Originally Posted by Spott (Post 6954209)

I'd like them to stay just because it's two easy wins in basketball and 1 in football every year.

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 6954035)

That might be true today. But, this is two years down the line, contract talks will start heating up, I'm jut saying that's a lot of time for a lot of different things to happen.

I'd rather have Notre Dame as well, its just so difficult to judge their true interest level. If I were in charge of the Big XII and could shoot for the moon, this is the way I would do it:

Use the independent revenue streams as a selling point and convince AU, ASU, USC and UCLA they would be better off cutting the dead weight to the north (potential snag is that UCLA is part of the Cal State system so I don't know if that would/could be blocked). Invite Notre Dame and Arkansas (I know they are secure in the SEC, but a super conference with Texas, OU, USC and Notre Dame might be too good to pass on). Divide the super conference into quads:

Eastern: Notre Dame, ISU, MU, Arkansas
Northern: KU, KSU, OU, OSU
Southern: Texas, aTm, T Tech, Baylor
Western: AU, ASU, USC, UCLA

Play your quad annually for a total of 3 games, play all the teams from a rotating quad for 4 more games, and play one "rover" or "rivalry" game to get to 8 conference games a year. The rover game would come from one of the two other quads or, if two schools agree, they can have an annual rivalry game in place of the rover (Tex-OU; USC-ND; KU-MU) Almost all other large rivalries are accounted for in the quads. If the rivalry game would be part of the natural quad rotation, then those teams would get a "rover" game that year. That way you could preserve the high profile rivalry games that are also usually candidates for national TV.

Negotiate with the BCS for an additional at large team on the condition that teams must win their quad to be eligible for a BCS game. So the Super 16 would have between 1 and 4 teams in any given BCS year. Quad champions go to a playoff system with a western site at University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona and an eastern site at Arrowhead Stadium in KC. Championship game held in Dallas at Cowboys Stadium. This places an emphasis on winning your quad as well a winning your conference.

This might appeal to the western teams because they would get more exposure in the central and eastern time zones, it would offer incredible matchups, and puts at least one perennial college football power in each quad. While it doesn't guarantee a Tex-OU-ND-USC playoffs, it certainly provides excellent potential.

Anyway, if I could make my dream scenario work, that's what I would want.

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 6954035)

Negotiate with the BCS for an additional at large team

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 6954035)

That might be true today. But, this is two years down the line, contract talks will start heating up, I'm jut saying that's a lot of time for a lot of different things to happen.

I'd rather have Notre Dame as well, its just so difficult to judge their true interest level. If I were in charge of the Big XII and could shoot for the moon, this is the way I would do it:

Use the independent revenue streams as a selling point and convince AU, ASU, USC and UCLA they would be better off cutting the dead weight to the north (potential snag is that UCLA is part of the Cal State system so I don't know if that would/could be blocked). Invite Notre Dame and Arkansas (I know they are secure in the SEC, but a super conference with Texas, OU, USC and Notre Dame might be too good to pass on). Divide the super conference into quads:

Eastern: Notre Dame, ISU, MU, Arkansas
Northern: KU, KSU, OU, OSU
Southern: Texas, aTm, T Tech, Baylor
Western: AU, ASU, USC, UCLA

Play your quad annually for a total of 3 games, play all the teams from a rotating quad for 4 more games, and play one "rover" or "rivalry" game to get to 8 conference games a year. The rover game would come from one of the two other quads or, if two schools agree, they can have an annual rivalry game in place of the rover (Tex-OU; USC-ND; KU-MU) Almost all other large rivalries are accounted for in the quads. If the rivalry game would be part of the natural quad rotation, then those teams would get a "rover" game that year. That way you could preserve the high profile rivalry games that are also usually candidates for national TV.

Negotiate with the BCS for an additional at large team on the condition that teams must win their quad to be eligible for a BCS game. So the Super 16 would have between 1 and 4 teams in any given BCS year. Quad champions go to a playoff system with a western site at University of Phoenix Stadium in Arizona and an eastern site at Arrowhead Stadium in KC. Championship game held in Dallas at Cowboys Stadium. This places an emphasis on winning your quad as well a winning your conference.

