***Conference Apocalypse Part IV: The NeverEnding Story

[OrlandoSooner]

And further dilution of the conference.

I can't understand why these mid major schools keep getting brought up. They add absolutely nothing to the conference. There are only negatives. If we add two more mid majors, we'll have a conference that is 1/3 minor league.

OU isn't minor league, and neither is Texas. I realize the Big 12 is on shaky ground right now, but to turn into Conference USA is only going to kill it.

I agree with you if UCF/USF are #11 and #12.

I don't mind one of them if they come with FSU and 2 of these 3: Miami, GTech, Clemson to get us to 14 teams. Given their large enrollment, these schools both have the opportunity to be much more attractive 10-15 years down the road. In fact, by choosing one of the two, we could predetermine which school makes "the leap" to big time.

If these schools compliment an expansion plan, I think it helps us down the road by solidifying the Big 12's footprint in Central Florida. If they are the only expansion plan, I think it kills us.

[OrlandoSooner]

So now the Big 12 wants to be "proactive"? Should have been proactive way before now.

Is it possible to be reactively proactive?

[silverwheels]

Retroactively re-actively proactive?

[The]

I agree with you if UCF/USF are #11 and #12.

I don't mind one of them if they come with FSU and 2 of these 3: Miami, GTech, Clemson to get us to 14 teams. Given their large enrollment, these schools both have the opportunity to be much more attractive 10-15 years down the road. In fact, by choosing one of the two, we could predetermine which school makes "the leap" to big time.

If these schools compliment an expansion plan, I think it helps us down the road by solidifying the Big 12's footprint in Central Florida. If they are the only expansion plan, I think it kills us.

Of course. If we get FSU, we could add Florida International or Grambling for all I care.

But this Louisville, Directional Florida, Cincinnati, whatever bull**** has to stop.

It's not happening. Ever. If we were going to add **** schools like that, we would have already done it last year. And we were right not to do it then.

[bruthaman]

Right now, Id go with FSU, VT, CLEM and GT. Two or all four as long as we can get FSU.

[ruasoonerfan2]

If we can not add schools like FSU, Miami, Clemson and Louisville don't add. Stay where you are or jump to SEC. Crazy to add schools that do not bring TV viewers or recruiting grounds to a conference that needs to get stronger. I would add the four schools mentioned plus the two most attractive schools left to get to sixteen. Strong Schools equal strong TV packages plus these schools offer strong programs in other sports that would help our conference. Big 12 should be proactive instead of reactive, OU and Texas should not take back seat to anyone.

[dcameronh]

I think FSU would be a great add for the BigXII.

[T-town Sooner]

I agree with you if UCF/USF are #11 and #12.

I don't mind one of them if they come with FSU and 2 of these 3: Miami, GTech, Clemson to get us to 14 teams. Given their large enrollment, these schools both have the opportunity to be much more attractive 10-15 years down the road. In fact, by choosing one of the two, we could predetermine which school makes "the leap" to big time.

If these schools compliment an expansion plan, I think it helps us down the road by solidifying the Big 12's footprint in Central Florida. If they are the only expansion plan, I think it kills us.

????????

[Hamilton]

The national reputation of the league has already plummeted by replacing Nebraska and A&M with WVU and TCU. At this point, it's not about making the Big 12 better in the short term. We can't get better in the short term.

But we can do two things otherwise.
1) Get better over the next 10-15 years by projecting the growth of the two Florida schools. 2) Improve FLA recruiting for OU and UT (and others) by choosing to get into Central and South-Central and the Gulf of Florida.

And if you look at where Florida State was in the 1970s, they were basically where South Florida currently is. Approx. 10 years later, by the late 80's, FSU was a powerhouse.

When we last won the national title in 2000, South Florida was D2.
They've only been D1/FBS since 2001.
South Florida was already OUT of conference USA after TWO YEARS.
The all time winning percentage for their FB program is 60%. That's quite good.

SEC -14
Big Ten-14
Big 12 -10
PAC-12 -12
ACC- 14

That's 64 teams. Now, what if I told you we could have the 53rd most valuable college football team according to Forbes?

More valuable than:
North Carolina
Mississippi State
Maryland
Cal
Syracuse
TCU
Louisville
Wazzu
Baylor
Rutgers
Duke
Pitt
Vandy
Mizzou

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/tex...0130106200910/
If you don't want to bother to click, obviously it's USF.

