I must admit this last several months has been by far the most exciting off-season I can ever remember - and not just because we're #1. The shuffles, the bluffing, the high stakes poker of big-time CFB and what we've had is a minimal realignment at best. I also think that the greed of the UT is going to destroy the Big 12 inside and out and very soon. Let's just use a little logic here. (I will use the FAMILIAR designations - please nobody write me and say "it is now the Pac 12" blah blah. That's because the Big 12 is tough enough to figure out, so we'll just call the Texas-OU the Big 12 for brevity's sake).
Texas decided it is the 'belle of the ball.' And sure, they have an attractive product in a number of sports. But this probably did them (and their co-conspirators) in more than they realize.
1) The Pac-Ten now has a conference playoff. Remember all those times when the Big 12 had them a team highly ranked that scooted in the championship game despite losing their only tough regular season game? Well the SOS for the Pac 12 will now offset that somewhat. Despite the problems at USC, they ARE STILL USC. A team that beats them this year in particular (when they will no doubt start pretty high based on rep) will get a boost. That extra game may well be the difference (just go ask Florida 2006) in who gets to play for all the marbles.
2) The scheduling just got more difficult for the Big 12-2. The Big 10 and Pac 10 now have some changes to make. I suspect the Big Ten will now go to an eight-game conference schedule, five in division and three out. Pac 10 will probably do the same. That means out of 12 games, eight are predetermined. And I also suspect in the case of Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State that a NINTH game is determined: Notre Dame (at least for now). That leaves three games for some to schedule and four for others. How many of those do you think want to schedule September games in Texas?
3) This does little more than regionalize the Big 12. Sure, Texas is a draw. But how many of you have even watched a NON-BOWL GAME involving Texas Tech playing anyone OTHER than Texas in the past 20 years? Maybe one - the 2008 game with Oklahoma because that one had implications nationally.
But your interest in THAT game was why? Because Alabama was unbeaten and it was all coming together. If that game had been played between those same teams in November 2007 - would you have watched it? Probably not. Consider the other co-conspirators here.
Baylor? Get real. I haven't seen Baylor play since Grant Teaff's last game.
Oklahoma State? Other than their bowl games, how many games has OK State played against teams OTHER than OU or Texas that you even cared to watch? And you probably only watch the OU game because OU is a draw (I'll bet you never watched those games in the late 1990s, did you?) - and because the game is played during the Thanksgiving break.
When is the last time you saw Kansas play in FOOTBALL and actually cared? I guess at the end of the 2007 season and that was probably the ONLY time you've ever cared. What about K-State? K-State has played THREE games of significance in its entire history of losing: the Big 12 title games in 1998 and 2003, and the 1998 game against Nebraska. If I'm not mistaken, those are the only three K-State games I've seen in my entire life. And I didn't watch all of any of those games.
Iowa State? Other than the 2001 Independence Bowl, how many ISU games have you watched? In my case, one - Nebraska 2002. (How many of you have noticed that the ONLY time you ever watched these small schools was when they played Nebraska, OU, or Texas?).
That leaves us with three teams: aTm, Texas, and OU. And a lot of us (yours truly) turned on aTm during the Fran Ran era. Outside of Texas other than Aggies, how many even care? How many non-bowl games that aTm plays have you watched OTHER than Texas? I'd say it's probably in the single digits.
Now I say all of that droning to say this: what just happened is that Texas just REDUCED the reach of its lesser foes. They will find it more difficult to schedule games against the Big Ten and Pac Ten simply because those schools will now be more careful in scheduling. They will have to be because of the title game. (And I'm not so sure the Big Ten won't have a NINE-GAME rotation with only 3 OOCs). Plus there will be some hard feelings and let's face it - if you can sell out an Iowa Hawkeyes game by scheduling N Iowa, why would you replace them with Oklahoma State or Baylor?
You then throw in the fact that Nebraska imho has the most passionate fans in the Big 12 (and my brother would rate them ahead of us). They will be rejuvenated, and I'm guessing that Big Ten West will be easier than the East (Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, and one of the Indy teams).
Oh and btw - if it comes down to an either/or between Big Ten Nebraska or a Big 12 school INCLUDING the Big 2 - guess who gets the call for the big cahuna?
4) The bottom line is this: Texas wants its own network blah blah. But to make that work you also need quality opponents and outreach. Let's face it - with Nebraska gone the Big 12 is now Texas and Oklahoma. Sure, Kansas has two teams, but other than KU in b-ball does either have anything resembling a NATIONAL following? And how many KU fans are going to tune in to watch reruns of the Jayhawks getting slaughtered by UT on the rebroadcast?
Otoh - if they had gone to the Pac Ten then guess what? All of a sudden California, Oregon, and Washington have to take an extreme interest in what Texas is doing. (Well, maybe not Washington in these days but both teams will eventually improve). The Pac Ten just extended their significance eastward to both Utah and Colorado. The Big Ten just extended theirs to a crown jewel in football when it's hitting on all cylinders.
