2012-2013 Big 12 College Football

[AllThingsKC]

Last year, the Big 12 went 6-2 in their bowl games. This year, the new "upgraded" Big 12 went 4-5.

The #1 Big 12 team gets blown out by the #2 Pac-12 team, and the #2 Big 12 team gets blown out by the #5 SEC team (which used to be in the Big 12.)

Wow, what an upgrade! Tell me again how the Big 12 is the "better football conference from top to bottom" (as somebody here has suggested).

[NKC]

I don't think bowl games are always the best indicator of overall conference quality. There are too many bowls and who really cares about winning the BBVA Compass Bowl, et. al. unless your team is in it. That being said, KSU getting spanked by an Oregon team that really had nothing to prove does not show well for the Big 12. OU has an opportunity to save face tonight.

I love it...bowls aren't a good indicator of conference strength but the Big 12 sure looks horrible because of that one bowl game.

I agree with you in terms of specific teams. Certain coaches or teams don't handle the long break well. There are also many things that may work for a team during the regular season that no longer work when coaches are given more than a month to watch tape and practice against it. Bowls aren't a good indicator of team strength.

However, when looking at conferences, there are enough games to balance all of that stuff out so bowl games are a decent indicator of conference strength and the SEC isn't looking so dominating right now.

The SEC has not dominated top to bottom like years past, but the conference is over .500 with two more teams yet to play. If Alabama holds on to win the National Title I would say the SEC has had another successful bowl season. On the other hand the Big 12 is 4-5 and their top two teams were soundly beaten. I'm not trying to flame here, but the idea that the Big 12 is somehow the best conference this year by any measure is flat out wrong. Compared to the SEC, the only thing we know is SEC #5 destroyed Big 12 #2.

[AllThingsKC]

The SEC has not dominated top to bottom like years past, but the conference is over .500 with two more teams yet to play. If Alabama holds on to win the National Title I would say the SEC has had another successful bowl season. On the other hand the Big 12 is 4-5 and their top two teams were soundly beaten. I'm not trying to flame here, but the idea that the Big 12 is somehow the best conference this year by any measure is flat out wrong. Compared to the SEC, the only thing we know is SEC #5 destroyed Big 12 #2.

Let's not forget that both the Big 12 and SEC went 2-1 against Big Ten teams. However, the Big 12 played 3 teams with losing Big Ten records, while the SEC played 3 teams with winning Big Ten records. So, even if both the SEC and Big 12 go 4-5 in their bowl games (which is down for both conferences), the SEC still looks stronger than the Big 12 since they played better teams in better bowl games.

I'm not saying the SEC with worth the media bias, but as you said, the idea that the Big 12 has been "upgraded" without Mizzou and A&M - or - that the Big 12 is the better conference "from top to bottom" is laughable, as proven tonight.

[chaglang]

What's more impressive is that the SEC did it with Mizzou in their conference.

[AllThingsKC]

What's more impressive is that the SEC did it with Mizzou in their conference.

Exactly. And the Big 12 did it with the worst team in the country in their conference. The SEC didn't have that luxury.

[chaglang]

What's more impressive is that the SEC did it with Mizzou in their conference.

Exactly. And the Big 12 did it with the worst team in the country in their conference. The SEC didn't have that luxury.

I believe you have us confused with the Buffaloes of Colorado. Harrumph.

[AllThingsKC]

I believe you have us confused with the Buffaloes of Colorado. Harrumph.

Nope. It's KU. They were the only team to not beat an FBS team this year, and Colorado actually has conference wins in the past 2 years. That means KU is worse.

[chaglang]

I believe you have us confused with the Buffaloes of Colorado. Harrumph.

Nope. It's KU. They were the only team to not beat an FBS team this year, and Colorado actually has conference wins in the past 2 years. That means KU is worse.

KU had better peripherals. 23rd in rushing. Gotta start somewhere.

[AllThingsKC]

KU had better peripherals. 23rd in rushing. Gotta start somewhere.

I will give you that. KU has nowhere to go but up.

[chaglang]

If they'd held that 10 point 4th quarter lead against Northern Illinois, they would have spared the nation that clunker of an Orange Bowl.

[kcmetro]

K-State fans in Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl showed a lot of class at the Suns game the other night. They booed Markieff Morris when he came into the game.