Okay, I'm done trying to sell the idea. Any resistance to USF speaks for itself at this point.
It's the same kind of people that resisted Louisville.
If there were better options, it would be a different conversation.
Central Florida is just an insurance policy for FL presence.

[OrlandoSooner]

????????

Obviously, today the footprint = Zero.

If FSU or Miami were added, it would create a footprint, but a USF or UCF (when added with FSU/Miami) would solidify the footprint in Central Florid****

[usaosooner]

Any conference that has OU and Texas in it is considered a super league. The Big12 image on the field wouldn't be dinged if we added the Florida twin schools, The B1G just added Maryland for christ sake

[lobster999]

Any conference that has OU and Texas in it is considered a super league. The Big12 image on the field wouldn't be dinged if we added the Florida twin schools, The B1G just added Maryland for christ sake

If by twin Florida schools you mean FSU and Miami then I agree. If you mean those other ones then I will have to ask that you share what you are smoking. The Big 12 image on the field has already been dinged with the loss of Nebraska and A&M. Lets not make it worse.

[usaosooner]

If by twin Florida schools you mean FSU and Miami then I agree. If you mean those other ones then I will have to ask that you share what you are smoking. The Big 12 image on the field has already been dinged with the loss of Nebraska and A&M. Lets not make it worse.

The $ we make proves other wise.

[lobster999]

The $ we make proves other wise.

The $ we make would have been better with A&M and Nebraska. We made the $ because we were up for a new contract and the market value is higher than it was previously. I was referring to our status as an elite football conference. Do you really think we or Texas are going to shoot up the polls with a hard fought win over UCF??? Hell we could drop in the polls if we don't beat those two teams big enough. That's the last kind of team we need to add to our conference.

[The]

Any conference that has OU and Texas in it is considered a super league. The Big12 image on the field wouldn't be dinged if we added the Florida twin schools, The B1G just added Maryland for christ sake

You haven't thought this all the way through.

NO ONE cares about **** schools. They exist to be the body bag OOC games, and pitch in an occasional upset. So, if the Big 12 were to bring any two **** schools of your choice, you've basically just added OOC games to your yearly schedule. Now, the Big 12 is dilluted because NO ONE cares about Louisville or UCF or USF or UTF or whatever. Then, the Big 10 decides to invite KU. What does KU do? Stay in a watered down conference or go play with the Big Boys? That's an obvious answer.

So, when KU leaves, then who do you add? That's right.... yet another **** school. And you're watered down some more. Then, the ACC invites WV. They leave. Without a second thought. Solution? Another **** school. Then say the SEC wants more presence in Texas, so they sweep up Tech. And so on...

Next thing you know, your position that "Any conference that has OU and Texas in it is considered a super league" is suddenly invalid. Top flight recruits want to play in big games, which the Conference USA/Big12 can't offer except OU/TX. Which leads to less top flight kids going to OU and Texas. Which makes the game less meaningful. And so on.

There is a reason we didn't add **** last year. Several very good reasons, actually. We are never going to add more mid majors because it only hurts the conference. Adding the wrong teams will destroy the Big 12. Adding the right teams (FSU/whomever) will solidify the conference. It doesn't matter how competitive a team is, or how well run their athletic department is, what matters is that people want to see good, exciting matchups. Everyone is excited about FSU. How stoked was anybody about the TCU game this year? "**** YES, it's TCU Week!" is what NOBODY said.

[BoomerDT]

Raid the Mother F'in ACC........ FSU, Clemson, Miami, (insert whoever the hell you want). If you pick 2: I'm putting Clemson at #1, FSU at 2. You only need 1 school for recruiting in a state.... FSU will do. Clemson opens up SEC territory.

If we, as a conference, even think about adding anyone else I will be disappointed. We need names. Right now we have 2 names, and the stock is going down in both names (OU,ut).

[Mephistopheles]

1) Get better over the next 10-15 years by projecting the growth of the two Florida schools.

I'd say it is a bad investment for a league to spend a decade plus subsidizing a school or two on the off chance they might become good.

2) Improve FLA recruiting for OU and UT (and others) by choosing to get into Central and South-Central and the Gulf of Florida.

This is an off mentioned advantage of adding schools from certain states, but does adding the 3rd and 4th schools in a state that only cares about the top 2 schools (Florida and FSU. Nobody gives a **** about Miami) really do that much for you?

That's 64 teams. Now, what if I told you we could have the 53rd most valuable college football team according to Forbes?

