Look @IMCC965Aw, don't spoil it. There are a few guys on here whose only sexual release is imagining the collapse of the Big XII.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Look @IMCC965Aw, don't spoil it. There are a few guys on here whose only sexual release is imagining the collapse of the Big XII.
Start treating them like UCF...They'll join a conference real quick.And if they don't?
Why? They play 10 P5 games a year. UCF doesn't.Start treating them like UCF...They'll join a conference real quick.
Start treating them like UCF...They'll join a conference real quick.
https://247sports.com/college/oklah...g-Oklahoma-Sooners-Texas-Longhorns-125965141/
Bring in Texas and Oklahoma and ditch the divisions. Makes the playoff easy after Big 12 falls apart. Each Power 4 conference champion and be done with it.
I think there definitely would be outcry. The fact that you would not pay attention to it and try to understand it should be alarming. This is the same school that built the Longhorn Network to the detriment of the rest of the teams in the conference. They also lobbied the Big 12 to outlaw the upside down "Hook 'Em Horns" hand gesture in games. That's what you would have coming into this league - a school and program that wants to call the shots and doesn't really care about the success of the collective.Can you imagine the outcry from the West if Texas is put in the same division with Nebraska?
I think it would make more sense to have 8 8-team conferences, A round-robin in every league (double round-robin on hoops), and 8 league champions to go to a playoff. Basically the way the NCAA basketball tournament used to be, prior to becoming almost solely a fundraising event.
The BiG already is too big. My views on this have been expressed (and, to be fair, ignored) on several occasions. When you can't play everybody in your league, you don't really have a league. Hell, that was a problem with the Big Ten when it actually was the Big Ten. And now that you have a collection that includes Nebraska and Rutgers....I mean, come on, give me a break.
Since we're blue-skying, some other things to consider....Central Florida isn't a P5 school, but it would be hard to justify keeping it out of the reorganization. More to the point, what would be the criteria for organizing the leagues/divisions? Geography, obviously, would be the main one Natural rivalries would be considered (although we've seen the end of several of those already, principally Oklahoma-Nebraska and Texas A&M-Texas).
Let's really go unrealistic and assume the NCAA acted like the Iowa high school bosses and just assigned everything regardless of the preferences of the schools (and their fans). One thing you'd probably see would be Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Kansas schools -- basically the old Big Eight with the three midwest Big Ten teams replacing Colorado and the Oklahoma schools.
That might possibly not meet with universal approval on this board. And if television markets were a major factor, it would never fly.
Hey, its come down to us and Wisconsin every year for a conference title.I think it would make more sense to have 8 8-team conferences, A round-robin in every league (double round-robin on hoops), and 8 league champions to go to a playoff. Basically the way the NCAA basketball tournament used to be, prior to becoming almost solely a fundraising event.
The BiG already is too big. My views on this have been expressed (and, to be fair, ignored) on several occasions. When you can't play everybody in your league, you don't really have a league. Hell, that was a problem with the Big Ten when it actually was the Big Ten. And now that you have a collection that includes Nebraska and Rutgers....I mean, come on, give me a break.
Since we're blue-skying, some other things to consider....Central Florida isn't a P5 school, but it would be hard to justify keeping it out of the reorganization. More to the point, what would be the criteria for organizing the leagues/divisions? Geography, obviously, would be the main one Natural rivalries would be considered (although we've seen the end of several of those already, principally Oklahoma-Nebraska and Texas A&M-Texas).
Let's really go unrealistic and assume the NCAA acted like the Iowa high school bosses and just assigned everything regardless of the preferences of the schools (and their fans). One thing you'd probably see would be Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Kansas schools -- basically the old Big Eight with the three midwest Big Ten teams replacing Colorado and the Oklahoma schools.
That might possibly not meet with universal approval on this board. And if television markets were a major factor, it would never fly.
The Big Ten is too big because everybody doesn't play everybody else, not a real conference. But back when the Big 12 started all this mega conference stuff and had 12 teams in the conference they all didn't play each other, then it was okay. Alright, got it.I think it would make more sense to have 8 8-team conferences, A round-robin in every league (double round-robin on hoops), and 8 league champions to go to a playoff. Basically the way the NCAA basketball tournament used to be, prior to becoming almost solely a fundraising event.
The BiG already is too big. My views on this have been expressed (and, to be fair, ignored) on several occasions. When you can't play everybody in your league, you don't really have a league. Hell, that was a problem with the Big Ten when it actually was the Big Ten. And now that you have a collection that includes Nebraska and Rutgers....I mean, come on, give me a break.
