Stoops vs. Saban getting good

[Pilot]

The Big 12 didn't get rid of the game on its own; it had to. Need at least 12 teams in the conference to have a conference title game.

Of course, it would be nice if everyone plays nine conference games, but alas ...

Nine games makes perfect sense for a 10-team league, but it's not a one size fits all solution.
Personally, I'm hoping if the big boy conferences eventually split off to form their own thing that we get not only a nine-game schedule but a second level of conference playoffs. It makes perfect sense for the 16-team leagues that the ACC, SEC and Big 10 are heading toward.
In a 16-team league split into four four-team divisions, you'd play nine conference games a year -- three against your own division (which could be set up to preserve the best rivalries as well as geographically) and two each against the other two divisions on a rotating two-year home-and-home basis. That way, within each four-year cycle you'd have played everybody in the league home and away and you restore some competitive balance.
The catch, though, is that you need to add a conference playoff round (the league semifinals) in addition to a championship game.

Just so long as we maintain big rivalries like Colorado vs. Cal and Nebraska vs. Iowa, I'm all in.

Even now, a few years later, realignment is so stupid it hurts the brain to think about.

There's just as many lame "rivalries" that existed in the old conference setups.
How intense, really, was Nebraska-Iowa State? Or Maryland-Georgia Tech? Or West Virginia-Rutgers? Or Florida-Kentucky?
Conference rivalries stem not just from geography and history, but from competitive games and playing for stakes. Sometimes they can go from nothing to something in a very short time.
Colorado-Nebraska in the 1990s is a good example. LSU and Auburn played a lot over the years, but a string of memorable, meaningful games from the mid-90s on has made that one of the best SEC rivalries of the last 20 years.
Bottom line, if Colorado and Cal have some good matchups -- and play frequently enough, which is another key -- they'll get something going. They don't even necessarily have to both be good.

Sorry, but it's more than a number of games that separates Missouri vs. Georgia and Missouri vs. Kansas.

 

[Batman]

The Big 12 didn't get rid of the game on its own; it had to. Need at least 12 teams in the conference to have a conference title game.

Of course, it would be nice if everyone plays nine conference games, but alas ...

Nine games makes perfect sense for a 10-team league, but it's not a one size fits all solution.
Personally, I'm hoping if the big boy conferences eventually split off to form their own thing that we get not only a nine-game schedule but a second level of conference playoffs. It makes perfect sense for the 16-team leagues that the ACC, SEC and Big 10 are heading toward.
In a 16-team league split into four four-team divisions, you'd play nine conference games a year -- three against your own division (which could be set up to preserve the best rivalries as well as geographically) and two each against the other two divisions on a rotating two-year home-and-home basis. That way, within each four-year cycle you'd have played everybody in the league home and away and you restore some competitive balance.
The catch, though, is that you need to add a conference playoff round (the league semifinals) in addition to a championship game.

Just so long as we maintain big rivalries like Colorado vs. Cal and Nebraska vs. Iowa, I'm all in.

Even now, a few years later, realignment is so stupid it hurts the brain to think about.

There's just as many lame "rivalries" that existed in the old conference setups.
How intense, really, was Nebraska-Iowa State? Or Maryland-Georgia Tech? Or West Virginia-Rutgers? Or Florida-Kentucky?
Conference rivalries stem not just from geography and history, but from competitive games and playing for stakes. Sometimes they can go from nothing to something in a very short time.
Colorado-Nebraska in the 1990s is a good example. LSU and Auburn played a lot over the years, but a string of memorable, meaningful games from the mid-90s on has made that one of the best SEC rivalries of the last 20 years.
Bottom line, if Colorado and Cal have some good matchups -- and play frequently enough, which is another key -- they'll get something going. They don't even necessarily have to both be good.

Sorry, but it's more than a number of games that separates Missouri vs. Georgia and Missouri vs. Kansas.

No kidding. But is there really a difference between Missouri vs. Georgia and Missouri vs. Texas Tech, or Missouri vs. Oklahoma State?