That Forbes valuation is laughably bad.

I'll give you an example why:
Suppose you have two schools that need serious stadium renovations. Neither school has a donor that is either capable or willing to finance the project, so they have to sell bonds to pay for it. Under this shallow evaluation, even if all things are equal, if one school does it first, their value will plummet due to the debt they've just added which the other school does not have even though the other school will need to take on that debt at a later time and likely at a higher cost due to rising construction costs.

[heff]

USF - Respeck teh Selmon
Miami
FSU

Incentive for the Florida schools to join. We've got 20 Texas teams in this conference already, so a few Florida schools (Yearly trips, bonus recruiting pipeline) is a good thing; gives them regional opponents and maybe throws a wrench in the power structure.

Clemson
Louisville
BYU
Colorado State
Georgia Tech

Some combination of these teams would be ideal to me. Throw in a scrub or two with a couple of helmet schools.

[usaosooner]

I would take a easy Florida win every other 2 years for recruiting purposes :shrug:

[DelMarSooner]

Please blow this conference up already. OU does not need to further dilution of brand by adding non helmet programs to an already watered down league. There is an enormous amount of strategic risk for OU with the status quo.

[The]

I would take a easy Florida win every other 2 years for recruiting purposes :shrug:

Then schedule OOC games there. It would have the same effect, and wouldn't lessen OU's brand any.

[MadMex]

I like the USF idea. Could be a great investment.




I know I've had a few of these... I just like to get a visual of what the conference could look like. I'd prefer VPI over Tulane but, Tulane isn't tied to anyone like Va Tech is to Virginia.

[Hamilton]

I'd say it is a bad investment for a league to spend a decade plus subsidizing a school or two on the off chance they might become good.


This is an off mentioned advantage of adding schools from certain states, but does adding the 3rd and 4th schools in a state that only cares about the top 2 schools (Florida and FSU. Nobody gives a **** about Miami) really do that much for you?


That Forbes valuation is laughably bad.

I'll give you an example why:
Suppose you have two schools that need serious stadium renovations. Neither school has a donor that is either capable or willing to finance the project, so they have to sell bonds to pay for it. Under this shallow evaluation, even if all things are equal, if one school does it first, their value will plummet due to the debt they've just added which the other school does not have even though the other school will need to take on that debt at a later time and likely at a higher cost due to rising construction costs.

I hear ya. But OU and UT subsidize the whole league as we sit. What else is new? We have spent a century subsidizing Iowa State. But even with that said, I am not talking about an "off chance". You have to have the foresight to see it. They ARE going to be a relative power because the numbers demand it.

Think about the 4th best program in both the states of CA and TX.
Now why isn't the 4th best program in FL already there?
Because they are young programs. Period.

The second reply is like saying the state of Texas only cares about UT and A&M. There may be elements of truth to that but it's certainly not a full picture. Florida HS football is high quality to say the least. That's what I am thinking of. Benefits for OU in the long term. Getting more of that rich FLA talent. In Feb 2012, one of every 120 HS players in Florida signed a D1/FBS LOI. That same signing day, it was one in 450 for both the state of Texas and the state of California. FTR, Oklahoma is 1 in 400.

And what if FSU sees that we've added USF (and possibly UCF)? Maybe it's the first PROACTIVE step in the long game to land some ACC schools.

Sounds like you know more about the Forbes valuation than I do.
It's just meant to convey that they aren't some rinky-dink outfit.
Hardly a typical "mid major" and a higher ceiling than the rest.

There is an enormous amount of strategic risk for OU with the status quo.

Absolutely and that is THE point in my mind.
We probably can't get out.
We almost certainly can't add FSU level helmet schools.
And the status quo is very risky.
So expansion back to 12 is a natural step.
So which two, if you buy all of that?

__________________________________________________ ______________
Nobody wants to add a 'nobody' but we are in 5 ****ing states, 4 of which are Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa and West Virginia. What is the combined population? 10-12 million? And even then, we have the #2 school in Iowa. We absolutely need some presence down South where they are breeding all those beasts.

If the only resistance is bellyaching over brand-names, then that's not enough. Nobody this side of Berry Tramel wanted West Virginia other than FOX. And FOX counts for a lot, to say the least. ESPN too. I bet FOX would want USF. And I bet ESPN would want to get them out of the ****hole Big East.

