories out of five tries with two away games.

Alabama:
Won vs#19
Won @#7
Lost vs#9
Those are the only top 25 teams in today's BCS rankings that Alabama played. I'll hear the margin of victory argument, but #19 Michigan is the only top 25 team that Alabama really handed it to. The loss at home to #9 when compared to Florida's loss at home to #3 is the nail in the coffin.

That's if you believe those rankings to be accurate and never watch a game. Florida has looked absolutely dreadful in the games I've watched. Alabama didn't look that bad in the game they lost and has blown everyone else out except LSU (which a night game in Death Valley will make anyone struggle).

Alabama's win over LSU is better than Florida's since it was on the road. Florida beat A&M in the second game with a freshman quarterback. South Carolina and Georgia wouldn't be where they are without the SEC schedule that insures a certain number of teams only have one or two losses. Meanwhile, in non-top 25 games, Florida stuggled against Mizzou and Louisiana Lafayette. Alabama has only struggled with legitimate top 10/15 teams.

[bobbyhawks]

Absolutely, Bama's LSU win was more impressive than Florida's, but they both beat the same team. Forida actually beat a team on the road that Bama lost to. Florida's only loss comes to the #3 team that Bama will not play. If those rankings are only meaningful if you "believe" in them or if you watch games, then why even bother with the rankings? Shouldn't we just pick the championship based on the popular recollections of how teams have fared over the season? Then, we could have Alabama play the Dallas Cowboys in the title game.

The rankings are designed to place the best teams against one another. I am of the opinion that your ranking should be based on the things that you have accomplished. How you won should only be evaluated when all other win/loss comparisons are equal. When wins are all that matters, Florida has won more impressive games. We can find all of the excuses to make in the world, but there is no denying that Florida has beaten more quality teams this season. I completely get the argument that Alabama is a better team and don't even disagree with it, but I think that is a separate argument from who has accomplished more and who is deserving of a higher ranking. Teams who successfully navigate a more difficult schedule should be rewarded.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Absolutely, Bama's LSU win was more impressive than Florida's, but they both beat the same team. Forida actually beat a team on the road that Bama lost to. Florida's only loss comes to the #3 team that Bama will not play. If those rankings are only meaningful if you "believe" in them or if you watch games, then why even bother with the rankings? Shouldn't we just pick the championship based on the popular recollections of how teams have fared over the season? Then, we could have Alabama play the Dallas Cowboys in the title game.

The rankings are designed to place the best teams against one another. I am of the opinion that your ranking should be based on the things that you have accomplished. How you won should only be evaluated when all other win/loss comparisons are equal. When wins are all that matters, Florida has won more impressive games. We can find all of the excuses to make in the world, but there is no denying that Florida has beaten more quality teams this season. I completely get the argument that Alabama is a better team and don't even disagree with it, but I think that is a separate argument from who has accomplished more and who is deserving of a higher ranking. Teams who successfully navigate a more difficult schedule should be rewarded.

Scores don't matter at all? How you personally would rank teams doesn't matter at all?

I agree that South Carolina and A&M are good wins but I'm not sure USC is better than Michigan or Mississippi State and, again, A&M was playing their second game with a freshman quarterback (I don't think that should be ignored). Additionally, Florida was playing their best football more than a month ago and has fared pretty poorly recently (like, god awful). It doesn't necessarily matter that much that it's more recent but more that they've had an entire month of bad football. Alabama's had one bad game and it was against a top ten team.

[bobbyhawks]

Scores don't matter at all? How you personally would rank teams doesn't matter at all?

Fair enough. There are a lot of scenarios under which I think the best team and the most deserving team are not one in the same. I don't think you totally ignore scores, but I think that wins vs. quality opponents and record are always more important considerations. Your points about what happened in specific games are totally valid, but I still think that Florida has faced an overall tougher schedule. CBSSports.com has the SOS differential between Florida and Alabama at 5 to 32. Sagarin has 19 to 30. None of this matters, though, since the remaining SEC schedule will sort it all out for us. Alabama will either play Georgia or Florida, adding another top 5 matchup to their resume. There will be no dispute who plays in the championship based on the rankings (from an SEC perspective), unless Florida is in the running for #2 in the BCS after a ND loss. The only semi-plausible scenario now where the winner of the SEC title game does not play for the title would be if Florida and Georgia both lose this weekend, then Georgia beats Alabama. At the moment and per the voters, it looks like it will be Georgia or Alabama vs. Notre Dame, with Oregon/Florida possible after a ND loses. Unfortunately, and unfairly for KSU, I think they could only sneak in if the SEC apocalypse scenario happens where the best SEC team has 2 losses and Notre Dame loses to USC.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Scores don't matter at all? How you personally would rank teams doesn't matter at all?