This might appeal to the western teams because they would get more exposure in the central and eastern time zones, it would offer incredible matchups, and puts at least one perennial college football power in each quad. While it doesn't guarantee a Tex-OU-ND-USC playoffs, it certainly provides excellent potential.

Anyway, if I could make my dream scenario work, that's what I would want.

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 6954291)

I fail to see how that conference is better than the SEC, therefore it does not deserve an additional at-large bid.

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow (Post 6954260)

That's what Iowa State is for.

Originally Posted by HerculesRockefell (Post 6954267)

It's a nice scenario, but there's a big problem: As long as Texas runs the conference and there is an unequal revenue distribution, the Big XII-2 is not long for this world.

KU, KSU, Iowa St, Mizzou, and Baylor obviously did whatever they had to do to keep the conference together because they had no other BCS conference to go to, but nothing they did helped make the conference viable in the long-term.

Continually adding teams to the conference would only further perpetuate the haves and the have nots.

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 6954729)

Used to be for. Aren't laying in football anymore. Maybe this year in BBall... but not the next year. Got a starter transfer from Michigan St. and a transfer who got kicked off Minnesota that will be a first round NBA Draft pick according to Jordans, Wades, and Howards former trainer... not to mention a couple good recruits they got this year. Fred has already made a huge impact, in just a few months on the job.

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 6954724)

It would have 16 teams to the SEC's 12, that's why it would petition for the extra at large. Trying to determine the strength of one conference to another beyond a yearly timetable is a fool's errand. It had nothing to do with it in any event.

Originally Posted by BWillie007 (Post 6954789)

So you think ISU is gonna have a good football team? What about the Iowa vs ISU game in Iowa City? What is your prediction of the shellacking?

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 6954836)

Good football team, yes. Record, probably not. One of the most talented teams ISU has had(not saying much) and looks like the best coaching staff they have had(mainly because of their OC and DC, but the HC looks like he could be the real deal too).. but they have the hardest schedule in the nation. I think their defense will be able to hold the Hawkeyes a lot better this year, and the 14 quarter streak without a TD will end. Win maybe not, but it will be within a score either way.

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 6954836)

but they have the hardest schedule in the nation.

Originally Posted by BWillie007 (Post 6954842)

27-9 Hawkeyes.

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 6954828)

Four extra teams aren't worthy of an extra at-large bid.

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 6954987)

Maybe not any four. Notre Dame already has a special case for being BCS eligible and USC has been the dominant team out of the PAC. Are you really trying to tell me if all four of those teams (with UT and OU) were BCS eligible the BCS wouldn't want them? Yeah, you keep sticking your head in that SEC sand.

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 6955112)

Sorry, but Alabama, Florida, LSU, and Georgia are every bit as strong as USC, UT, OU, and ND. Lumping those top 4 with 12 other teams doesn't deserve two at-large bids.

Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 6955542)

Close toss up. I think on any given year USC and UT can be better than AL and FLA. Remember AL is just 2 seasons removed from a 6 loss year. They've got a ways to go before they become a USC type dynasty.

LSU and OU can either really good or really bad.

Georgia and Notre Dame are kinda in the same range I'll agree.

My power rankings for the last few years are this:

Florida
Texas
USC
Ohio State
Alabama
Oklahoma

If Alabama wins it again this year they go to #1. Saban does have that thing rollin

Originally Posted by BWillie007 (Post 6954789)

So you think ISU is gonna have a good football team? What about the Iowa vs ISU game in Iowa City? What is your prediction of the shellacking?

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 6954828)

Four extra teams aren't worthy of an extra at-large bid.

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP (Post 6955660)

I agree that it's a close toss-up. Which is why an additional at-large bid for his proposed 16-team conference is not warranted.

