Future Big 12 FB Opponents/Schedule Announced

[StLouisClone]

It really comes down to this. Every B12 team gets a minimum of a Home and Away with every other B12 team. That leaves room for either 3 fully protected rivals or 6 semi-protected rivals or somewhere in between. ISU ended up with KU, KSU, OSU, WVU, Cincy and UCF as semi-protected rivals. The only real complaint that I hear over and over again is that KSU isn't a fully protected rival. So you are essentially complaining about ONE game that won't be played in 2027. My word. That's nothing especially compared to how dire things looked 2 years ago.

 

[t-noah]

If Penn State can go without a protected rival in the B10, ISU can surely go without one in the B12. Iowa now has more protected rivals (3) than any P5 team in the country. Many of you are asking/demanding for KSU to have ISU as a 2nd protected rival. Maybe they didn't want us.

Don't mean to turn this into Iowa, but why is it that Iowa gets 3 protected rivals again?

 

[2speedy1]

They also want to protect schedule parity. The more protected rivalries the tougher it is to balance everyone's strength of schedule. Think about if Mich St. had Penn St., Mich. and OSU as their protected rivalries and Iowa had Nebby, Minny and Indiana. Is there any way in god's green earth that you could balance out their strength of schedules over time while still trying to get all teams playing all other teams home and away in a four year period? We don't know who is going to be a new stong dynasty going forward. The three best teams could very well be one team's three protected rivals or podmates and the new big dogs of the conference.

Who in the B12 is going to be the best/strongest?

Is there going to be a huge difference top to bottom?

Do we have any Idea who the best and worst are going to be, in order to balance said schedule?

This is the issue, we are scheduling 4+ years out and in any given year we have no idea who is going to be the best the week before the current season begins. Let alone years ahead.

Moving forward, while looking at the current makeup of the B12 everyone seems to be as much on the same level as ever in any conference. And by making it so we schedule everyone every 2 years it is not much difference in the parity vs no protected games. There are ways to play 3 teams every year and still play everyone else home and away in 4 years. As I have said the pod system alone accomplishes that. And who is to say the 3 best teams dont play each other in a given year with this new system they made.

Finally if it was all about parity and equality then why protect any rivalry for anyone, why protect the 4 they did, and none for anyone else. What if it turns out Utah and BYU end up being the best, moving forward, doesnt that destroy the parity narrative being the most important.

 

[VeloClone]

Who in the B12 is going to be the best/strongest?

Is there going to be a huge difference top to bottom?

Do we have any Idea who the best and worst are going to be, in order to balance said schedule?

This is the issue, we are scheduling 4+ years out and in any given year we have no idea who is going to be the best the week before the current season begins. Let alone years ahead.

Moving forward, while looking at the current makeup of the B12 everyone seems to be as much on the same level as ever in any conference. And by making it so we schedule everyone every 2 years it is not much difference in the parity vs no protected games. There are ways to play 3 teams every year and still play everyone else home and away in 4 years. As I have said the pod system alone accomplishes that. And who is to say the 3 best teams dont play each other in a given year with this new system they made.

Finally if it was all about parity and equality then why protect any rivalry for anyone, why protect the 4 they did, and none for anyone else. What if it turns out Utah and BYU end up being the best, moving forward, doesnt that destroy the parity narrative being the most important.

Yeah we don't know who is going to be strong and who isn't. That is the whole point. If someone becomes a perrenial power the team(s) who have them every year are going to generally have a tougher schedule. If two or three teams become regulars at the top of the Big 12 the unlucky team who has all of them every year is going to have a much tougher schedule than a team who has three bottom dwellers every year. Fewer locked in rivalries mean the teams' schedules fully rotate more and nobody is locked into playing the powers every year. Think about if Iowa State had been locked into playing Nebraska, OU and Texas every single year during the height of their power in the early Big 12. Competitive balance over the years would be impossible.

It isn't about balancing schedules in any one year, it is about balancing over time. Teams A and B may have the toughest schedules in year 1 with C and D having the easiest. B and C have tough schedules in year 2, C and D in year 3 and D and A in year 4. With the randomness of the most random scheduling system it will balance out over time. The less randomness in the scheduling (by forcing teams to play every year) the less likely you will have competitive balance over time.

 

[AlaCyclone]

View attachment 118781

This is a GREAT graph! I love the teams ISU has 3 games with instead of 2 in the four year cycle. It looks balanced and fair to me from an ISU point of view. I have no complaints.

 

[chuckd4735]

Don't mean to turn this into Iowa, but why is it that Iowa gets 3 protected rivals again?

Because trophies.

 

[2speedy1]

Yeah we don't know who is going to be strong and who isn't. That is the whole point. If someone becomes a perrenial power the team(s) who have them every year are going to generally have a tougher schedule. If two or three teams become regulars at the top of the Big 12 the unlucky team who has all of them every year is going to have a much tougher schedule than a team who has three bottom dwellers every year. Fewer locked in rivalries mean the teams' schedules fully rotate more and nobody is locked into playing the powers every year. Think about if Iowa State had been locked into playing Nebraska, OU and Texas every single year during the height of their power in the early Big 12. Competitive balance over the years would be impossible.

