Big 12 Football

I agree. I also think that would make the Big 12 stronger in there Bowl Games.

OU sucks dick!

The Big 10 does not have a "championship game".

The primary purpose for having 2 divisions is obviously for a championship game.  The way things are now probably makes the most sense because of geography.

I wonder if some sort of "exception rule" would be valid for years when one of the Division champs didn't fare all that well.  In my mind the Big 12 Championship game last year should have been a Texas/OU rematch.  This would have been great ratings and a final end to the dispute over who's best at the end of the season.

Just a thought.

Why even have a rematch OU?

Not to be confrontational, but have you read the rules of the Big 10 or ACC in the event of a 3 way tie? Since all 3  conferences participate in the BCS you should perform some research as to the rules in other conferences and compare.

I personally found this to clear up my concerns, questions and frustrations as a loyal Texas fan of 39 years.

Sure, a rematch would have been nice, and this is college football and I am sure it would have been better for the networks.

Unfortunately, college ball in the Big 12 is a ranked system with possible winners determined by the BCS polls. I agree with you that we should have had a rematch, but this time it should have been in Norman. It's better beat a red ass at home!

raider

Would rotating teams around really help things out in the long run??  While it would help balance the divisions (maybe, see end),, I think think there are some bad things that outweigh this.  For example, how would you maintain any rivalies??  After all the swapping every 5-10 years combined with the rotation of cross division matchups means that twice every 10 years, say, Oklahoma and Texas won't play in the regular season because they're not in the same division.  Do you really want to see that??  Same for A&M vs. Tech, Kansas vs. Mizzou, ...  Secondly, I think the geography of the divisions makes anything else unnatural, not to mention the parcticality given the economy and fuel prices.

While I'm not in favor of changing the divisions themselves, one thing I've wondered is if the 4-year cycle of the north-south matchups will ever remain constant.  After all, is it fair that Kansas has to play both Oklahoma and Texas 2 years and then play neither, or that OU and OSU never play anyone in common except the 4 Texas schools that round out the south (ie. OU plays 3 north teams, while OSU plays the OTHER 3)?  It might be nice to see the conferece jumble up those pairings like every 12 or 16 years.

As for that "maybe" at the beginning, I have to wonder if it's really possible to balance things.  After all, look at the distribtion of strength now and that distribution at the inception of the conference-it's a complete 180!  (Remember when Nebraska, Colorado, and Kansas State made up the '3-team' race, Oklahoma had Schnellenberger (sp?), and Brown was still in NC?)  Having said that, I wonder if any attempts in 'balancing' would just get undone by the natual shift in powers and you'd be running around in circles.

I SEE WHY YOU RANK -21. GROW UP.

The way it is currently set up, in the unlikely event that Texas and OU wind up a season with one undefeated and the other with one loss, it is possible to have a Big 12 only NC. Unlike the SEC where this year, Bama and Florida will end up in that senerio, but because they play in opposite divisions, their last/only loss will be in the CC, last game of the year, and voters will not place both in the NC. As a Big 12 fan, i actually like the way its set up now. If, say, a North team like NE becomes a national powerhouse again and vying for the NC almost every year, then we end up with the nightmare senerio that the SEC will most likely face this year. Of course, this is biased Big 12 perspective. Oh, and , BOOMER SOONER!