Fair enough. There are a lot of scenarios under which I think the best team and the most deserving team are not one in the same. I don't think you totally ignore scores, but I think that wins vs. quality opponents and record are always more important considerations. Your points about what happened in specific games are totally valid, but I still think that Florida has faced an overall tougher schedule. CBSSports.com has the SOS differential between Florida and Alabama at 5 to 32. Sagarin has 19 to 30. None of this matters, though, since the remaining SEC schedule will sort it all out for us. Alabama will either play Georgia or Florida, adding another top 5 matchup to their resume. There will be no dispute who plays in the championship based on the rankings (from an SEC perspective), unless Florida is in the running for #2 in the BCS after a ND loss. The only semi-plausible scenario now where the winner of the SEC title game does not play for the title would be if Florida and Georgia both lose this weekend, then Georgia beats Alabama. At the moment and per the voters, it looks like it will be Georgia or Alabama vs. Notre Dame, with Oregon/Florida possible after a ND loses. Unfortunately, and unfairly for KSU, I think they could only sneak in if the SEC apocalypse scenario happens where the best SEC team has 2 losses and Notre Dame loses to USC.

Florida has a tougher schedule but I don't think it's that much more tougher that it makes up for struggling against weak competition in comparison to Alabama having no trouble whatsoever with weak competition. But, like I said, if they beat Florida State, they deserve to be there over Alabama because I think that's a much better win than Georgia (unless Alabama blows out Georgia and Florida barely wins).


It's quite that dire for K-State.

Notre Dame needs to lose to USC (I don't think it's automatic that they end up in front of us with one loss, last week the big discussion was whether they were even worthy of #3, a bunch of voters are dying to drop Notre Dame in the rankings)
Florida hopefully loses to Florida State (or Georgia loses to Georgia Tech and beats Alabama in SEC championship game or Alabama loses to Auburn and whoever wins the tiebreaker out of the West beats Georgia)
Oregon hopefully loses to Oregon State (or UCLA beats Stanford this weekend and Oregon in Pac-12 championship game)

Any of those things happening is very plausible. All happening in the same weekend is unlikely but we've seen stranger things.

[phxcat]

BCS- BSU is 15 and NIU is 16 in the coaches poll. It is my understanding that if one of those two teams finishes in the top 16 they would be automatically included in the BCS? Hopefully the computers are not as kind as the Coaches poll. There are ten spots- six AQs, Notre Dame, Oregon and probably Florida, I am hoping that OU will get that last spot if BSU doesn't, then puts a beat down on Florida in the Sugar. It has become more clear that the Big XII is the best conference in the country, but reading the reactions about Klein v Manziel (I think that Klein pissed it away against Baylor, but when you consider the competition from week to week, he should get it over Manziel hands down) the common thought seems to be that Manziel got his numbers against tougher competition. He didn't he got them on a steady diet of SEC cupcakes, and had a severe drop-off against the few SEC powerhouses he faced. Bowl season is the one opportunity for the Big XII to show what it is made of.

[KCPowercat]

One true Champion

[bobbyhawks]

Congrats to the Cats. I didn't think it possible. I hope you destroy Oregon, though that will be no easy task.

[KC-wildcat]

Klein with a good performance. not sure if it's enough for the Heisman. few thoughts. LB shouldn't get the award, IMO. Just very difficult to quantify, statistically or otherwise, the impact that such player can have. With a QB or RB, on the other hand, games are won or lost on their shoulders.

It should be between Manziel and Klein.

Don't think a FR should win the award. I know it's the best player and/or that player's value in a single season. But, I think the "body of work" is important so that flash in the pan players don't win this, the most prestiguous award in sports. A freshman might not put up the same numbers as an upperclassman when teams have a year's worth of game tape to study. It's a testament to those players that can continuously perform at a high level year after year.

Look at Klein. Had 1141 rushing yards and 27 rushing TDs as a junior. As a senior, had only 890 rushing yards and 22 TDs. Defenses targeted him. He was a known commodity. Moral of the story, Freshmen benefit from the element of surprise. You see it in MLB pitchers all the time. some rookies put up great numbers in the first half of the season, but when teams get a book on them, they begin to struggle.

Another thought...
Games vs. BCS AQ teams with winning records: Collin Klein: 7-1 record, 25 total td's, 6 turnovers Johnny Manziel: 2-2 record, 5 tds, 5 turnovers The was a stat shown last night. I saw someone post this and I thought it was very interesting. Hard not to vote or Klein when you see that stat.