The Big 12 is getting no respect even though half its team are ranked and has a 9 conference game round robin schedule.
Big 12 also has 3 other teams who are at least decent and can beat you: Iowa St, TCU, and Texas Tech. 80% of the league is playing quality football but that gets overlooked.
The Big 12 should add SMU, Cincinnati, Memphis, and UCF or Houston. Media seem to respect quantity over quality when it comes to conference hierarchy (somehow the Pac 12’s one loss teams are getting the edge over OU, Minnesota, and Penn St).
That way you can do that same bull crap scheduling where you only play the great teams in the league every 6 years or whatever it is.
None of those teams really seem to do anything for the conference besides make it where we don’t play everyone every year. I like that we play everyone in the conference and I think that the committee sees a big 12 champion in higher regard than a pac 12.
Oregon lost to Auburn in a close one and Oregon dominated that game until late. And Utah is up there because they have lost to USC who with the label look better than a loss to K-state. And Baylor is yet to play the big boys of the conference (besides us). If Baylor runs the table, I’m guessing they get in.
I just don’t see how any of those schools really help the Big 12.
I’d add Cincinnati, UCF, Tulane and ECU as they are all in the best G5 conference, in states that currently produce a lot of talent and so would strengthen Big 12 recruiting while weakening Big 10, SEC and ACC recruiting. They would more than double the population footprint of the conference for the next round of TV/Streaming contracts. And finally, the Big 12 is in desperate need of better road trips, all of these would qualify with NOLA coming close to displacing Austin as the best road trip IMHO.
Personally I think the jump to 12 and divisions should be step 1 before going to 14. This one true champion crap is hurting the big 12, if I remember right, only 1 team has gone undefeated in the regular season since we went to the current format. I’m for an easier path to the playoff over the grueling gauntlet. I don’t want to be in a conservation about a 1 lose OSU v insert 1 or 2 lose blue blood, because we most likely would lose that argument.
Let’s not all freak out about rankings in early November, ok? A lot of things are still to happen before the final rankings, but the reality is the Big 12 likely doesn’t have a playoff quality team this year under the current format. That’s not the end of the world.
When the playoff inevitably goes to 6 or 8, the current Big 12 is going to be in really, really good position. Especially for schools like OSU to get in.
Personally, I think grabbing legit teams from the larger conferences is the way to go. I don’t know if the money works in favor of that, but if we could get Nebraska, Arizona, FSU, Miami, or USC, etc I think it would add a ton of legitimacy to the conference.
Granted, all this is to say, the big 12 isnt really down. The schools are making plenty of money and OU is finding a way in the playoff. Texas wouldve this year if they had won more games. Baylor is even in the conversation right now. Do we really need to expand for the sake of the talking heads at ESPN?
This is an extremely good point. It is early November and the playoff is going to be expanding for sure. When it does the big 12 winner (unless they have 3+ losses) is getting in.
I’d only maybe take Cincy from your list . No Texas teams unless A&M wants back in . There was a rumor Nebraska and Colorado wanted back in last year. I’d take them back . UCF wouldn’t be bad but I’m on the fence with them .
I’m with those who dispute the premise of the thread. I think the Big XII gets roughly the amount of respect it deserves: a lot less than the SEC, a little less than the B1G, more than the PAC-12, and a lot more than the non-Clemson ACC (which gets, as deserved, a negative amount of respect).
Nebraska, Colorado, then pull the the 2 Arizona schools from the PAC. Alternatively, I think the Big 12 could possible take 2 additional schools from the PAC since their conference financials suck.
I would like to see the league get back to 12 schools first before worrying about firther expansion. I think Tulsa would be a good add, Arkansas makes sense geographically.
Is close proximity a negative or a positive? I have heard both ways. Positive in terms of team and fan travel. Negative in terms of viewership coverage, TV coverage, etc.
AlecM I think geographic proximity is a plus for the reasons you mentioned. Its also just flat out easier on the players. I’d much rather see them travel 60 miles to Tulsa every other year than make that same trip to say Cincinnati.
It’s a positive. TV will be there whether it’s in Stillwater, OK or Las Vegas. They need to keep it somewhat close for the kids who still have school and their bodies aren’t like NFL bodies who can do a cross country trip then play. And the fans being able to get there is a big deal.