By Berry Tramel
The Oklahoman
Big 12 football schedules are getting better. They're still not good enough.
Big 12 teams in 2008 will play 15 of their 48 non-conference games against fellow BCS-league schools. That's still a pathetic 31 percent, but it's a big improvement over last season, when the Big 12 played just 11 games against fellow big-conference opponents. The league willing to play the fairest non-conference schedule might surprise you. It's not the Pac-10, which is playing 14 of 31 non-conference games (45.2 percent) against BCS team. The ACC is playing 23 of 48 games (47.9 percent) against the big boys.

The Big 12 is tied with the SEC, which also is playing 15 of 48 games against BCS-league teams, and only the Big Ten is worse, at 29.5 percent (13 of 44). The Big East is at 39 percent (16 of 41).

Carrying the Big 12 load are Baylor, OU and Colorado.

Baylor, which has more reason to dumb down its schedule than any Big 12 school, instead is playing three BCS-league foes: Wake Forest, Washington State and Connecticut. Colorado (West Virginia and Florida State) and Oklahoma (Cincinnati and Washington) are playing two each.

Some of the Big 12 teams that are playing just one legitimate foe at least are playing a big-time team. Kansas State is at Louisville. Missouri plays Illinois. Texas hosts Arkansas. Nebraska plays Virginia Tech. Texas A&M hosts Miami.

But Texas Tech continues its recent tradition of avoiding major teams. The Red Raiders play Eastern Washington, Nevada, SMU and UMass, though at least Nevada is a road game.

Some weeks, the Big 12 schedule is so soft, television will be hard-pressed to present a decent game. On Sept. 6, OU-Cincinnati is the only marquee matchup. Next comes a batch of games all about the same: OSU-Houston, Texas-UTEP, Texas A&M-New Mexico.

The Big 12 likes to project itself as a powerhouse football conference. The way Big 12 teams schedule says otherwise.


http://newsok.com/big-12-football-schedu...1210215712

You have to love the folks in the Big 12. Our games with K-State have been awesome. Class fans from a class conference. Looks like their media is just as classy. It's nice to see Louisville and Cincinnati called marquee match-ups. Do you think you would ever see an article like this written by the hacks in ACC or SEC country?
The Big 12 supported us during the dark days, for that I am thankful, and will always be a Big 12 fan.
CJ

If the media is going to get onto people about scheduling, they should get after everyone.

The soft scheduling should have an effect in bowl bids too. But it won't. The powers that be would never allow that.

CardinalJim Wrote:You have to love the folks in the Big 12. Our games with K-State have been awesome. Class fans from a class conference. Looks like their media is just as classy. It's nice to see Louisville and Cincinnati called marquee match-ups. Do you think you would ever see an article like this written by the hacks in ACC or SEC country?
The Big 12 supported us during the dark days, for that I am thankful, and will always be a Big 12 fan.
CJ

Funny you read it that way. They only called Louisville a marquee match-up. Cincinnati was mentioned in the context of Oklahoma's scheduling of BCS teams.

And what of Colorado's game against WVU? Is that not worthy?

The article doesn't attempt to suggest if it is or if isn't. But if you read far enough into, you can make it into anything you want I guess.

bitcruncher Wrote:And what of Colorado's game against WVU? Is that not worthy?

Bit,
I apologize if I missed it in the article but WVU would certainly be note worthy.
CJ

rferry Wrote:Funny you read it that way. They only called Louisville a marquee match-up. Cincinnati was mentioned in the context of Oklahoma's scheduling of BCS teams.

From the article...."On Sept. 6, OU-Cincinnati is the only marquee matchup...."

Do you just look for ways to slight the Big East conference or what? Is it not painful enough to just be a Terp fan that you come looking for abuse?
CJ

CardinalJim Wrote:

rferry Wrote:Funny you read it that way. They only called Louisville a marquee match-up. Cincinnati was mentioned in the context of Oklahoma's scheduling of BCS teams.

From the article...."On Sept. 6, OU-Cincinnati is the only marquee matchup...."

Do you just look for ways to slight the Big East conference or what? Is it not painful enough to just be a Terp fan that you come looking for abuse?
CJ

Post of the night!

