And that something is a Big 12 championship game. Each of the football coaches who were part of the league last season were asked on a conference call Tuesday about the idea and most of them are for it — including West Virginia’s Dana Holgorsen.

“I think it would be great. The one thing that I’ve always have been a proponent of is everyone doing the same thing. Back when the Big 12 had a conference championship game, and some other leagues didn’t, we were complaining about that. So having one to have that 13th game and be on the same level as everyone else is important. Based on what happened toward the end of last year, I think it hurt the Big 12 a little bit.”

Consider, too, that Bob Stoops and Bill Snyder are for the title game and a few others didn’t directly voice an opinion, but verbally nudged you in the arm to let you know what they were thinking, and you get the idea what sort of pressure the coaches are exerting on their administrations. That’s the route to take, of course, and the coaches were happy to oblige … perhaps because the league’s commissioner doesn’t really regard what coaches think. “The NFL, they don’t ask coaches what they think about the rules,” Bowlsby said. “The owners make the rules.”

Here’s the crazy part about this: The conversation isn’t changing, probably because there’s no changing it. We’re talking in circles. The facts are the facts, and increasing the volume of the debate doesn’t alter that.

The arguments about risk vs. reward are static. Consider finances: You’ll struggle to convince administrators that an extra $1.5 million or so per team is worth playing an extra game and possibly forcing a team to push its chips to the middle of the table when it doesn’t have to.

Now consider a resume, because there’s some double-speak here I just don’t get. The common talking point is a team that goes 9-0 in the Big 12 is good enough to get into the Final Four. Is 10-0 more worthy? So why necessitate it? And if a team goes 8-1, will be 9-1 be a catapult?

There’s no changing this, either: Nobody was more adversely affected by a league championship game in the BCS era than the Big 12 — games in 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2007 cost the league a spot in the national championship game — and some coaches are still in the league. I can’t find a year when the winner of the title game leapfrogged someone to make the BCS title game (See: 8-1 v. 9-1 argument). The latter isn’t entirely valid in the current era, because we’re searching for four teams instead of two, but it does make this infatuation harder to understand.

And let’s not dismiss this: Presently, nobody has a more navigable path to the College Football Playoff than the Big 12, because though a true round robin format is difficult, it avoids playing best v. best later in the season (and don’t tell me Baylor, for example, won’t be bitter the first time it has to run it again against TCU after beating beat TCU in the regular season).

The Big 12 is hard, and now coaches want to make it harder when the solutions are pretty easy. Don’t lose to WVU and blow a chance to go 9-0. Don’t waste a three-touchdown lead in the fourth quarter against Baylor and also surrender your shot at 9-0. Don’t believe every year will be like the first year was. Or, hey, do something with your non-conference schedule.

Because if we’re really having a formative conversation about not letting history repeat itself — and show me where a CFP committee member actually said a crowned Big 12 champion keeps Ohio State out — then we have to address voices and variables like this one…

Art Briles asked about his non-conf. scheduling philosophy. Said non-conf schedule had “zero effect” on Baylor getting left out last season

— Jake Trotter (@Jake_Trotter) April 21, 2015