Since we're blue-skying, some other things to consider....Central Florida isn't a P5 school, but it would be hard to justify keeping it out of the reorganization. More to the point, what would be the criteria for organizing the leagues/divisions? Geography, obviously, would be the main one Natural rivalries would be considered (although we've seen the end of several of those already, principally Oklahoma-Nebraska and Texas A&M-Texas).
Let's really go unrealistic and assume the NCAA acted like the Iowa high school bosses and just assigned everything regardless of the preferences of the schools (and their fans). One thing you'd probably see would be Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Kansas schools -- basically the old Big Eight with the three midwest Big Ten teams replacing Colorado and the Oklahoma schools.
That might possibly not meet with universal approval on this board. And if television markets were a major factor, it would never fly.
I think there definitely would be outcry. The fact that you would not pay attention to it and try to understand it should be alarming. This is the same school that built the Longhorn Network to the detriment of the rest of the teams in the conference. They also lobbied the Big 12 to outlaw the upside down "Hook 'Em Horns" hand gesture in games. That's what you would have coming into this league - a school and program that wants to call the shots and doesn't really care about the success of the collective.
I think we have brought up Oklahoma before. Doesn’t sound like they could ever move conferences without OKie St also going along. The OK legislature would get involved.
No, it wasn't all right with me, and I said so at the time, and have said so on numerous occasions since then.The Big Ten is too big because everybody doesn't play everybody else, not a real conference. But back when the Big 12 started all this mega conference stuff and had 12 teams in the conference they all didn't play each other, then it was okay. Alright, got it.
The hand gesture thing is an embarrassment to the league, and the people responsible should be severely shamed because of that decision.I think there definitely would be outcry. The fact that you would not pay attention to it and try to understand it should be alarming. This is the same school that built the Longhorn Network to the detriment of the rest of the teams in the conference. They also lobbied the Big 12 to outlaw the upside down "Hook 'Em Horns" hand gesture in games. That's what you would have coming into this league - a school and program that wants to call the shots and doesn't really care about the success of the collective.
Still need to force their hand a little bit to join a conference. The teams they played were a combined 77-64 is that all that good ?Why? They play 10 P5 games a year. UCF doesn't.
Somehow this trail is leading back to Iowa wanting to pad their schedule with a non-pulse team like Kansas and don't care to play Texas.I agree with the Cornhusker here, Just Say No to Texas. Oklahoma would be a good add and instead of UT we should bring in KU. OU and KU to the BIG West would be good adds.
Oklahoma isn't up to the academic level the Big Ten used to require, before admitting Nebraska.I agree with the Cornhusker here, Just Say No to Texas. Oklahoma would be a good add and instead of UT we should bring in KU. OU and KU to the BIG West would be good adds.
I think there definitely would be outcry. The fact that you would not pay attention to it and try to understand it should be alarming. This is the same school that built the Longhorn Network to the detriment of the rest of the teams in the conference. They also lobbied the Big 12 to outlaw the upside down "Hook 'Em Horns" hand gesture in games. That's what you would have coming into this league - a school and program that wants to call the shots and doesn't really care about the success of the collective.
Somehow this trail is leading back to Iowa wanting to pad their schedule with a non-pulse team like Kansas and don't care to play Texas.
I realize we are just talking, but being serious for a second, do you (or anybody else) honestly think Texas would go to the Big Ten? Take a huge revenue cut? Lose the Longhorn Network? No longer be the biggest dick in the locker room? And perhaps more important, play half their football games in the North? What would be the incentive?No. I just don't like Texas. Every conference they have bene a part of they have destroyed. I don't want to let them into the conference just so they can destroy it from within.
Kansas is a basketball blue blood, contiguous with Nebraska and Oklahoma, so the conference maintains some continuity, and is putting money into football to become respectable (stadium renovations and hiring Les Miles). I think Kansas would be a good addition.
https://247sports.com/college/oklah...g-Oklahoma-Sooners-Texas-Longhorns-125965141/
Bring in Texas and Oklahoma and ditch the divisions. Makes the playoff easy after Big 12 falls apart. Each Power 4 conference champion and be done with it.
Really no reason to make it that difficult. We’re not that far from 4 16 team conferences now. So 28 team divisions in each. Winners play what is the first round of playoffs. Schedule works as qued describes above. I’m not sure which conference goes away but have a hard time believing the huge west coast markets are left out.I think it would make more sense to have 8 8-team conferences, A round-robin in every league (double round-robin on hoops), and 8 league champions to go to a playoff. Basically the way the NCAA basketball tournament used to be, prior to becoming almost solely a fundraising event.