Cheers,
Neil

rferry Wrote:The article doesn't attempt to suggest if it is or if isn't. But if you read far enough into, you can make it into anything you want I guess.

You have the nerve to try and cuncel someone about reading anything, when you yourself are obviously not able to read far enough yourself. You completely overlooked this about Cincy

Quote:On Sept. 6, OU-Cincinnati is the only marquee matchup.

Why dont you do us all a favor and not post here anymore Its not even funny watching you make a complete fool of yourself over her anymore.

It was funny for awhile, but we are now so used to it that we have become board with you.

While Texas Tech deserves the crap it gets for OOC scheduling, the EWU game was a last minute change from a game against Tulsa. Tulsa backed out of the game in January to play a money game at Arkansas. They had no intention of playing two FCS teams, unlike Clemson and Florida St., who scheduled with that intention because they were losing out on a home game by playing a neutral site game (Clemson vs. Alabama at Atlanta, FSU vs. Colorado at Jacksonville).

And its not like the Big 12 isn't holding its own when it comes to results in the BCS bowl games. As a conference, they are 9-9 since their formation with 2.5 national championships (OU 2000, Texas 2005, Nebraska split championship 1997) if I counted right.

As for their scheduling, both FSN/TBS and ABC put tremendous pressure on the Big 12 a few years ago regarding the scheduling because they wanted to use some of their telecast windows on OOC games and many of the games weren't worth televising, with FSN putting more pressure aon them than ABC since ABC gets the 1st telecast choice. The Big 12 didn't allow multiple telecasts to occur in the same telecast window (ie. only one televised game at a time), so FSN had the rights to carry a minimum of 19 games and are limited by the time slots that they can televise a game, FSN often got stuck with some real clunkers in the early season.

CardinalJim Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:And what of Colorado's game against WVU? Is that not worthy?

Bit,
I apologize if I missed it in the article but WVU would certainly be note worthy.
CJ

It wasn't in the article, except for a mention that Colorado played us. It wasn't listed as a tough game for the Big 12 during the year. WVU was only mentioned as a BCS opponent. The writer needs to learn what constitutes a tough game, and what doesn't.

What it means is that OK-Cincy is the only decent match-up that week. If it makes it to TV, it won't be on the merit of the contest, but of the conference's TV contract and lack of decent games. It doesn't mean it's a marquee game. It's the best of the worst, or the "marquee" of the not so "decent". It's not a compliment. It shouldn't be taken as the writer having respect for Cincy unless you thought it was behind Houston, Rice and UTEP before this article. I certainly didn't.

rferry Wrote:What it means is that OK-Cincy is the only decent match-up that week. If it makes it to TV, it won't be on the merit of the contest, but of the conference's TV contract and lack of decent games. It doesn't mean it's a marquee game. It's the best of the worst, or the "marquee" of the not so "decent". It's not a compliment. It shouldn't be taken as the writer having respect for Cincy unless you thought it was behind Houston, Rice and UTEP before this article. I certainly didn't.

It should make it to TV, possible ABC because, as you note, it may be the best of a bunch of games that don't jump off the page. Only other games that should hold some national interest is Miami (FL) at Florida and Miami isn't what it used to be and an intersectional matchup between Oregon St. at Penn St. which is already slated for ABC or ESPN.

And if ABC shows the game, it will be at 12pm or 3:30pm. No ABC primetime games that week due to Sprint Cup racing on ABC (Richmond).

rferry Wrote:What it means is that OK-Cincy is the only decent match-up that week. If it makes it to TV, it won't be on the merit of the contest, but of the conference's TV contract and lack of decent games. It doesn't mean it's a marquee game. It's the best of the worst, or the "marquee" of the not so "decent". It's not a compliment. It shouldn't be taken as the writer having respect for Cincy unless you thought it was behind Houston, Rice and UTEP before this article. I certainly didn't.

Of course, the above is both true and idiotic. MOST weeks have many more bad match-ups than marquee match-ups that stick out.

So, the Oklahoma-Cincinnati match-up may indeed be the best match-up (or may simply tie for, or even be slightly behind the best) in a week that also includes Miami-Florida and Oregon St-Penn State.

