new rule (or idea for a rule) for conference standings

[Cy the Cyclone]

Only reason I suggested booting two of the lesser conference teams is so that all conference teams would be able to play each other while being able to schedule some (hopefully) high profile non-con games.

 

High profile non-con games? Why bother? We have Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Texas Tech...hell...all the high profile opponents are already in the B12. Throw out any hope of having a conference "breather" game or two? Suicide for the conference when it comes to bowl season. I'm all for having all the teams play each other once throughout the year and letting the best team get the crown...get rid of the B12 Championship Game and the North/South Division thing altogether...11 games against different conference foes and the first week for either a "tool-up" game against Creighton Prep or some high profile opponent, whichever you prefer.

[Igetbored216]

Well, OU made the NC game and lost the Big 12 Championship game. NU never even made the Big 12 Championship game, yet we still played for a NC. [/b] Seriously, just about ever other organized sport has a playoff. I'm still trying to figure out why there isn't one for D1 football.

 

See the "2007 Missouri Tigers"

[junior4949]

Yeah, let everyone play each other and get rid of the friggin championship game. If we would happen to drop two teams, it appears to me that you'd have to drop the farthest east team (Mizzou) and the furthest west team (CU) because Mexico doesn't have D1 football and to the north they really don't either.

[junior4949]

Well, OU made the NC game and lost the Big 12 Championship game. NU never even made the Big 12 Championship game, yet we still played for a NC. [/b] Seriously, just about ever other organized sport has a playoff. I'm still trying to figure out why there isn't one for D1 football.

 

See the "2007 Missouri Tigers"

 

KState missed out in 1998 as well. So did we in 1996. Yeah, it happens. However, it also happens that you lose the championship game or don't even make it and still end up in the NC game. Completely screwy. This is why there needs to be a playoff. They continually tweak the BCS system because it seems every year a team gets screwed. If they really wanted a system that worked, they'd simply implement a playoff. You lose, you go home. We wouldn't have split titles anymore. There would be a true #1.

[DJR313]

Well, OU made the NC game and lost the Big 12 Championship game. NU never even made the Big 12 Championship game, yet we still played for a NC. [/b] Seriously, just about ever other organized sport has a playoff. I'm still trying to figure out why there isn't one for D1 football.

 

See the "2007 Missouri Tigers"

 

KState missed out in 1998 as well. So did we in 1996. Yeah, it happens. However, it also happens that you lose the championship game or don't even make it and still end up in the NC game. Completely screwy. This is why there needs to be a playoff. They continually tweak the BCS system because it seems every year a team gets screwed. If they really wanted a system that worked, they'd simply implement a playoff. You lose, you go home. We wouldn't have split titles anymore. There would be a true #1.

 

Obviously, that is the best solution, but there are too many hands in the bowl game pot for this to work. Too many people would be left out in the cold. The main obstacle in establishing a playoff system is money and how it would be shared.

[junior4949]

I still think there's a workable solution for both a playoff and the bowls to be satisfied. We already have BCS bowls. Use those bowls as the playoffs. Keep the rotating bowl that gets the NC game and let the one that gets it each year host the final playoff game that determines the NC. I'm only talking like an 8 team playoff with 7 total games. Continue to use the BCS system for the ranking of the teams to determine who gets into the playoff and who doesn't. For the NC, it adds only 2 games. Get rid of all the conference championship games. For the most part, the NC might only play one more game than how it is now. Keep the rest of the bowl games for the lower tier schools that don't make it into the playoffs. Then instead of having no games for like 2 or 3 weeks in there, we'd get to watch a playoff game. It would be great and the viewing probably higher if the game actually meant something.

[Reebsker]

Only reason I suggested booting two of the lesser conference teams is so that all conference teams would be able to play each other while being able to schedule some (hopefully) high profile non-con games.

 

High profile non-con games? Why bother? We have Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Texas Tech...hell...all the high profile opponents are already in the B12. Throw out any hope of having a conference "breather" game or two? Suicide for the conference when it comes to bowl season. I'm all for having all the teams play each other once throughout the year and letting the best team get the crown...get rid of the B12 Championship Game and the North/South Division thing altogether...11 games against different conference foes and the first week for either a "tool-up" game against Creighton Prep or some high profile opponent, whichever you prefer.

Reason why I suggested the high profile games is so that, hopefully, games against other conferences will be played so as to silence critics of a supposed weaker conference.

Why a breather that's what a bye weak is for.

The teams I would get rid of would be Baylor and ISU.

[Apathy]

It sounds good, but unfortunately every game you play against a big12 opponent whether it be north or south counts on your conference record, so if Nebraska runs the table against the north teams and beats Baylor, but loses to OU and TTech we would have a 6-2 record, if Mizzou beat every team in the big12 except Nebraska they would have a 7-1 record and win the big12 north. It's not a bad idea, but one of the best things about college football is that every game counts!

 

I think that you got that wrong. If Nebraska beats everybody in the North and beats Baylor but loses to OU and Texas Tech, but Mizzou beats every team in the Big 12 except Nebraska, Nebraska would win the North because we beat everybody in the North where Mizzou only lost to Nebraska in the North. It doesn't matter if we lose to anybody in the South just as long as we beat everybody in the North. Now lets say we tie Mizzou in the North, I think they'll go by our Conference Total Wins.

