2023 Dr pepper still in reach?

[catastrophe]

It’s a fireable offense if the commissioner does that. The conference can recover from a stupid rule that fucks over an existing member and gets changed in the off-season. I’m not sure it can recover from very clearly changing a rule in the middle of the year without a vote of members.

[stunted]

we'll just need to smoke ku and isu to make the big 12 look really stupid.

[wetwillie]

It’s a fireable offense if the commissioner does that. The conference can recover from a stupid rule that fucks over an existing member and gets changed in the off-season. I’m not sure it can recover from very clearly changing a rule in the middle of the year without a vote of members.

I do think there is a decent chance Scott Draper gets moved on for this

[cfbandyman]

I do enjoy though how it too less than a season after we go to more that 10 teams that our convoluted rules for determining who the eff makes it to the CCG gets trucked by reality. Next year will be even more fun.

Imagine the big 10 with 18 teams, there will be legit opportunities for multiple conference undefeated teams.

[deputy dawg]

Looking at the conference web site, I don't see any reference to clarification regarding CCG play.  Did the "clarification" get released somewhere else where one could see exactly what it says?

[PurpleOil]

It would be very Big XII like to leak this to the media to gauge the reaction and then seeing it explode like this, walk back and be all "just kidding as we never changed the website".

[deputy dawg]

I think this is a product of Okie lite's belief that they are now king of the conference.

[catastrophe]

Looking at the conference web site, I don't see any reference to clarification regarding CCG play.  Did the "clarification" get released somewhere else where one could see exactly what it says?

That’s the weirdest part. Semi reputable reporters have said they received a statement, but even they haven’t published it as far as I know.

[catastrophe]

It would be very Big XII like to leak this to the media to gauge the reaction and then seeing it explode like this, walk back and be all "just kidding as we never changed the website".

This has to be a part of it. I’d also guess they grossly overestimated how receptive members would be on the Wednesday call and are now begging the disinterested members to sign off on the change before they say anything publicly.

[TheHamburglar]

Looking at the conference web site, I don't see any reference to clarification regarding CCG play.  Did the "clarification" get released somewhere else where one could see exactly what it says?

That’s the weirdest part. Semi reputable reporters have said they received a statement, but even they haven’t published it as far as I know.

It’s chickenshit they’ve only emailed it out & didn’t do their normal press release process.

This tweet has a screen shot of the email to reporters.

https://twitter.com/glenn_kinley/status/1724908858601259426?s=46&t=ErlGZadBqbmnPNUCBSgcPA

[TheHamburglar]

From a legal perspective, it is not a clarification but a change. The stupider course of action is to try to pretend it's a clarification instead of admitting it's a change. The Big XII chose to take the stupider route here.

But if I had to argue the Big XII's position in court, I would point to the comma and say the rule is legal gibberish as written, so some clarification is required. The Commissioner is authorized to clarify the rules. That's what he did.

It's just the intent of the rule was clear even if it was poorly drafted, and the "clarification" completely changed the intent of the rule.

Oh well.

It’s pretty clear that they lifted the rule from the PAC-12 and the comma was put in as a typo. I still wish someone would try to FOIA communications between a school & the Big12 office to see if there’s an email/communication that contains the proposed rule during the rule voting process to see if the typo is actually in the rule or if it’s just a typo on the website.

[catastrophe]

Looking at the conference web site, I don't see any reference to clarification regarding CCG play.  Did the "clarification" get released somewhere else where one could see exactly what it says?

That’s the weirdest part. Semi reputable reporters have said they received a statement, but even they haven’t published it as far as I know.

It’s chickenshit they’ve only emailed it out & didn’t do their normal press release process.

This tweet has a screen shot of the email to reporters.

https://twitter.com/glenn_kinley/status/1724908858601259426?s=46&t=ErlGZadBqbmnPNUCBSgcPA

So yeah, like MIR said: If that's the whole statement then how delightfully ironic that the two-sentence clarification contradicts itself.

Unless the real Big 12 tiebreaker rules are written on the back of the Declaration of Independence or something then that is very obviously not the tiebreaker rule.

[wetwillie]

What legal recourse would we have?  It seems like a bad long term play to engage in that.

[catastrophe]

From a legal perspective, it is not a clarification but a change. The stupider course of action is to try to pretend it's a clarification instead of admitting it's a change. The Big XII chose to take the stupider route here.

But if I had to argue the Big XII's position in court, I would point to the comma and say the rule is legal gibberish as written, so some clarification is required. The Commissioner is authorized to clarify the rules. That's what he did.

It's just the intent of the rule was clear even if it was poorly drafted, and the "clarification" completely changed the intent of the rule.

Oh well.

It’s pretty clear that they lifted the rule from the PAC-12 and the comma was put in as a typo. I still wish someone would try to FOIA communications between a school & the Big12 office to see if there’s an email/communication that contains the proposed rule during the rule voting process to see if the typo is actually in the rule or if it’s just a typo on the website.

