(02-25-2012 11:50 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(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.

IMO the easiest way is to worry about conference stability first. Pleasing everyone will come from a strong conference with strong rivalries all around, and a championship game that's of interest to the nation....

Texas - OU BAYLOR
TT - BAYLOR OSU
KSU - OSU TCU
UL - ISU OU
KU - BYU, ISU
WV - TCU, BYU
ALL TEAMS HAVE ACCESS TO TEXAS FOR RECRUITING, AND IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR TV. 2 RIVAL CROSS OVER GAMES + 2 GAME ROTATION GAMES . 9 GAME CONF SCHEDULE. TV WOULD LOVE IT

(02-25-2012 05:23 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Texas to the Big 12 is like California to the PAC 12. These programs coming in are wanting access to it. I could see the Texas programs being split same as the California programs are.

The difference is that the Pac-12 has a strong commissioner who told USC and the other California schools that they needed to agree to the division split in the best interest of the entire conference and then made it stick. The Big 12 would never hire a commissioner who would stand up to UT and OU like that.

I still like a SWC-Big 8 split. Add WVU/ Louisville to the SWC 4 and BYU to the Big 8 five. I don't buy that UT and OU have to be in the same division, as long as they play every year.

(02-26-2012 10:32 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(02-25-2012 05:23 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Texas to the Big 12 is like California to the PAC 12. These programs coming in are wanting access to it. I could see the Texas programs being split same as the California programs are.

The difference is that the Pac-12 has a strong commissioner who told USC and the other California schools that they needed to agree to the division split in the best interest of the entire conference and then made it stick. The Big 12 would never hire a commissioner who would stand up to UT and OU like that.

See but I think it is now in the best interests of Texas and Oklahoma to be in separate divisions. When the last divisions were set up it was when the Big 8 was taking in the four teams from the SWC. Back then distance was a much bigger deal than it is now. It is not a big deal now and College has gone National, meaning programs like Texas are no longer happy with just the Texas and surrounding area footprint. So why would Texas want to limit itself with a regional division when it could have one with a wider impact area? With the divisions changed they still play every Texas program but one on a yearly basis and they probably see the other on an every other year basis.

It gives Texas an advantage to split up the South so yes I could see them being on board with splitting Texas in the Big 12 like California is in the PAC 12. I'm sorry but it is simple common sense from my perspective and I think UT can pull off some common sense.

They no longer need to pull Oklahoma from the rest of the Big 8. The take over is over.

(02-25-2012 11:24 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(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.

That's a good point regarding BYU. The Big 12 still has to recruit them, and while my divisions would match them twice with TX teams, they wouldn't get the "glamour" matchup against UT, and ISU is probably among the least "sexy" of the possibilities.

(02-25-2012 04:50 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  How would y'all align the B12 divisions if BYU and Louisville are entering in 13?

Mine looks a lil somethin like this:

Texas------Oklahoma
BYU--------TCU
Tech-------Baylor
Kansas-----Kansas St
Louisville---WVU
Iowa St----Oklahoma State

Its a nice clean zipper alignment that keeps almost all of the rivalries intact.

Louisville and W. Va look out of place in the Big 12 line up no matter where you place them. The most they have in common is each other. The Big 12 should have gone after BYU a lot harder then they did and stayed at 10 members. But a lot of realignment today doesn't make much sense. It is all about $$$$$. Pitt and Syracuse fit better in the ACC then W. Va and Louisville in the B-12.