Why do OSU-Michgan and Texas-Oklahoma have to be in the same Division?

Redwood Forrest · Mar 15, 2016

Can someone explain to me why Ohio State and Michigan think they have to be in the same Division in order to play every year? Why do Oklahoma and Texas think they have to be in the same Division? Alabama-Tennessee and Auburn-Georgia are not in the same Division, are huge rivalries and play each year.

When Division imbalance comes up it seems that is always the excuse, they have to play every year. I don't understand their thinking. If I remember right that was the reason both Texas and Oklahoma were in the South of the Big 12.

WylieTexasTider · Mar 15, 2016

In the case of the B12 they had no permanent cross division opponents. Honestly, having none cost us one of the better rivalries in Nebraska-OU. The problem was besides that rivalry their were no other North-South historic rivalries. Early on the B12 North was the better division with Nebraska, K-St and Colorado....

selmaborntidefan · Mar 15, 2016

I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb here and guess that the North-South alignment was.....geographical.

CrimsonEyeshade · Mar 15, 2016

It's not a stretch to say we used a version of the same argument when we insisted that we play Auburn and Tennessee every year.

Redwood Forrest · Mar 15, 2016

selmaborntidefan said:
I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb here and guess that the North-South alignment was.....geographical.

Yes, but it weakens the conference when one Division wins all the time. We pretty much know the B1G will be won by the East most of the time, especially now that Michigan is coming back and Wisconsin fading.

The South won 11 of 15 in the Big 12 title game. I am not optimistic that expansion will do much good if they go with all the power still in the south. I still don't understand that at all. In fact, I will go on record and say Kansas St, Kansas and Iowa State won't win a Big 12 Title if they do go back to a CG.

Of course there is no much you can do when you have one dominant team, like Florida was and now Alabama. But at least they were in different divisions.

B1GTide · Mar 15, 2016

CrimsonEyeshade said:
It's not a stretch to say we used a version of the same argument when we insisted that we play Auburn and Tennessee every year.

This - The alignments in the B1G are to protect traditional rivalries.

crimsonaudio · Mar 15, 2016

Teams come and go over time - UF and UT reeled off six straight SECCG wins in the 90's. You don't realign every time there's an imbalance.

WylieTexasTider · Mar 15, 2016

Redwood Forrest said:
Yes, but it weakens the conference when one Division wins all the time. We pretty much know the B1G will be won by the East most of the time, especially now that Michigan is coming back and Wisconsin fading.

The South won 11 of 15 in the Big 12 title game. I am not optimistic that expansion will do much good if they go with all the power still in the south. I still don't understand that at all. In fact, I will go on record and say Kansas St, Kansas and Iowa State won't win a Big 12 Title if they do go back to a CG.

Of course there is no much you can do when you have one dominant team, like Florida was and now Alabama. But at least they were in different divisions.

When the conference was created Texas and OU were a joke. Nebraska, K-State and Colorado were the powers....

Texas had gone 34-20-2 the 5 years before the Big 12 was created. OU had gone 34-21-3

Nebraska had gone 53-6-1, Colorado 46-11-3, K-St 40-7-1.

Heck, Kansas had won 35 games in the same time period Texas and OU only won 34. Okie St only won 14 games in the 5 years leading up to the Big 12. Therefore, when they came up with the divisions all the pundits were screaming that the South was a joke and the North would DESTROY the South. In the end they were WAY WRONG!

DzynKingRTR · Mar 15, 2016

B1GTide said:
This - The alignments in the B1G are to protect traditional rivalries.

Yep they had to protect Indiana-Purdue and Illinois-Northwestern.

Redwood Forrest · Mar 15, 2016

CrimsonEyeshade said:
It's not a stretch to say we used a version of the same argument when we insisted that we play Auburn and Tennessee every year.

Please explain this further. We do play our "biggest" rival without having to be in the same division. This is what I can't understand about B12 and B1G. The CLAIM they can't do it??? If the SEC can do it, why can't they?

