Big XII Interested in Adding Two Schools

[Mavric]

You don't say. I knew claims that they were happy at 10 were about as legit as "One True Champion"

 

[zoogs]

Translation: it's actually kind of urgent.

 

[huKSer]

They need somebody to be buddies with West Virginia

 

[Redux]

Translation: "We are stupid and screwed up our entire OneTrueChampion slogan the season when it mattered most. We are stupid because we forgot a conference title game in jerryworld is a license to print money. We are stupid for waiting so long, now nobody worth a shat wants to join our watered down league."

That about sum it up?

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

Translation: "We are stupid and screwed up our entire OneTrueChampion slogan the season when it mattered most. We are stupid because we forgot a conference title game in jerryworld is a license to print money. We are stupid for waiting so long, now nobody worth a shat wants to join our watered down league."

That about sum it up?

They should just add Memphis and Any other school with a pulse

 

[walksalone]

They could probably get La Tech and UTEP...

I couldn't finish typing that without laughing to myself a little bit...

 

[Stumpy1]

They will add Colorado St. and Houston

 

[Redux]

I always hoped they would add SMU and Houston so that they could have The Texas Division and The Everybody Else Division. Maybe then OU would wise up that nothing is more important to the Longhorns than that stupid outline they call a state.

 

[RunMickeyRun02]

Translation: it's actually kind of urgent.

Yep, that's exactly how I read this too.

I always hoped they would add SMU and Houston so that they could have The Texas Division and The Everybody Else Division. Maybe then OU would wise up that nothing is more important to the Longhorns than that stupid outline they call a state.

In the last couple incarnations of the NCAA Football video game you could set up the conferences however you liked and I always had the Big 12 broken into a sort of old big eight division (minus us and Colorado) and a Texas division with SMU and Houston.

From a fan stand point it has always been a pro/con thing for me. On the one hand conference championships equal more football which I'm always for. On the other hand I like that every team in the current Big 12 plays each other every year. I don't like how conferences with championships go years without playing teams in their own conference. For example if Iowa keeps their OOC game with Iowa State they will play Iowa State more than Michigan and any other team from the other division even though Iowa State isn't even in their conference.

I also don't like that this time of year the conversation always starts with "this team misses these hard teams from the other division where as this team has an harder cross division schedule." It's almost as if the division champs have more to do with scheduling than winning and losing. I admit you control your own fate by winning all your games but some teams will always have a higher hill to climb than others.

 

[GSG]

Translation: it's actually kind of urgent.

Yep, that's exactly how I read this too.

I always hoped they would add SMU and Houston so that they could have The Texas Division and The Everybody Else Division. Maybe then OU would wise up that nothing is more important to the Longhorns than that stupid outline they call a state.

In the last couple incarnations of the NCAA Football video game you could set up the conferences however you liked and I always had the Big 12 broken into a sort of old big eight division (minus us and Colorado) and a Texas division with SMU and Houston.

From a fan stand point it has always been a pro/con thing for me. On the one hand conference championships equal more football which I'm always for. On the other hand I like that every team in the current Big 12 plays each other every year. I don't like how conferences with championships go years without playing teams in their own conference. For example if Iowa keeps their OOC game with Iowa State they will play Iowa State more than Michigan and any other team from the other division even though Iowa State isn't even in their conference.

I also don't like that this time of year the conversation always starts with "this team misses these hard teams from the other division where as this team has an harder cross division schedule." It's almost as if the division champs have more to do with scheduling than winning and losing. I admit you control your own fate by winning all your games but some teams will always have a higher hill to climb than others.

Is the bolded part still going to be true with the 9 game conference schedule? I thought it was supposed to fix (some of) that?

 

[jaws]

I think Cincinnati makes sense with West Virginia all by itself.

 

[Redux]

If we could do it sensibly I would be all for 10 team leagues across the board. Round Robin play determines league winner. League affiliations determine two league winners that would play eachother annually. Those champions would then be entered into a playoff.

But we live in a 14 team Big Ten, 10 Team big 12 and Boise State almost joined the Big East kind of world.

 

[RunMickeyRun02]

Translation: it's actually kind of urgent.

Yep, that's exactly how I read this too.

I always hoped they would add SMU and Houston so that they could have The Texas Division and The Everybody Else Division. Maybe then OU would wise up that nothing is more important to the Longhorns than that stupid outline they call a state.

In the last couple incarnations of the NCAA Football video game you could set up the conferences however you liked and I always had the Big 12 broken into a sort of old big eight division (minus us and Colorado) and a Texas division with SMU and Houston.

From a fan stand point it has always been a pro/con thing for me. On the one hand conference championships equal more football which I'm always for. On the other hand I like that every team in the current Big 12 plays each other every year. I don't like how conferences with championships go years without playing teams in their own conference. For example if Iowa keeps their OOC game with Iowa State they will play Iowa State more than Michigan and any other team from the other division even though Iowa State isn't even in their conference.

I also don't like that this time of year the conversation always starts with "this team misses these hard teams from the other division where as this team has an harder cross division schedule." It's almost as if the division champs have more to do with scheduling than winning and losing. I admit you control your own fate by winning all your games but some teams will always have a higher hill to climb than others.

Is the bolded part still going to be true with the 9 game conference schedule? I thought it was supposed to fix (some of) that?

I don't know if Iowa/Iowa State is still going to played annually but what I understand about the 9th conference game (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that they are implementing something called preferred scheduling to ensure more high profile match ups to use as leverage for TV negotiation rights which equals more money.

My understanding is it works a lot like the conference challenges in college basketball. So the top teams from each division who weren't already scheduled to play each other would, and on down the list until the worst vs the worst. Which is why if you look at future schedules on HuskerMax the 9th conference game is blank because the conference hasn't decided yet or doesn't know what the best (or most marketable) match ups would be yet.

Personally i hate the whole preferred scheduling thing,

 

[VectorVictor]

Here's the ESPN article link from the other thread discussing this:

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/111803/oklahoma-president-david-boren-puts-possible-big-12-expansion-back-in-news

As for expansion, they need to focus on media markets, because the Big XII lost Denver and Houston, which are sizable markets. While CSU and Houston don't really move the needle for college football fans, it does give them a foothold back into those markets they lost.

Remember, it isn't about fans of CSU and Houston, it's about getting the product on the air and people in Denver and Houston tuning in to see Texass and Oklahoma (the Big XII's only marquee, namebrand teams) play someone. That's most likely what ESPN wants (Big XII brand in large markets), and what they'll likely push for. That, and the rights to the Big XII Title Game (unless Fox snatches that out from under them too...)

As for SMU...I'd be surprised, as TCU pretty much owns DFW already, so there wouldn't be any additional exposure for the conference, and Dallas is already saturated with Big XII programming.

As for BYU, there's frankly too many complications borne from BYU's refusal to play games for any sport on Sunday. While it's a logistical nightmare that can be worked around, the juice isn't worth the squeeze in this case.

 

[huKSer]

I don't know if Iowa/Iowa State is still going to played annually but what I understand about the 9th conference game (and please someone correct me if I'm wrong) is that they are implementing something called preferred scheduling to ensure more high profile match ups to use as leverage for TV negotiation rights which equals more money.

My understanding is it works a lot like the conference challenges in college basketball. So the top teams from each division who weren't already scheduled to play each other would, and on down the list until the worst vs the worst. Which is why if you look at future schedules on HuskerMax the 9th conference game is blank because the conference hasn't decided yet or doesn't know what the best (or most marketable) match ups would be yet.

Personally i hate the whole preferred scheduling thing,

So you are saying "YES!"