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 6955700)

Why are you getting so bent out of shape about a long shot hypothetical? You should know college football isn't about how any one group of teams is at any particular time. College Football is about politics and ratings and there is no way on God's Green Turf that Georgia and LSU have the same kind of political clout and national appeal that Notre Dame and USC do. If you had Notre Dame vs a military academy and Georgia vs a military academy, I will guarantee you the Notre Dame game will pull in a higher rating. Same thing for USC and LSU. To pretend its close is to ignore a national appeal versus a regional one. Florida and Alabama have it, LSU and Georgia don't. In fact, those two schools are dropping faster with each passing year as anyone who has mild interest in the SEC could tell you. They are fine football schools that bring a lot of respect to the SEC as a whole, but they are not national schools. The closest one not on a national scale in the hypothetical is OU, but even their appeal is broader the Georgia and LSU. I'm not talking about how good any one team is "right now". Networks don't think that way. They think over a long term, which schools will be bring me constantly good ratings. If the SEC went to 16 teams, I'm sure they would get an extra at large as well. But, under the hypothetical, I have little doubt the merits would even be seriously questioned.

Originally Posted by vailpass (Post 6955676)

Shut yo mouth! ISU has our frigging number every year no matter how good we are supposed to be and how shitty they are.
With Wegher so freaked out by knocking up his girlfriend that he can't practice or come to class the curse of Iowa being ranked top 10 preseason has already started.

Originally Posted by BWillie007 (Post 6956198)

Meh. To ISU fans I like to talk, but I really think the game is probably within two scores w/ Iowa pulling away in the 4th quarter. Sooner or later ISU has to score a TD, but remember last years game in AMES was 35-3. I always remembering Iowa having problems w/ ISU in Ames, but this is at Kinnick.

Originally Posted by vailpass (Post 6956311)

Those bastards can give us trouble at home too. We are their superbowl. They are a perenially shitty team that wears red and gold and since they never play anywhere post season they treat our match up like their bowl game.
ISU, that is.

Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 6956037)

LSU is a strange one. I see a Kansas State type drop coming for them in the next few years.

Originally Posted by Laz (Post 6969451)

Report: Big Ten to Split Into Two Six-Team Divisions

by Nick Coman on Sep 1, 2010 2:06:36 PM

The Big Ten of tomorrow is about to look a lot like the Big 12 of today.

In 2011-12, when powerhouse Nebraska leaves the Big 12 for the Big Ten, the conference will begin its new format that will see the Cornhuskers aligned with Michigan while Ohio State will get the Penn State Nittany Lions, reports ESPN.com.

The league is also expected to introduce a title game in 2011-12.

The complete alignments are as follows:

Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Northwestern and Minnesota.

Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana and Illinois.

The alignments do have an East-West geographic alignment.

Cross-division rivalries such as Michigan-Ohio State will be preserved in the non-divisional portion of the schedule.

In basketball, teams will play home-and-home against divisional opponents, and one game against non-divisional opponents -- just as the SEC is scheduled.

The Pac-10, soon to be Pac-12, will adopt a similar format while the Big 12, soon to have just ten members once Colorado bolts west, will adopt a traditional home-and-home format.

Originally Posted by BWillie007 (Post 6969728)

Haha yes...Hopefully Michigan keeps Dick Rod around forever.

It says cross division rivalries will be preserved? Well what other rivalries are they talking about? Does Iowa still get to play Wisconsin every year? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Hoover (Post 6969879)

I don't know how they can keep the rivalries and keep a fair schedule.

I think the division are fair, but if Ohio State has to play Michigan Every year and they say the Hawkeyes don't, is that really fair? As a Hawkeye fan, I could care less about who Ohio State has to play, but still.

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 6969884)

Of course Nebraska is in the cupcake division again.

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 6969884)

Of course Nebraska is in the cupcake division again.

Originally Posted by vailpass (Post 6969903)

ISU would finish dead last in that division. Moo U fans should be milked and not herd.

Originally Posted by vailpass (Post 6969903)

ISU would finish dead last in that division. Moo U fans should be milked and not herd.

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 6969970)

Yeah, besides the fact they beat Nebraska and Minnesota last year. :doh!:

Oh and don't forget about the fact they will beat Iowa this year. You heard it here folks. In Kinnick the Cyclones will walk away with the W.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaChief (Post 6969978)

What's funny is that if you guys actually beat Iowa and lose the rest of your games, you'd all consider it a successful season.

That's the difference between the Cyclones and the Hawkeyes.

