Adding a 9th Conference Game to the Big 12

[snp]

Haven't seen this really discussed over at this board.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/3878869.html

There's a good chance this could lead to the demise of the CCG. Since it's a deathtrap anyways, I'm in favor of it.

It'd also allow us to renew our Nebraska rivalry. That would definately generate some more interest.

No one cares about playing Middle Tennsee St. I don't even care enough about them to spell it correctly.

Etc etc. Lot's of pros and cons. I've been discussing this the past few days. Thoughts?

[yermom]

i like the coach's challenge idea...

i kinda like the CCG though, unless it's with a team you have already played

[stoops the eternal pimp]

i like the coach's challenge idea...

i kinda like the CCG though, unless it's with a team you have already played

I d like the CCG a lot better if every conference had one

[snp]

I've also heard talks of eliminating the divisons, and then allowing the teams to schedule whoever they want. Top 2 teams play in the CCG.

This would allow us to play some catchup to Texas in the all time series though.

[goingoneight]

2003, the CCG was a deathtrap for OU. If they just played someone else from the North, they'd have probably continued about their ***-kicking ways. But teams like OU 2002 and OU 2004 needed the CCG to keep them up in the polls. This guarantees you actually play the "best" in the conference.

However, the BIG 12 CCG means nothing when you continue on to lose in a bowl game.
I dunno either way. It is kinda nice if things line up correctly, we could end up playing UO, **, OSU and Nebbish all in one season while shooting for an MNC (possibly against another "rival").

[Octavian]

CCG's should only be used as a tie-breaker between teams in opposite divisions.

If they've already played and/or have different conference records, it'll always be a trap for the higher ranked club.

[ADs_Agent]

nothing to gain but lots to lose

[SoonerStormchaser]

Don't give a ****e!

[Ground_Attack]

I've also heard talks of eliminating the divisons, and then allowing the teams to schedule whoever they want.

that sounds like a bad idea for conference games. Why would anyone want to play OU or UT if winning is the idea? Seems like it would be easy to follow the KSU method of scheduling Baylor, OSU and Kansas every year.

better yet, could someone schedule Baylor 9 times in a year? :D

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

I d like the CCG a lot better if every conference had one

I agree entirely. It sucks that the Pac-10 and Big 10 in particular do not have a CCG.

Certainly 2003 would be a worst case scenario (or at least real close) of what a CCG can do to an undefeated team going for a NC. Just imagine how big the game would have been in the 70's and 80's when OU and Neb were both on top.

I figure the CCG is here to stay though. That's right, dollar signs.

[soonervegas]

Put me in the pro Big 12 Champ game, but it should be the top 2 teams regardless of division. The last 2 Big 12 Championship games have been a joke. I would much rather have seen:

2004 OU vs. Texas
2005 Texas vs. Texas Tech

Make teams EARN the right to be there.

[ADs_Agent]

again, you are looking at it from a fans point of view. to play another conf game against a stronger opponent means you are sacrificing everything for another game. I guarantee you if Bob Stoops had the option of playing duffers and going to the NC every year he would.

[snp]

that sounds like a bad idea for conference games. Why would anyone want to play OU or UT if winning is the idea? Seems like it would be easy to follow the KSU method of scheduling Baylor, OSU and Kansas every year.

better yet, could someone schedule Baylor 9 times in a year? :D

Think more like the way the Big 10 schedules. They can have a set opponnet per year, and then the rest of their schedule alternates. We could have UT, OSU, Nebraska and then 6 other teams. A few permanent games and then whoever.

[RedstickSooner]

Adding a ninth conference game to the season totally nerfs the whole advantage which a 12 game season brought us -- the chance to get some variety in the schedule.

The absolutely last thing I'm interested in is yet another conference game. We've got plenty. Bring on fresh opponents.

And until every conference adopts a CCG, the last thing I want is for us to strengthen the CCG even further. Meaning, making the top two teams in the conferene play in the CCG just hurts the conference by adding another way for a potential NC team to get derailed. Frankly, I'd prefer we eliminate the CCG entirely, and choose the conference champion the same way all those sissy conferences do - whoever has the best record wins. In event of a tie for conference ranking, the AP poll positions of the respective teams could be the tiebreaker.

It won't happen, of course, because of the money brought in by the CCG. But winning an NC involves a good chunk of luck, as well as great coaching and talented players -- every extra game you play pushes that luck.

[Luthor]

There's no way every conference will buy into a CCG format. Particularly since SOS now means relatively nothing and it's too easy to schedule yet another game against deadmeat jr college to get your schedule flush.

