"The [selection] committee continues to show time and time again that they are paying attention to logos versus résumés," Yormark said, criticizing how the rankings are determined. He emphasized this issue, especially regarding his conference's performances compared to others, noting that the Big 12 champion, regardless of the ranking, should be treated equally, particularly when examining win-loss records against more competitive teams.
"Strength of schedule should matter and wins against Power 4 opponents should matter -- 74% of the Big 12 wins were against Power 4 opponents this season," Yormark argued. He highlighted that the performance metrics of the Big 12 show a stronger competition level as compared to the Group of 5, where the records reflect a substantial imbalance, urging the committee to reconsider how they rank conferences.
Yormark emphasized the disparity in rankings by noting that the Big 12's teams, like Arizona State and Iowa State, are ranked lower than three SEC teams with a lesser record. He stated, "In no way should a Group of 5 champion be ranked above our champion," reinforcing the idea that performance in a more competitive landscape should take precedence in playoff considerations.
In a passionate defense of the Big 12's ranking, Yormark questioned the committee's values, stating, "But he says he hasn't seen that considered as much as it should." This frustration reflects broader concerns about how certain teams are favored based solely on preconceived notions rather than on field performance.
Collection
[
|
...
]