The buzz around USC-UNC and Georgia Clemson is awesome! As we inevitably move to a 9 game conference schedule and strength of schedule hopefully becomes a deciding playoff factor, I think it would be advantageous in every way for opening weekend to become the "second" annual rival weekend to play (Thanksgiving weekend obviously being reserved for the "first" annual rival). There are a few that seem so obvious that it would be silly not to continue or get them going every year.

USC-UNC
Georgia-Clemson
Florida-Miami
TAMU - Texas or TT whenever they get over it
Mizzou - Kansas, again, whenever they get over it
Arkansas - Oklahoma
UK - Indiana (both of our faults. Let's make up.)
Auburn - Ga. Tech
Vandy - Northwestern, Duke, or Wake Forest

If I am wrong on any of those, certainly speak up. What about the other 5 (UT, Miss. St., Ole Miss, Bama, LSU)? I think UT-Va. Tech could grow into something awesome, especially with Bristol being an incredible neutral site opportunity. I really like the Miss. St/Ok. St. matchup; I think it is good for both sides.

I wouldn't hold my breath on KU/Missouri. While there may be a few with hurt feelings, the bigger threat to that series is apathy and the desire to look forward rather than backward.

Missouri has found their new home, and aside from a few ovations that I believe to be largely PR-motivated, I think that they've moved on. I think KU has the dual task of working to maintain the Big 12's viability while also being strategic in looking ahead in case it doesn't work out. Since the B1G would be the most likely power conference destination in the scenario of Big 12 dissolution, it would make sense for us to spend our time and effort cultivating relationships there.

Edited to add: I just looked ahead to future football schedules. I see several MAC schools (Ohio, Central Michigan), one new B1G school (Rutgers) and one "Big 12 expansion candidate" school (Memphis) on the non-conference slate in coming years, as well as one ACC school (Duke) and one "awesome road-trip" school (Hawaii). Schedules evolve over time and it's not unusual for us to have a MAC opponent on the schedule, but it does show that we may be thinking a little about raising our profile within the B1G footprint.

I would love to see Alabama open the season each year with either Ohio State or Notre Dame. That way I wouldn't have to wait past the first week of the season for one of those three to lose.

Arkansas has some many old rivalries from the SWC days. We are currently scheduled to play TCU and TT in upcoming years.

South Carolina (almost) always plays UGA week two, which is our second rivalry. Love playing UNC and other NC schools too.

(08-30-2013 09:17 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I wouldn't hold my breath on KU/Missouri. While there may be a few with hurt feelings, the bigger threat to that series is apathy and the desire to look forward rather than backward.

Missouri has found their new home, and aside from a few ovations that I believe to be largely PR-motivated, I think that they've moved on. I think KU has the dual task of working to maintain the Big 12's viability while also being strategic in looking ahead in case it doesn't work out. Since the B1G would be the most likely power conference destination in the scenario of Big 12 dissolution, it would make sense for us to spend our time and effort cultivating relationships there.

Edited to add: I just looked ahead to future football schedules. I see several MAC schools (Ohio, Central Michigan), one new B1G school (Rutgers) and one "Big 12 expansion candidate" school (Memphis) on the non-conference slate in coming years, as well as one ACC school (Duke) and one "awesome road-trip" school (Hawaii). Schedules evolve over time and it's not unusual for us to have a MAC opponent on the schedule, but it does show that we may be thinking a little about raising our profile within the B1G footprint.

I do not understand the apathy argument though. These schools played each other for over a century. We are next door neighbors. We played Illinois first game of the year for six straight years in St Louis and it was a monumental success. I am have a lot of trouble believing KU and MU have just forgotten each other. That said, I think we both agreed before that a home and home game would be much more exciting, rather than Arrowhead.

(09-02-2013 01:37 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(08-30-2013 09:17 AM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  I wouldn't hold my breath on KU/Missouri. While there may be a few with hurt feelings, the bigger threat to that series is apathy and the desire to look forward rather than backward.

Missouri has found their new home, and aside from a few ovations that I believe to be largely PR-motivated, I think that they've moved on. I think KU has the dual task of working to maintain the Big 12's viability while also being strategic in looking ahead in case it doesn't work out. Since the B1G would be the most likely power conference destination in the scenario of Big 12 dissolution, it would make sense for us to spend our time and effort cultivating relationships there.

Edited to add: I just looked ahead to future football schedules. I see several MAC schools (Ohio, Central Michigan), one new B1G school (Rutgers) and one "Big 12 expansion candidate" school (Memphis) on the non-conference slate in coming years, as well as one ACC school (Duke) and one "awesome road-trip" school (Hawaii). Schedules evolve over time and it's not unusual for us to have a MAC opponent on the schedule, but it does show that we may be thinking a little about raising our profile within the B1G footprint.

I do not understand the apathy argument though. These schools played each other for over a century. We are next door neighbors. We played Illinois first game of the year for six straight years in St Louis and it was a monumental success. I am have a lot of trouble believing KU and MU have just forgotten each other. That said, I think we both agreed before that a home and home game would be much more exciting, rather than Arrowhead.

The crux of my notion is that the apathy is driven largely by the desire to look ahead. I can only speak second-hand on the Missouri side, but it seems like a lot of the passion is gone from their side for playing us, aside from fans who think that SEC membership will automatically elevate them to invincible leviathon status and think that it'd be inevitable that they'd crush us every time out of the gate. But for many fans I've been around, they're less worried about that than they are about establishing new roots in the SEC and keeping up with the Floridas, Georgias, etc.