[KC-wildcat]

K-State fans in Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl showed a lot of class at the Suns game the other night. They booed Markieff Morris when he came into the game.

Thanks for the phog update. Ive now seen this posted on facebook, Twitter and the Star comments. Apparently KU fans watch a lot of Suns games. Or, more likely, no KU fans actually saw that Suns game.

Even if it did happen, who gives a shit? Wear a KSU shirt to a KU watch party at Johnnys and youll experience a lot worse.

[brotherdarrell]

I'm a KU fan and think it is hilarious. The Morris twins are the least likable KU players from the Self era.

[phxcat]

What's more impressive is that the SEC did it with Mizzou in their conference.

Exactly. And the Big 12 did it with the worst team in the country in their conference. The SEC didn't have that luxury.

I'm glad that you are able to trade any hope of success for your own team for the ability to brag about the success of other teams in your conference. I'm glad that your school has fulfilled its dream of moving out of a conference that you feel has slighted you to a cult of a conference where the big dogs have everyone else in a position where they are perfectly OK with losing as long as the big dogs are happy. However, you have a very strong tendency to argue your points using pretty bad logical fallacies.

Bowl games are largely determined by matchups and the long lay off between the end of the regular season and the games. With K-State, the defense shut down Oregon's offense as well as can be expected. The conventional wisdom going into the game was that K-State could only hope to contain Oregon's offense and outscore them on offense. For the most part (and take away the 8 points from the return which was ST) and K-State allowed 27. On offense, Colin Klein was just not himself, and hasn't been since his concussion, and I also read a thread where some Texas fans noted that an offensive lineman was tipping the plays with his stance. That is something that a month off gives the coaches plenty of time to notice and exploit. Bottom line, though, despite the fact that the Big XII thoroughly stomped the best of the PAC in other games, Oregon is probably the best team in the country, and the worst match-up for K-State, and I would still like K-State's chances against either Alabama or ND. Big Game Bob always loses bowl games. K-State stops Manziel and wins that game if they are playing instead of OU. TCU should have beat MSU and would have, except for a muffed punt that should never have been fielded, and then compounded by trying to scoop it up and run rather than securing the ball. Only Two schools lost bad games, WVU and ISU, but you have to remember that these are the schools finishing in the same position in conference as SEC schools like Missouri who aren't even good enough to make a bowl game. Texas and Baylor beat ranked PAC teams. Baylor, who late in the season looked like it wouldn't even make a bowl game, beat the PAC south champion.

How bad is Florida? They got blown out by a Big East team, and how bad is LSU, losing to the ACC? USC got lucky to be matched up against a bad Michigan team who would have beat them had they not gone for it on 4th down, and Georgia could have easily lost to a bad Nebraska team who got blown out of the Big Ten championship by a bad Wisconsin team who barely made a bowl game themselves. Yes, to the untrained eye, the SEC came out of the bowl season looking better than the Big XII, but when you unpeel the layers of the onion, it becomes obvious that the SEC is a bad conference and the Big XII is still the best, top to bottom. Now, do I really believe that? Of course not- but with the bowl system the way it is, it is difficult to compare conferences even after the bowls. You could make a much stronger case had Florida not lost, but when you start down that road, you have to accept the fact that the Big East, with their winning bowl record and dominant BCS win is, in fact, the best conference in college football.

I really hate that you force me to defend KU again, but when you say that they are the worst team in college football, you may be right, but you only have a limited sample size to make that claim. Every team they lost to wen to a bowl game. Had they played Colorado's schedule, chances are that they would have won a few games. Had they played Missouri's schedule, chances are they would have won a few games.

As far as which conference is better top to bottom at this point in the season, I would put it like this (in no particular order within tiers):

Top tier (teams that should be favored to win the conference):

K-State, Alabama, A&M, Georgia (The SEC is definitely top heavy)

Second tier (teams that can challenge for the conference):
Oklahoma, LSU, Florida, Oklahoma State, Baylor, South Carolina

Third Tier (strong teams that will win some games but probably not challenge for the conference title):
Texas, MSU, TCU, Vanderbilt

Fourth tier (teams that are not good but not horrible):
ISU, WVU, Texas Tech, , Mississippi State, Vanderbilt, maybe Mississippi

Fifth Tier (teams that are just bad, and won't beat anyone but each other)
Kansas, Missouri, Auburn, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee

Looking at this, which conference is best top to bottom?

