2012-2013 Big 12 College Football

[Highlander]

Pulling punches, are you? I saw your original post.

Me too. The original post was funnier (if you weren't rooting for K-State). Of course, I was rooting for K-State.

Is that why you celebrated KSU's loss on Tigerboard? "I'd rather go winless in the SEC than win the Big XII". I noticed that even within the idiotic confines of Tigerboard, that kind of extreme homerism wasn't appreciatied.

[mgh7676]

KSU has lost one. In the grand scheme of things, losing once is better than losing fiving times. But damn, did that one loss hurt.

[AllThingsKC]

"I'd rather go winless in the SEC than win the Big XII".

I believe my exact quote was "I'd rather go winless in the SEC than undefeated in the Big 12." Depending on what happens in the Bowl games, there's a bigger chance of a losing Mizzou getting a bigger bowl payout than the Big 12's best team. Of course with the "new" Big 12 now looking like the Mountain West, I guess that's not all surprising. With their losing records in the Big 12, are TCU and VWU still considered upgrades?

Plus, Mizzou gets all the other benefits the SEC provides (which we have already discussed countless times).

[mgh7676]

"I'd rather go winless in the SEC than undefeated in the Big 12."

I don't get it. Do you watch football to cheer for a winning team, or do you watch football so that your school can pocket more money. Is this seriously where we are as fans? We would rather be aligned with "the best conference" than win football games?! There is something wrong with this sport.

[pstokely]

"I'd rather go winless in the SEC than undefeated in the Big 12."

I don't get it. Do you watch football to cheer for a winning team, or do you watch football so that your school can pocket more money. Is this seriously where we are as fans? We would rather be aligned with "the best conference" than win football games?! There is something wrong with this sport.

yes, the system is broken

[Highlander]

"I'd rather go winless in the SEC than win the Big XII".

I believe my exact quote was "I'd rather go winless in the SEC than undefeated in the Big 12." Depending on what happens in the Bowl games, there's a bigger chance of a losing Mizzou getting a bigger bowl payout than the Big 12's best team. Of course with the "new" Big 12 now looking like the Mountain West, I guess that's not all surprising. With their losing records in the Big 12, are TCU and VWU still considered upgrades?

Plus, Mizzou gets all the other benefits the SEC provides (which we have already discussed countless times).

TCU and WVU would both kick the shit out of the Tigers right now and we both know it. Yea, it's an upgrade.

[AllThingsKC]

Not denying that it's always fun to WIN games. I'd rather Mizzou go 14-0 than 0-12 every year, sure. But there is something to be said for "conference perception." IMO, the difference between the "conference perception" of the SEC and Big 12 is like night and day.

If a team goes winless in the SEC, people say, "Well the SEC is a tough conference."

If a team goes winless in the Big 12, people say, "How can they not win in the Big 12?"

Needless to say, when you add teams from the Big East and MWC, your conference starts to look like the Big East or MWC, and thus, loses some of that positive "conference perception." Having a shot at getting 8 teams into the past 7 national championships suggests the exact opposite.

TCU and WVU would both kick the shit out of the Tigers right now and we both know it. Yea, it's an upgrade.

I agree that TCU and WVU stand a good chance at beating Mizzou. But, if the Mizzou was in the Big 12 right now, that wouldn't be the case, right? Or would they still beat MU if MU was in the Big 12? If so, seems like Mizzou's problems have little to do with the SEC. Would you agree?

And where exactly is that is that "upgrade"?

TCU and WVU both bring winning football teams? Nope.
TCU and WVU both bring new TV markets? Nope.
TCU and WVU both bring new AAU schools? Nope.
TCU and WVU both bring winning basketball teams? Remains to be seen.
TCU and WVU can beat 1 of the 2 schools that left for the SEC?

Wow, what an upgrade.

[mgh7676]

Not denying that it's always fun to WIN games. I'd rather Mizzou go 14-0 than 0-12 every year, sure. But there is something to be said for "conference perception." IMO, the difference between the "conference perception" of the SEC and Big 12 is like night and day.

So, you feel better as a fan about being a crappy to mediocre team in the SEC than in the Big 12. Got it. As for me, I don't give a crap what the perception is. KSU was #1 in the country and controlled their destiny. They lost..it happens. But the Big 12 didn't keep them from being #1.

[AllThingsKC]

So, you feel better as a fan about being a crappy to mediocre team in the SEC than in the Big 12.

For now, yes. That crappy to mediocre team has the potential to make more money than the #1 Big 12 team this year.