The comma is irrelevant unless there is a way to read the rule WITH the comma that accounts for one member in a multi-team tie winning the tie breaker by virtue of beating the other members in the tie.

At best, I can think of two interpretations:
1. If not every tied team has played each other, go to step 2. [PRETTY CLOSE!]
2. "So step 1 we look at the head-to-head win percentage among the tied teams. But hell, if you don't do that it must mean every team has played each other so this probably won't work, go to step 2." [Nonsense]

[catastrophe]

What legal recourse would we have?  It seems like a bad long term play to engage in that.

I don't know how you find the full rules, but I'm guessing there is a mechanism for arbitration challenging a commissioner's application of the rules similar to the NFL. I don't think it would be crazy at all. You wouldn't be burning a bridge, you'd actually be preserving some semblance of the conference actually having enforceable rules--even if you lost.

[TheHamburglar]

1. I think knowing the history of the rule, where it was copied from & the intent of the rule without the typo has some value. The Big12 looked at the Pac-12, knew the intent of the rule when they lifted it from the PAC-12 & knows this clarification is the opposite of the intended rule they sought when they lifted it.
2. Knowing it’s a typo, I want to know when the typo was made. The typo on the website is irrelevant if it was made in the web design process & it’s only on the website. There’s a chance it’s not even in the official rules that were voted on.

[wetwillie]

So get an injunction to force the championship game to be postponed? Like what outcome could we possibly hope to achieve here. 

[mocat]

if we end up in a 3 way tie for 2nd place and don't make the ccg, nothing is stopping us from hanging a 2023 b12 champs flag

[TheHamburglar]

So get an injunction to force the championship game to be postponed? Like what outcome could we possibly hope to achieve here.

At this point I’m just fan-fictioning what I hope Gene would have said yesterday morning. I also want him to come out & put out a statement that says it’s obvious the conference is lying about the clarification/change because of these data points & also tries to shame his fellow ADs for allowing a change to the rules to happen with 75% of the conference season done while he was taking the bullet for them by being on the playoff committee, but I know he won’t.

Basically I’m posting through it.

[catastrophe]

So get an injunction to force the championship game to be postponed? Like what outcome could we possibly hope to achieve here.

There's no reason the issue couldn't be resolved within like 5 days by a neutral arbitrator. It's only two issues: (1) does the commissioner's office have authority to change a tiebreaker procedure midseason, and (2) would it be a change of the tiebreaker rules to have the head-to-head winner advance out of step 1 if the tied teams haven't all played each other.

Maybe the rules require a longer dispute resolution procedure, but I'd expect they would be prepared to address crap pretty quickly.

[BIG APPLE CAT]

if we end up in a 3 way tie for 2nd place and don't make the ccg, nothing is stopping us from hanging a 2023 b12 champs flag

^gd right

[catastrophe]

So get an injunction to force the championship game to be postponed? Like what outcome could we possibly hope to achieve here.

At this point I’m just fan-fictioning what I hope Gene would have said yesterday morning. I also want him to come out & put out a statement that says it’s obvious the conference is lying about the clarification/change because of these data points & also tries to shame his fellow ADs for allowing a change to the rules to happen with 75% of the conference season done while he was taking the bullet for them by being on the playoff committee, but I know he won’t.

Basically I’m posting through it.

If Gene was the only person opposed to the "clarification" I think the Big 12 would already have formally announced it and Gene wouldn't say anything. I just think a lot of the members realize how bad this would look and they can't get anything close to a unanimous vote of the non-interested members.

[TheHamburglar]

if we end up in a 3 way tie for 2nd place and don't make the ccg, nothing is stopping us from hanging a 2023 b12 champs flag

^gd right

Would be more legitimate than the Best Big12 Pregame & #1 College Town banners

[MakeItRain]

So get an injunction to force the championship game to be postponed? Like what outcome could we possibly hope to achieve here.

There's no reason the issue couldn't be resolved within like 5 days by a neutral arbitrator. It's only two issues: (1) does the commissioner's office have authority to change a tiebreaker procedure midseason, and (2) would it be a change of the tiebreaker rules to have the head-to-head winner advance out of step 1 if the tied teams haven't all played each other.

Maybe the rules require a longer dispute resolution procedure, but I'd expect they would be prepared to address crap pretty quickly.

I sincerely hope we don't even give a solitary thought of litigating this, at all, it's super losery.

That being said, the more I think about this the more I think that the *new* tiebreaker protocol actually doesn't make sense. Yes, Oklahoma State beat K-State and OU but they also didn't have to play Texas. OSU got to play all four new teams. The rule was written the way it was to account for unbalanced schedules. OSU is being rewarded for playing a crap schedule and losing to an objectively bad team

[wetwillie]

I still think OSU drops another one anyway