The BiG already is too big. My views on this have been expressed (and, to be fair, ignored) on several occasions. When you can't play everybody in your league, you don't really have a league. Hell, that was a problem with the Big Ten when it actually was the Big Ten. And now that you have a collection that includes Nebraska and Rutgers....I mean, come on, give me a break.
Since we're blue-skying, some other things to consider....Central Florida isn't a P5 school, but it would be hard to justify keeping it out of the reorganization. More to the point, what would be the criteria for organizing the leagues/divisions? Geography, obviously, would be the main one Natural rivalries would be considered (although we've seen the end of several of those already, principally Oklahoma-Nebraska and Texas A&M-Texas).
Let's really go unrealistic and assume the NCAA acted like the Iowa high school bosses and just assigned everything regardless of the preferences of the schools (and their fans). One thing you'd probably see would be Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Kansas schools -- basically the old Big Eight with the three midwest Big Ten teams replacing Colorado and the Oklahoma schools.
That might possibly not meet with universal approval on this board. And if television markets were a major factor, it would never fly.
This.I agree with the Cornhusker here, Just Say No to Texas. Oklahoma would be a good add and instead of UT we should bring in KU. OU and KU to the BIG West would be good adds.
It certainly wouldnt fly, mainly because it is a far fetched scenario in your own brain.I think it would make more sense to have 8 8-team conferences, A round-robin in every league (double round-robin on hoops), and 8 league champions to go to a playoff. Basically the way the NCAA basketball tournament used to be, prior to becoming almost solely a fundraising event.
The BiG already is too big. My views on this have been expressed (and, to be fair, ignored) on several occasions. When you can't play everybody in your league, you don't really have a league. Hell, that was a problem with the Big Ten when it actually was the Big Ten. And now that you have a collection that includes Nebraska and Rutgers....I mean, come on, give me a break.
Since we're blue-skying, some other things to consider....Central Florida isn't a P5 school, but it would be hard to justify keeping it out of the reorganization. More to the point, what would be the criteria for organizing the leagues/divisions? Geography, obviously, would be the main one Natural rivalries would be considered (although we've seen the end of several of those already, principally Oklahoma-Nebraska and Texas A&M-Texas).
Let's really go unrealistic and assume the NCAA acted like the Iowa high school bosses and just assigned everything regardless of the preferences of the schools (and their fans). One thing you'd probably see would be Iowa, Iowa State, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin and the Kansas schools -- basically the old Big Eight with the three midwest Big Ten teams replacing Colorado and the Oklahoma schools.
That might possibly not meet with universal approval on this board. And if television markets were a major factor, it would never fly.
He also has a propensity to call people out for being obsessed.@Lone Clone i haven’t been around much. But you’re 8 posts from hitting 100,000? That’s a strong blend of impressive and pathetic.
You'd like to think they wouldn't be.Except they wouldn't be calling the shots in this scenario.
Sure there are residual benefits. But the premise of it was the Texas was doing what Texas wanted, regardless of whether all conference teams could have benefited more from putting together a Big 12 Network, just like every other P5 league. The big part of a conference working is the collegiality of the schools and that the sum is better than the parts alone. Texas wanted the conference only for the purposes that it benefited itself. They're a huge brand, and they exhibit terrible leadership with the power they bring to the B12 or any other league. I don't want a school that's only interested in "getting theirs".The hand gesture thing is an embarrassment to the league, and the people responsible should be severely shamed because of that decision.
While the Longhorn Network has been a negative in some ways -- like limiting the audience for the UT-ISU football game this year -- it has been positive in other ways. By retaining the third tier rights, ISU has been able to televise all its non-conference MBB games and some WBB games this year, for instance.
I wouldn't argue with much of that, although the Big XII is better off financially than some conferences that have TV networks. I would -- and have -- argue with the idea that Texas would go to the BiG if the opportunity arose.Sure there are residual benefits. But the premise of it was the Texas was doing what Texas wanted, regardless of whether all conference teams could have benefited more from putting together a Big 12 Network, just like every other P5 league. The big part of a conference working is the collegiality of the schools and that the sum is better than the parts alone. Texas wanted the conference only for the purposes that it benefited itself. They're a huge brand, and they exhibit terrible leadership with the power they bring to the B12 or any other league. I don't want a school that's only interested in "getting theirs".
