Realignment of Conference teams

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Drop ISU and Baylor and lets do a 10 team conference where everyone plays everyone and the top two fight it out at the end in a championship game. The winner then goes on to play 15 other teams in a December/January playoff that ends in a College Super Bowl!

I say we get rid of ISU and Baylor as well, but Baylor is going to get much better with the current QB and coach that they have. ISU could be replaced with Boise State?

 

[CUBUFF80]

Let's create a new Front Range League (BCS Member of course):
CU
CSU
AFA
WYO
UTEP
UNM
NMSU

I like our chances of domination

 

[BuffsRising]

If you drop the crappy teams that would just hurt everybody's record. When college goes to a playoff with, say, 16 teams, it won't matter as much but with the system in place if the conferences eliminated the crappy schools nobody would have a good enough record to get to the BCS championship game.

 

[buffsyko]

Let's tell the texas teams to eff off and go back to the big 8.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Phuck having divisions. Just let the two best teams play each other.

 

[CUBUFF80]

Let's tell the texas teams to eff off and go back to the big 8.

Sarcasm alert I hope...

 

[Deleted member 807]

Disclaimer: This proposition defys tradition, and will be vehemently opposed by many. But since this is fantasy island, here is my wild ass B12 restructure proposal:

The winner of the CCG determines the structure of the next season's two divisions.

Champion's division:
1st, 4th, 7th, 9th, 10th & 12th place teams

Runner's Up division:
2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th & 11th place teams.

All the teams in each division play each other.

Interdivision play has the #1 team play #3 and #8 at home & #11 away.
There are similar iterations for each team.

At the end of the season, there is a CCG to determine the champion.

While abolishing tradition, this arrangement is fair by it's very nature, and comes with huge bragging rights. Player and coaching changes would ensure enough re-shuffling to keep things interesting.

 

[The Guest]

The only point of restructuring, as has been already stated multiple times, would be to separate OU and UT.

As far as the comment regarding "the north will be stronger in a few years", I'm sorry - I really don't see that. As long as Texas and OU are in the South that division will always be stronger, as they are the only two teams in this conference that are powerhouses year in and year out. Down years for these teams mean 8 or 9 wins and they are occasional at best, and generally random. There isn't a team in the north you can say that about, and unless our Buffs turn into a powerhouse under Hawkins - which really remains to be seen - it's going to remain that way.

The rare years in which the North is stronger than the South in the Big 12 will be few and far between IMO, and they will basically amount to everything aligning perfectly among a few north teams in the same year, while OU and UT have down years.

EDIT:

Under Mack Brown, UT has a 111-25 record (72-16). Here are his records (starting with 1998)

9-3 (6-2)
9-5 (6-2)
9-3 (7-1)
11-2 (7-1) #5 finish
11-2 (6-2) #6 finish
10-3 (7-1)
11-1 (7-1) Rose Bowl Win over Michigan #5 finish
13-0 (8-0) National Champions and one of the best CFB teams ever
10-3 (6-2)
10-3 (5-3) #10 finish
11-1 (7-1) one of the top 3-4 teams in the nation. Outside shot at going to the NC game

That's 8 10+ win seasons following three 9 win seasons. If OU loses to Missouri they will probably go to the NC game this year.

Oklahoma under Stoops:

108-23 (67-13)

7-5 (5-3)
13-0 (8-0) National Champions
11-2 (6-2) #6 finish
12-2 (6-2) Rose Bowl Win #5 finish
12-2 (8-0) #3 finish
12-1 (8-0) #3 finish
8-4 (6-2)
11-3 (7-1)
11-3 (6-2) #8 finish
11-1 (7-1) likely trip to the NC game

These teams will continue to dominate the Big12 the majority of years IMO.

How ludacrous would this discussion have appeared in 1995 (the year in which I essentially live, perpetually) when Colorado, nebraska, Kansas and K-State all finished in the final AP Top 10. I know I make this point frequently, but I believe the lesson remains relevant.

I'll phrase it another way, less than 15 seasons ago (not so long) a full two-thirds of teams now in the Big XII North finished in the final top ten! Things change, and they'll change again.

The likely source of change? Well, Buffs04 inadvertantly hits the nail on the head when he breaks down OU and UT's records by COACH not by team. Concur that as long as Stoops and Brown remain with those teams, OU and UT will likely remain powerhouses (or not...there's always the "Fulmer Syndrome" and frankly Paterno has had ups and downs, too). But, coaches move on.

Also, good teams tend to flirt with NCAA sanctions. I'm not accusing OU/UT/TT/OSU of running dirty programs--I don't know a thing about it. I'm simply pointing out a possible impetus for change within the football landscape.

Finally, subtle changes to the broad CFB environment may provide unforseen impact. Baylor has historically recruited disproportionately well. What if 2008's momentum translates into success in the next several years? Maybe Sherman starts making waves in College Station. That could spell real trouble for Mack Brown's machine which is highly dependent on being top-dog for in-state recruits. You never know when some subtle recruiting rule change sinks an entire Coach's system. So many possibilities...

Things happen, the landscape changes. Be patient and let this great game chase it's own tail. It's part of the fun.

The North will rise again!