[Cy the Cyclone]

The teams I would get rid of would be Baylor and ISU.

 

Wow...you share the basement with somebody for a season and you think you know em....

 

I'm sure you realize that while ISU hasn't had a stellar Big 12 career, they have managed to rack up 5 winning seasons and 5 bowl bids while, for example, Kansas has a lifetime Big 12 record of 62-78 (22-38 while playing North opponents head to head) with just 2 outright winning seasons and 3 bowl bids? How about we kick them out too or even before Iowa State since KU is one of the teams that ISU has a winning record against (the other being MU) since Big 12 North play began?

 

Try looking past last year dude....

[NEHUSKERS311]

The teams I would get rid of would be Baylor and ISU.

 

Wow...you share the basement with somebody for a season and you think you know em....

 

I'm sure you realize that while ISU hasn't had a stellar Big 12 career, they have managed to rack up 5 winning seasons and 5 bowl bids while, for example, Kansas has a lifetime Big 12 record of 62-78 (22-38 while playing North opponents head to head) with just 2 outright winning seasons and 3 bowl bids? How about we kick them out too or even before Iowa State since KU is one of the teams that ISU has a winning record against (the other being MU) since Big 12 North play began?

 

Try looking past last year dude....

 

 

 

Wouldnt happen cause of cup cake U and Kansass rivalry..

[Reebsker]

The teams I would get rid of would be Baylor and ISU.

 

Wow...you share the basement with somebody for a season and you think you know em....

 

I'm sure you realize that while ISU hasn't had a stellar Big 12 career, they have managed to rack up 5 winning seasons and 5 bowl bids while, for example, Kansas has a lifetime Big 12 record of 62-78 (22-38 while playing North opponents head to head) with just 2 outright winning seasons and 3 bowl bids? How about we kick them out too or even before Iowa State since KU is one of the teams that ISU has a winning record against (the other being MU) since Big 12 North play began?

 

Try looking past last year dude....

 

 

 

Wouldnt happen cause of cup cake U and Kansass rivalry..

KU/KSU rivalry was my basis for keeping both and dropping ISU...dude.

[Cy the Cyclone]

The teams I would get rid of would be Baylor and ISU.

 

Wow...you share the basement with somebody for a season and you think you know em....

 

I'm sure you realize that while ISU hasn't had a stellar Big 12 career, they have managed to rack up 5 winning seasons and 5 bowl bids while, for example, Kansas has a lifetime Big 12 record of 62-78 (22-38 while playing North opponents head to head) with just 2 outright winning seasons and 3 bowl bids? How about we kick them out too or even before Iowa State since KU is one of the teams that ISU has a winning record against (the other being MU) since Big 12 North play began?

 

Try looking past last year dude....

 

 

 

Wouldnt happen cause of cup cake U and Kansass rivalry..

KU/KSU rivalry was my basis for keeping both and dropping ISU...dude.

 

Ah...I'm pretty sure it was fear. But whatever.....

[HuskerTrucker]

In cases of a tie, I imagine that they do look at your head to head in division record first, then Big 12 secondly, then overall. We are part of a conference, then a division, so the conference record is important too.

[Reebsker]

The teams I would get rid of would be Baylor and ISU.

 

Wow...you share the basement with somebody for a season and you think you know em....

 

I'm sure you realize that while ISU hasn't had a stellar Big 12 career, they have managed to rack up 5 winning seasons and 5 bowl bids while, for example, Kansas has a lifetime Big 12 record of 62-78 (22-38 while playing North opponents head to head) with just 2 outright winning seasons and 3 bowl bids? How about we kick them out too or even before Iowa State since KU is one of the teams that ISU has a winning record against (the other being MU) since Big 12 North play began?

 

Try looking past last year dude....

 

 

 

Wouldnt happen cause of cup cake U and Kansass rivalry..

KU/KSU rivalry was my basis for keeping both and dropping ISU...dude.

 

Ah...I'm pretty sure it was fear. But whatever.....

Sorry that my perceived minimalization of the Cyclones ruffles your feathers. Historically, neither team has lit it up in conference play or has much in the way of a rivalry.

All just speculation anyway...woosaaa...woosaaa...

[admo]

I would prefer doing away with the divisions as well and make it one big happy conference.

 

As for Baylor, I get it. They havent been good in football since the SWC days. But I never understand the idea of moving them out of the Big 12 Conference. Why would they want to go somewhere else? They made the NCAA tourney in men's hoops as an 11th seed last year. The Women's team won a National Championship a few years ago (2005). Their baseball program is normally among the top 25 every year and always competitive. The women's softball team won the Big 12 in 2007. And they also just had two olympic gold winners on the track team (men's 4x400 meter relay). They are deserving to be in this Conference. The football team just needs to get better. I personally would love to see them competitive and get 8 wins a year, upset Texas or Tech or OU or Mizzou or whoever. But its looking pretty obvious it's not gonna happen this year or who know's when.