Author
Topic: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?
(Read 29255 times)

LittlePig · « **Reply #294 on:** September 16, 2024, 12:40:33 PM »

Thinking about it a little more, the original Big 12 could have been set up with a divisionless format where everybody got 5 permanent rivals and played everybody else 50% of the time. The permanent rivals could have been

Neb - OK, Col, ISU, Kan, KSU
ISU - NEB, Mizzou, Kan, KSU, Bay
Kan - NEB, KSU, ISU, Mizzou, Col
KSU - Kan, Neb, Col, ISU, Mizzou

Col - NEB, Kan, KSU, TT, OSU
Mizzou - ISU, Kan, KSU, OK, A&M
Ok - Tex, OSU, Neb, Mizzou, Bay
OSU - OK, TT, Col, Tex, A&M

Tex - OK, A&M, TT, Bay, OSU
A&M - Tex, TT, Bay, OSU, Mizzou
TT - Tex, A&M, Bay, OSU, Col
Bay - Tex, A&M, TT, ISU, Ok

Gigem · « **Reply #295 on:** September 16, 2024, 01:16:39 PM »

Quote from: LittlePig on September 16, 2024, 12:09:27 PM

I think the original Big 12 could have benefited greatly from a divisionless format. The North division dominated the first 5 years, then it flipped and the South dominated the rest of the time. But the divisions never seemed to be balanced.

Nebraska could have designated Oklahoma as its one permanent rival. Oklahoma would have needed 3 permanent rivals. Texas might have needed 4 permanent rivals. The key is to make that flexible just like The Big Ten's current flex protect program.

WRONGO ! I'm sure somebody will look up the stats from the first 5 years, but the North division did not dominate the South.

1996 First year of the Big 12- Texas upset Nebraska to win the first Big 12 Conference.
1997- Nebraska won the 2nd Big 12 title- defeated A&M
1998- A&M Defeated K-State in the CCG (and Nebraska in the regular season) to win the 3rd Big 12 Title.
1999- Nebraska defeated Texas (I think it was their only win vs Texas in all the Big 12 years) to win the 4th Title
2000 OU defeated Kansas State (for the 2nd time that season) to win the 5th Big 12 Title.

3 Wins for the South in 5 years, 2 for the North. Obviously, if you want to compare what Baylor and Texas Tech did the first 5 years feel free to measure the tallest midget. I think the overall picture was the perception was the Big 12 North dominated, and in a true H2H Games won vs Games Lost they might have, but when you look at the top programs of the day and the winner of the B12 CCG it was pretty evenly split for the first 5-7 years. Sometime in the early 2000's it became the Texas and OU show, and then it pretty much became the OU show.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #296 on:** September 16, 2024, 01:32:06 PM »

That might be true @medinabuckeye1 -- I do wonder how heavily it weights against the ratings bonanza of having a better matchup.

For example, I threw the viewership of the CCG along with the sum of the AP rankings of each team (using 26 for the two unranked teams that have played) and got this:

Down below is the year-by-year version. Also a column for whether a helmet (OSU/UM/PSU) was involved--UNL omitted. In only two years has our CCG involved two top-10 teams.

So the combined 9 ranking (#4 Iowa vs #5 MSU) between non-helmets was <10M viewers, while the same combined 9 ranking (#1 OSU vs #8 UW) was 13.6. So helmets (or lack thereof) also impact viewership.

The question I'd have:

How many years would the summed ranking would be <10 and having 2 helmets (never yet occurred) in the game? Is this enough times to matter to the conference?

LittlePig · « **Reply #297 on:** September 16, 2024, 02:04:25 PM »

Quote from: Gigem on September 16, 2024, 01:16:39 PM

WRONGO ! I'm sure somebody will look up the stats from the first 5 years, but the North division did not dominate the South.

Fair enough, I guess it's more accurate to say Big 12 North and South divisions were pretty even the first 4 years from 1996-1999 and the Big 12 South pretty much started to dominate in 2000 until they got rid of divisions in 2011.

Gigem · « **Reply #298 on:** September 16, 2024, 02:22:14 PM »

Quote from: LittlePig on September 16, 2024, 02:04:25 PM

Fair enough, I guess it's more accurate to say Big 12 North and South divisions were pretty even the first 4 years from 1996-1999 and the Big 12 South pretty much started to dominate in 2000 until they got rid of divisions in 2011.

I think that at the time, Nebraska was such a monster ( 3 MNC in 4 years, plus heavily competitive in the 20 previous years) in general that it was PERCEIVED that the B12 south would not be competitive.