B1GTide · Mar 15, 2016

Redwood Forrest said:
Please explain this further. We do play our "biggest" rival without having to be in the same division. This is what I can't understand about B12 and B1G. The CLAIM they can't do it??? If the SEC can do it, why can't they?

I laid it all out in another thread once, but it is not as simple as you make it seem when you have multiple rivalry games within a conference, and those rivalries all involve the same 3-4 teams.

RTR91 · Mar 15, 2016

How else are some of the B1G schools going to be able to hold up a trophy every few years? Know it's not from bowl wins.

http://www.waitingfornextyear.com/2015/10/big-ten-trophy-power-rankings/

B1GTide · Mar 15, 2016

RTR91 said:
How else are some of the B1G schools going to be able to hold up a trophy every few years? Know it's not from bowl wins.

Yeah, it sure has been a long time since the B1G won a national championship. :wink:

CrimsonEyeshade · Mar 15, 2016

Redwood Forrest said:
Please explain this further. We do play our "biggest" rival without having to be in the same division. This is what I can't understand about B12 and B1G. The CLAIM they can't do it??? If the SEC can do it, why can't they?

What you say is absolutely true, Redwood, if you believe Tennessee is our biggest rival. I believe Auburn is. Either way, Alabama fought tooth and nail to keep both schools on our annual schedule. Thus, we have also contributed to the biggest mismatch in college football over the last decade -- the SEC West vs. the SEC East.

selmaborntidefan · Mar 15, 2016

Redwood Forrest said:
Can someone explain to me why Ohio State and Michigan think they have to be in the same Division in order to play every year? Why do Oklahoma and Texas think they have to be in the same Division? Alabama-Tennessee and Auburn-Georgia are not in the same Division, are huge rivalries and play each year.

1) Well just taking a look at it, the divisional breakdowns in both the new Big 10 and the old Big 12 were strictly geographic.

2) Auburn is our biggest rival? I know they like to think so. However, long-time fans and attendees at UA can recall a time when either we didn't play Auburn (pre-1947) or Auburn was a 'new' opponent without a long history. In 1987, in fact, President Joab Thomas proposed ENDING the annual Iron Bowl, a pretty incredible proposal given that at that time Alabama athletics were swimming in debt and needed the money Auburn as opposed to Western Carolina would bring. Tim Brandt featured this in his lead-in to the 1987 Iron Bowl telecast - at kickoff, the certainty of future Iron Bowls was in serious doubt.

3) The Big 12 was also divided geographically; now they don't even have divisions.

Redwood Forrest said:
When Division imbalance comes up it seems that is always the excuse, they have to play every year. I don't understand their thinking. If I remember right that was the reason both Texas and Oklahoma were in the South of the Big 12.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it was geographical.

Redwood Forrest said:
Yes, but it weakens the conference when one Division wins all the time.

Was the 1970s SEC weak because Alabama won the SEC every year but one between 1971-1979?

Is the Pac 12 weak because of all those titles in a row USC won?

But let's consider more recent evidence:

2007 - West Division champion wins it all
2008 - East Division champion wins it all
2009 - West Division champion wins it all
2010 - West Division champion wins it all
2011 - West Division champion meets West Division runner-up for BCS title, runner-up wins it all
2012 - West Division champion wins it all
2013 - West Division champion comes within 12 seconds of winning it all
2014 - West Division champion makes first-ever playoff as #1 overall seed
2015 - West Division champion wins it all

Yeah, you may have a point here.....

Redwood Forrest said:
We pretty much know the B1G will be won by the East most of the time, especially now that Michigan is coming back and Wisconsin fading.

We don't 'know' any such thing. Remember when the SEC East won six SEC titles in a row, 7 of 8, and 10 out of 14 (1993-2006)?

Redwood Forrest said:
The South won 11 of 15 in the Big 12 title game.

True but how is that any different from the East winning 10 of 14 in the SEC as pointed out above?