[KCtonic]

You lost me at:

Every team they lost to wen to a bowl game. Had they played Colorado's schedule, chances are that they would have won a few games. Had they played Missouri's schedule, chances are they would have won a few games.

Just for fun, compare the strength of schedule of KU, Colorado, and Kansas football this past year
http://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo ... le-by-team
Yes Colorada's #62 sos was weaker than KU's (you can thank K-State & Oklahoma for that). Mizzou's was 9 and KU's 31,

I personally think the Big 12 is a strong football conference - much stronger than many. I also think the SEC is a very strong conference. In head-to-head matchups the best teams typically win - nothing else including constant statistical comparisons really matter.

[AllThingsKC]

I'm glad that you are able to trade any hope of success for your own team for the ability to brag about the success of other teams in your conference. I'm glad that your school has fulfilled its dream of moving out of a conference that you feel has slighted you to a cult of a conference where the big dogs have everyone else in a position where they are perfectly OK with losing as long as the big dogs are happy. However, you have a very strong tendency to argue your points using pretty bad logical fallacies.

I like how you accuse me of using the SEC's greatness to feel better about Mizzou, then you proceed to tell me things like, "K-State could beat A&M." Do you have anything to back that up outside of your own opinion?

As you know, I am very opinionated. You are too. That's great for both of us. However, it's human nature to allow our own feelings to shape our opinion, which causes flawed logic many times. I am certainly not perfect at having the most fair and unbiased opinions because of human nature. But, I try to look at actual results, rather than my feelings or personal opinions. (Though, I'm not perfect at it by any means.)

Bowl games are largely determined by matchups and the long lay off between the end of the regular season and the games. With K-State, the defense shut down Oregon's offense as well as can be expected. The conventional wisdom going into the game was that K-State could only hope to contain Oregon's offense and outscore them on offense. For the most part (and take away the 8 points from the return which was ST) and K-State allowed 27. On offense, Colin Klein was just not himself, and hasn't been since his concussion, and I also read a thread where some Texas fans noted that an offensive lineman was tipping the plays with his stance. That is something that a month off gives the coaches plenty of time to notice and exploit. Bottom line, though, despite the fact that the Big XII thoroughly stomped the best of the PAC in other games, Oregon is probably the best team in the country, and the worst match-up for K-State, and I would still like K-State's chances against either Alabama or ND.

These seem like a bunch of excuses to me.

Big Game Bob always loses bowl games.

So, it's ok that Oklahoma got blown out by a former Big 12 team because losing bowl games is what Big Game Bob does best?

K-State stops Manziel and wins that game if they are playing instead of OU. TCU should have beat MSU and would have, except for a muffed punt that should never have been fielded, and then compounded by trying to scoop it up and run rather than securing the ball.

This is purely an opinion. Do you have any actual results that would back up this statement?

Only Two schools lost bad games, WVU and ISU, but you have to remember that these are the schools finishing in the same position in conference as SEC schools like Missouri who aren't even good enough to make a bowl game.

Mizzou's bowl game opponents can do no worse than 7-2, if not 8-1 (depending on who wins the BCS Championship). Both WVU's and ISU's opponents went 4-5 in bowl games.

[Texas and Baylor beat ranked PAC teams. Baylor, who late in the season looked like it wouldn't even make a bowl game, beat the PAC south champion.

Congrats? The "upgraded" Big 12 still managed to go 4-5 in bowl games.

How bad is Florida?

You're asking how bad Florida is because they lost a bowl? Well, crap. How bad is West Virginia? TCU? Oklahoma? K-State? Remember, this Big 12 was supposed to be upgraded with WVU and TCU. So, why the 4-5 bowl record when the Big 12 went 6-2 last year?

with the bowl system the way it is, it is difficult to compare conferences even after the bowls. You could make a much stronger case had Florida not lost, but when you start down that road, you have to accept the fact that the Big East, with their winning bowl record and dominant BCS win is, in fact, the best conference in college football.

I agree with this! There are different ways to see which conference is best, and the bowls are just one. They are an imperfect way of judging the conferences. But, they are one of the main ways used to form an opinion about conferences. So, right or wrong, they play on big impact on people's opinions. Therefore, based solely on the bowl results, you can see the SEC did better than the Big 12....again.

