It's Texas' world folks. We're just living in it.

(02-25-2012 06:16 PM)jeffUThorns Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 06:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 06:01 PM)jeffUThorns Wrote:  I know its fun to speculate on the new divisions but it will be split North and South again if we go back to 12.

The south setup was just too beneficial to both the Oklahoma schools and the Texas schools, and they will make sure they are all still in the South together or they will veto any move back to 12.

It was beneficial for Texas and its SouthWest Conference companions to take over the Big 8. Now that they have total control they do not need that same set up. What Texas needs is to maximize their scheduling potential to get the best finish possible as well as national recognition for dollars.

The Big 12 is much different now. The Big 8 is demolished, Texas split it up. No more need to keep Oklahoma and Okie state divided from the rest. In fact what reason does Texas have to maintain a game against Oklahoma State? Oklahoma State is rising as a program and that threatens Texas. Giving them full access to Texas is not in Texas's best interests.

The South set up was beneficial in dividing the old Big 8.

Texas makes more money than any other athletic program has ever made in the history of college athletics. Texas does not need more national recognition or money.

Also, Texas would rather play Oklahoma State every year than a Kansas, K state or the likes of Louisville.

Texas and OU will never diminish the game at the State Fair with the chance of a rematch in the Conference Title game.

It is simply not going to happen.

I guess I will have to differ to your judgement on this, assuming you are much more familiar with the culture.

So you think it would be beneficial for the Big 12 as a whole to be divided as such?

South
Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
TCU
Baylor

North
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State
West Virginia
Louisville
BYU

To be all honest here the Texas - Oklahoma games is not all that HUGE of a game IMO that it would take away from a second game if one came about in a CCG. Yes I understand the Red River Rivalry game and what it means to Texas and Oklahoma, but it would not tarnish a second game what so ever. The BigTen has it worked out for Michigan and Ohio State if I am not mistaken so they can play every year, and if they happen to match up in a championship game then so be for it is twice the fun for the BigTen which is something the Big12 should realize that and have that determined in the TV deal if a matchup would happen. That game IMO would be bigger than the season matchup one, and one that should bring more money. If these so-called teams don't want a game with Louisville then they should be looking for another school than us, but since they are looking at us I take they will play us when ever and where ever the schedule dictates.

You can still easily split the divisions into a semi East / West arrangement thout separating TU and OU.

West: BYU, KSU, KU, TU, OU, OSU
East: WVU, UL, ISU, Baylor, TCU, Tex Tech

That seems like the best way to preserve all the rivalries and balance the strength of the football programs to me.

You won't see Texas, OU and OSU in the same division.

I actually agree that it should be split up for competitive balance, I just don't see that actually happening.

Trust me when I say Texas and OU could care less what the Big 10 does and how they split OSU and Michigan up.

They do not want to be split up, and the rest of the South will also want to stick together.

Its unfortunate but thats just what I hear and how I think it will go down if we go back to 12.

I could end up being wrong though, its happened before.

(02-25-2012 06:46 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  You won't see Texas, OU and OSU in the same division.

Why not? They were in the same division for years.

Also I think if a so-called North South set comes about then the only thing I would hope the conference could foresee is that BYU would be a better fit with the Texas and Oklahoma schools than to be placed in a conference division with schools from West Virginia and Kentucky. Also IMHO I think TCU can live without the UT connection since they have been doing itbasically since the breakup of the old SouthWest Conference. They can be placed with Louisville who they have somewhat a rivalry with from their CUSA days and it gives the north division a guaranteed connection to Texas for recuiting purposes for those who need it in Kansas, KSU, and Iowa State.

I think you will see it happen just like orangecrush laid it out.

(02-25-2012 06:43 PM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:  You can still easily split the divisions into a semi East / West arrangement thout separating TU and OU.

West: BYU, KSU, KU, TU, OU, OSU
East: WVU, UL, ISU, Baylor, TCU, Tex Tech

That seems like the best way to preserve all the rivalries and balance the strength of the football programs to me.

No way will Texas be in a division without another texas team.

I think you go to 14 and seperate Texas and Oklahoma:

West Virginia
Louisville
Iowa St.
Kansas
Kansas St.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma St.

Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
BYU
(Team 13)
(Team 14)

Options: Air Force, UNLV, New Mexico, Colorado St., Rice, Tulane

The vote on whether to expand at all or not will likely be closer which makes me think that the divisions are going to have to be acceptable to just about everyone beforehand. Unlike with the Big Ten and the PAC-10 who seemed to decide they needed a championship game or the ACC who seemed worried they might be hit, I don't think the Big 12 feels a pressing need to expand which means there is more likely to be an agreement on divisions first (the SEC didn't have one though I'll admit).