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 6969989)

Yeah, funny thing is thats not true at all. Breaking news: Dan McCarney isn't Iowa States coach anymore.

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 6970007)

I think your the ****ing idiot for somehow getting Iowa State is a better Program out of that.

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 6970007)

I think your the ****ing idiot for somehow getting Iowa State is a better Program out of that.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaChief (Post 6969998)

If you're trying to argue that Iowa State is anywhere near Iowa in terms of their football program, you're and idiot.

Iowa's coming off another appearance in a BCS Bowl, a win. You won in the Insight.com bowl.

Could Iowa State beat Iowa? Sure, anything's possible. Likely? No.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaChief (Post 6970029)

Did Veisha start already?????

Well either way, the FFA vs. Future MD's game is always entertaining.

And like I said, it's entirely possible that Iowa State will pull off an upset. But it's more likely than not that in the end, Iowa's superior talent and depth will carry the day.

Originally Posted by BWillie007 (Post 6970026)

To be honest w/ you though, if it wasn't for Nebraska in the North. I could potentially see ISU winning the North this year. That division blows. I would pick Missouri over ISU in that case, but at least ISU would have a shot.

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 6970034)

Unless theres a major injury to a position outside RB and WR(about the only two positions with depth), Iowa State has a shot this year with or without Nebraska and even with one of the hardest schedules in the nation. ISU will at least go to another bowl game this year.

Originally Posted by CaliforniaChief (Post 6970062)

Dude I'm not doubting that ISU is on the rise. That's a good thing, IMO.

But I'll bet you $59,159 in Casino Cash that Iowa will win that game.

Originally Posted by RustShack (Post 6970069)

I'll go all in.

Originally Posted by BWillie007 (Post 6970082)

No, no they don't. But you can imagine what it'd be like if they did. Well, I can't even imagine that. ISU's last conference title was back in, what 1912? And that was in the MVC. Last I checked, that conference doesn't even play football anymore.

Originally Posted by billay (Post 7127548)

Bump

Originally Posted by Guru (Post 7127688)

Nothing like deserting a conference just because they couldn't beat the new bully when it expanded. Texas just put their hand on Nebraska's head and let them swing at air while they laughed.

Originally Posted by frazod (Post 7127693)

The funny part is, in the end, they couldn't even beat a shitty Texas team that lost at home to Iowa State and UCLA. LMAO

I'm glad billay bumped this, though. One thing nobody's talking about is the extra motivation Missouri will have after enduring all this bullshit.

Originally Posted by Guru (Post 7127688)

Nothing like deserting a conference just because they couldn't beat the new bully when it expanded. Texas just put their hand on Nebraska's head and let them swing at air while they laughed.

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy (Post 7127563)

Why?

Did I miss something?

Originally Posted by billay (Post 7127750)

Is that why Mizzou was trying to leave too dipshit? Atleast Nebraska has beaten Texas since the Big XII was formed.

Originally Posted by ArrowheadHawk (Post 7127763)

I have never said this but on Saturday I will be screaming GO MIZZOU!!!

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 7127771)

Yeah, kind of makes you feel dirty doesn't it?

Originally Posted by billay (Post 7127750)

Is that why Mizzou was trying to leave too dipshit? Atleast Nebraska has beaten Texas since the Big XII was formed.

Originally Posted by ArrowheadHawk (Post 7127763)

I have never said this but on Saturday I will be screaming GO MIZZOU!!!

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 6728575)

*pines for the days of the Big 8*

Originally Posted by Metrolike (Post 7127831)

I wouldn't cheer for MU if they were playing 22 Hitlers. But I can't really cheer for Nebraska either. Hoping for a tornader.

Originally Posted by frazod (Post 7127781)

Step into the light, my son. :)

Originally Posted by frazod (Post 7127844)

This is the kind of hatred I can appreciate. :thumb:

Originally Posted by HemiEd (Post 7127853)

It is like wanting to see Oakland beat Denver.

Originally Posted by Metrolike (Post 7127867)

Did I steal that from you? I'm having this feeling that maybe I actually saw that somewhere before and I didn't really come up with that...

I'm honestly not sure.