[TeLeFaWx]

I hear ya. But OU and UT subsidize the whole league as we sit. What else is new? We have spent a century subsidizing Iowa State. But even with that said, I am not talking about an "off chance". You have to have the foresight to see it. They ARE going to be a relative power because the numbers demand it.

Think about the 4th best program in both the states of CA and TX.
Now why isn't the 4th best program in FL already there?
Because they are young programs. Period.

The second reply is like saying the state of Texas only cares about UT and A&M. There may be elements of truth to that but it's certainly not a full picture. Florida HS football is high quality to say the least. That's what I am thinking of. Benefits for OU in the long term. Getting more of that rich FLA talent. In Feb 2012, one of every 120 HS players in Florida signed a D1/FBS LOI. That same signing day, it was one in 450 for both the state of Texas and the state of California. FTR, Oklahoma is 1 in 400.

And what if FSU sees that we've added USF (and possibly UCF)? Maybe it's the first PROACTIVE step in the long game to land some ACC schools.

Sounds like you know more about the Forbes valuation than I do.
It's just meant to convey that they aren't some rinky-dink outfit.
Hardly a typical "mid major" and a higher ceiling than the rest.



Absolutely and that is THE point in my mind.
We probably can't get out.
We almost certainly can't add FSU level helmet schools.
And the status quo is very risky.
So expansion back to 12 is a natural step.
So which two, if you buy all of that?

__________________________________________________ ______________
Nobody wants to add a 'nobody' but we are in 5 ****ing states, 4 of which are Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa and West Virginia. What is the combined population? 10-12 million? And even then, we have the #2 school in Iowa. We absolutely need some presence down South where they are breeding all those beasts.

If the only resistance is bellyaching over brand-names, then that's not enough. Nobody this side of Berry Tramel wanted West Virginia other than FOX. And FOX counts for a lot, to say the least. ESPN too. I bet FOX would want USF. And I bet ESPN would want to get them out of the ****hole Big East.

Tulane and Southern Miss are the only viable choices for the Big 12.

Texas A&M - 1997, 1998, 2010, 2012 Big 12 Champs*

[Mephistopheles]

Tulane and Southern Miss are the only viable choices for the Big 12.

I would have expected you to back BYU. Something about cultists having each other's backs. (Note: I'm not saying Mormonism is a cult, just BYU)

[sOUltrain65]

The $ we make proves other wise.

I think it's more about respect than money.

[ATMsooner]

Daddy says we're happy with Ten.
I really hope they change the "big12" name soon. Looks dumb if staying at 10 teams.

http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews....ry-happy.html/

[Hamilton]

Three days after Dodds said that (which was before meetings started), the actual commissioner of the conference said this:

“Look at Maryland and Rutgers. They don’t bring programs that are of the ilk of the others in the Big Ten,” said Bowlsby, a former Iowa athletic director. “But the philosophy clearly is, ‘As members of the Big Ten, we can grow them.’ So, you can apply the same thinking to any possible addition.”

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01...gue-could.html

[MikeLucky]

Three days after Dodds said that (which was before meetings started), the actual commissioner of the conference said this:

“Look at Maryland and Rutgers. They don’t bring programs that are of the ilk of the others in the Big Ten,” said Bowlsby, a former Iowa athletic director. “But the philosophy clearly is, ‘As members of the Big Ten, we can grow them.’ So, you can apply the same thinking to any possible addition.”

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/01...gue-could.html

Lol. Yeah, I don't know why so many OU fans are so intent on playing the "victim" card with insisting that texas and dodds are somehow in charge.

Just because the old man is flapping his gums, doesn't mean anyone is jumping to accommodate. If that were the case TCU wouldn't be in the league, among other things.

[S11-Baylor]

Lol. Yeah, I don't know why so many OU fans are so intent on playing the "victim" card with insisting that texas and dodds are somehow in charge.

Just because the old man is flapping his gums, doesn't mean anyone is jumping to accommodate. If that were the case TCU wouldn't be in the league, among other things.

So true.

Here is a question for OU fans who think UT runs the shop.

What is ONE issue that UT got it's way on that OU opposed them on?

[OU812]

I'm surprised so many people don't understand that adding **** teams, makes a **** conference. We have too much dead weight already in this conference. The big12 has been weakened by realignment, both in perception and in reality. If we continue to add mid-major teams, that's what we'll become, a mid-major conference.