I'm guessing a few things are going to be desired.

1. Texas and Oklahoma will want to remain in division. Besides not wanting a rematch, their rivalry is made bigger in division and they won't want to limit that.
2. Several others in the conference will want them divided. This is for ticket sale purposes and to keep equal attention in both divisions. Ohio State and Michigan I think were separated for similar reasons in the Big Ten (while Penn State and Nebraska are as big of names nationally, they aren't the traditional ones to look forward to in the Big Ten still).
3. The Texas schools will want to be together.
4. The non-Texas schools will want better access to Texas recruits and putting all of Texas in one division will be seen as recreating the old north and south where over the long run (even if not at first), the south simply had to many advantages.
5. Everyone will want season ending games in division. The Big Ten's decision to go with a set-up which forces 2 crossovers to end a season will not want to be followed by anyone. This means Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are in division, Texas and whomever it ends up playing/rotating between on Thanksgiving is in-division and something like Kansas-Kansas State (if they want to make it season ending) have to be in-division.

Like with most things all of this will probably lead to compromises. Either they'll stick with 10 or go to 12 with some middle ground. My personal guess is that they keep Texas and Oklahoma together, but divide the Texas schools.

It will be the North/South Division

-OU
-OSU
-UT
-TTU
-TCU
-BU

-BYU
-UL
-KU
-KSU
-ISU
-WVU

Having WVU, KSU, UL and BYU will make for a much stronger North that wil be more like the North at the start of the B12 that was very competitive.

(02-25-2012 08:03 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  It will be the North/South Division

-OU
-OSU
-UT
-TTU
-TCU
-BU

-BYU
-UL
-KU
-KSU
-ISU
-WVU

Having WVU, KSU, UL and BYU will make for a much stronger North that wil be more like the North at the start of the B12 that was very competitive.

Wait, ok I had to reply to this. So you find BYU, Louisville and West Virginia to be equivalent to Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri back when the Big 12 formed? Colorado is a much weaker program than it historically has been and Nebraska may still be strong but it isn't what it used to be either.

There is no way that a North division based upon WVU, Louisville, BYU, Iowa State, K State and Kansas is as strong as the North used to be. Its even more unbalanced then what we saw the Big 12 become in recent history.

(02-25-2012 08:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Wait, ok I had to reply to this. So you find BYU, Louisville and West Virginia to be equivalent to Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri back when the Big 12 formed? Colorado is a much weaker program than it historically has been and Nebraska may still be strong but it isn't what it used to be either.

There is no way that a North division based upon WVU, Louisville, BYU, Iowa State, K State and Kansas is as strong as the North used to be. Its even more unbalanced then what we saw the Big 12 become in recent history.

Beyond the issue of pure strength, I think the Big 12 would be very reluctant to create one division that is geographically compact and another which is spread across the country.

I'm not saying it would be AS strong, NU and CU were both coming off recent NCs and KSU could have had their first if not for our miracle comeback win over them in CCG. I'm saying that with those strong teams the North it would be much more competitive with the South by having multiple top 25 teams like the South usually is.

I just don't see a zipper or east/west working because it doesn't preserve the key Texoma rivalries.

I could see this split:

Baylor-----------------Texas
Brigham Young---------Iowa State
Kansas----------------Kansas State
West Virginia----------Louisville
Oklahoma State-------Oklahoma
Texas Christian--------Texas Tech

It splits the TX teams, which gives both divisions visibility in Texas. But with the cross-division rivalries, it ensures that each TX team plays 3 out of 4. The newcomer TCU is the loser in terms of getting the annual matchup with UT.

It preserves the Red River Rivalry, but precludes a CCG rematch. It splits the Oklahoma and Kansas twins, while preserving their rivalries. WVU and UL are split, but get the cross-division rivalry. By putting several football-centric schools in the division opposite OU/UT, it provides some semblance of balance.

It provides some measure of geographic balance, with one division being "wider" and one "taller", although the "wide" division is certainly farther spread. UT gets the division with the smaller travel costs, and while they may not like giving up OSU in football each year, at the same time it helps them avoid a tough opponent. While their divisional slate isn't all cupcakes, outside of OU they should be able to take those teams each year, which allows them the flexibility to schedule a tough out-of-conference game without fear of making their schedule too tough.