I really hate that you force me to defend KU again, but when you say that they are the worst team in college football, you may be right, but you only have a limited sample size to make that claim. Every team they lost to wen to a bowl game. Had they played Colorado's schedule, chances are that they would have won a few games. Had they played Missouri's schedule, chances are they would have won a few games.

Be careful here because you're using a lot of personal opinion rather than actual results. So, there's a lot of gray area here. What exactly do you see in Missouri's schedule that would suggest KU would have won a few games? Who cares if every team KU lost to went bowling? Same thing happened to Mizzou. In fact, of the teams Mizzou lost to, only 1 (maybe 2...depending on Alabama) also lost their bowl game. KU can't say that. Of course, they can't say a lot of things.

Fifth Tier (teams that are just bad, and won't beat anyone but each other)
Kansas, Missouri, Auburn, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee

Looking at this, which conference is best top to bottom?

Again, you're dealing with your own personal opinion here, rather than actual results. Of the so-called fifth tier teams you've listed, only Kansas hasn't won a conference game in the last 3 years. The rest have won conference games....and Auburn even won a national championship. So, based on your own listing, it's not illogical to conclude that the SEC is better from top to bottom. SEC it is, then. Of course, that's just my opinion.

[bobbyhawks]

I think a lot of people are discounting the matchups in their lust to easily determine the best conference. In games with at least one ranked team:

Big 12: 2-2 overall; 0 losses to a lower ranked team; 1-0 unranked Big 12 vs. ranked
SEC: 3-3 overall; 2 losses to a lower ranked team; 0-1 unranked SEC vs. ranked
B1G: 1-3 overall; 0 losses to a lower ranked team; 0-1 unranked B1G vs. ranked
PAC 12: 2-3 overall; 2 losses to a lower ranked team; 0-1 unranked PAC 12 vs. ranked

The SEC, widely regarded as the best conference, only has 2 games out of their 7 ranked matchups in which they are the underdog by ranking (including 1 unranked SEC vs. ranked game). Basically, anything less than 5-2 in those ranked games could be seen as a disappointment based on expectations. The best they can do is 4-3.

I also wholeheartedly disagree with those who claim that a single game determines who the better team is. This is never the case. Baylor is not better than KSU this year as can be said for nearly every other one-off upset by a team with a worse record. Being "better" is a relative thing, and you can only be relatively better than another team when you factor in the entire season's performance. KSU was not the best team in the Big 12 because they had Texas' number for a few years. They became the best team because of their entire resume. I don't think this is the case, but it is entirely possible for the better "team" to lose in a BCS game due to playing style, matchups, or just a bad day.

Due to the nature of the college football bowl structure, there is just no fair way to compare conferences without weighting the rank vs. performance given the seeding of these ridiculous games. A chalkboard of victories proves nothing. #6 vs. unranked? #s 22, 19, 24, 17, 20, 25 all vs. unranked opponents. #23 vs. #13. #10 vs. #18. #7 vs. #16. What in the world did this prove? If all of the higher ranked teams win, it just proves that the rankings are not incorrect, but the matchups are so spread out, it is really difficult to expect a lot of "upsets." Obviously, the bowls know that more people will tune in for a ranked matchup, so few will waste energy on paying for #22 vs. #23, when #22 vs. anybody will probably attract the same or similar audience.

[KCPowercat]

K-State fans in Phoenix for the Fiesta Bowl showed a lot of class at the Suns game the other night. They booed Markieff Morris when he came into the game.

Wow, this is butthurt pro level 100. Nice work.


k-state lost that game thanks to Sean Snyder and his dynamic coaching of special teams...that an Oregon is damn good.

[KC-wildcat]

$$$ values for college football programs. Not too surprised by KU. MU, though. Wow!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 17888.html

[phxcat]

I'm glad that you are able to trade any hope of success for your own team for the ability to brag about the success of other teams in your conference. I'm glad that your school has fulfilled its dream of moving out of a conference that you feel has slighted you to a cult of a conference where the big dogs have everyone else in a position where they are perfectly OK with losing as long as the big dogs are happy. However, you have a very strong tendency to argue your points using pretty bad logical fallacies.

I like how you accuse me of using the SEC's greatness to feel better about Mizzou, then you proceed to tell me things like, "K-State could beat A&M." Do you have anything to back that up outside of your own opinion?