As for KU, due to our unique history in basketball I think that our fanbase has historically been somewhat traditionalist in nature, but with the advent of all the conference realignment upheaval I think that for many fans we're starting to look more to the future. While it predates the actual conference changes, we've been more cognizant of the importance of football and have made significant infrastructure investments there over the last decade. I think that for many fans it's finally dawned on us that despite some significant strengths KU is still in a somewhat precarious position, and we're focused more on ensuring that we stay on the ride than we are with looking back to what was.

There's also the factor that we have another strong rivalry against KSU, which has now taken on more importance in our fans' eyes, and lessens the feeling that we've lost a rivalry game. From a conference strength standpoint we may miss Nebraska, Colorado, and aTm, but we hadn't really built significant rivalries with them so we don't miss the on-the-field/court competition. Since we don't miss most of the schools that have left from that standpoint, and we still have a rival to focus on, it makes it easier to lump Missouri in with the "in the past" group.

I do wholeheartedly agree that if the series were to resume, it would be much better to have it be home/away rather than in KC. I certainly get the appeal of the Red River Rivalry's unique non-campus location, but for the most part I'm enough of a traditionalist to prefer on-campus games over neutral site games.

Missouri/Kansas needs to continue and it should be home and away either the first or second week of the season. Just an outsiders opinion, but you don't throw away long time rivals

(09-03-2013 11:35 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Missouri/Kansas needs to continue and it should be home and away either the first or second week of the season. Just an outsiders opinion, but you don't throw away long time rivals

It was a business decision by Missouri, just like if the B1G comes calling for Kansas. It doesn't have to be personal. I think a lot of folks want to continue the series. The BB series is not filled with apathy,for sure. That's on the KU coach. I think both sides will come around.

I know it doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot to many UT fans, but I'd like to see them open with Memphis. The in-state (barely... two opposite sides of the state) Match up means more to me regardless of the strength of the teams playing.

(09-04-2013 02:55 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  I know it doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot to many UT fans, but I'd like to see them open with Memphis. The in-state (barely... two opposite sides of the state) Match up means more to me regardless of the strength of the teams playing.

If Tennessee will not play home-home with Virginia Tech, which I've heard is the case, then Memphis would be a solid opening weekend opponent. They have played Austin Peay and Tennessee Tech in recent years, which is great for those programs, but Tennessee could definitely benefit from shaking hands and kissing babies every other year in Memphis for recruiting purposes.

(09-04-2013 03:16 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(09-04-2013 02:55 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  I know it doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot to many UT fans, but I'd like to see them open with Memphis. The in-state (barely... two opposite sides of the state) Match up means more to me regardless of the strength of the teams playing.

If Tennessee will not play home-home with Virginia Tech, which I've heard is the case, then Memphis would be a solid opening weekend opponent. They have played Austin Peay and Tennessee Tech in recent years, which is great for those programs, but Tennessee could definitely benefit from shaking hands and kissing babies every other year in Memphis for recruiting purposes.

I agree. I have a special interest in it being an AAC fan. I honestly hate being a two school fan but I cannot shake UT for some reason. However I am 100% loyal to ECU. I was so pissed when Jabo Lee flipped to UT. Now I think he's a temple though?

Anyway, yea Memphis would be a good game. I wish they would do H and H with them because many vols fans could easily make the trip to the liberty bowl stadium. It would just suck for the students, but UT could easily get there other 2-3 home games on away yeas. The upside for the students is i'm sure many of them have friends from HS that went to Memphis, and it could be a fun trip.

I get why they are exciting, but personally I hate the idea of playing a big name opponent week 1. Week 3 fantastic, week 2 alright, but given limited practice and no scrimmages, I'd just assume have one easy opponent week 1 every year.

Of course I'd rather never to have a conference game until all the non-conference games are over and it looks like going forward, I'm not going to get either wish.

Edit: If the Buckeyes were going to go with a semi-big opening week opponent my first choice would be a rotating opponent (whatever big schools are available no need to lock onto one). If we were talking about locking one opponent, despite my distaste of early conference games, I'd want Illinois as they were Ohio State's first Western Conference (Big Ten) rivalry and our only trophy game. Sadly that game won't be annual anymore with the new divisions.

(09-05-2013 01:56 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  I agree. I have a special interest in it being an AAC fan. I honestly hate being a two school fan but I cannot shake UT for some reason. However I am 100% loyal to ECU. I was so pissed when Jabo Lee flipped to UT. Now I think he's a temple though?

Yes

(09-10-2013 01:46 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I get why they are exciting, but personally I hate the idea of playing a big name opponent week 1. Week 3 fantastic, week 2 alright, but given limited practice and no scrimmages, I'd just assume have one easy opponent week 1 every year.

Of course I'd rather never to have a conference game until all the non-conference games are over and it looks like going forward, I'm not going to get either wish.

Edit: If the Buckeyes were going to go with a semi-big opening week opponent my first choice would be a rotating opponent (whatever big schools are available no need to lock onto one). If we were talking about locking one opponent, despite my distaste of early conference games, I'd want Illinois as they were Ohio State's first Western Conference (Big Ten) rivalry and our only trophy game. Sadly that game won't be annual anymore with the new divisions.

Actually, I would love to see the schools drop the Spring game. Move the preseason practice schedule into the early Summer and have a true preseason game against an instate smaller school for the middle of August. That would be a great boost to attendance with in state interest, a good pay out for the in state opponent and I would hope it would be the only FCS school on the schedule. Then coaches would have 2 weeks to make adjustments, address issues, and get ready for the regular season. Then if the first official week opens with a strong OOC game you don't get the skewed results that can happen when two teams that have not played a down open with each other.

It would also be beneficial to baseball not to have the distraction of Spring football and it would also distance football a bit better from the end of March madness. And, it would be better on the players' academics for the Spring. Fall academics for football players are a joke. The players could take a couple of short courses during the Summer and have the Winter and Spring to pull up grades.