KSU was #1 in the country and controlled their destiny. They lost..it happens. But the Big 12 didn't keep them from being #1.

Of course it happens. Look at Alabama last week. But Oregon, Alabama, and Georgia all have conference championship games to help them make a statement that they belong in the title game. K-State doesn't have that advantage. This is where perception plays a role and the lack of a Big 12 championship game hurts K-State. So now, there's no chance the Big 12 plays for a national title. I guess the good news is Big 12 fans are used to that.

[pstokely]

Is there such a thing as a reverse SI cover curse? Will Penn State someday come back better than ever?

[kcmetro]

I was hoping my K-State brethren would experience what it's like to root for your team in a national championship game. Oh well, maybe next year.

[Highlander]

Not denying that it's always fun to WIN games. I'd rather Mizzou go 14-0 than 0-12 every year, sure. But there is something to be said for "conference perception." IMO, the difference between the "conference perception" of the SEC and Big 12 is like night and day.

If a team goes winless in the SEC, people say, "Well the SEC is a tough conference."

If a team goes winless in the Big 12, people say, "How can they not win in the Big 12?"

Needless to say, when you add teams from the Big East and MWC, your conference starts to look like the Big East or MWC, and thus, loses some of that positive "conference perception." Having a shot at getting 8 teams into the past 7 national championships suggests the exact opposite.

TCU and WVU would both kick the shit out of the Tigers right now and we both know it. Yea, it's an upgrade.

I agree that TCU and WVU stand a good chance at beating Mizzou. But, if the Mizzou was in the Big 12 right now, that wouldn't be the case, right? Or would they still beat MU if MU was in the Big 12? If so, seems like Mizzou's problems have little to do with the SEC. Would you agree?

And where exactly is that is that "upgrade"?

TCU and WVU both bring winning football teams? Nope.
TCU and WVU both bring new TV markets? Nope.
TCU and WVU both bring new AAU schools? Nope.
TCU and WVU both bring winning basketball teams? Remains to be seen.
TCU and WVU can beat 1 of the 2 schools that left for the SEC?

Wow, what an upgrade.

TCU's program is not where it was a few years back when they were arguably the best team in the country. Had it not been for the ridiculous SEC bias in media, we may have actually found out. Still, TCU would beat Mizzou.

A&M isn't that good. The SEC IS that overrated.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

If a team goes winless in the SEC, people say, "Well the SEC is a tough conference."

Yep. That's exactly what Tennessee and Auburn fans are saying right now. Could you be more delusional?

And, seriously, if you'd rather go winless than go undefeated so that Mizzou makes a couple million more dollars, that's truly insane.

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.

Needless to say, when you add teams from the Big East and MWC, your conference starts to look like the Big East or MWC, and thus, loses some of that positive "conference perception."

The Big 12 added the best teams from the Big East and MWC and they can't even finish in the top half of the conference. That proves that the Big 12 is weak? That proves that the Big 12 is a very tough conference. Your logic is awesome.

So, you feel better as a fan about being a crappy to mediocre team in the SEC than in the Big 12.

For now, yes. That crappy to mediocre team has the potential to make more money than the #1 Big 12 team this year.

This is where perception plays a role and the lack of a Big 12 championship game hurts K-State. So now, there's no chance the Big 12 plays for a national title. I guess the good news is Big 12 fans are used to that.

K-State needs some help but we still have a shot at the national title. A Big 12 championship game wouldn't help those chances in any way and would only hurt by providing another game we can lose. K-State would've played for a national title game in 1998 if there wasn't a conference championship game.

[Highlander]

If a team goes winless in the SEC, people say, "Well the SEC is a tough conference."

Is the SEC the best conference at the top? Probably. Is the SEC the best conference from top to bottom? Please. Not even close. .

The SEC has created an illusion that their best teams have to run the gauntlet of the best college programs America has to offer every year so 1 and even 2 loss teams are better than undefeated teams in other conferences. Even if you buy into that BS, what fans of the SEC don't tell you is that it is a 14 member organization and teams only play some of the other SEC teams every year. Alabama this season is the perfect example. Their regular season includes a game against LSU but NOT Florida, Georgia, or South Carolina. The rest of their schedule includes crappy Arkansas, Missouri, overrated Mississippi state, horrible Mississippi (Texas beat them by 30), Tennessee which barely beat Troy at home a couple of weeks ago and Auburn which is also horrible. Their schedule isn't tough at all and now it includes a loss AT HOME to a team that was MOR Big XII last year.