As you know, I am very opinionated. You are too. That's great for both of us. However, it's human nature to allow our own feelings to shape our opinion, which causes flawed logic many times. I am certainly not perfect at having the most fair and unbiased opinions because of human nature. But, I try to look at actual results, rather than my feelings or personal opinions. (Though, I'm not perfect at it by any means.)

Bowl games are largely determined by matchups and the long lay off between the end of the regular season and the games. With K-State, the defense shut down Oregon's offense as well as can be expected. The conventional wisdom going into the game was that K-State could only hope to contain Oregon's offense and outscore them on offense. For the most part (and take away the 8 points from the return which was ST) and K-State allowed 27. On offense, Colin Klein was just not himself, and hasn't been since his concussion, and I also read a thread where some Texas fans noted that an offensive lineman was tipping the plays with his stance. That is something that a month off gives the coaches plenty of time to notice and exploit. Bottom line, though, despite the fact that the Big XII thoroughly stomped the best of the PAC in other games, Oregon is probably the best team in the country, and the worst match-up for K-State, and I would still like K-State's chances against either Alabama or ND.

These seem like a bunch of excuses to me.

Big Game Bob always loses bowl games.

So, it's ok that Oklahoma got blown out by a former Big 12 team because losing bowl games is what Big Game Bob does best?

K-State stops Manziel and wins that game if they are playing instead of OU. TCU should have beat MSU and would have, except for a muffed punt that should never have been fielded, and then compounded by trying to scoop it up and run rather than securing the ball.

This is purely an opinion. Do you have any actual results that would back up this statement?

Only Two schools lost bad games, WVU and ISU, but you have to remember that these are the schools finishing in the same position in conference as SEC schools like Missouri who aren't even good enough to make a bowl game.

Mizzou's bowl game opponents can do no worse than 7-2, if not 8-1 (depending on who wins the BCS Championship). Both WVU's and ISU's opponents went 4-5 in bowl games.

[Texas and Baylor beat ranked PAC teams. Baylor, who late in the season looked like it wouldn't even make a bowl game, beat the PAC south champion.

Congrats? The "upgraded" Big 12 still managed to go 4-5 in bowl games.

How bad is Florida?

You're asking how bad Florida is because they lost a bowl? Well, crap. How bad is West Virginia? TCU? Oklahoma? K-State? Remember, this Big 12 was supposed to be upgraded with WVU and TCU. So, why the 4-5 bowl record when the Big 12 went 6-2 last year?

with the bowl system the way it is, it is difficult to compare conferences even after the bowls. You could make a much stronger case had Florida not lost, but when you start down that road, you have to accept the fact that the Big East, with their winning bowl record and dominant BCS win is, in fact, the best conference in college football.

I agree with this! There are different ways to see which conference is best, and the bowls are just one. They are an imperfect way of judging the conferences. But, they are one of the main ways used to form an opinion about conferences. So, right or wrong, they play on big impact on people's opinions. Therefore, based solely on the bowl results, you can see the SEC did better than the Big 12....again.

I really hate that you force me to defend KU again, but when you say that they are the worst team in college football, you may be right, but you only have a limited sample size to make that claim. Every team they lost to wen to a bowl game. Had they played Colorado's schedule, chances are that they would have won a few games. Had they played Missouri's schedule, chances are they would have won a few games.

Be careful here because you're using a lot of personal opinion rather than actual results. So, there's a lot of gray area here. What exactly do you see in Missouri's schedule that would suggest KU would have won a few games? Who cares if every team KU lost to went bowling? Same thing happened to Mizzou. In fact, of the teams Mizzou lost to, only 1 (maybe 2...depending on Alabama) also lost their bowl game. KU can't say that. Of course, they can't say a lot of things.

Fifth Tier (teams that are just bad, and won't beat anyone but each other)
Kansas, Missouri, Auburn, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee

Looking at this, which conference is best top to bottom?

Again, you're dealing with your own personal opinion here, rather than actual results. Of the so-called fifth tier teams you've listed, only Kansas hasn't won a conference game in the last 3 years. The rest have won conference games....and Auburn even won a national championship. So, based on your own listing, it's not illogical to conclude that the SEC is better from top to bottom. SEC it is, then. Of course, that's just my opinion.

This was all kind of the point of my post.