This strategy might lead some to believe it makes it easier for OU & tx to win the conference and remain a power. That would be wrong. What good does it do Boise to win their conference? They aren't getting into the postseason over a 2 loss SEC team. Our weakened conference makes it harder for us to win a national title and harder to gain access to the post season. Adding more weak teams makes a weak conference even weaker. This, in turn, will make OU & tx weaker in the long run. WAKE UP!!! We are asleep at the wheel and about to drive off the cliff.

[The]

So true.

Here is a question for OU fans who think UT runs the shop.

What is ONE issue that UT got it's way on that OU opposed them on?

Going to the Pac12.

[DIB]

Going to the Pac12.

Yeah? Name two!

[SpankyNek]

I'm surprised so many people don't understand that adding **** teams, makes a **** conference. We have too much dead weight already in this conference. The big12 has been weakened by realignment, both in perception and in reality. If we continue to add mid-major teams, that's what we'll become, a mid-major conference.

This strategy might lead some to believe it makes it easier for OU & tx to win the conference and remain a power. That would be wrong. What good does it do Boise to win their conference? They aren't getting into the postseason over a 2 loss SEC team. Our weakened conference makes it harder for us to win a national title and harder to gain access to the post season. Adding more weak teams makes a weak conference even weaker. This, in turn, will make OU & tx weaker in the long run. WAKE UP!!! We are asleep at the wheel and about to drive off the cliff.

The sky is not falling...even if we add a couple of subpar schools.
To be honest, it would be better to add them, as they would (in general) represent an upgrade from whatever game a school would schedule on its own.

The only thing one can really hope for is that an undefeated team from your conference is guaranteed a spot. We have that now, and would continue to do so if we add a couple of doormats. This is NOT a Boise situation, doesn't even compare.

[RockFlagandEagle]

The sky is not falling...even if we add a couple of subpar schools.
To be honest, it would be better to add them, as they would (in general) represent an upgrade from whatever game a school would schedule on its own.

The only thing one can really hope for is that an undefeated team from your conference is guaranteed a spot. We have that now, and would continue to do so if we add a couple of doormats. This is NOT a Boise situation, doesn't even compare.

Schools not named OU and Texas would have this problem. And they might still even with adding 2 teams like USF and Tulane tho. If the Big XII doesn't add at least 2 of Florida State, Clemson, Va Tech, or Miami, then I would still vote for letting OU be cherry picked to a new conference and blow up the Big XII.

[S11-Baylor]

Going to the Pac12.

I meant in voting matters inside the Big 12.

[SpankyNek]

Schools not named OU and Texas would have this problem. And they might still even with adding 2 teams like USF and Tulane tho. If the Big XII doesn't add at least 2 of Florida State, Clemson, Va Tech, or Miami, then I would still vote for letting OU be cherry picked to a new conference and blow up the Big XII.

I don't think they would.

OSU and kstate would have been in the title game the last two years if not for unexpected losses to "doormats." We see from week to week how good some of these teams really are, and our schedule strength is already a bit too tough compared to what I would call a perfect scenario.

[RockFlagandEagle]

I don't think they would.

OSU and kstate would have been in the title game the last two years if not for unexpected losses to "doormats." We see from week to week how good some of these teams really are, and our schedule strength is already a bit too tough compared to what I would call a perfect scenario.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...Oklahoma State 2011 is a prime example. Being undefeated would have put them in over 1 loss 'Bama but had LSU, 'Bama (let's pretend they could both go undefeated for this example) and Oklahoma State been undefeated, Ok State out...no doubt about it. If 2011 Oklahoma State would have been OU or Texas, OU or Texas goes over 'Bama. Undefeated OU and Texas will get the nod 90% of the time in "ties" for 2nd place. Oklahoma State and KState are probably the other 10%.

[The]

Someone explain to me again why OU and Texas even need a conference?

We've got independent T3 deals already, and sense we're the only two teams with any apparent value, couldn't we strike a better TV deal if we constructed an independent schedule as well?

[lobster999]

I don't think they would.

OSU and kstate would have been in the title game the last two years if not for unexpected losses to "doormats." We see from week to week how good some of these teams really are, and our schedule strength is already a bit too tough compared to what I would call a perfect scenario.

Your problem is you don't value perception high enough. To the rest of the nation OSU and Kstate ARE the doormats. It doesn't matter how much we argue that our conference is so competitive, nobody believes it. It's OU, TX, and the nobodies. We lose to one of our conference foes and we drop like a rock. This isn't the case for SEC and it's less an issue for the PAC and B1G. Perception matters when trying to get into the playoff, especially if you have one loss. We have no traditional winners and adding more nobodies is going to hurt our brand even more.

