Treadway21 wrote:The Big12 will lobby for 6 or 8 teams rather than expanding. Mark my words.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You mean drop to 6-8 teams? Why? I would think they lose money by dropping teams. Or am I looking at it wrong
|
Not Good for SMUModerators: PonyPride, SmooPower Not Good for SMU
You mean drop to 6-8 teams? Why? I would think they lose money by dropping teams. Or am I looking at it wrong GO MUSTANGS!
Re: Not Good for SMUB12 Response: Big 12 pointing fingers, mulling change after being left out of College Football Playoff
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/big-12-lef ... ncaaf.html
Re: Not Good for SMUNo - they will lobby to add 2 more teams to the "playoffs" so they will be guaranteed a spot rather than giving away money away by adding teams.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk An atheist is a guy who watches a Notre Dame-SMU football game and
doesn't care who wins. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re: Not Good for SMU
Thanks GO MUSTANGS!
Re: Not Good for SMU
So much for, All for one, one for all". lol GO MUSTANGS!
Re: Not Good for SMU
Sounds good TW, from the B12 perspective that is. SEC, with 14 teams and therefore a more difficult path to championship, may not agree. What you are saying in effect is that the Texas / OU winner gets a playoff bid 80%+ of the time. Last edited by SoCal_Pony on Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Not Good for SMUBut then amongst the P5, I'm sure when the Big 12 shows up and lobbies for a waiver to the 12 team playoff requirement it will go over like a lead ballon.
There is a reason for the 12 team requirement - that's to prevent smaller leagues equal access. Pony 81
Re: Not Good for SMUOh, and 1 last thing.
With the loss of A&M, I think the odds of Coog High getting B12 membership are 10x greater than ours. Cincy & Coog High to B10 is our nightmare scenario. Last edited by SoCal_Pony on Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Not Good for SMUI know it won't happen but the Big 12 could logistically add four schools
SMU Houston Cincinnati BYU Do away with the silly North/South thing and do like the Big 10 does with their divisions. Again, I know it won't happen but it would certainly be cool ![]() Back off Warchild seriously.
Not Good for SMUSoCal,
It's not what I want. I just think UT and OU want to keep the money and still guarantee themselves a spot in the playoffs. They could care less that Baylor and TCU missed out of the playoffs this year. The only thing bad for them is it is a blow to the conferences reputation. But that just reaffirms in their minds that they run the conference. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Last edited by Treadway21 on Sun Dec 07, 2014 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
An atheist is a guy who watches a Notre Dame-SMU football game and
doesn't care who wins. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Re: Not Good for SMU
If that were indeed to go down then yes....ultimate nightmare scenario. Back off Warchild seriously.
Re: Not Good for SMU
Everything they have done in the past 50 years is to prevent equal access. Nothing new to see here, except they ended up hurting one of their own. Only, it doesn't really matter because it is the little brothers in a "special" conference so they won't mind too much. Only reason the rest of the Big 12 cares is the loss of money. Almost sounds like greedy hopes of getting 2 teams and 2 paydays led to getting none.
Re: Not Good for SMU
+1 Exactly what happened yesterday (co-champions) and today!
Re: Not Good for SMU
Why is it even being discussed? Neither school is -- or will be within the next 50+ years -- an AAU member. I have a better chance of becoming the starting center for the Mavs. Pony up!
Re: Not Good for SMUI think Briles is spot on. One true champion........ No wait..... One true co- champion.
That is just BS. Baylor is the Big 12 champion. Now if UT was in a similar spot as Baylor you an believe their would be one true champion. Pony 81
Who is onlineUsers browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests |
|