For the most part, as a KU fan I like this schedule competitively, although it would make travel a ***** for my Jayhawks.

(02-25-2012 10:35 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I could see this split:

Baylor-----------------Texas
Brigham Young---------Iowa State
Kansas----------------Kansas State
West Virginia----------Louisville
Oklahoma State-------Oklahoma
Texas Christian--------Texas Tech

It splits the TX teams, which gives both divisions visibility in Texas. But with the cross-division rivalries, it ensures that each TX team plays 3 out of 4. The newcomer TCU is the loser in terms of getting the annual matchup with UT.

It preserves the Red River Rivalry, but precludes a CCG rematch. It splits the Oklahoma and Kansas twins, while preserving their rivalries. WVU and UL are split, but get the cross-division rivalry. By putting several football-centric schools in the division opposite OU/UT, it provides some semblance of balance.

It provides some measure of geographic balance, with one division being "wider" and one "taller", although the "wide" division is certainly farther spread. UT gets the division with the smaller travel costs, and while they may not like giving up OSU in football each year, at the same time it helps them avoid a tough opponent. While their divisional slate isn't all cupcakes, outside of OU they should be able to take those teams each year, which allows them the flexibility to schedule a tough out-of-conference game without fear of making their schedule too tough.

For the most part, as a KU fan I like this schedule competitively, although it would make travel a ***** for my Jayhawks.

This is a good one, you take all the factors into account. The main difference between our final results is that from your Big 12 perspective you give more weight to the tradition of the regular season Oklahoma/Texas game being a deciding factor.

Had to think a bit about this one before responding but if BYU is truly talking with the Big 12 about joining, wouldn't part of that discussion be about division make up and who their cross rival might be?

A program like TCU, they might not make as big of a squawk about this but BYU is quite known for making mountains out of mole hills so to speak. Perhaps they wouldn't care so much about how they are placed but if they did I couldn't see any "cross rival" pairing that they would make a bigger squawk about then a pairing with Iowa State. Hell, to the highly sensitive theocrats that might be considered a slap in the face for their over sized ego's.

A cross rival with TCU, a previous rival in a previous conference as well as a team in the state of Texas, now that is a prize to soothe those theocrats into giving up certain demands. Telling them that they will be paired up and playing Iowa State every year? That would probably just piss them off.

Everyone is stuck on this idea of Texas and Oklahoma playing twice a year. The very fact that they would play every year as cross division rivals actually makes it less likely that they play each other in the championship game.

(02-25-2012 05:21 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  OC, you should stick to ACC and BEast discussions. IMO your Big XII divisional setup sucks...

Meh, UT and OU want to be in the same division. Baylor wants to play TCU and Texas every year. TCU wants to play Baylor, and probably Texas every year. TT wants Texas every year. OSU and OU have to play every year. KU and KSU have to play every year. UL and WVU would want to play every year. etc.

The easiest way to please everyone is a North/South split. The only rivalry that wouldn't be accounted for is BYU vs TCU. They would play most year, though. Without cross division rivals and 4 schools in Texas. The North Division will get exposure there every year.

The divisions used to be North and South. With pretty much the same teams. BYU/WVU = Nebraska/Mizzou, and UL = Colorado.

Guys I really don't think TCU cares about playing Texas every year for they have been living without their assistants of a game since the breakup of the SWC. If anything at all that TCU has learned from the breakup of the SWC is how to survive without UT and the others SWC mates in Texas Tech, Baylor. Yes they are thrilled to be associated with them yet again, but they ( TCU ) can live just fine on their own like they have been doing for the past 20 some years, and being in the opposite division will not kill them at all.

I think BYU is the one that will need to be helped along so to say with all their olympic sports. Like I mentioned earlier it will be easier if they can travel to Texas and Oklahoma and Kansas for the majority of their games instead of trying to coup with travel plans to West Virginia, Kentucky and Iowa.

This is not to drastic of a line up that would be closer to realistic than what some of you have actually posted.

Division One - Texas, Baylor, TT, Oklahoma, OKla State, BYU

Division Two - Kansas, KSU, Iowa State, TCU, Louisville, WVU

I honestly think this would be the set up, but I personally would like to see OU and UT in opposite divisions. So with that said just replace the OU/OSU with KU/KSU.

Division One - Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech, KSU, Kansas, BYU

Division Two - Oklahoma, Okla State, Iowa State, TCU, Louisville, WVU

Either one would be a good line up, but I think travel with BYU for all sports might need a little pampering than being placed with teams in the eastern time zone.