But three years ago, would anyone have even considered a Sooners-Bearcats match-up anywhere on the same level as the other two?

Of course not.

You keeping hanging on with half-truths, but keep missing the overall mark by a mile.

It's not 2005 anymore. The Big East has grown some in the past three years - to the point where national magazines can pick 3 or 4 of their teams to be in the Top 25 and ABC/ESPN can show their games without anyone blinking.

Are they still behind the other 5 super-conferences in terms of perception, performance, and dollars? Of course. But they are much closer now than they were in the beginning of 2005. And in that growth spurt they are now closer to the ACC (the bottom rung of the other 5 in football) in terms of perception and performance than the next best non-auto-bid conference is to the Big East.

Cheers,
Neil

rferry Wrote:What it means is that OK-Cincy is the only decent match-up that week. If it makes it to TV, it won't be on the merit of the contest, but of the conference's TV contract and lack of decent games. It doesn't mean it's a marquee game. It's the best of the worst, or the "marquee" of the not so "decent". It's not a compliment. It shouldn't be taken as the writer having respect for Cincy unless you thought it was behind Houston, Rice and UTEP before this article. I certainly didn't.

Why don't you actually look at the schedule before you make an idiot out of yourself. Now go worry about ACC football.

omnicarrier Wrote:

rferry Wrote:What it means is that OK-Cincy is the only decent match-up that week. If it makes it to TV, it won't be on the merit of the contest, but of the conference's TV contract and lack of decent games. It doesn't mean it's a marquee game. It's the best of the worst, or the "marquee" of the not so "decent". It's not a compliment. It shouldn't be taken as the writer having respect for Cincy unless you thought it was behind Houston, Rice and UTEP before this article. I certainly didn't.

Of course, the above is both true and idiotic. MOST weeks have many more bad match-ups than marquee match-ups that stick out.

So, the Oklahoma-Cincinnati match-up may indeed be the best match-up (or may simply tie for, or even be slightly behind the best) in a week that also includes Miami-Florida and Oregon St-Penn State.

But three years ago, would anyone have even considered a Sooners-Bearcats match-up anywhere on the same level as the other two?

Of course not.

You keeping hanging on with half-truths, but keep missing the overall mark by a mile.

It's not 2005 anymore. The Big East has grown some in the past three years - to the point where national magazines can pick 3 or 4 of their teams to be in the Top 25 and ABC/ESPN can show their games without anyone blinking.

Are they still behind the other 5 super-conferences in terms of perception, performance, and dollars? Of course. But they are much closer now than they were in the beginning of 2005. And in that growth spurt they are now closer to the ACC (the bottom rung of the other 5 in football) in terms of perception and performance than the next best non-auto-bid conference is to the Big East.

Cheers,
Neil

rferry is just the typical ACC fan that can't stand the fact that the Big East is actually getting national respect. He's sitting there trying to twist the article that Cincinnati isn't really getting respect. Yet Oklahoma mentioned Cincinnati by name as one of their new marquee non-conference games when the home-and-home series was announced last season. And Cincinnati is coming off a Top 20 season, and are in many people's preseason Top 25. I guess he can't handle Cincinnati and the Big East getting some national pub. As omni mentioned, it's not 2005 rferry. Try joining the rest of us in 2008.

CatsClaw Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:

rferry Wrote:What it means is that OK-Cincy is the only decent match-up that week. If it makes it to TV, it won't be on the merit of the contest, but of the conference's TV contract and lack of decent games. It doesn't mean it's a marquee game. It's the best of the worst, or the "marquee" of the not so "decent". It's not a compliment. It shouldn't be taken as the writer having respect for Cincy unless you thought it was behind Houston, Rice and UTEP before this article. I certainly didn't.

Of course, the above is both true and idiotic. MOST weeks have many more bad match-ups than marquee match-ups that stick out.

So, the Oklahoma-Cincinnati match-up may indeed be the best match-up (or may simply tie for, or even be slightly behind the best) in a week that also includes Miami-Florida and Oregon St-Penn State.

But three years ago, would anyone have even considered a Sooners-Bearcats match-up anywhere on the same level as the other two?

Of course not.

You keeping hanging on with half-truths, but keep missing the overall mark by a mile.