Plus, CU was not far removed from their MNC (1990 or such). KSU was considered an up and comer as well. OU was in the middle of several years of just very bad football, Texas had not been great, and really at the time A&M was considered perhaps the top program in the South. And I’m not trying to inflate what A&M was at the time, just that we were without a doubt one of the top programs in the dying SWC. I really remember the media at the time putting the big spin on things and talking about how weak the south was.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #299 on:** September 16, 2024, 02:29:08 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on September 16, 2024, 01:32:06 PM

That might be true @medinabuckeye1 -- I do wonder how heavily it weights against the ratings bonanza of having a better matchup.

For example, I threw the viewership of the CCG along with the sum of the AP rankings of each team (using 26 for the two unranked teams that have played) and got this:

Down below is the year-by-year version. Also a column for whether a helmet (OSU/UM/PSU) was involved--UNL omitted. In only two years has our CCG involved two top-10 teams.

So the combined 9 ranking (#4 Iowa vs #5 MSU) between non-helmets was <10M viewers, while the same combined 9 ranking (#1 OSU vs #8 UW) was 13.6. So helmets (or lack thereof) also impact viewership.

The question I'd have:

How many years would the summed ranking would be <10 and having 2 helmets (never yet occurred) in the game? Is this enough times to matter to the conference?

I really like this information and the way you presented it. Now for the things that I don't know:

For one, I feel like the viewership might be more related to how high the higher ranked team is than how high the two are. Ie, it doesn't surprise me that #4/5 didn't get as many viewers as #1/8. By sum it is the same 9 but 1 is better than 4 so more people would probably watch #1/8 even if no helmets were involved.

The other big question I have is whether or not a CFP spot is on the line. In the new format I would think that a "undeserving" division champion would be the equivalent of what we call a "bid thief" in BB. That might get a bunch of viewers from the marginal CFP teams.

Ie, lets say that Ohio State was 12-0 or 11-1 and obviously in the playoff either way and that their B1GCG opponent was a 9-3 Purdue team ranked #16. That Purdue team is obviously out at 9-4 but they get an auto-bid at 10-3 so if I'm a fan of say a 9-3 #11 Tennessee team I'd probably be glued to the TV for the tOSU/PU game because I'd need a Purdue loss to preserve my teams' spot in the CFP.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #300 on:** September 16, 2024, 03:05:46 PM »

Quote from: Gigem on September 16, 2024, 01:16:39 PM

WRONGO ! I'm sure somebody will look up the stats from the first 5 years, but the North division did not dominate the South.

1996 First year of the Big 12- Texas upset Nebraska to win the first Big 12 Conference.
1997- Nebraska won the 2nd Big 12 title- defeated A&M
1998- A&M Defeated K-State in the CCG (and Nebraska in the regular season) to win the 3rd Big 12 Title.
1999- Nebraska defeated Texas (I think it was their only win vs Texas in all the Big 12 years) to win the 4th Title
2000 OU defeated Kansas State (for the 2nd time that season) to win the 5th Big 12 Title.

The impression that most of us outside of the B12 had was that the B12N dominated. The upsets don't change that. Here are end of regular season rankings for B12 teams:
1996:

#3 UNL 10-1 B12N
#7 Colorado 9-2 B12N
#14 KSU 9-2 B12N
Texas jumped into the rankings AFTER they upset Nebraska

1997:

#2 UNL 11-0 B12N
#10 KSU 10-1 B12N
#14 aTm 9-2 B12S
#19 Mizzou 7-4 B12N
#24 OkSU 8-3 B12S

1998:

#2 KSU 11-0 B12N
#10 aTm 10-2 B12S
#13 UNL 9-3 B12N
#20 Texas 8-3 B12S
#24 Mizzou 7-4 B12N

1999:

#3 UNL 10-1 B12N
#8 KSU 10-1 B12N
#12 Texas 9-3 B12S
#18 aTm 8-3 B12S

2000:

#1 OU 11-0 B12S
#8 KSU 10-2 B12N
#10 UNL 9-2 B12N
#12 Texas 9-2 B12S

My impression as an outsider:
1996: Texas lost to the only good B12N team they played in the regular season (Colorado) and missed UNL and KSU. Then they pulled off a shocking upset in the CG. That didn't make me think anything other than "upsets happen".

1997: aTm lost by 19 in the regular season to KSU and did not play UNL nor Mizzou. They got annihilated by Nebraska in the CG. As an outsider my impression was that aTm's 9-2 record was substantially aided by playing in the weaker division.