[AllThingsKC]

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.

The Big 12 added the best teams from the Big East and MWC and they can't even finish in the top half of the conference. That proves that the Big 12 is weak? That proves that the Big 12 is a very tough conference. Your logic is awesome.

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.

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!

K-State needs some help but we still have a shot at the national title. A Big 12 championship game wouldn't help those chances in any way and would only hurt by providing another game we can lose. K-State would've played for a national title game in 1998 if there wasn't a conference championship game.

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.

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.

The SEC has created an illusion that their best teams have to run the gauntlet of the best college programs America has to offer every year so 1 and even 2 loss teams are better than undefeated teams in other conferences. Even if you buy into that BS, what fans of the SEC don't tell you is that it is a 14 member organization and teams only play some of the other SEC teams every year. Alabama this season is the perfect example. Their regular season includes a game against LSU but NOT Florida, Georgia, or South Carolina. The rest of their schedule includes crappy Arkansas, Missouri, overrated Mississippi state, horrible Mississippi (Texas beat them by 30), Tennessee which barely beat Troy at home a couple of weeks ago and Auburn which is also horrible. Their schedule isn't tough at all and now it includes a loss AT HOME to a team that was MOR Big XII last year.

What's the big deal if the SEC teams don't play every single SEC team every year? That's how it was in the Big 12 until 2010. I think the Big 12 is the only major conference with a round robin schedule and the Big 12 is still unfairly perceived as a weaker conference.

When #1 Alabama lost to a ranked to team at home in a close game, they fell to #4. It will be interesting to see K-State's new ranking after losing to an unranked team by 4 touchdowns. You think they'll be in the top 4? Probably not.

[Highlander]

What's the big deal if the SEC teams don't play every single SEC team every year? That's how it was in the Big 12 until 2010. I think the Big 12 is the only major conference with a round robin schedule and the Big 12 is still unfairly perceived as a weaker conference.

When #1 Alabama lost to a ranked to team at home in a close game, they fell to #4. It will be interesting to see K-State's new ranking after losing to an unranked team by 4 touchdowns. You think they'll be in the top 4? Probably not.

Please do not use subjective rankings to support an argument. They mean nothing.

The Big XII teams don't play everyone, that's true, but in a smaller conference, they play more of the better teams. Alabama hasn't played anyone but A&M and LSU and they lost to A&M at home. Getting beat bad like KSU is pretty unforgivable in the NC hunt. Getting beat at home should be equally unforgivable. Two things you absolutely cannot do: Get blown out and get beat at home. KSU and Alabama have done both.

[AllThingsKC]

The Big XII teams don't play everyone, that's true, but in a smaller conference, they play more of the better teams. Alabama hasn't played anyone but A&M and LSU and they lost to A&M at home. Getting beat bad like KSU is pretty unforgivable in the NC hunt. Getting beat at home should be equally unforgivable. Two things you absolutely cannot do: Get blown out and get beat at home. KSU and Alabama have done both.

I agree with this. The difference is, of course, that the SEC still has other teams in the national title hunt. It now seems that the Big 12 has no shot at the national title. I guess that shows which conference has more depth.

Don't forget last year, Alabama couldn't even win their division, yet they won the national championship. You have the Big 12 to thank for that mess. When the SEC tried to change to a more fair system, the Big 12 said no. But, it's no sweat off the SEC's back.

[KCPowercat]

So, you feel better as a fan about being a crappy to mediocre team in the SEC than in the Big 12.

For now, yes. That crappy to mediocre team has the potential to make more money than the #1 Big 12 team this year.

KSU was #1 in the country and controlled their destiny. They lost..it happens. But the Big 12 didn't keep them from being #1.

Of course it happens. Look at Alabama last week. But Oregon, Alabama, and Georgia all have conference championship games to help them make a statement that they belong in the title game. K-State doesn't have that advantage. This is where perception plays a role and the lack of a Big 12 championship game hurts K-State. So now, there's no chance the Big 12 plays for a national title. I guess the good news is Big 12 fans are used to that.

This doesn't make any sense. A title game wouldn't give K-State any greater chance for a title this season. The UT game on 12/1 is basically a title game anyways.

[KCPowercat]

Last night hurt but for some reason not nearly like 1998 did...maybe I'm just trained to deal with it better now. Getting bombed actually made it easier I think.

Still a good season but wow...really close to a great season.

[AllThingsKC]

Still a good season but wow...really close to a great season.

This.