austinhusker
New member
Texas to the Big 10 would be awful. Their lust for total control of their conference and its members makes it all the more unlikely. Let them waste away in the terrible Big12.
This would be lot-o-funWith pods you could also have the pod champs play a 4-team B1G playoff followed by a national 4-team playoff. Assuming 4 16-team conferences provides a pretty seamless postseason.
Boren isn't a double agent, per se, but he is acting in the best interests of his school. And we know there's been communication between current Big XII schools and the B1G (thought to be Oklahoma, especially last year when Oklahoma shill and backdoor mouthpiece Barry Trammel was pimping the greatness both on and off the field of the B1G in comparison to the Big XII).There's an increasing concern that Boren could end up as a so-called double-agent, speaking for the league but working for a school that ultimately desires to speak with other leagues. There's also an increasing level of distrust around the league, especially since Oklahoma and Texas have no intention of extending their grant of right past 2025 anytime soon.
What you proposed wouldn't work.With 16 teams, pods make the most sense:
Within your own pod you play 3 games.
Against each of the other three 4-team pods: you play two teams each year, (so half of the other teams).
That's 9 conference games. And the best part is players play every team in the conference, home and away, every four years (a student-athlete's career). It's unbelievable to me that with only 14 teams now some of our players will never play against Michigan. They'll play a bunch of non-conference teams twice but not one of the most historic teams in their own conference. It's stupid.
You can group the pods to make divisions however you want, so you then have a CCG.
That's getting to complex in my opinion.With pods you could also have the pod champs play a 4-team B1G playoff followed by a national 4-team playoff. Assuming 4 16-team conferences provides a pretty seamless postseason.
Not to answer for Kernal, but yes, it would work. with 9 conference games you would always play the other 3 teams in your pod. That leaves 6 conference games against the other 12 teams in the conference. Half. You would play everyone in 2 seasons. You would play everyone home-and-away in 4 seasons.What you proposed wouldn't work.With 16 teams, pods make the most sense:
Within your own pod you play 3 games.
Against each of the other three 4-team pods: you play two teams each year, (so half of the other teams).
That's 9 conference games. And the best part is players play every team in the conference, home and away, every four years (a student-athlete's career). It's unbelievable to me that with only 14 teams now some of our players will never play against Michigan. They'll play a bunch of non-conference teams twice but not one of the most historic teams in their own conference. It's stupid.
You can group the pods to make divisions however you want, so you then have a CCG.
If you go the pods route and group them up so you can have a ccg. you have to play a FULL other pod. Not just half.
I disagree... I LOVE the idea of that.... Quite honestly, I LOVE the idea of adding another football game. If you were to go all the way....That's getting to complex in my opinion.With pods you could also have the pod champs play a 4-team B1G playoff followed by a national 4-team playoff. Assuming 4 16-team conferences provides a pretty seamless postseason.
I think the POD's idea is just so we see more opponents more often rather than being more efficient. I like the 8 team divisions.
No, Houston is not an AAU institution. But neither are we as of 2011. I'm not sure that is a deciding factor anymore, but even if it weren't, I doubt the B1G would consider Houston.How about this:
We add Oklahoma and Houston? Is Houston on the academic list we are looking at?
Would be funny to leave Texas out in the cold.
Yes, but understand the conferences are the ones holding the power this time, and not the states.I think a lot of folks are underestimating how pervasive politics are for the states/schools involved. There is a reason Texas bankrupted the SWC and destroyed the Big XII.
Texas politics are the worst-version of Southern-politics. It's patient, pervasive, persistent, and completely selfish. While the people individually are not bad people, the organization is horribly myopic and self-centered. Athletically UT seems like a great addition but there is no containing UT's politics, damage, and greed. Getting in bed with UT requires sleeping with literally every person in TX.
I think the B1G will last longer and be happier w/o UT, honestly...
Guys--drop the AAU requirement. That got killed when the B1G brought us on, and remember--the B1G was already going to take Oklahoma as part of that five team deal way back when. Oklahoma isn't in the AAU. Nebraska isn't in the AAU. The AAU isn't a pre-requisite any longer.No, Houston is not an AAU institution. But neither are we as of 2011. I'm not sure that is a deciding factor anymore, but even if it weren't, I doubt the B1G would consider Houston.How about this:
We add Oklahoma and Houston? Is Houston on the academic list we are looking at?
Would be funny to leave Texas out in the cold.
There are a lot of factors that Delaney had mentioned in the past about schools that would fit the "profile" he was looking for. I remember geography being one of them, but then he softened on that, leading us to speculate about several ACC schools. I think our "National Brand" and history was enough to forget the AAU thing. (even before we were dropped, we had been ranked at the bottom of the group for decades) I don't think a school like Houston really checks off enough boxes.
Mizzery is a legitimate third option here if the B1G doesn't like KU. Not sure if they'd bite, considering they've got a comfy gig going on in the SEC right now. But the SEC has no GOR, so Mizzery is fair game.I would take OU-MU or OU-KU though.