Big 12 Schedule Changes

[DaveH]

There has been some talk lately of rearraging the conference. There has been talk of getting rid of North and South and just having one "division". Also, getting rid of the championship game and adding a game to schedules?

 

What do you guys think if this?

 

I like the Big 12 Championship game.I am not sure I like how some conference's crown their champion without a game. If you get rid of the North and South, do you still have a championship game? I don't think so.

 

For those of you who watched the NU OU baseball game, you heard Stoops talk about these possible changes. He brought up the fact that having another game early in the season would probably be better for the kids school wise.

[diehard]

Stoops just doesnt want to get his ass throttled by a team like K-State again.

 

Why would it be better for them school wise?? I guess I dont understand his statement.

 

All I have to say is F**K Stoops!

[BelieveN]

well said lol

[gamecocks]

I think that if the presidents really care about the student athletes, and how they are there to get an education first, then they should drop the Big 12 Championship game and add a conference game earlier in the year. However, since I really do think they care about the athletes, they just care about the money, they probally will not change it.

[junior4949]

It's kind of funny how you praise Osbourne in one statement, and then you totally go against his wishes in another. Osbourne never like the Big 12 Championship game. In fact, he was the only coach who voted against it. We all found out why when we got our asses handed to us by Texas in 1996. I would bet Snyder at KState has a different opionion also after they got their asses handed to them by Texas A&M in 1998. And then there was Texas who got their asses handed to them by Colorado in 2001.

 

Really, the game serves no purpose. Last year would be the defining moment for a reason not to have the game. There was a clear champion last year. Hell, Iowa State nearly made the title game. I have no problem adding one game and losing the championship game. I could be wrong, but it appears as though the South will dominate the conference once again. Why do you want to ruin a team who has a shot at winning it all by playing a 4 loss team? It's almost happened more times than not since the Big 12 was formed. Really, I could care less what team in the Big 12 plays for the National Title as long as one of them gets to if they have gone undefeated all season long!

[hack]

All I have to say is F**K Stoops!

um... no.

 

but if you want to, hey... fine by me. i won't judge.

 

... seriously.

[DaveH]

Really, the game serves no purpose. Last year would be the defining moment for a reason not to have the game. There was a clear champion last year.

Yea, but you can't just decide in the middle of the season there is going to be no championship game because of how the season pans out.

 

So the North will never ever be as good as the South?

 

Also, you don't decide you don't want to play a conference game because you think you are going to get throttled. That's not a reason.

[junior4949]

My years may be wrong, but I think I will get the teams right. In 1996, there was a clear champion with Nebraska. However, we got it handed to us in the title game by a Texas team that I believe had at least 3 losses. In 1998, KState was the clear winner but lost to Texas A&M who had at least 3 losses. In 2001, there was a clear winner but Texas lost to Colorado who had 3 losses. In 2003, there was a clear winner but Oklahoma lost to KState. In all of those losses except in 03, it cost a Big 12 team the chance to play for a National Championship. Since the inception of the Big 12, it appears that about half the time a title contender plays the game and loses.

 

I may be wrong, but has there ever been a year since the Big 12 was formed that we pitted two undefeated teams against each other and each had a realistic shot at the National Title? I can't think of one. And, I can't think of a year that there wasn't a clear winner of the Big 12 without having the Big 12 Championship game. Yes, the North will eventually get better probably not this year. However, this doesn't change the fact that we typically always have a clear winner without the title game.

 

Also, there are only a few conferences who even play a title game. Unless all conferences play one, I don't see the validity in the Big 12 playing one. Basically, it's the same as having a playoff in some conferences and bowl games in others. Let's even the playing field and either have every conference play one or none play one.

[Pedro Guerrero]

In 2001, there was a clear winner but Texas lost to Colorado who had 3 losses.

 

 

 

Actually in 01 Colorado had 2 loses and none in the Big 12. On the other hand Texas had 1 Big 12 lose. So couldn't Colorado of been the so-called Champ. That is the year we backed into the title game thinks to the Big 12 Championship game outcome.

 

 

I may be wrong, but has there ever been a year since the Big 12 was formed that we pitted two undefeated teams against each other and each had a realistic shot at the National Title?

 

 

Crap there are some years where there aren't two undefeated teams in the nation let alone one conference.

 

 

Also, there are only a few conferences who even play a title game.

 

If I'm not mistaken I believe you have to have at least 12 teams in a conference in order to play a Championship game. I thought that was why the ACC got all of those Big East schools besides Miami.

[AR Husker Fan]

The problem is that you end up with something like the Big 10 - no clear cut champion to send to the BCS or tie-in bowls. With 12 teams in the Big 12, it isn't possible that each team would face the other 11. It is conceivable that in some years you end up with two teams at the top with identical records (either conference or overall) who don't play each other. In those cases, what do you do? There would have to be some kind of tie-breaker, but London to a bucket of spit says that any tie-breaker won't satisfy the fans (and especially the fans of the team that doesn't win the tie-breaker).

[skersfan]

I could care less one way or the other, as long as other large conferences are the same.

 

If this coaching staff is not successful it will not make any difference anyway as the south will be so far ahead in talent no one in the North except possibly Colorado will ever be competitive with them. The south feels the North is no longer a true competitor. I tend to agree with that idea. The only reason we are looking at possilby being competitive is the fact that we have this staff and their recruiting ability. If they are not able to coach to the level they recruit in my opinion this program is done. Too much time lost and no real recruitng pull compared to the Texas schools and home state loyalty. Colorado on the other hand if their coaching staff is cleaned up has a tremendous recruiting draw, but it will take a few years for that to come back. I agree with them in the fact that a 6-5 playing for the conference championship is a joke. But most Nebraska fans were all for it last year. Do it on the field every week and you have no problems.

[ownagebomb]

It's kind of funny how you praise Osbourne in one statement, and then you totally go against his wishes in another.

thats called having a mind of your own

 

you can disagree with one topic and agree with the other. Welcome to free will.

[diehard]

All I have to say is F**K Stoops!

um... no.

 

but if you want to, hey... fine by me. i won't judge.

 

... seriously.

settle down...

 

the fact that you actually THOUGHT about it enough to respond with an answer scares me...

 

 

seriously..

[junior4949]

I agree with skersfan. If you do it on the field all year long, it really doesn't matter one way or the other. However, if we had a playoff system in place in NCAA Division 1 football this would be a non-subject. It wouldn't really matter who won the conference if we had a playoff.

 

It just seems hypocritical to be in support of the Big 12 Championship game, but then not be for a playoff system. Hell, let the voters decide who the conference champion is if you don't want a playoff. Whoever has the highest ranking at the end of the year is handed the trophy. This is how we decide the National Championship game. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for the Big 12!

[gamecocks]

I agree with skersfan. If you do it on the field all year long, it really doesn't matter one way or the other. However, if we had a playoff system in place in NCAA Division 1 football this would be a non-subject. It wouldn't really matter who won the conference if we had a playoff.

 

It just seems hypocritical to be in support of the Big 12 Championship game, but then not be for a playoff system. Hell, let the voters decide who the conference champion is if you don't want a playoff. Whoever has the highest ranking at the end of the year is handed the trophy. This is how we decide the National Championship game. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for the Big 12!

Totally Agree, Junior.