1998: To me this "felt like" the Longhorns' upset two years earlier in the CG. aTm did beat UNL (at home) and KSU (in St Louis)but lost OOC to FSU and in their bowl as well. It "felt like" the Cornhuskers and Wildcats were better teams that just happened to lose.

1999: Texas beat Nebraska in the regular season in a close game at home but got drilled by them in the CG. As an outsider it "felt like" Nebraska was the better team and the regular season road game loss was just a fluke. Also the B12N's second best team (KSU) handily defeated the Longhorns in the regular season and the B12S's second best team (aTm - although they had an argument for #1 because they did beat Tx) got drilled by Nebraska. As an outsider it definitely felt like the two best teams in the B12 were the ones from Lincoln and Manhattan.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #301 on:** September 16, 2024, 03:08:45 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on September 16, 2024, 02:29:08 PM

I really like this information and the way you presented it. Now for the things that I don't know:

For one, I feel like the viewership might be more related to how high the higher ranked team is than how high the two are. Ie, it doesn't surprise me that #4/5 didn't get as many viewers as #1/8. By sum it is the same 9 but 1 is better than 4 so more people would probably watch #1/8 even if no helmets were involved.

The other big question I have is whether or not a CFP spot is on the line. In the new format I would think that a "undeserving" division champion would be the equivalent of what we call a "bid thief" in BB. That might get a bunch of viewers from the marginal CFP teams.

Ie, lets say that Ohio State was 12-0 or 11-1 and obviously in the playoff either way and that their B1GCG opponent was a 9-3 Purdue team ranked #16. That Purdue team is obviously out at 9-4 but they get an auto-bid at 10-3 so if I'm a fan of say a 9-3 #11 Tennessee team I'd probably be glued to the TV for the tOSU/PU game because I'd need a Purdue loss to preserve my teams' spot in the CFP.

I think the helmet factor is important. The 4/5 game was a de facto CFP elimination game that year. Yet it drew 9.8M.

You can look at the other combined 9 which was #1 OSU and #8 Wisconsin and say "well it drew well at 13.6M because it was the #1". But there was also a #8 OSU vs #4 Wisconsin game that drew 12.7M. I have to think one of the big draws there was that it was OSU, even though they were only #8.

The 4/5 was also out-drawn the last 3 years by Michigan against Iowa twice and Purdue once. I could buy your argument that this was from teams at #5 in the CFP who knew Michigan might be out if they lost to any of those three teams (especially unranked Purdue), but I might respond by suggesting it drew well because Michigan was in the game.

We don't have a big sample size of non-helmet CCG games, and zero sample size of 2-helmet CCG games, but two of the three lowest draws were non-helmet games--and those were in the first 2 years of the CCG so you'd think the novelty would have driven ratings. And then the other NH game tied the best combined ranking of the entire group at 9, while it was outdrawn by games with a combined ranking of 9, 12 (x2), 15, 18, and 28.

Seems to me you have to have a REALLY good matchup to get a lot of viewers if there's no helmet in the game, and even then they didn't crack 10M.

Gigem · « **Reply #302 on:** September 16, 2024, 03:29:07 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on September 16, 2024, 03:05:46 PM

The impression that most of us outside of the B12 had was that the B12N dominated. The upsets don't change that. Here are end of regular season rankings for B12 teams:
1996:
#3 UNL 10-1 B12N
#7 Colorado 9-2 B12N
#14 KSU 9-2 B12N
Texas jumped into the rankings AFTER they upset Nebraska
1997:
#2 UNL 11-0 B12N
#10 KSU 10-1 B12N
#14 aTm 9-2 B12S
#19 Mizzou 7-4 B12N
#24 OkSU 8-3 B12S
1998:
#2 KSU 11-0 B12N
#10 aTm 10-2 B12S
#13 UNL 9-3 B12N
#20 Texas 8-3 B12S
#24 Mizzou 7-4 B12N
1999:
#3 UNL 10-1 B12N
#8 KSU 10-1 B12N
#12 Texas 9-3 B12S
#18 aTm 8-3 B12S
2000:
#1 OU 11-0 B12S
#8 KSU 10-2 B12N
#10 UNL 9-2 B12N
#12 Texas 9-2 B12S

My impression as an outsider:
1996: Texas lost to the only good B12N team they played in the regular season (Colorado) and missed UNL and KSU. Then they pulled off a shocking upset in the CG. That didn't make me think anything other than "upsets happen".

1997: aTm lost by 19 in the regular season to KSU and did not play UNL nor Mizzou. They got annihilated by Nebraska in the CG. As an outsider my impression was that aTm's 9-2 record was substantially aided by playing in the weaker division.