[SpankyNek]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...Oklahoma State 2011 is a prime example. Being undefeated would have put them in over 1 loss 'Bama but had LSU, 'Bama (let's pretend they could both go undefeated for this example) and Oklahoma State been undefeated, Ok State out...no doubt about it. If 2011 Oklahoma State would have been OU or Texas, OU or Texas goes over 'Bama. Undefeated OU and Texas will get the nod 90% of the time in "ties" for 2nd place. Oklahoma State and KState are probably the other 10%.

Well, would an undefeated Boise have gotten in?

[SpankyNek]

Your problem is you don't value perception high enough. To the rest of the nation OSU and Kstate ARE the doormats. It doesn't matter how much we argue that our conference is so competitive, nobody believes it. It's OU, TX, and the nobodies. We lose to one of our conference foes and we drop like a rock. This isn't the case for SEC and it's less an issue for the PAC and B1G. Perception matters when trying to get into the playoff, especially if you have one loss. We have no traditional winners and adding more nobodies is going to hurt our brand even more.

I prefer to solidify our chances at being undefeated than to rely on our perception somehow surpassing the SEC as it relates to one loss teams.

It would take a hell of a coups to get our one loss team on equal footing with the SEC's one loss. Adding FSU and Miami doesn't get us there.

[DIB]

Someone explain to me again why OU and Texas even need a conference?

We've got independent T3 deals already, and sense we're the only two teams with any apparent value, couldn't we strike a better TV deal if we constructed an independent schedule as well?

Maybe do a two team conference to increase bargaining power. The Red River conference.

[RockFlagandEagle]

Well, would an undefeated Boise have gotten in?

In 2011, probably not. I agreed with you and disagree with OU812 about it being a "Boise" problem. Boise would have needed 2 losses and be undefeated. Ok State/KState, etc would have been in with only 1 loss from SEC team. So it's better than the Boise situation for 8 other teams in the Big XII but OU and Texas will still have it easier than those 8. Make sense?

[lobster999]

I prefer to solidify our chances at being undefeated than to rely on our perception somehow surpassing the SEC as it relates to one loss teams.

It would take a hell of a coups to get our one loss team on equal footing with the SEC's one loss. Adding FSU and Miami doesn't get us there.

Of course our one loss team won't be on equal footing with the SEC. That leaves us with hoping our one loss team is better than the PAC's, B1Gs, and ACC's. FSU, Miami, Clemson are helmet schools. You get popular credibility for beating them whether they are good or not. Beating a good Tech or Baylor earns you nothing.

[SpankyNek]

Of course our one loss team won't be on equal footing with the SEC. That leaves us with hoping our one loss team is better than the PAC's, B1Gs, and ACC's. FSU, Miami, Clemson are helmet schools. You get popular credibility for beating them whether they are good or not. Beating a good Tech or Baylor earns you nothing.

It does if you are undefeated going into the last game of the season against one of them, and it gets you way more than a loss to FSU, Miami, or Clemson in any scenario.

[SpankyNek]

In 2011, probably not. I agreed with you and disagree with OU812 about it being a "Boise" problem. Boise would have needed 2 losses and be undefeated. Ok State/KState, etc would have been in with only 1 loss from SEC team. So it's better than the Boise situation for 8 other teams in the Big XII but OU and Texas will still have it easier than those 8. Make sense?

Absolutely.

[lobster999]

It does if you are undefeated going into the last game of the season against one of them, and it gets you way more than a loss to FSU, Miami, or Clemson in any scenario.

So your strategy is to basically make us boise st. and get us the easiest road to undefeated and hope the argument is even though we haven't really played anybody we deserve to be allowed to prove ourselves in the playoffs.

[The]

Maybe do a two team conference to increase bargaining power. The Red River conference.

Think of this schedule:

1. Tulsa
2. @UCLA
3. San Diego St (or insert your favorite cream puff here)
4. @Washington St
5. Texas
6. @Arkansas
7. Notre Dame
8. @Oklahoma State
9. BYU
10. @Miami
11. Boston College
12. Nebraska

[SpankyNek]

So your strategy is to basically make us boise st. and get us the easiest road to undefeated and hope the argument is even though we haven't really played anybody we deserve to be allowed to prove ourselves in the playoffs.

No, see the above posts. My strategy is to get us the easiest road to undefeated that GUARANTEES an appearance...big difference.