 

[Buffocrat]

How ludacrous would this discussion have appeared in 1995 (the year in which I essentially live, perpetually) when Colorado, nebraska, Kansas and K-State all finished in the final AP Top 10. I know I make this point frequently, but I believe the lesson remains relevant.

I'll phrase it another way, less than 15 seasons ago (not so long) a full two-thirds of teams now in the Big XII North finished in the final top ten! Things change, and they'll change again.

The likely source of change? Well, Buffs04 inadvertantly hits the nail on the head when he breaks down OU and UT's records by COACH not by team. Concur that as long as Stoops and Brown remain with those teams, OU and UT will likely remain powerhouses (or not...there's always the "Fulmer Syndrome" and frankly Paterno has had ups and downs, too). But, coaches move on.

Also, good teams tend to flirt with NCAA sanctions. I'm not accusing OU/UT/TT/OSU of running dirty programs--I don't know a thing about it. I'm simply pointing out a possible impetus for change within the football landscape.

Finally, subtle changes to the broad CFB environment may provide unforseen impact. Baylor has historically recruited disproportionately well. What if 2008's momentum translates into success in the next several years? Maybe Sherman starts making waves in College Station. That could spell real trouble for Mack Brown's machine which is highly dependent on being top-dog for in-state recruits. You never know when some subtle recruiting rule change sinks an entire Coach's system. So many possibilities...

Things happen, the landscape changes. Be patient and let this great game chase it's own tail. It's part of the fun.

The North will rise again!

I don't believe this is cyclical. Texas and Oklahoma aren't tied to their coaches anymore. Both guys leave and Saban and Spurrier (or coaches on that level) would come. Back in the 80's and 90's you had sloppy administrations that let both schools fall off but now the money is so much apart of the game that it is damn near impossible for either school to fall. Colorado has more of a chance of going on probation than either of those schools do in football just because of the money and power that each school wields. Plus the state of Texas will continue to pump out massive amounts of talent every year which will keep both Oklahoma and Texas stocked every year.

The Big 12 is all about Texas and Oklahoma. Eventually someone smart will split them up and realign the conference.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Re-alignment makes no sense in the current BIG XII, the only concerns the Big XII should ever have are:

Making sure that all teams field competitive teams in most sports should be the first priority. In the big picture, that means that Kansas State would be the program most likely to be "cut", and the following link is a good summary:



While I don't think the Big XII should cut Kansas State, I am merely offering the only legitimate reason re-alignment should be discussed.

The only other reason is the occasional "rumor" of a team leaving for another conference. It seems silly, but with the one-time courting from the Pac Ten and the sometimes mentioned Texas to SEC connection, there is some smoke. I don't put any stock in any team leaving the Big XII even Colorado to the Pac Ten. Nebraska, Missouri, or Iowa State leaving for the Big 11 stands little chance of likelihood, but enough dominos could fall for that to be a concern.

So, if any team left the Big XII (either to another conference, or involuntary) then you would have to consider realignment depending upon the team brought in to replace whatever team leaves.

As of now, there are few "great" choices not already affiliated with another conference, but T.C.U. would seem to be the best choice (their average Director's Cup ranking is somewhere in the 50s or 60s, I think). In addition, they compete in all sports.

If T.C.U. joined and K-State (or Iowa State) were bumped then the "North" could take either Oklahoma or Oklahoma State to accomplish the realignment. Putting Oklahoma in the North would then balance the power of the league and reclaim the OU-NU rivalry of the old Big Eight.

The South would then be all Texas schools + Okie State.

Alternatively an A.C.C style divisional format could then be:

Division A
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Texas Tech
Oklahoma State
Colorado
Iowa State

Division B
Texas
Missouri
Texas Christian
Kansas
Texas A&M
Baylor

 

[Saulbadguy]

Re-alignment makes no sense in the current BIG XII, the only concerns the Big XII should ever have are:

Making sure that all teams field competitive teams in most sports should be the first priority. In the big picture, that means that Kansas State would be the program most likely to be "cut", and the following link is a good summary:

Which sport is CU competitive in, again?

 

[dio]

Which sport is CU competitive in, again?

Cross MUTHA ****ING Country baby!:thumbsup:

 

[96 Buff]

We've also been Big XII Conference Champs EVERY ****ING YEAR in skiing.

 

[BlackNGold]

Re-alignment makes no sense in the current BIG XII, the only concerns the Big XII should ever have are:

Making sure that all teams field competitive teams in most sports should be the first priority. In the big picture, that means that Kansas State would be the program most likely to be "cut", and the following link is a good summary:

I do not agree with your premise that the priority of the Big XII should be to field competitive teams in most sports.

Football and mens BB are the only two real revenue sports which lead to all the money for conference payouts. The conferences priority should be to maximize revenues for its member institutions. That means negotiation the best TV contracts, promoting the conference and the teams, developing sponsorship tie-ins, etc.

 

[Spider]

We've also been Big XII Conference Champs EVERY ****ING YEAR in skiing.

 

[SkiTownUSA]

We've also been Big XII Conference Champs EVERY ****ING YEAR in skiing.

If only we could get 50,000 fans to attend skiing events.....