Football divisions in the new Big 12

[Limey Frog]

How would divide the new Big 12?

I know there's no great urgency to discuss this, but hey, this is a sports message board. It's all a waste of time.

I like the 'zipper' idea with six pairs, but I'd probably prefer a more easily memorable geographic structure. I'm guessing north-south won't suit the schools who would have their visibility in the state of Texas diminished by keeping all of the Texas schools in a single division. You could argue that the decision to put OU in the old south division and downgrade the Nebraska rivalry was the fatal 'original sin' of the Big 12 1.0.

I'd go with:

East--UCF, WVU, Cincinnati, Iowa State, KU, Houston
West--BYU, K-State, Okie State, Tech, TCU, Baylor

I'd also play nine conference games. I'm not sure about the 'annual cross-over rivalry' concept. I can't see too many compelling reasons for it, but if it happens my choices for TCU's rival (depending on how the divisions are aligned) would be Baylor, WVU, or BYU (obviously WVU in my preferred east-west structure).

Anyway, waste time on this if you please, or don't if you don't.

 

[BrewingFrog]

Considering their actions in this "realignment " drama, might I suggest the Stupid Division, and the Cowardly Division?

Who knows. ESPN may decide to unload more crap on us, like SMU. Then we can have a Worthless Division...

 

[The Artist Formerly Known as PhormerPhrog]

I think the cross-over rivalry notion is too forced.

 

[Limey Frog]

I think the cross-over rivalry notion is too forced.

I agree with that. It only came from the SEC anyway, because Georgia-Auburn and Alabama-Tennessee were too ancient and storied of rivalries to be downgraded (again, why the idiots in Norman were foolish to take a short term approach to the then-annual beatings they were receiving from Nebraska in the mid-90s).

The only real rivalries you might be protecting here would be among the two Kansas schools and Iowa State, and among Baylor, TCU, and Tech. Any of those could survive moving to biannual fixtures without the college football universe sustaining much real harm.

 

[Wexahu]

I agree with that. It only came from the SEC anyway, because Georgia-Auburn and Alabama-Tennessee were too ancient and storied of rivalries to be downgraded (again, why the idiots in Norman were foolish to take a short term approach to the then-annual beatings they were receiving from Nebraska in the mid-90s).

The only real rivalries you might be protecting here would be among the two Kansas schools and Iowa State, and among Baylor, TCU, and Tech. Any of those could survive moving to biannual fixtures without the college football universe sustaining much real harm.

And if they are in the same division anyway (which some no doubt will be) it doesn't matter.

I agree, just do away with that concept. It further unbalances the schedule too. You think Tennessee has been thrilled with having to play Bama every year while Missouri plays Arkansas?

 

[Dtx_Frog_Fan]

I think the cross-over rivalry notion is too forced.

Agreed and It doesn’t make sense in a twelve team conference. You play your five division mates and then alternate 3 teams one year and 3 teams the next year from the other division. You could also have home and home with 3 cross division mates and then alternate every 2 years.

That makes for 8 conference games.

 

[Planks]

I'd also play nine conference games.

I think how many conference games you play depends on how serious of a problem you think the PAC/BIG/ACC alliance is going to be when it comes to scheduling out of conference games.

I think in an ideal world, only playing eight conference games is best as it gives the conference members the most flexibility and options.

1) It allows you to pad your schedule with an extra win if you want to. The SEC has really benefited from from this as it maximizes the number of teams they’ve been able to get into the top 25. Plus it allows the bad teams to go 2-6 in conference play and still go to a bowl game by beating four weaker teams in out of conference play.

2) With the geographic wonkiness of the new Big 12, the more isolated schools would probably like to schedule more games with geographically close schools. Im sure BYU would like to schedule games against schools like Utah, Boise State, Utah state, etc. WVU would probably like to schedule more games against Pitt, Virginia Tech, Marshall, etc. UCF would probably like to schedule games against USF, Florida Atlantic, etc.

3) It allows for flexibility when trying to set up permanent out of conference rivals (Iowa State-Iowa, BYU-Utah, TCU-SMU, UCF-USF, OSU-OU, etc). You can have a permanent out conference rival while still having three games free to schedule opponents.

4) Conference legitimacy. Scheduling more games against the other P5 conference schools could potentially help the perceived legitimacy of the new Big 12.

I think I would start with eight conference games, and then move to nine conference games if the PAC/BIG/ACC alliance proves to be a problem scheduling wise.

 

[Planks]

I think the cross-over rivalry notion is too forced.

I think the cross-over rivalry only makes sense if you are going with a balanced zipper format for the divisions, in which case it would be imperative (TCU and Baylor in opposing divisions, KU and KSU in opposing divisions, etc.)

 

[Limey Frog]

That makes for 8 conference games.

I'd rather we play nine, because it gets you closer to playing everyone every year and adds a meaningful game where the realistic alternative is another non-conference game vs some garbage like Duquesne.

The downside is sharing six guaranteed losses between your telegram members, but if there's a sufficient certain path to a playoff berth for the conference champion, that oughtn't matter.

 

[Frognosticator]

Well lets look at next year, when presumably OUT will still be in the conference. this is how I see it.

Scumbags Division:
TCU
OSU
BYU
WVU
KU
Houston
UT

A-holes Division:
ISU
TT
Baylor
Cincy
KSU
UCF
OU

This splits the Texas teams almost evenly, splits the new teams evenly, and splits the east coast teams almost evenly.

Once OUT leaves, we can change the names of the divisions.

 

[Wexahu]

I think how many conference games you play depends on how serious of a problem you think the PAC/BIG/ACC alliance is going to be when it comes to scheduling out of conference games.

I think in an ideal world, only playing eight conference games is best as it gives the conference members the most flexibility and options.

