You guys HAVE to see this one...(LINK)

Omaha World-Herald writer Lee Barfknecht (also known as Barf to us Husker fans because most of his columns make us barf), somewhere, got this crazy idea for Big 12 realignment that puts OU and UT in separate divisions. The idea, in and of itself, is stupid, but it will never happen either.

Keep in mind, I'm posting this to give you guys some comedic relief.
The Link

 

It's not that outrageous. The ACC separated Florida State and Miami.

But you're probably right... No way Texas agrees to be on the other side from A&M and Baylor, and has to choose between OU and A&M for an annual exemption.

 

The only realignment needed is to drop the bottom feeder then add TCU. Oh how I would miss aggy.

 

I would die a little inside if we stopped playing OU every year, but dropping a&m altogether wouldn't bother me one bit. I'm probably in the minority there, however.

 

I was thinking the same thing, I wouldn't mind dropping A&M; they really don't bring anything to the table, nationally anyway. I know they beat us the last two years but that seems to be the anomaly. If the league keeps going the way it is then the Big XII will be called the Big XII South and those other guys.

 

How would the east/west split help the under-performers? They'd still get their asses handed to them by the "southerly located" teams. Does the loss hurt less if it's a division game? That's just 'tarded.

 

I hate playing A&M. Even when they are good. The OU rivalry I actually enjoy, but if A&M dropped football and Texas never had to play them again I wouldn't mind a bit.

 

Not a chance in hell this would happen.

 

How about The Big 16 Conference:
South: UT, aTm, Baylor, UH
Plains: OU, OKSt, KU, KSt
North: TCU, Mo, Neb, ISU
West: CU, TT, BYU, Utah

You play everyone in your "section" and randomly 2 from each other section every year (9 conference games - so one less OOC). The 2 highest-rated teams (using BCS standings) play in the Big 16 Championship every year. You'd be eliminating the RRR 2 out of every 4 years, but you could potentially set up the Championship game to become the RRR.

 

the Big XII and other 12 team conferences should drop to 10 teams, the smaller conferences should move up to 10 teams. All should be 10 teams, every team should play a round robin plus 2 OOC games, maybe 3 but I prefer an 11 game schedule (9 conference games plus 2 OOC) which is the amount of games 1-AA plays, they have a 16 team playoff and they play 11 regular season games.

that's the first step towards getting a playoff, getting all teams on the same page in terms of conference games and total games played.

not that a playoff will ever happen...

 

As important, maybe, is that as the Big XII South exists now, the Horns play bus-distance Baylor and aggy, OU in Dallas, and Okie Lite at worst in Stoolwater every other year.

In addition to the travel/lodging added costs to Horns fans to swap travel to Waco/BCS/Dallas/Stillwater to Colo/Neb/Kansas, etc., there is a reason why Texas plays Rice in Houston.

Recruiting exposure.

Wow, it'd be great for local prep talent in the state of Kansas to get a first hand look at the Longhorns, as compared to being showcased in Dallas or Houston.

Huh?

 

My re-alignment plan:

Eliminate North-South divisions and CCG, add a ninth Big 12 game. Set future schedules (with that addl. game) so that UT, OU & NU play each other every year, then name team with best conference record as Big 12 champions. In event of tie, use H-to-H or just have co-champs.

 

How about The Big 16 Conference:

---

 

If they asked me, I'd say just have everyone play each other, plus 2 OOC games.

Heck, to win the title, you have to play 9 conference games. So what if you added one more?

Then you wouldn't have the completely arbitrary "win one game and win the conference" BS. Yes, we benefited from this once (96), but it also cost us twice (99 and 01).

 

I argree that doing away with the annual OU/Texas Game does nothing but hurt College Football. When we did away with our annual Nebraska game it diminished the rivalry to where it almost doesn't exist. I suppose it could rekindle if they ever get off of bottom feeder status but it still doesn't have that every season bite that makes it important.

I really would like to see those schools that consistently underachieve replaced. But that opens a whole can of worms in itself. A school that is traditionally a poor football school may be good in another sport such as wrestling or another sport nobody cares about.

Really as long as we are stuck with the BCS (which is ok with me) the setup we currently have is working well. The solution to the North sucking is for them to get better. Moving Oklahoma or Texas may change which division the title goes to most years but it won't in reality satisfy those schools that haven't won one. Because that is really what they want, to be relevant. We can't do that for them, that have to do that for themselves.

 

We could call it the Big 8. I'm down for that!

 

what if we re-created the conference with varsity and junior varsity?

varsity
texas
oklahoma
nebraska
texas tech
okie state
mizzou

jv
aTm
baylor
kansas
kansas state
iowa state
colorado

we all play in our division and pick 3 from the jv every year.

 

As long as we are in fantasyland, why not go indy?

Regularly scheduled games:
Rice (for Houston exposure-- don't mess with UH and their "stands.") 2H/1A
Baylor (pad the record just a little) H/H
Tech H/H
OU RRS
A&M H/H

Frequent opponents (about 3 of these a year):
Not Arkansas-- let them recruit our state some other way
Not OK aggy-- 21-2 but that dog will bite us some day for little to no upside
TCU-- even if they can be like a cockroach
Nebraska-- class and history
ND-- love 'em or hate 'em, they get TV exposure
Navy-- another indy with a following, kind of a SOS hit though
UTEP-- get more exposure in far west TX, they sometimes suck less than others

Occasional opponents (four more to round out the schedule):
Big name school willing to trade blows a la tOSU
A couple of "others receiving votes" types, like what passes for leaders in the Big East
One more schedule padder to separate the big games, maybe a Pac-10 team

We could have our own network deal and BCS backdoor.

 

I like the indy idea as well. Negotiating our own tv deal would be nice, and keeping our bowl money would be sweet.

Also, we could revisit the superconference idea as well. Getting out of it unscathed in football would be hell, but I imagine the champ would play for the title way more often than not.

 

Horrible idea. This would essentially guarantee a UT-OU championship game every year and render the original RRS in mid-October meaningless.

 

Just abandon the Big 12 and become freelance like Notre Dame.

 

You can realign the conference any way you want, but the bottom feeders (ISU, KSU, aggy, etc.) are still gonna have a hard time consistently winning anything.

The idea of doing away with the RRR just sucks.

Dropping down to a ten team conference won't work either. No matter how many teams you have, Texas and OU will win consistently, and one or two teams won't win much at all.

Somebody up above said it best...you're not gonna be able to legislate competive balance. It's up to Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, and maybe Kansas to step up to the plate and make themselves consistently competitive. They have the wherewithal to do it. What's been lacking for most of the life of the Big XII is their desire, their will, to compete evenly with the south.

 

I'm for dropping to 10 games and having 9 conf games. Problem is that none of the teams will be willing to leave. Baylor might be able to be a TCU if they did not play in the Big 12. However, they would take a financial hit.

I think this arrangement would be great for tv. You get TX-Neb, OU-Neb, TX-CU, etc every year. Instead you get these matchups every couple of years.

In basketball you get two matchups a season against the north teams (e.g. UT-KU) instead of just one. Also good for tv.

It would be a bear though to make it through undefeated in football.