 

[Jake_Taylor]

As a Kansas alum raised to hate Missouri, I don't miss playing them anywhere near as much as I thought I would. In fact, I really don't miss it at all.

 

[Paynendearse]

Why does the Big 12 want a title game? They play all nine. If that's to cut the nine games to eight or even seven, then it's stupid. I guess you could go with two five-team divisions, play the division four times and then five...but you'd be doing the same thing you are now. No, the stupid way is to play everyone in a round-robin then go to what the polls say at the end of the year and take the top two. Let's say a late-bloomer is part of a one-loss three-way tie. They're screwed on this approach.

 

[Paynendearse]

Had Mike Gundy coached in the fourth quarter in the freezing **** in Stillwater last December, Bob wouldn't have a place to stand on in bashing anything SEC. He'd been Alamo-bowling.

Having said that, Saban uttered some **** about the character of a team stepping up after a disappointing year multiple times, also commenting on the Utah situation a few years back as a lesson. He's like the weather.

 

[Football_Bat]

Why does the Big 12 want a title game? They play all nine. If that's to cut the nine games to eight or even seven, then it's stupid. I guess you could go with two five-team divisions, play the division four times and then five...but you'd be doing the same thing you are now. No, the stupid way is to play everyone in a round-robin then go to what the polls say at the end of the year and take the top two. Let's say a late-bloomer is part of a one-loss three-way tie. They're screwed on this approach.

As long as Texas doesn't want a Big 12 title game, there will be no Big 12 title game.

Of course, there's a new regime in place now, so we'll see if their tune has changed. Only problem is, who do they poach to make 12 again? Bring back SMU and Rice?

 

[hondo]

Why does the Big 12 want a title game? They play all nine. If that's to cut the nine games to eight or even seven, then it's stupid. I guess you could go with two five-team divisions, play the division four times and then five...but you'd be doing the same thing you are now. No, the stupid way is to play everyone in a round-robin then go to what the polls say at the end of the year and take the top two. Let's say a late-bloomer is part of a one-loss three-way tie. They're screwed on this approach.

As long as Texas doesn't want a Big 12 title game, there will be no Big 12 title game.

Of course, there's a new regime in place now, so we'll see if their tune has changed. Only problem is, who do they poach to make 12 again? Bring back SMU and Rice?

Don't you have to have 12 teams to have divisions, and a championship game? The Big 12 has 10 (nice math skills) so they can't split.

 

[Football_Bat]

Why does the Big 12 want a title game? They play all nine. If that's to cut the nine games to eight or even seven, then it's stupid. I guess you could go with two five-team divisions, play the division four times and then five...but you'd be doing the same thing you are now. No, the stupid way is to play everyone in a round-robin then go to what the polls say at the end of the year and take the top two. Let's say a late-bloomer is part of a one-loss three-way tie. They're screwed on this approach.

As long as Texas doesn't want a Big 12 title game, there will be no Big 12 title game.

Of course, there's a new regime in place now, so we'll see if their tune has changed. Only problem is, who do they poach to make 12 again? Bring back SMU and Rice?

Don't you have to have 12 teams to have divisions, and a championship game? The Big 12 has 10 (nice math skills) so they can't split.

Right. That is why Texas (and OU also, to be fair) were behind keeping it at 10 — to avoid having that championship game which they claim hurt their chances in the BCS.

Of course, Texas won't be worrying about a conference championship anytime soon.

 

[nmmetsfan]

As a Kansas alum raised to hate Missouri, I don't miss playing them anywhere near as much as I thought I would. In fact, I really don't miss it at all.

Nobody likes getting their ass kicked by their biggest rival

 

[Jake_Taylor]

I don't think the schools in the Big 12 do want a championship game at this point. It's just another stumbling block for a potential national champion. But they want the option to have one if they change their mind, or more to the point if E$PN or Fox change$ their mind.

 

[Paynendearse]

Some TCU people may begin questioning whether they have what it takes to compete in football with the allowances they have to make in their student profile to bring in the high-risk players who threaten their girlfriends with guns.

http://www.chron.com/sports/college/article/Big-12-report-TCU-removes-stellar-DE-Fields-from-5639948.php