It's not 2005 anymore. The Big East has grown some in the past three years - to the point where national magazines can pick 3 or 4 of their teams to be in the Top 25 and ABC/ESPN can show their games without anyone blinking.

Are they still behind the other 5 super-conferences in terms of perception, performance, and dollars? Of course. But they are much closer now than they were in the beginning of 2005. And in that growth spurt they are now closer to the ACC (the bottom rung of the other 5 in football) in terms of perception and performance than the next best non-auto-bid conference is to the Big East.

Cheers,
Neil

rferry is just the typical ACC fan that can't stand the fact that the Big East is actually getting national respect. He's sitting there trying to twist the article that Cincinnati isn't really getting respect. Yet Oklahoma mentioned Cincinnati by name as one of their new marquee non-conference games when the home-and-home series was announced last season. And Cincinnati is coming off a Top 20 season, and are in many people's preseason Top 25. I guess he can't handle Cincinnati and the Big East getting some national pub.

Actually, I think he respects what the league has accomplished on the field. But he seems to think that no one else has noticed or cares. Of course, I'm sure he's right when it comes to many fans of the super-conferences.

But he takes these fans attitudes and extends them to everything like it was still early 2005 - where everyone was crying for the Big East's BCS head on a platter.

The media has caught on, and now the networks are starting to as well. The key factor for the BE is to realize that there still needs to be more growth.

Cheers,
Neil

Over on the Oklahoma Scout board the fans have voted their best nonconference game is vs UC next year and some have said they better not go into the game cocky or they will suffer defeat to the Cats....then again, Oklahoma fans are typically great fans and don't try and tell everyone they know how great they are (like O$U Bucknad fans do for example)

omnicarrier Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:

omnicarrier Wrote:

rferry Wrote:What it means is that OK-Cincy is the only decent match-up that week. If it makes it to TV, it won't be on the merit of the contest, but of the conference's TV contract and lack of decent games. It doesn't mean it's a marquee game. It's the best of the worst, or the "marquee" of the not so "decent". It's not a compliment. It shouldn't be taken as the writer having respect for Cincy unless you thought it was behind Houston, Rice and UTEP before this article. I certainly didn't.

Of course, the above is both true and idiotic. MOST weeks have many more bad match-ups than marquee match-ups that stick out.

So, the Oklahoma-Cincinnati match-up may indeed be the best match-up (or may simply tie for, or even be slightly behind the best) in a week that also includes Miami-Florida and Oregon St-Penn State.

But three years ago, would anyone have even considered a Sooners-Bearcats match-up anywhere on the same level as the other two?

Of course not.

You keeping hanging on with half-truths, but keep missing the overall mark by a mile.

It's not 2005 anymore. The Big East has grown some in the past three years - to the point where national magazines can pick 3 or 4 of their teams to be in the Top 25 and ABC/ESPN can show their games without anyone blinking.

Are they still behind the other 5 super-conferences in terms of perception, performance, and dollars? Of course. But they are much closer now than they were in the beginning of 2005. And in that growth spurt they are now closer to the ACC (the bottom rung of the other 5 in football) in terms of perception and performance than the next best non-auto-bid conference is to the Big East.

Cheers,
Neil

rferry is just the typical ACC fan that can't stand the fact that the Big East is actually getting national respect. He's sitting there trying to twist the article that Cincinnati isn't really getting respect. Yet Oklahoma mentioned Cincinnati by name as one of their new marquee non-conference games when the home-and-home series was announced last season. And Cincinnati is coming off a Top 20 season, and are in many people's preseason Top 25. I guess he can't handle Cincinnati and the Big East getting some national pub.

Actually, I think he respects what the league has accomplished on the field. But he seems to think that no one else has noticed or cares. Of course, I'm sure he's right when it comes to many fans of the super-conferences.

But he takes these fans attitudes and extends them to everything like it was still early 2005 - where everyone was crying for the Big East's BCS head on a platter.

The media has caught on, and now the networks are starting to as well. The key factor for the BE is to realize that there still needs to be more growth.

Cheers,
Neil

I think you're right, though a lot of fans of the super-conferences have started to catch on and give the Big East major credit.