It isn't about balancing schedules in any one year, it is about balancing over time. Teams A and B may have the toughest schedules in year 1 with C and D having the easiest. B and C have tough schedules in year 2, C and D in year 3 and D and A in year 4. With the randomness of the most random scheduling system it will balance out over time. The less randomness in the scheduling (by forcing teams to play every year) the less likely you will have competitive balance over time.

Well, why protect any games then? Why did they protect 4, if any of that mattered? Why were those given special treatment? If what you say is true then you should use those same reasons for not having the 4 protected games they are having.

That really is my point, most of the excuses being said, should/could be said about the 4 protected games they did. If any of these reasons mattered they should not have protected any games. And if the opposite is true, and it was ok to protect 4 then is should be ok to protect a few more.

 

[Nolaeer]

Honestly WVU and Cinci not being protected is as big of a miss as ISU-KSU. You guys travel enough as is, it'd be nice if they would've helped you out a little bit.

Big 12 really burned some bridges with WVU with this total disregard of travel.
While most WVU fans love the culture of the big 12, this could bite the big 12 in the ass in 2031 if WVU has to choose between the big 12 and ACC and the money is close. especially if Pitt and VT remain in the ACC. We already know the ACC plans to target WVU and TCU, but before this schedule came out, i thought WVU would just laugh at the ACC, but now not so much.

the WVU podcasts lay out why the perception is that the big 12 went out of its way to appease the 4 new pac teams at the expense of the "hateful 8."

 

[exCyDing]

Well, why protect any games then? Why did they protect 4, if any of that mattered? Why were those given special treatment? If what you say is true then you should use those same reasons for not having the 4 protected games they are having.

That really is my point, most of the excuses being said, should/could be said about the 4 protected games they did. If any of these reasons mattered they should not have protected any games. And if the opposite is true, and it was ok to protect 4 then is should be ok to protect a few more.

First, there’s a lot of competing interests and balancing that goes into a decision like this. You’ve got to keep the different institutions happy, and different factions that may/may not exist (Big 8 OGs, Angry 8, former G5s, PAC castaways).

Second, what’s a rival for each school that makes sense, has history, and doesn’t seem contrived? The four already protected are set, no breaking those up.

Third, the K-State rivalry would be a bigger deal if both schools weren’t perennially among the worst major conference teams for most of the 20th century. Also, a trophy might have helped.

 

[StLouisClone]

Big 12 really burned some bridges with WVU with this total disregard of travel.
While most WVU fans love the culture of the big 12, this could bite the big 12 in the ass in 2031 if WVU has to choose between the big 12 and ACC and the money is close. especially if Pitt and VT remain in the ACC. We already know the ACC plans to target WVU and TCU, but before this schedule came out, i thought WVU would just laugh at the ACC, but now not so much.

the WVU podcasts lay out why the perception is that the big 12 went out of its way to appease the 4 new pac teams at the expense of the "hateful 8."

WVU has semi-protected rivalries with ISU, KU, OSU, TTU, Cincy and UCF. I understand that WVU would have liked a fully-protected rivalry with Cincinnati. What else would you have liked? Otherwise, it seem you are complaining about ONE game and just grasping for a reason to complain (similar to a few ISU fans on here).

 

[AppleCornCy]

But we named it Farmageddon!!!! Don't you know that adding a stupid name like that to a game in the last 10 -15 years makes it a BIG TIME rivalry?

I’m pretty sure the Farmageddon name was created as a joke. People didn’t understand why Iowa State and K-State were playing at Arrowhead and somebody called it Farmageddon to poke fun at it.

 

[Nolaeer]

WVU has semi-protected rivalries with ISU, KU, OSU, TTU, Cincy and UCF. I understand that WVU would have liked a fully-protected rivalry with Cincinnati. What else would you have liked? Otherwise, it seem you are complaining about ONE game and just grasping for a reason to complain (similar to a few ISU fans on here).

View attachment 118788

Yeah, im not whining, im conveying sentiment from WVU people. Shortly, we'll hear what the WVU ad has to say about it. He was for regional pods, but obviously that didnt pan out. We do know Colorado is happy with the schedule. maybe it WAS a priority to make the 4 pac teams happy, but that couldve been done with pods. shrug.

 

[StLouisClone]

Pods would have been difficult with 5 teams out West and 3 teams out East. What we got is a reasonable compromise as each team gets "extra" games against teams in their region.

 

[06_CY]

Don't mean to turn this into Iowa, but why is it that Iowa gets 3 protected rivals again?

Because the Big10 is stupid.

 

[2speedy1]

First, there’s a lot of competing interests and balancing that goes into a decision like this. You’ve got to keep the different institutions happy, and different factions that may/may not exist (Big 8 OGs, Angry 8, former G5s, PAC castaways).

Second, what’s a rival for each school that makes sense, has history, and doesn’t seem contrived? The four already protected are set, no breaking those up.

Third, the K-State rivalry would be a bigger deal if both schools weren’t perennially among the worst major conference teams for most of the 20th century. Also, a trophy might have helped.

