- Brandon Chatmon, College Football
- 0 Shares
One week after the Big 12 looked like it was going to add a championship game, commissioner Bob Bowlsby said Tuesday that it doesn't seem like the conference is headed toward adding a title game.
That's the right move, suggests Matt Murschel of the Orlando Sentinel. A conference mandated non-conference game against a Power 5 team is the better move in Murschel's opinion.
It's a good idea that has been floating around and probably would be the best first step for the Big 12, mainly because those games would be good for the Big 12 and college football in general, regardless of the College Football Playoff. The more opportunities the Big 12 has to improve its national reputation the better.
All that said, I have a bigger concern with the situation as a whole. The Big 12 is exploring ways to make sure it is not at a disadvantage in the future and can maximize its opportunities to make the College Football Playoff. There seems to be an expectation for the Big 12 to add a title game, consider expansion, change its tiebreaker rules, mandate non-conference scheduling or explore many other options that could help.
Meanwhile, the committee is being asked to re-examine what exactly? Why is it on the Big 12 (or any other conference) to consider making major changes without everyone else involved in the process being asked to do the same? (The committee, pleased with how things turned out last year, plans to use the same procedures.)
We have a system where the No. 3 team in a four-team playoff can win by 50 points in its final game yet fall three spots in the final ranking. Why is that system seemingly untouchable?
Why is it on the Big 12 (or any other conference) to consider making major changes without everyone in the process being asked to do the same?