Guaranteed: More Issues Settled in Expanded Big 12 Than You Think

and this is exactly what I hope we DO NOT do.

The most likely schedule will be nine games with three permanent opponents based on geography and history and six rotating opponents.

That is the worst possible outcome.... same-ol, same-ol, go along to get alone, just like all the other clone conferences.

we want nothing permanent, history is not relevant. Everybody is the same, treat everybody the same.

We can do better than that tired old format that locks in crap for eternity

what they need to focus on is equal access to the recruiting hotbeds of Texas and Florida. Any and all rotations should be based on provided all teams with equal access (trips there) to those recruiting markets. That is what will keep the conference teams strong, and not create teams like KU and ISU (or old Missouri) that could only muster a decent team once or twice per decade.

Well I'm not really sure what your beef is. Having 3 regular opponents and 6 rotating ones means at worst you will be in Texas once every year, and have at least one game vs a Texas school every year. You'd also be in Ohio & Florida every other year. No schedule could do a better job than that of spreading out the access. This is so much better than divisions which would make us split the Texas teams, and put either UC or UCF in a predominantly western division.

It's not being adopted by conferences because its bad, but because its good. It gives you a bit of base schedule and people like that, but still makes sure we play everyone regularly and have good access to all the best recruiting areas.

No divisions is the way to go. Are we copying other conferences? No, it's the other way around as other conferences would be copying the B12s "no divisions", "best two teams to the CCG" model that's been in place for 5 years.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

That is the worst possible outcome.... same-ol, same-ol, go along to get alone, just like all the other clone conferences.

we want nothing permanent, history is not relevant. Everybody is the same, treat everybody the same.

---

To me, this is the exact opposite of the "same-ol" thing other conferences have been doing. The SEC teams play the same SEVEN conference teams every year. That leaves only one different team to rotate through each season. That's awful. In the Big 12 scenario, you keep a few permanent opponents and rotate through the majority. This scenario prevents teams from going 10 years without playing against certain opponents.

I also think you have to keep at least 1-2 permanent opponents. Rivalries and traditions are a large part of what makes college football so great. IF OU was staying in conference, NO WAY would either side want a season to rotate through with not having each other on the schedule.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

No divisions is the way to go. Are we copying other conferences? No, it's the other way around as other conferences would be copying the B12s "no divisions", "best two teams to the CCG" model that's been in place for 5 years.

---

IMO, it's not really the same as the old B12, because we played a round robin (played every team), the expansion and the size of the other leagues prohibits what we had implemented in the past.

IMO, we're ALL moving into uncharted territory, where the league teams don't have to play each other, and can still find themselves in the CCG's.

With divisions, the two best teams eventually ended up playing each other, under these scenarios, the two best teams may not play each other... it could be the "best" team and another team with a good record and easier schedule.

Jally said:

---

I also think you have to keep at least 1-2 permanent opponents. Rivalries and traditions are a large part of what makes college football so great. IF OU was staying in conference, NO WAY would either side want a season to rotate through with not having each other on the schedule.

---

I cannot personally think of any team in our league that I would like to have as a "permanent opponent". Tech? BYU? KState?

If you match OSU up with Houston, UCF and TCU then I'd be on board, but which I also think would be highly unfair from a recruiting perspective.

College traditions are great, but rivalries come and go these day..... like OU/Nebraska... like PedState and Pitt... Arkansas and any Southwest conf team, Missouri and KU... etc.,etc. way over rated, Would any of us really care if OU played Texas annually? Would we care if the Great Cocktail Party ended? Not me.

I also disagree that if OU was staying in the conference that a majority of OSU fans would want the goons as our annual opponent. There is no benefit to OSU in continuing that relationship. (the media and the sponsors would want to keep it, but not most OSU fans)

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

No divisions is the way to go. Are we copying other conferences? No, it's the other way around as other conferences would be copying the B12s "no divisions", "best two teams to the CCG" model that's been in place for 5 years.

---

IMO, it's not really the same as the old B12, because we played a round robin (played every team), the expansion and the size of the other leagues prohibits what we had implemented in the past.

IMO, we're ALL moving into uncharted territory, where the league teams don't have to play each other, and can still find themselves in the CCG's.

