They had a much better crowd last night.
Unofficial quote from a randown UCLA player:
"Where did all of these fugging fans come from?"
Big 12 Expansion (new thread)
- Thread starter Gilbyone
- Start date
Unofficial quote from a randown UCLA player:
"Where did all of these fugging fans come from?"
Answer was Louisiana.
You can’t do this under the current rules but the SEC might try to get the rule changed so who knows.
I don’t think the concept of “divisions” hurt so much as all of the power going into one of them. The new Big 12 is not going to have a few dominating brands that are way more powerful than the rest. The biggest brand in the league is BYU.
If it's no true division but 3-pod for scheduling, could do it this way. 3 games vs pod each season, 3 games (rotating) vs each of other 2 pods.
Advantage: More natural geographic/traditional — notably, keeps together Remaining Old-Big 8, ex-AAC and Ex-SWC (with exception of Houston).
(Division titles mainly for amusement.)
BIG PLAINS
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
BIG SOUTHEAST
Cincinnati
Houston
UCF
West Virginia
WEST-BY-SOUTHWEST
BYU
Baylor
TCU
Texas Tech
The thing is that we want to keep playing "old Big 8" but if you asked OSU fans, coaches, admin, most of them would take playing with the Texas schools over ISU/KU/KSU for sure.
BYU, Baylor, TCU, Texas Tech, Houston, Oklahoma State in one division, and Iowa State, Kansas, K-State, Cincinnati, West Virginia, UCF in the other is both a geographic split (West/East) and keeps every school playing all of the ones that they want to keep playing as much as possible.
If we keep 9 conference games, we would play 4/6 of the West division teams every year, or two road games. Since 2/3rd of that division is in Texas, it would be possible to design schedules that allow for every East team to play in Texas every season.
And not that this should be the deciding factor but it is good for league continuity IMO to put 4 existing schools + 2 new ones in each of the divisions.
Last edited:
As we all know, playing in a pro stadium really helps your visibility and team interest. Just ask Temple and USF.
I agree I don't expect my Tri-Pod idea to happen - if schedule is structured by division it's likely to be that type of E-W split.
With 12, 14 & 16 team conferences, I would like to see each conference play 10 in- conference games. Also sets up even split home & road.
I understand playing divisions in 14 or 16 team conferences, but with only 12 teams take 2 best teams for CCG.
I understand playing divisions in 14 or 16 team conferences, but with only 12 teams take 2 best teams for CCG.
agree, when the old conference was formed the north was really good, and over time the south just took over, can’t let that happen again…needs to be some sort of balance in geography
What if rather than permanent geographic regions, you had changing divisions every 4 years or so. Base it on record of the previous 4 years and split it so the 1st, 3rd, 5th, ect went to one division and the 2nd, 4th, 6th, ect went to the other. Just to keep things from getting unbalanced like we've seen with every conference out there.
The unbalance is arguably good for conferences; the B1G is the only one to have made a change recently but they ditched competitive balance to go with a strong East and weak West. Their East champ is less likely to trip in game 13 and cost the league a CFP spot.
I prefer divisions that ensure the schools that want to play each other annually will actually do so.
Actually it’s not a terrible outcome at all. We’ll see what GOR look like and money etc. you just don’t add teams unless the money is there.
Actually both the ACC and now the B1G want to. The B1G is more recent to come to this conclusion. It will change soon.
Sankey wants pods once OU and UT are added to facilitate all teams playing each other at least twice every 4 years. Teams with two best records play each other in CCG even if from same pod.
Someone once told me when the projects at Jack Trice were still in the planning stages and I wondered how many seats the projects would add that they wouldn't add any because the trend in college football is toward smaller, more intimate, fan friendly venues and that we couldn't sell out the stadium at 45K, or whatever our seating capacity was then, so why add more seats that will not be full in the fall. I thought it was BS then and I think it's BS now. If these projects have proven anything, it's build it and they will come. Every time we've added capacity to the stadium, we've had an uptick in attendance.
Not exactly on topic, but the point I originally started to make was that some people think the trend in college football is toward smaller, more intimate, fan friendly venues. The only thing I can say to that is they must not be watching much college football lately to see the arms race it has become. Now, if you're talking Major League baseball stadiums, that's pretty much on point.
Don't underestimate the game day experience. The game is one thing, but all the festivities leading up to and just after the game are instrumental in fan attendance. As is evidenced by attendance when we were horrible. That's either evidence of ignorance in the constant belief your team 'can' win or the it's just plain the most fun thing around.