You'd like to think they wouldn't be.
The point is Nebraska left the B12 to get away from Texas trying to control and influence the conference. The B1G was a perfect fit because this league treats everyone much more fairly wrt policies, and the money made clear sense.
Which is why it’s silly to talk about Texas doing it.This is the B1G. You really think Texas is going to be able to come in here and throw their weight around? Not a chance.
I realize we are just talking, but being serious for a second, do you (or anybody else) honestly think Texas would go to the Big Ten? Take a huge revenue cut? Lose the Longhorn Network? No longer be the biggest dick in the locker room? And perhaps more important, play half their football games in the North? What would be the incentive?
Which is why it’s silly to talk about Texas doing it.
I wouldn't argue with much of that, although the Big XII is better off financially than some conferences that have TV networks. I would -- and have -- argue with the idea that Texas would go to the BiG if the opportunity arose.
I think some of the guys who take part in these repetitive threads greatly overstate the problems facing the Big XII. No question they don't realize the financial situation. Is it as stable as the BiG? No. Is it more stable than the Pac-12? Absolutely.
OF COURSE Texas wants as much power as it can get to improve its own situation. So does Ohio State. So does Iowa. Any school that doesn't is out of its institutional mind. It's in the interest of Ohio State and Iowa, for example, to be in the sharing situation used by the BiG. If it were not in their interest, they would be demanding change or leaving for greener pastures.
And if you think Rutgers or Indiana has as much weight to throw around in the BiG as Ohio State and Michigan, you're kidding yourselves.
See I think the B12 is wobblier than the PAC12 and it's because of the markets, which are ultimately what counts. The PAC12 has done some really stupid things and botched their TV Network which cost them. So short-term, they're a little shaken financially. But long-term, they operate in 9 of the top 30 television markets in the country. The Big 12 operates in 2 of the top 30, one of which it shares with the SEC (Houston). And all that has to happen is one of the big two teams in the B12 deciding they don't like the way things work and it's over. Oklahoma seems like the school that will ultimately decide it wants greener pastures.I wouldn't argue with much of that, although the Big XII is better off financially than some conferences that have TV networks. I would -- and have -- argue with the idea that Texas would go to the BiG if the opportunity arose.
I think some of the guys who take part in these repetitive threads greatly overstate the problems facing the Big XII. No question they don't realize the financial situation. Is it as stable as the BiG? No. Is it more stable than the Pac-12? Absolutely.
OF COURSE Texas wants as much power as it can get to improve its own situation. So does Ohio State. So does Iowa. Any school that doesn't is out of its institutional mind. It's in the interest of Ohio State and Iowa, for example, to be in the sharing situation used by the BiG. If it were not in their interest, they would be demanding change or leaving for greener pastures.
And if you think Rutgers or Indiana has as much weight to throw around in the BiG as Ohio State and Michigan, you're kidding yourselves.
Depends on how important the B1G thinks they are to the success of the conference. I'm not saying they would be allowed to. I'm saying I'd like to hope they wouldn't. Neither you nor I know for sure what future leverage they may hold in negotiations. A person who has shown a propensity to use leverage to benefit themselves in the past will look for opportunities to do it in the future. You don't understand the ego of that program, school and state if you don't think they'll try. Michigan, OSU nor PSU have thought to act in a way that Texas has acted.This is the B1G. You really think Texas is going to be able to come in here and throw their weight around? Not a chance.
For the record, I'm not one who wants to see the Big 12 collapse. I want schools like KSU, KU, ISU, etc...all the schools Nebraska "grew up" with to be treated fairly and do well. I enjoy seeing Iowa State have success. Same goes for the others.I wouldn't argue with much of that, although the Big XII is better off financially than some conferences that have TV networks. I would -- and have -- argue with the idea that Texas would go to the BiG if the opportunity arose.
I think some of the guys who take part in these repetitive threads greatly overstate the problems facing the Big XII. No question they don't realize the financial situation. Is it as stable as the BiG? No. Is it more stable than the Pac-12? Absolutely.
OF COURSE Texas wants as much power as it can get to improve its own situation. So does Ohio State. So does Iowa. Any school that doesn't is out of its institutional mind. It's in the interest of Ohio State and Iowa, for example, to be in the sharing situation used by the BiG. If it were not in their interest, they would be demanding change or leaving for greener pastures.
And if you think Rutgers or Indiana has as much weight to throw around in the BiG as Ohio State and Michigan, you're kidding yourselves.