T_O_Bull Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 North/South locked in stone. Bull crap! Why not seed the two divisions every 3 years? If the 2 divisions field a winner for the Conference Championship why not do something to ensure the championship game features the best two teams in the conference? Why have one weak division (lately the North) and one strong division (lately the South) play each other for the Championship. I hate being stuch in the North and having to play the weak sisters every year. Give us the competition we deserve, do everything that can be done to make the Big 12 the strongest Conference in the country. Three of the first 4 games are usually tune ups for Conference play and although great paydays for the FAU's of the world these games do nothing, or at least very little for us in the way of strengthening our team. You get better when your competition is better. If you beat someone by 30/40/50 oints you do nothing to improve your team. If you win a game with an effort that is only 75/80% you do nothing to improve your team. Let's toughin' up the Conference play by seeding the schedule and toughin' up the 'pre-season' by scheduling better teams and then get back to winning National Championships. T_O_B Quote Link to comment
redout22 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I agree but the big 12 would never do that. If teams were seeded then they would just knock each other out of National Championship contention. The Big 12 wants to have a team in the championship game for money purposes so I doubt that they will ever do it. It would be cool though. Quote Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted July 11, 2009 Author Share Posted July 11, 2009 Basically I think every conference should be required to do this. If we are going to have some sort of National Championship Tournament (Which I personally hate, and I mean HATE, the idea of) then this would be a means of setting it up. T_O_B Quote Link to comment
HUSKER 37 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I'm not sure what you mean by "Seeding"..(been away from the farm too long) But I'd prefer we played everyone in the conference and eliminate the Big12 CHampionship Game...Make for better BCS bowl placement... It would be nice to see the two best teams in the conference play in the championship game, but how do you determine them if they don't play the same (conference) teams? Or like last year, have three teams with one loss (Rock/Paper/Scissors)? Quote Link to comment
Husker B Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Seeding is a good idea and works in theory, but the practicality is not feasible. Can you imagine the uproar that would happen the first time Texas didn't have Texas A&M on the schedule? Or any other major interstate rivalry for that matter? Quote Link to comment
huskeraddict Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 There's no way it could happen. Schedules are set years in advance and all of the sudden you go from playing Iowa State to Texas this year, it wouldn't sit well with teams and fans. Quote Link to comment
jonnyhuska Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I disagree... The north has indeed has been weak, however Missouri and Kansas were top 10 teams the past few years and Nebraska is hopefully on its way. Why mess with a system that has only been flawed as of late. Big 12 games for the most part are enjoyable and it gives weaker teams..like Nebraska in the north a chance to play in the Championship. Would you just want to see Texas vs. Oklahoma every year? And also like mention above..the big 12 doesnt want to drop one of its big teams down the rankings and lose out on money. In case you haven't noticed, money is kinda a big deal...just look at the BCS. Quote Link to comment
jonnyhuska Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Don't you think we should work our way up with actually beating Missouri and Kansas consistantly before we whine about poor competition. The big 12 (including the North) has some of the best competion in the country IMO. Quote Link to comment
Hunter94 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 it would make things a whole lot simpler if every conference would have a conference championship game, but alas some want to place more of their conference teams in BCS games or at least higher profile bowl games. that part of the system will never be fair....... Quote Link to comment
rkhufu7 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 North/South locked in stone. Bull crap! Why not seed the two divisions every 3 years? If the 2 divisions field a winner for the Conference Championship why not do something to ensure the championship game features the best two teams in the conference? Why have one weak division (lately the North) and one strong division (lately the South) play each other for the Championship. I hate being stuch in the North and having to play the weak sisters every year. Give us the competition we deserve, do everything that can be done to make the Big 12 the strongest Conference in the country. Three of the first 4 games are usually tune ups for Conference play and although great paydays for the FAU's of the world these games do nothing, or at least very little for us in the way of strengthening our team. You get better when your competition is better. If you beat someone by 30/40/50 oints you do nothing to improve your team. If you win a game with an effort that is only 75/80% you do nothing to improve your team. Let's toughin' up the Conference play by seeding the schedule and toughin' up the 'pre-season' by scheduling better teams and then get back to winning National Championships. T_O_B The SEC is balanced, with LSU, Bama and Auburn in the West and Tenn, GA and Florida in the East. A balance like this would make teams do more traveling but more equity. The leagues could be split by traditions and not just geographics. A seeded system would not be bought by the noth schools at this time, just like it would hot have been bought by the south schools in the 90s. The PAC 10 everyone plays everyone, with 3 non league games. The Big 12 would only have 1 non league game in this format, but what if the conference was split into four 3 team divisions? NE:KU, KSU and UM NW:ISU, NU and CU SE: OU, OSU & Baylor SW: UT, Tech and Aggies There could be a rotation on who plays who in round one in the divisional playoffs to get to the Big 12 Title game. NE vs NW vs the South teams or NE vs SE and so on... This way you can be a sub-divison champ and a divisional champion. Oh, they have this on paper in how the teams play who every two years, but this would give teams more opportunities to win titles, because maybe NE champ would have to beat the SE and the SW would have to beat the NW and that way UT could play OU or NU could play UM for the Big 12 crown? Quote Link to comment
rkhufu7 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 I'm not sure what you mean by "Seeding"..(been away from the farm too long) But I'd prefer we played everyone in the conference and eliminate the Big12 CHampionship Game...Make for better BCS bowl placement... It would be nice to see the two best teams in the conference play in the championship game, but how do you determine them if they don't play the same (conference) teams? Or like last year, have three teams with one loss (Rock/Paper/Scissors)? It would be tougher and schools like Baylor and ISU would not be able to get the great non-conference wins vs 1AA teams and maybe no one would play a USC, Va Tech, OSU, Miami in non-league to protect their won loss record, but UT and other would have to beat OU, KSU and NU like OU did in 2000. That year OU had to play every top team, #11 UT, top 3 NU and KSU (twice) and their rival game with OSU... OU EARNED the 2000 MNC! You get to pad your record to get the 6 wins to get to a bowl, playing 11 big 12 teams might mae it hard for some to get 6 win and it might keep the Big 12 from ever getting 2 at large births, because there might not be many 11-1 teams to get at large births. Quote Link to comment
HuskerJen Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 It's up to the teams in the north to get better and start beating the south teams. Artificially rigging the conference play to try and make the north look better just isn't right. Quote Link to comment
rkhufu7 Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 It's up to the teams in the north to get better and start beating the south teams. Artificially rigging the conference play to try and make the north look better just isn't right. It's so UT has a shot at a Big 12 title instead of a north team. Mack Brown tried to list his record as 2nd place finishes in the Big 12 when he didn't make the title game. What a CHUMP!!! Quote Link to comment
Hokieluv Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 It's up to the teams in the north to get better and start beating the south teams. Artificially rigging the conference play to try and make the north look better just isn't right. If the Huskers improve over the next two years to where you all expect them to be, and either OU or UT regress to where they were in the 90s the two divisions are already pretty even. If NU is the class of the north, don't tell me that Missouri, Colorado, or Kansas don't have the potential of being as good as TT or OSU (who I would consider to be second tier in the south). Would you have asked for a realignment on a yearly basis back in the 90s when OU lost to Tulsa, and Texas were happy to win 8 games? Probably not. There is parity in college football and the dominance of the south will most likely end as NU starts showing muscle again. I just don't buy into the "all the money goes to UT" argument. Money does not guarantee success. Notre Dame should be a great example of that.... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.