Would ANYONE nowadays suggest the SEC East will ever win another SEC title game? But they will. The whole thing runs in cycles.

Redwood Forrest said:
I am not optimistic that expansion will do much good if they go with all the power still in the south. I still don't understand that at all. In fact, I will go on record and say Kansas St, Kansas and Iowa State won't win a Big 12 Title if they do go back to a CG.

Yeah, I mean it's not like Kansas State played in the Big 12 title game when there were 12 teams (actually, they did three times and actually drilled 'the greatest team ever' in OU in 2003).

And do you not recall that in 2007, Kansas was in contention until they lost to Mizzou?

And Iowa State contended in 2002, 2004, and 2005 but fell off late in the season.

Would anybody in 2013 have picked Mississippi State to be ranked #1 in 2014?

Redwood Forrest said:
Of course there is no much you can do when you have one dominant team, like Florida was and now Alabama. But at least they were in different divisions.

The balance of power has shifted to the West in the last decade. This will eventually change. I'll grant that Vanderbilt will probably never win the division title and probably not Kentucky, either but it's certainly plausible for the other five teams.

Missouri has managed to win two Eastern titles despite only four years in the league.

Redwood Forrest · Mar 16, 2016

Was the 1970s SEC weak because Alabama won the SEC every year but one between 1971-1979?

Is the Pac 12 weak because of all those titles in a row USC won?

But let's consider more recent evidence:

The key point is "division". When North or South, East or West wins most of the games it is NOT competitive.

gtgilbert · Mar 16, 2016

CrimsonEyeshade said:
What you say is absolutely true, Redwood, if you believe Tennessee is our biggest rival. I believe Auburn is. Either way, Alabama fought tooth and nail to keep both schools on our annual schedule. Thus, we have also contributed to the biggest mismatch in college football over the last decade -- the SEC West vs. the SEC East.

I don't think the alignments we fought for have caused the mismatches in east v West over the last 10 years. I think it was just that Bama emerged as the dominant force in the conference and the barn got lucky a couple of years coupled with the implosion of both FL and TN (which perhaps Bama had something to do with). Supposed TN had been in the W and the barn in the east - would much have changed in the last 10 years. We'd have still beaten TN just as we did, and had auburn as our cross division and beaten them. Perhaps we would have played them again in the championship game after their second miracle win, and actually would have beaten them creating even more "Imbalance". The only year that might have changed would have been the $cam newton year taking the title to the east. All else stays the same. I think now with smart at UGA and CJM down in FL we'll see them start to even things out.

CrimsonEyeshade · Mar 16, 2016

GTG, good thoughts. I believe that Auburn and Alabama in the same division contributes to the imbalance. It is not the sole reason. My bigger point is whether we think AU or UT is our biggest rival, the SEC was aligned for us to play them both every year. I don't see how that's much different than the other conferences.

And as far as imbalances go ... One division in the SEC has Vanderbilt, Kentucky and Missouri ... Nuff said.

gtgilbert said:
I don't think the alignments we fought for have caused the mismatches in east v West over the last 10 years. I think it was just that Bama emerged as the dominant force in the conference and the barn got lucky a couple of years coupled with the implosion of both FL and TN (which perhaps Bama had something to do with). Supposed TN had been in the W and the barn in the east - would much have changed in the last 10 years. We'd have still beaten TN just as we did, and had auburn as our cross division and beaten them. Perhaps we would have played them again in the championship game after their second miracle win, and actually would have beaten them creating even more "Imbalance". The only year that might have changed would have been the $cam newton year taking the title to the east. All else stays the same. I think now with smart at UGA and CJM down in FL we'll see them start to even things out.

capnfrog · Mar 16, 2016

I have always thought that the BIG was aligned more so for basketball than football.

Why do OSU-Michgan and Texas-Oklahoma have to be in the same Division?

Hall of Fame

All-American

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Administrator

All-American

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Super Moderator

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

TideFans Legend

Hall of Fame

All-American

Hall of Fame

All-American

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!