1998: To me this "felt like" the Longhorns' upset two years earlier in the CG. aTm did beat UNL (at home) and KSU (in St Louis)but lost OOC to FSU and in their bowl as well. It "felt like" the Cornhuskers and Wildcats were better teams that just happened to lose.

1999: Texas beat Nebraska in the regular season in a close game at home but got drilled by them in the CG. As an outsider it "felt like" Nebraska was the better team and the regular season road game loss was just a fluke. Also the B12N's second best team (KSU) handily defeated the Longhorns in the regular season and the B12S's second best team (aTm - although they had an argument for #1 because they did beat Tx) got drilled by Nebraska. As an outsider it definitely felt like the two best teams in the B12 were the ones from Lincoln and Manhattan.

Very excellent post.

To add to it: 1998 A&M did get beat by FSU, the same FSU that went on to play in the BCS title game (lost to UTenn). I think the score was like 24-14, fairly tight competitive game. The same 1998 A&M team also lost to Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl, also by like 24-14. I don't recall the exact score, but it's in that range. Game wasn't really all that tight in the 2nd half, but not a slaughterhouse either. Recall that Ohio State was expected to compete for the MNC that year as well and did finish I think with only one loss on the season to MSU. I remember well the message board hoopla after that game on the old CNNSI boards.
Say what you will about that 1998 Aggie team, but I remember how surprised people were when NFL Draft day came around. There was a lot of talent and heart on that team, I think we just outcoached both NU and KSU that season.

1997 Nebraska: I'm not too ashamed that we got annihilated in the B12CCG by NU. They probably would've have annihilated about 1/2 the NFL, and did go on to annihilated UTenn and Peyton Manning in the Orange Bowl. Pretty dominate team in any era.

I get that sometimes things feel a certain way, but when they actually lined up up to play and at the end of the game someone won and someone lost, and that's really all the data that counts.

FearlessF · « **Reply #303 on:** September 16, 2024, 03:31:35 PM »

yup, flukes count

utee94 · « **Reply #304 on:** September 16, 2024, 03:40:25 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on September 16, 2024, 03:05:46 PM

The impression that most of us outside of the B12 had was that the B12N dominated. The upsets don't change that. Here are end of regular season rankings for B12 teams:
1996:
#3 UNL 10-1 B12N
#7 Colorado 9-2 B12N
#14 KSU 9-2 B12N
Texas jumped into the rankings AFTER they upset Nebraska
1997:
#2 UNL 11-0 B12N
#10 KSU 10-1 B12N
#14 aTm 9-2 B12S
#19 Mizzou 7-4 B12N
#24 OkSU 8-3 B12S
1998:
#2 KSU 11-0 B12N
#10 aTm 10-2 B12S
#13 UNL 9-3 B12N
#20 Texas 8-3 B12S
#24 Mizzou 7-4 B12N
1999:
#3 UNL 10-1 B12N
#8 KSU 10-1 B12N
#12 Texas 9-3 B12S
#18 aTm 8-3 B12S
2000:
#1 OU 11-0 B12S
#8 KSU 10-2 B12N
#10 UNL 9-2 B12N
#12 Texas 9-2 B12S

My impression as an outsider:
1996: Texas lost to the only good B12N team they played in the regular season (Colorado) and missed UNL and KSU. Then they pulled off a shocking upset in the CG. That didn't make me think anything other than "upsets happen".

1997: aTm lost by 19 in the regular season to KSU and did not play UNL nor Mizzou. They got annihilated by Nebraska in the CG. As an outsider my impression was that aTm's 9-2 record was substantially aided by playing in the weaker division.

1998: To me this "felt like" the Longhorns' upset two years earlier in the CG. aTm did beat UNL (at home) and KSU (in St Louis)but lost OOC to FSU and in their bowl as well. It "felt like" the Cornhuskers and Wildcats were better teams that just happened to lose.

1999: Texas beat Nebraska in the regular season in a close game at home but got drilled by them in the CG. As an outsider it "felt like" Nebraska was the better team and the regular season road game loss was just a fluke. Also the B12N's second best team (KSU) handily defeated the Longhorns in the regular season and the B12S's second best team (aTm - although they had an argument for #1 because they did beat Tx) got drilled by Nebraska. As an outsider it definitely felt like the two best teams in the B12 were the ones from Lincoln and Manhattan.

Yes that's all about right. And then it basically switched to the opposite in 2000.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #305 on:** September 16, 2024, 03:45:54 PM »

Quote from: Gigem on September 16, 2024, 03:29:07 PM

Very excellent post.

Thanks.