The Big 12, meanwhile, is like those kids you played with who suddenly made up rules on the spot when it was clear they were going to lose. They shrunk the playing field, shrunk their influence, and now nobody outside of two states even cares.
They will still be looking up at the SEC, but they will also be looking up at the Big and Pac Ten conferences very soon.
Texas decided it is the 'belle of the ball.' And sure, they have an attractive product in a number of sports. But this probably did them (and their co-conspirators) in more than they realize.
1) The Pac-Ten now has a conference playoff. Remember all those times when the Big 12 had them a team highly ranked that scooted in the championship game despite losing their only tough regular season game? Well the SOS for the Pac 12 will now offset that somewhat. Despite the problems at USC, they ARE STILL USC. A team that beats them this year in particular (when they will no doubt start pretty high based on rep) will get a boost. That extra game may well be the difference (just go ask Florida 2006) in who gets to play for all the marbles.
2) The scheduling just got more difficult for the Big 12-2. The Big 10 and Pac 10 now have some changes to make. I suspect the Big Ten will now go to an eight-game conference schedule, five in division and three out. Pac 10 will probably do the same. That means out of 12 games, eight are predetermined. And I also suspect in the case of Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State that a NINTH game is determined: Notre Dame (at least for now). That leaves three games for some to schedule and four for others. How many of those do you think want to schedule September games in Texas?
3) This does little more than regionalize the Big 12. Sure, Texas is a draw. But how many of you have even watched a NON-BOWL GAME involving Texas Tech playing anyone OTHER than Texas in the past 20 years? Maybe one - the 2008 game with Oklahoma because that one had implications nationally.
But your interest in THAT game was why? Because Alabama was unbeaten and it was all coming together. If that game had been played between those same teams in November 2007 - would you have watched it? Probably not. Consider the other co-conspirators here.
Baylor? Get real. I haven't seen Baylor play since Grant Teaff's last game.
Oklahoma State? Other than their bowl games, how many games has OK State played against teams OTHER than OU or Texas that you even cared to watch? And you probably only watch the OU game because OU is a draw (I'll bet you never watched those games in the late 1990s, did you?) - and because the game is played during the Thanksgiving break.
When is the last time you saw Kansas play in FOOTBALL and actually cared? I guess at the end of the 2007 season and that was probably the ONLY time you've ever cared. What about K-State? K-State has played THREE games of significance in its entire history of losing: the Big 12 title games in 1998 and 2003, and the 1998 game against Nebraska. If I'm not mistaken, those are the only three K-State games I've seen in my entire life. And I didn't watch all of any of those games.
Iowa State? Other than the 2001 Independence Bowl, how many ISU games have you watched? In my case, one - Nebraska 2002. (How many of you have noticed that the ONLY time you ever watched these small schools was when they played Nebraska, OU, or Texas?).
That leaves us with three teams: aTm, Texas, and OU. And a lot of us (yours truly) turned on aTm during the Fran Ran era. Outside of Texas other than Aggies, how many even care? How many non-bowl games that aTm plays have you watched OTHER than Texas? I'd say it's probably in the single digits.
Now I say all of that droning to say this: what just happened is that Texas just REDUCED the reach of its lesser foes. They will find it more difficult to schedule games against the Big Ten and Pac Ten simply because those schools will now be more careful in scheduling. They will have to be because of the title game. (And I'm not so sure the Big Ten won't have a NINE-GAME rotation with only 3 OOCs). Plus there will be some hard feelings and let's face it - if you can sell out an Iowa Hawkeyes game by scheduling N Iowa, why would you replace them with Oklahoma State or Baylor?
You then throw in the fact that Nebraska imho has the most passionate fans in the Big 12 (and my brother would rate them ahead of us). They will be rejuvenated, and I'm guessing that Big Ten West will be easier than the East (Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, and one of the Indy teams).
Oh and btw - if it comes down to an either/or between Big Ten Nebraska or a Big 12 school INCLUDING the Big 2 - guess who gets the call for the big cahuna?
4) The bottom line is this: Texas wants its own network blah blah. But to make that work you also need quality opponents and outreach. Let's face it - with Nebraska gone the Big 12 is now Texas and Oklahoma. Sure, Kansas has two teams, but other than KU in b-ball does either have anything resembling a NATIONAL following? And how many KU fans are going to tune in to watch reruns of the Jayhawks getting slaughtered by UT on the rebroadcast?
Otoh - if they had gone to the Pac Ten then guess what? All of a sudden California, Oregon, and Washington have to take an extreme interest in what Texas is doing. (Well, maybe not Washington in these days but both teams will eventually improve). The Pac Ten just extended their significance eastward to both Utah and Colorado. The Big Ten just extended theirs to a crown jewel in football when it's hitting on all cylinders.
The Big 12, meanwhile, is like those kids you played with who suddenly made up rules on the spot when it was clear they were going to lose. They shrunk the playing field, shrunk their influence, and now nobody outside of two states even cares.
They will still be looking up at the SEC, but they will also be looking up at the Big and Pac Ten conferences very soon.
DT_old:
