Yesterday the big news in college football was the Big 12 championship game making a likely comeback.
You can certainly understand the logic, what with the conference getting shut out of the inaugural playoff last year and all. But the view from this corner is they and others need to be careful making ironclad, long-term decisions based on small sample sizes.
Down in Tallahassee, a couple of FSU trustees recently said it's time for the ACC to push hard for an eight-team playoff because last year's events showed that the ACC is going to get screwed in a four-team format. Well, maybe. But maybe not.
It's not popular these days to suggest waiting and letting things play out beyond one season. But it might be useful for the heavy hitters to consider the notion, because there are so many variables that can and will change by the year.
On the other hand, last year showed us the importance of an extra game. And that appears to be a big part of the basis for their apparent move back toward a title game, according to this AP article.
"Having 13 (games) is superior to having 12," Bowlsby said Wednesday after speaking with selection committee chairman Jeff Long at the College Football Playoff meetings in North Texas.
Bowlsby said he came away from his conversation with Long convinced that not having a conference championship game was a problem for the Big 12 last season and that it will continue to be an issue for the league.
"What we heard was that if we don't go to a championship game, we're at a disadvantage," Bowlsby said. "It kind of gives us guidance to what we need to be doing in the future."
The Big 12 holds its league meetings next week in Phoenix and Bowlsby said he anticipates plenty of conversation about where the conference wants to go with a championship game.
"If it gives us an opportunity to be on equal ground (with the other conferences), if we are not now, then that's what we have to do," Baylor coach Art Briles said.
But first it needs to be allowed to hold one.
NCAA rules do not allow a conference to have championship football game unless it has 12 teams split into two divisions. The Big 12 is the lone Big Five conference that has only 10 teams. The Big 12, along with the Atlantic Coast Conference, is sponsoring a proposal to deregulate championship game rules, which would allow a conference to hold a championship game with any number of teams. If the proposal passes, the Big 12 could implement a championship game as soon as 2016.
Bowlsby has maintained all along the Big 12 was not making the proposal because it planned to hold a title game, but simply wanted the option to do so.
Here's a contrary take from David Ubben of Fox Sports.
The Big 12's spending an awful lot of time worrying about the wrong number.
13?
How about 59?
Almost five months since their conference was excluded from the first College Football Playoff, Bob Bowlsby and his merry band of 10 athletic directors finally got some answers about why TCU and Baylorwere excluded from the playoff in favor of Ohio State.
"All things equal, 13 data points were better than 12 data points," Bowlsby said committee chairman Jeff Long told the league commissioners on Wednesday. "What we heard is if we don't go to a championship game we're at a disadvantage."
That may be true, but occasions in which all things are equal are the exception more often than the rule.
The Big 12's possible next move--reinstituting its championship game--would be reactionary and short-sighted at best and disastrous at worst.
And here's the key point:
All the fixation on what Ohio State gained by a conference championship win that can best be described as historical anomaly distracts from all the Big 12 lost by initially hosting a title game.
From 1996-2010, five Big 12 teams ranked No. 3 or higher stumbled in their final hurdle to the BCS National Championship Game.
Ohio State is the rare case of a team catapulted into contention by a stellar closing argument, but consider the playoff's other three participants: If you'd polled Florida State, Alabama andOregon, you can bet all three would prefer to skip playing their conference title games.
The Big 12 has positioned itself to enjoy this luxury and is inexplicably mulling the idea of throwing it away.
This conversation hasn't even turned to the problematic issue of playing a round-robin schedule capped by a game between the league's two best teams, presuming the Big 12 doesn't split into two five-team divisions, which would be unlikely.
That only guarantees two things:
1) One of the Big 12's two best teams is guaranteed to lose on the final weekend.
2) The Big 12 goes from the easiest road to the playoff to the most difficult.
A few Thursday links:
-- The obvious question with this 12 vs. 13 thing is: What's Notre Dame going to do? Heather Dinich inquires.
"You wouldn't believe the number of letters I get from fans with proposals on how to get a 13th game," Swarbrick said on Tuesday at the College Football Playoff spring meetings. "It's just crazy. All of them have one common feature about them: There's not a chance in hell the other school or conference would be willing to do it. Honest to goodness, I get the most creative letters on this topic; it's crazy."
And this:
Swarbrick said that until Notre Dame is in the playoff conversation, he can't evaluate it.