1) It allows you to pad your schedule with an extra win if you want to. The SEC has really benefited from from this as it maximizes the number of teams they’ve been able to get into the top 25. Plus it allows the bad teams to go 2-6 in conference play and still go to a bowl game by beating four weaker teams in out of conference play.

2) With the geographic wonkiness of the new Big 12, the more isolated schools would probably like to schedule more games with geographically close schools. Im sure BYU would like to schedule games against schools like Utah, Boise State, Utah state, etc. WVU would probably like to schedule more games against Pitt, Virginia Tech, Marshall, etc. UCF would probably like to schedule games against USF, Florida Atlantic, etc.

3) It allows for flexibility when trying to set up permanent out of conference rivals (Iowa State-Iowa, BYU-Utah, TCU-SMU, UCF-USF, OSU-OU, etc). You can have a permanent out conference rival while still having three games free to schedule opponents.

4) Conference legitimacy. Scheduling more games against the other P5 conference schools could potentially help the perceived legitimacy of the new Big 12.

I think I would start with eight conference games, and then move to nine conference games if the PAC/BIG/ACC alliance proves to be a problem scheduling wise.

I think 9 is a better number. I'd only be ok with 8 if that 4th OOC game is a good one against another P5 team, not some body bag team for an automatic win. We need fewer games like last week and more like this week, games where fans can look forward to seeing a competitive game. If we're good enough, we'll win that 9th game. If not, we won't.

If the ACC, Big 10, and Pac 12 can do it, so can we.

 

[82 Frog Fever]

I think the cross-over rivalry only makes sense if you are going with a balanced zipper format for the divisions, in which case it would be imperative (TCU and Baylor in opposing divisions, KU and KSU in opposing divisions, etc.)

Pretty sure the down zipper format would give us greater freedom of movement.

 

[Wexahu]

I'd rather we play nine, because it gets you closer to playing everyone every year and adds a meaningful game where the realistic alternative is another non-conference game vs some garbage like Duquesne.

The downside is sharing six guaranteed losses between your telegram members, but if there's a sufficient certain path to a playoff berth for the conference champion, that oughtn't matter.

9 times out of 10 a playoff worthy team isn't going to have a problem winning that 9th conference game. As for the "more teams will be in the Top 25, making your schedule seem better" , I'm not really buying that much. Let's face it, the SEC has always had a lot of teams in the top 25 because there are more good teams in that league than in any other.

 

[Eight]

Well lets look at next year, when presumably OUT will still be in the conference. this is how I see it.

Scumbags Division:
TCU
OSU
BYU
WVU
KU
Houston
UT

A-holes Division:
ISU
TT
Baylor
Cincy
KSU
UCF
OU

This splits the Texas teams almost evenly, splits the new teams evenly, and splits the east coast teams almost evenly.

Once OUT leaves, we can change the names of the divisions.

who said these four are joining the conference next year?

 

[Paul in uhh]

I agree with that. It only came from the SEC anyway, because Georgia-Auburn and Alabama-Tennessee were too ancient and storied of rivalries to be downgraded (again, why the idiots in Norman were foolish to take a short term approach to the then-annual beatings they were receiving from Nebraska in the mid-90s).

The only real rivalries you might be protecting here would be among the two Kansas schools and Iowa State, and among Baylor, TCU, and Tech. Any of those could survive moving to biannual fixtures without the college football universe sustaining much real harm.

Eight conference games.

three nonconference to start the season, one in November.

this is the biggest thing the SEC does right in my opinion. When other conferences are immersed in their top teams battling against each other, the SEC is resting and padding their win column with games against Florida A&M and Jackson State.

we should do the same.

 

[Bruce Berry]

I thought Goldberg at ESPN said the Big 12 was dead they just didn't know it yet?

Consistently a scheissing moron.

 

[Wexahu]

Eight conference games.

three nonconference to start the season, one in November.

this is the biggest thing the SEC does right in my opinion. When other conferences are immersed in their top teams battling against each other, the SEC is resting and padding their win column with games against Florida A&M and Jackson State.

we should do the same.

A November game against an FCS school would suck. Couldn't care less what the SEC does. Let's do what the rest of the P5 leagues do.

It's competitive sports. Padding your win column with non-competitive teams is lame. The SEC isn't "getting it right", they are cheating their fans. The idea of trying to engineer a high ranking via scheduling tricks....I don't get that at all.

 

[Wexahu]

I thought Goldberg at ESPN said the Big 12 was dead they just didn't know it yet?

Consistently a scheissing moron.

Who is Goldberg?

 

[Paul in uhh]

A November game against an FCS school would suck. Couldn't care less what the SEC does. Let's do what the rest of the P5 leagues do.

It's competitive sports. Padding your win column with non-competitive teams is lame. The SEC isn't "getting it right", they are cheating their fans. The idea of trying to engineer a high ranking via scheduling tricks....I don't get that at all.

Why would you not employ every strategy you could to ensure a better bowl game/ranking for your teams?

if 9-3 gets you the texas bowl and 10-2 gets you NY6, why not do everything possible to get to 10-2?

what the sec does gives them a tremendous advantage and is why they often get two teams into the playoff. I doubt the fans of those teams feel cheated when they see the b12 cannibalizing itself every November.

on a given November Saturday you could have 3TCU and 8ISU playing each other. If ISU wins, both tcu and ISU miss the 4-team playoff. If tcu wins, ISU is out of the top ten, and there is one less feather in the tcu hat.

alternatively both could play an OOC game, both get wins and climb the rankings as the neighboring teams lose.

 

[Eight]

Who is Goldberg?

didn't know he was with espn now that he retired from wrestling, but did play at uga back in the day