Its not only about it being so much as a "rivalry" its about protecting interesting or regional games etc.

For instance Cincy/WVU, Why not protect a game that is close for them regionally and has some history? OSU/TT for same reasons.

Are these games the knock out rivalries of some, maybe not, but they have history, they have regionality, and they have interest. It doesnt have to be a "manufactured" rivalry.

But again, why is it important to make 8 teams happy with 4 protected games, while not the other 8?

Everyone keeps saying you have to keep everyone happy, then shouldnt everyone have the same thing? either no protected game or 1, or 2 or 3. Whatever that is, if its about making everyone equal, everyone have parity, either you have to give protected games/pod, or none.

This is my entire point, if parity matters, if equality matters, if competitive equality or interests is that big of a deal that everyone keeps saying, they why have any protected games at all? Because once you protect any those excuses go out the window, unless you make it the same for everyone.

 

[Aclone]

Just to play Devil’s advocate, I could see where ASU and Utah said something, “hey, we’ll only join if you protect our Instate rivalry!” Or at least, made it a strong request. And then the Big12 said, **** it, we may as well do Kansas-KU, too.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Just to play Devil’s advocate, I could see where ASU and Utah said something, “hey, we’ll only join if you protect our Instate rivalry!” Or at least, made it a strong request. And then the Big12 said, **** it, we may as well do Kansas-KU, too.

I’m not sure why it’s difficult to understand.

It seems they set parameters that if you have an in-state rival, they’ll make that an annual game. If not, then you can get a game 3 out of 4 years or 2 out of 4 years. The only schools they didn’t do this for is Texas Tech and Houston. But those two schools are 500 miles away.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Big 12 really burned some bridges with WVU with this total disregard of travel.
While most WVU fans love the culture of the big 12, this could bite the big 12 in the ass in 2031 if WVU has to choose between the big 12 and ACC and the money is close. especially if Pitt and VT remain in the ACC. We already know the ACC plans to target WVU and TCU, but before this schedule came out, i thought WVU would just laugh at the ACC, but now not so much.

the WVU podcasts lay out why the perception is that the big 12 went out of its way to appease the 4 new pac teams at the expense of the "hateful 8."

The ACC is a dead man walking and they know it, plus WV would be out in a NY minute if they ever got an offer to join the ACC unless it's after most of the better schools have left and they are on the verge of collapse.

I like the way they did the new schedule and that we will be playing everyone home and away every four-year cycle. No one weak division, one strong division that is the B10 and was the SEC until Georgia came on. Gives everyone an equal opportunity to win the conference and get into the playoffs.

 

[HawaiiClone]

LOL. Force feeding? Dumbest thing ever. I will add my final thoughts and exit the thread. There are too many short-term thinkers here.

Maybe I am biased since I live here, but KC is the hub of the conference. Anything that snips away at that fabric will hurt ISU in the long-term.

KSU-ISU may not be a national rivalry, let's face it, no ISU game has national interest. But KSU-ISU is a regional rivalry. All three "local" teams have big games this weekend. KU/ISU, MU/UG, KSU/UT. These stories have been on nightly news and local talk radio every single day this week. If KSU and ISU meet later with first/second place on the line, it will be huge here.

Anytime I am out with ISU gear, I am constantly told by strangers or merchants, "Hey, we love you ISU fans for the Big 12 MBB tourney!" ISU has a strong presence here.

People pretend we do not lose anything by losing the KSU (or KU) game. But they have no response to what did ISU gain? A third game against UCF. Is that a good tradeoff? Only an idiot would think so.

And we all know it would not have been that hard to have three rival games every year (KSU, KU, and one of CU/OSU/Cincy). Would someone have gotten a poor travel deal? Probably. But **** Houston, UCF, or some other newbie. This is our conference.

So fine if many of you want to mock those of us that care about this and say "calm down, it is just one year."

I guess I will wait and see what the reaction is when the conference rotates the MBB tourney out to Vegas for a couple of years. "Calm down, it is just two years."

Short-sighted to let our regional strength around KC be eroded.

I would love if the KState game didn't take any years off, but maybe this is the spark needed to somehow add excitement to the rivalry which it could use. When I look here on Cyclone Fanatic during the week of the game, I don't see the anticipation and discussion about the game and its history that seems possible and maybe this will shake things up.

Another thing, the matchup does get priority over 9 other matchups so it has been prioritized in that sense. And the other games that are played just as often are mostly regional and historical matchups as well. KU and OSU are obvious, but WV and Cincinnati are northern teams in the eastern part of the conference like ISU. UCF is the biggest outlier, but they are also in the eastern part of the conference so it makes sense for them to be in the mix.

 

[frackincygy]

Feel bad for those who didn't get a little extra joy out of the 2018 4th quarter stormback to "slay the vampire" or Breece housing his first carry against the purple power kitties in 2021; because it was against the purple power kitties. Also think it is unfortunate a series with a continuous 100+ years of history will see that streak end.

That said, I understand this is the world we now live in and since its ******* sportsball, I'm not going to let it impact my life or sour my mood.