With divisions, the two best teams eventually ended up playing each other, under these scenarios, the two best teams may not play each other... it could be the "best" team and another team with a good record and easier schedule.

---

Divisions do the exact opposite. Almost all divisional champion matchups have been mismatches that have lead to teams missing the playoffs if they had a bad loss and the winning school had a bad record, or most commonly just bad games where one team ran away with it.

You're not going to get to see every team more than twice in 4 years and the schedule being adopted does that. There is no better option.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

No divisions is the way to go. Are we copying other conferences? No, it's the other way around as other conferences would be copying the B12s "no divisions", "best two teams to the CCG" model that's been in place for 5 years.

---

Succinct and on point , that is probably the best way to go from here!

NJAggie said:

---

Divisions do the exact opposite. Almost all divisional champion matchups have been mismatches that have lead to teams missing the playoffs if they had a bad loss and the winning school had a bad record, or most commonly just bad games where one team ran away with it.

You're not going to get to see every team more than twice in 4 years and the schedule being adopted does that. There is no better option.

---

I think that you missed my point... I was not talking about the CCG as the two best teams, but rather that the 2 best teams would have played each other either in their own conference, or possibly in the CCG - one or the other, they would have played each other.

The prior/current B12 model had each team playing each other so the best two would play each other at some point.

What is being discussed now (the new model without divisions) could lead to the the two best teams in a conference never playing each other (because a team with an easy schedule that does not play everyone, ends up with a better record than the 2 best teams, but is not one of the 2 best teams)

For us (Big12) I think we need some type of rotational round-robin type scenario, however, NOT permanent teams. Rotate through everybody over time.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

Divisions do the exact opposite. Almost all divisional champion matchups have been mismatches that have lead to teams missing the playoffs if they had a bad loss and the winning school had a bad record, or most commonly just bad games where one team ran away with it.

You're not going to get to see every team more than twice in 4 years and the schedule being adopted does that. There is no better option.

---

I think that you missed my point... I was not talking about the CCG as the two best teams, but rather that the 2 best teams would have played each other either in their own conference, or possibly in the CCG - one or the other, they would have played each other.

The prior/current B12 model had each team playing each other so the best two would play each other at some point.

What is being discussed now (the new model without divisions) could lead to the the two best teams in a conference never playing each other (because a team with an easy schedule that does not play everyone, ends up with a better record than the 2 best teams, but is not one of the 2 best teams)

For us (Big12) I think we need some type of rotational round-robin type scenario, however, NOT permanent teams. Rotate through everybody over time.

---

Bad idea. The HALLMARK of sports, and particularly college sports, is rivalries. No permanent opponents means there would be years without rivalries. That is in no way acceptable to 99.9 % of fans.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Bad idea. The HALLMARK of sports, and particularly college sports, is rivalries. No permanent opponents means there would be years without rivalries. That is in no way acceptable to 99.9 % of fans.

---

That's your opinion.

besides I did not say eliminate all rivalries, there simply are not very many of significance in the entire NCAA, and the B12 will not have any after OU and UT leave.

Since we will have no natural rivalries, what's the point of trying to fictitiously create some?

you provided no evidence that creating permanent opponents would create a rivalry. We played all the Big12 teams every year, and didn't create any rivalries. (OU is sort of a "State thingy", not necessarily a conference creation, but it doesn't matter, they're leaving and not part of the discussion.

Case in point, most OSU fans surveyed indicated they would prefer that we NOT continue playing OU, and instead book some other interesting competitive teams.

If you've watched "rivalry week" recently, the games are mostly pretty bad.

and... I just love the way you made up that 99.9% statistic out of thin air..... SMH

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Bad idea. The HALLMARK of sports, and particularly college sports, is rivalries. No permanent opponents means there would be years without rivalries. That is in no way acceptable to 99.9 % of fans.

---

That's your opinion.

besides I did not say eliminate all rivalries, there simply are not very many of significance in the entire NCAA, and the B12 will not have any after OU and UT leave.

Since we will have no natural rivalries, what's the point of trying to fictitiously create some?

you provided no evidence that creating permanent opponents would create a rivalry. We played all the Big12 teams every year, and didn't create any rivalries. (OU is sort of a "State thingy", not necessarily a conference creation, but it doesn't matter, they're leaving and not part of the discussion.

Case in point, most OSU fans surveyed indicated they would prefer that we NOT continue playing OU, and instead book some other interesting competitive teams.

If you've watched "rivalry week" recently, the games are mostly pretty bad.

and... I just love the way you made up that 99.9% statistic out of thin air..... SMH

---

SMH

I've never read or heard an opinion advocating a schedule which ignores rivalries. Never. Maybe you can provide a link to one.

Yeah, OSU doesn't have any meaningful rivalries after OU. But does that mean the rest of the B12 should be forced to forgo their rivalries certain years? No KU/KSU, BU/TCU, TCU/Tech, KSU/ISU, etc some years?

You're living on a very small, unpopulated island.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

SMH

I've never read or heard an opinion advocating a schedule which ignores rivalries. Never. Maybe you can provide a link to one.

Yeah, OSU doesn't have any meaningful rivalries after OU. But does that mean the rest of the B12 should be forced to forgo their rivalries certain years? No KU/KSU, BU/TCU, TCU/Tech, KSU/ISU, etc some years?

You're living on a very small, unpopulated island.

---

I did not say anything like that - you created that entire scenario in your own head.

How about we actually ask KSU and KU if they want to play each other in football every year, instead of going by your opinion. TCU has two rivals now, and we have none? you're making all of this up. KSU and ISU are not football rivals. (ISU and Iowa are).

It sounds more like you are the one on the small island, and it's all in your own head. Fictional.

simply being in the same conference is sufficient to make rivals out of all of our conference opponents.... I didn't give two shakes about BU when they were in their last conf, TCU either, now I do.

I really can't believe that you are basing your whole position of OSU having permanent opponents just so that KU can play KSU in freaking football... SMH

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

SMH

I've never read or heard an opinion advocating a schedule which ignores rivalries. Never. Maybe you can provide a link to one.

Yeah, OSU doesn't have any meaningful rivalries after OU. But does that mean the rest of the B12 should be forced to forgo their rivalries certain years? No KU/KSU, BU/TCU, TCU/Tech, KSU/ISU, etc some years?

You're living on a very small, unpopulated island.

---

I did not say anything like that - you created that entire scenario in your own head.

How about we actually ask KSU and KU if they want to play each other in football every year, instead of going by your opinion. TCU has two rivals now, and we have none? you're making all of this up. KSU and ISU are not football rivals. (ISU and Iowa are).

It sounds more like you are the one on the small island, and it's all in your own head. Fictional.

simply being in the same conference is sufficient to make rivals out of all of our conference opponents.... I didn't give two shakes about BU when they were in their last conf, TCU either, now I do.

I really can't believe that you are basing your whole position of OSU having permanent opponents just so that KU can play KSU in freaking football... SMH

---

Clearly that unpopulated island you live on results in ignorance and an acute unawareness of existing B12 rivalries. No wonder you've never heard of Farmageddon.

The B12 decision about scheduling is not about OSU, but all 12 members.

the big12 decision should be about the future, not about the past.

I'll ask my KState and IState pals if they care if that "rivalry continues... LOL

you're freaking hilarious.

there is absolutely nothing preventing great rivalries like that to continue, just like UCS/ND does, or ISU/Iowa does.

like OU/Nebraska... that great rivalry that would surely end college football as we knew it, right? Remember that?

SMH

I do not have a problem with three base rivalry games. But, one does not need to be Iowa State, they have never been a real rival even in the Big 8/12. It needs to be TCU, Houston and either Baylor or Tech after uo leaves. If not that, maybe UCF to get east coast exposure or Cinn. to get mid-west exposure, but big problem with Cinn. is no one watches them, even when they are good, like the last few years. Never understood adding Cinn. but, I do not make the decisions.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

Divisions do the exact opposite. Almost all divisional champion matchups have been mismatches that have lead to teams missing the playoffs if they had a bad loss and the winning school had a bad record, or most commonly just bad games where one team ran away with it.

You're not going to get to see every team more than twice in 4 years and the schedule being adopted does that. There is no better option.

---

I think that you missed my point... I was not talking about the CCG as the two best teams, but rather that the 2 best teams would have played each other either in their own conference, or possibly in the CCG - one or the other, they would have played each other.

The prior/current B12 model had each team playing each other so the best two would play each other at some point.

What is being discussed now (the new model without divisions) could lead to the the two best teams in a conference never playing each other (because a team with an easy schedule that does not play everyone, ends up with a better record than the 2 best teams, but is not one of the 2 best teams)

For us (Big12) I think we need some type of rotational round-robin type scenario, however, NOT permanent teams. Rotate through everybody over time.

---

That's what they're doing. The 3/6 schedule has you seeing everyone in conference 2 times in a 4 year period at a minimum. If you stay at 14 you'll have over a 4 year period 5 teams you play all 4 years, and 8 teams you play twice in those 4 years. If we drop to 12 then that becomes 8 teams you play all 4 years and 2 you play two years.

NJAggie said:

---

That's what they're doing. The 3/6 schedule has you seeing everyone in conference 2 times in a 4 year period at a minimum. If you stay at 14 you'll have over a 4 year period 5 teams you play all 4 years, and 8 teams you play twice in those 4 years. If we drop to 12 then that becomes 8 teams you play all 4 years and 2 you play two years.

---

I don't really care how they rotate, as long as there are not "permanent opponents", which IMO, will adversely skew the recruiting opportunities for some programs.

if it's such a great idea, then let's make OSU's permanent opponents KU, KSU and ISU - a geographic alignment, cut down on travel costs.

CaliforniaCowboy said:

---

NJAggie said:

---

That's what they're doing. The 3/6 schedule has you seeing everyone in conference 2 times in a 4 year period at a minimum. If you stay at 14 you'll have over a 4 year period 5 teams you play all 4 years, and 8 teams you play twice in those 4 years. If we drop to 12 then that becomes 8 teams you play all 4 years and 2 you play two years.

---

I don't really care how they rotate, as long as there are not "permanent opponents", which IMO, will adversely skew the recruiting opportunities for some programs.

if it's such a great idea, then let's make OSU's permanent opponents KU, KSU and ISU - a geographic alignment, cut down on travel costs.

---

Oh brother. Suddenly you care about conference recruiting, but just as suddenly you don't care about conference rivalries. You're rich.

GumbyFromPokeyLand said:

---

Oh brother. Suddenly you care about conference recruiting, but just as suddenly you don't care about conference rivalries. You're rich.

---

I have been talking about (practically exclusively) the conference alignment and recruiting equity since the moment that the goons announced they were leaving the conference.

you simply do not know who you are taking with, or what you are talking about. You're just wrong. You're always wrong.

heck, I was talking about conference recruiting equity years before when the league was talking about expanding (which still included OU/UT). You can find it in this forum and in others where I have continually advocated for conference recruiting equity.

you simply do not know what you are talking about, as usual.

Rivalries make sports more fun. It's the real bummer of all the realignment that some have died.

I'd probably like to see something like KSU, Tech and Cincy for our permanent opponents.

Danny Deck said:

---

Rivalries make sports more fun. It's the real bummer of all the realignment that some have died.

I'd probably like to see something like KSU, Tech and Cincy for our permanent opponents.

---

see... and therein lies the problem.... Tech? Seriously?

I would say that it's not rivalries that make sports fun, it is people that make rivalries fun - which auto-excludes Tech.

I'm not sure you could get 25% of our fan base to agree on Tech

1) they are in the middle of dusty, windy, desolate nowhere.
2) their fans are some of the worst on the planet, sometimes worse than goons.
3) Lubbick is so remote that recruit families from Houston/Dallas, ect would not bother to make that trip to see their kids play.

Don't want to play baseball there, don't want to play soccer there, don't want to play football there, just flat don't ever want to have to go there.

We could never get our fans to agree on the best 3, and we should not have to... and some group of no-account "leaders" should not be allowed to pick them for us.

I think of it mostly in Football. We're 23-23-1 vs them. It's quite literally the most most competitive opponent we have.

I want to play them all the time because their fans are the worst so it's more fun to beat them. Playing teams every year is how you build up the fun in following sports.

We're going to have permanent rivals. I find it much preferable to "any 9 teams drawn out of a hat" for sure.

I somewhat agree with you.... but please, please, please... not Tech.

we absolutely must have one that is in one of the three key recruiting areas (Houston, Dallas, Orlando)... if we don't end up with one (or all) of those, then we're freaking screwed for eternity.