"I'd like to be in the position to have to worry about that," he quipped.
"It's not that there's a 13th game," he said. "It's always going to be against a really good opponent. It's the conference championship game. It's not the aggregate number, it's who you're playing. There are going to be years where a team looks like they're going to get in and gets upset in their conference championship game and they don't get in. Did the 13th game help them? No. I'm not saying that's a reason to do it or not do it, I'm just saying one year's worth of experience with this system is way too small to draw any conclusions about how it will play out over time."
-- Speaking of Notre Dame, here's an update on the quarterback competition in South Bend.
1. No one is saying anything to clarify the quarterback competition
In one light, this is literally true: Neither Golson nor Zaire were made available to the media following the spring game. Golson didn’t speak once all spring, actually. Zaire made one previous appearance. And Irish coach Brian Kelly was more or less effusive about both options, deeming their judgment “excellent” for the most part and their zone-read game “strong.”
“I thought they both competed at a high level in the first half, and I think we all saw they’re capable of playing championship football,” Kelly said. “Both Everett and Malik played well, did very good things.”
The spring game will not be a separation point. “The decision on playing time will take care of itself,” Kelly said, alluding to the work both quarterbacks will put in from this point on. Golson was 7 of 15 for 83 yards in the air and added 24 yards on the ground with a rushing touchdown. Zaire was 8 of 14 passing with two scoring tosses – the highlight being a 68-yard touchdown bomb to Will Fuller – while adding 40 yards on the ground. Both had shaky moments. Both had revelatory drives. Without Golson speaking to douse the months-old speculation that he might transfer from Notre Dame once he earns his degree this summer, there exists at least a faint possibility that Zaire wins by default and the decision is ultimately no decision at all. But if it’s a two-man race, it’s a marathon that will last through the summer and well into August. And it wouldn’t be surprising if Kelly found a way to use both quarterbacks anyway, if not on the same play.
-- Peter King with his latest draft scuttlebutt, which includes Tennessee being very much in play to trade its No. 2 pick.
And Wednesday night, evidence mounted that the Tennessee pick was in play. As I reported Monday, the Titans could move the pick for a huge offer, and there are three teams that could put one together: Philadelphia, Cleveland and San Diego.
But only Eagles coach Chip Kelly, who has a major thing for Mariota (as Oregon’s head coach, Kelly oversaw the recruitment of Mariota and his development as a great college quarterback), could realistically put together a package strong enough to acquire Mariota.
We’ll see today how far Kelly is willing to go to reunite with him. I believe Kelly will make a serious effort to acquire Mariota in the hours before the draft begins at 8 p.m. ET.
What a stunning turn of events it would be if the Eagles were to get him. Seven weeks ago, Kelly traded starting quarterback Nick Foles to St. Louis for a package that included quarterback Sam Bradford. To get the second pick in the draft, the Eagles would have to do one of two things: ship Bradford to Tennessee as part of the deal, or ship Bradford to Cleveland to get a first-round pick, which Kelly would then flip to Tennessee as part of a deal for Mariota. It would take two first-round picks plus something significant, most likely, to get the Oregon passer. Would the Eagles be willing to include their 2016 first-round pick? Or more?
King has an update on Shane Ray's stock, which could affect Vic Beasley's stock:
Shane Ray is still drawing first-round interest and forcing teams to think very hard about picking him. Even after his citation for erratic driving and marijuana possession at 6 a.m. Monday in Missouri, at least one team in the top 10 was doing significant work on him Wednesday. Not to say Ray, the pass-rusher from Missouri, won’t go on a deep slide, but NFL teams I communicated with Wednesday seem heartened by the fact that he’s owning his dumb decision. Question is: Would they be comfortable taking a player in the first round who could enter the league being randomly tested for street drugs?
Another Beasley-related nugget:
On Dante Fowler: I put the Falcons jumping up from 8 to 5 in the first round to get him, trading with Washington. I can’t see Washington passing on him now. Too afraid the Jets could trade out to a pass-rush needy team at 6, and then Chicago picking a pass-rusher at 7. Washington GM Scot McCloughan doesn’t want to be stuck without a good rush option when he picks.
-- Gosh, hate seeing this. Surreal:
-- And we close with an acoustic interpretation of "Going to California." Too cool.
LW