Quote from: Gigem on September 16, 2024, 03:29:07 PM

I get that sometimes things feel a certain way, but when they actually lined up up to play and at the end of the game someone won and someone lost, and that's really all the data that counts.

It is funny, I *almost* said that the 1998 aTm team wasn't very good but then when I looked at it I saw that they lost to:

Quote from: Gigem on September 16, 2024, 03:29:07 PM

To add to it: 1998 A&M did get beat by FSU, the same FSU that went on to play in the BCS title game (lost to UTenn). I think the score was like 24-14, fairly tight competitive game. The same 1998 A&M team also lost to Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl, also by like 24-14. I don't recall the exact score, but it's in that range. Game wasn't really all that tight in the 2nd half, but not a slaughterhouse either. Recall that Ohio State was expected to compete for the MNC that year as well and did finish I think with only one loss on the season to MSU. I remember well the message board hoopla after that game on the old CNNSI boards.
Say what you will about that 1998 Aggie team, but I remember how surprised people were when NFL Draft day came around. There was a lot of talent and heart on that team, I think we just outcoached both NU and KSU that season.

I obviously knew that they lost to tOSU but when I looked it up I saw that the others were a VERY good FSU team and a VERY close rivalry loss in Austin and that aTm team was a LOT better than I had remembered.

Vis-a-vis 1998 Ohio State:
That was far-and-away the best team Cooper ever had and (for their era) one of the best Buckeye teams ever. The loss to MSU will forever haunt us. They should have been playing in the inaugural BCSNCG.

Quote from: Gigem on September 16, 2024, 03:29:07 PM

I get that sometimes things feel a certain way, but when they actually lined up up to play and at the end of the game someone won and someone lost, and that's really all the data that counts.

Oh I agree and I listed the rankings to demonstrate that it wasn't just @medinabuckeye1 's feeling, the AP voters in the early days of the B12 generally thought that the best two teams in the B12 were in the B12N, usually UNL and KSU.

It is funny how these things cycle because back then the best two teams in the SECE were generally viewed as UF and UT with the SECW being the "weak" division.

utee94 · « **Reply #306 on:** September 16, 2024, 03:49:16 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on September 16, 2024, 03:45:54 PM

It is funny how these things cycle because back then the best two teams in the SECE were generally viewed as UF and UT with the SECW being the "weak" division.

Which is precisely why it's a fool's errand to attempt to create "balanced" divisions and nobody should ever bother trying.

If you wanna have divisions, great, go for it. You could pretty much divide them up using a random number generator and be fine over the span of 10-15 years.

If you don't want divisions, that's fine, too, because you were never going to be able to balance them anyway.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #307 on:** September 16, 2024, 03:50:39 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on September 16, 2024, 03:08:45 PM

I think the helmet factor is important. The 4/5 game was a de facto CFP elimination game that year. Yet it drew 9.8M.

You can look at the other combined 9 which was #1 OSU and #8 Wisconsin and say "well it drew well at 13.6M because it was the #1". But there was also a #8 OSU vs #4 Wisconsin game that drew 12.7M. I have to think one of the big draws there was that it was OSU, even though they were only #8.

The 4/5 was also out-drawn the last 3 years by Michigan against Iowa twice and Purdue once. I could buy your argument that this was from teams at #5 in the CFP who knew Michigan might be out if they lost to any of those three teams (especially unranked Purdue), but I might respond by suggesting it drew well because Michigan was in the game.

We don't have a big sample size of non-helmet CCG games, and zero sample size of 2-helmet CCG games, but two of the three lowest draws were non-helmet games--and those were in the first 2 years of the CCG so you'd think the novelty would have driven ratings. And then the other NH game tied the best combined ranking of the entire group at 9, while it was outdrawn by games with a combined ranking of 9, 12 (x2), 15, 18, and 28.

Seems to me you have to have a REALLY good matchup to get a lot of viewers if there's no helmet in the game, and even then they didn't crack 10M.

It is funny because whenever we look into these things I realize that I'm not most people.

Example:
If I were CFB fan of some other league I wouldn't have cared one bit about the 4/5 Iowa/MSU CG because either way one is in and one is out. I WOULD care most about a game where one team is in with a win and out with a loss and the other team is out either way.

Then you look at the ratings and that isn't how it works.

The sample sizes aren't large enough and there are too many variables to really figure out what is going on to a certainty.

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

LittlePig

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

Gigem

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

LittlePig

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

Gigem

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

medinabuckeye1

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

medinabuckeye1

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

Gigem

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

FearlessF

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

utee94

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

medinabuckeye1

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

utee94

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?

medinabuckeye1

Re: Imminent Pac12 breakup, where do the schools go?