[TexasLidig8r]

Without the CCG...

Nebraska would probably have had 3 consecutive national titles in the 90s..

Texas would have played Miami in the Rose Bowl the year Nebraska embarrassed the conference out there.

K-State may have played for the national championship instead of aggy losing to THE Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl.

Jason White would have been much healthier going into the LSU championship game.

Texas would have a streak of having played in 3 straight BCS games.

[yermom]

playing the top 2 teams in the CCG would make it to where 2 teams from the conference basically couldn't both make the BCS (2003 was pretty flukey)

if someone is on a title run it probably hurts more than helps

[Luthor]

playing the top 2 teams in the CCG would make it to where 2 teams from the conference basically couldn't both make the BCS (2003 was pretty flukey)

if someone is on a title run it probably hurts more than helps


You may be right about that. I guess the only big plus to a CCG is that it gives conference rivals the opportunity to win the yearly pi$$ing match. Beyond that it probably does more harm than good. Maybe we should lobby to drop the frigg'n thing rather than try to convince the others to adopt it. The points system has become so convoluted at this point (reference: USC repeat championship) that anything less than a flawless season means you get abandoned by the BCS.

[Octavian]

...anything less than a flawless season means you get abandoned by the BCS.

:confused:

LSU 03
OU 03

Nebraska 01

FSU 00

FSU 98

Just depends on the way the chips fall....how many undefeateds there are, SOS, etc.

[yermom]

the 12th game helps with that

i agree about the diversity thing too, we see them play teams in our conference all the time

[Octavian]

Without the CCG...

Nebraska would probably have had four consecutive national titles in the 90s..

Texas would have played Miami in the Rose Bowl the year Nebraska embarrassed the conference out there.

K-State may have played for the national championship instead of aggy losing to THE Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl.

Jason White would have been much healthier going into the LSU championship game.

Texas would have a streak of having played in 3 straight BCS games.

fixed.

94
95
96 -If they could've handled Wuerffel in the rematch (doubt it).
97

[yermom]

yeah, i was thinking that should have been 4 as well

although i think by Wuerffel you mean Bob Stoops's Defense ;)

[Octavian]

although i think by Wuerffel you mean Bob Stoops's Defense ;)

very true. :D

Ol Ball Coach never won one till Bobby got there.

But I think Wuerffel had the best statistical year in 96 of any QB in cfb history up to that point. And his wideout corps was scary good.

[snp]

Voted down today. Only OU and UT coaches voted yes.

Gee, wonder why...

[goingoneight]

Put me in the pro Big 12 Champ game, but it should be the top 2 teams regardless of division. The last 2 Big 12 Championship games have been a joke. I would much rather have seen:

2004 OU vs. Texas
2005 Texas vs. OU

Make teams EARN the right to be there.

It would have been nice to see Bomar play against Texas when the team was actually good.
Even if UT won big, Bob Stoops wouldn't be having any 70-3 BS. I know with AD healthy as he was at the tail end of the season, we would have probably made a good matchup for UT. Especially since they began to slip in some areas like against OSU and aTm.

I still say UT wins that one by 21 or so, but I would like to have seen just how "good" UT was against a healthier AD and a more matured Rhett Bomar. Defense looked better at the tail end of the season too for OU, still shoddy at tackling and secondary, though. What do you think? I know-- I should have started a new thread on this one... :(

[TexasLidig8r]

It would have been nice to see Bomar play against Texas when the team was actually good.
Even if UT won big, Bob Stoops wouldn't be having any 70-3 BS. I know with AD healthy as he was at the tail end of the season, we would have probably made a good matchup for UT. Especially since they began to slip in some areas like against OSU and aTm.

I still say UT wins that one by 21 or so, but I would like to have seen just how "good" UT was against a healthier AD and a more matured Rhett Bomar. Defense looked better at the tail end of the season too for OU, still shoddy at tackling and secondary, though. What do you think? I know-- I should have started a new thread on this one... :(

See.. hornfans.com threads from November 2004.. November 2003...

sorry.. I had to.

[goingoneight]

See.. hornfans.com threads from November 2004.. November 2003...

sorry.. I had to.

for quick reference, cuz I'm feelin kinda lazy today (see my spelling)... What were they talking about? A rematch in 2003, 2004? 04 UT might have had a chance, as they weren't "quite there" yet, but the 2003 RRS was a total OU domination. OU beat UT in every way and more that Mack could have nightmares about. OU RRS 2003 was a victory on ALL aspects of the game. From special teams, to defense, to passing, to rushing, to overall speed and stamina of play. OUr team corrected all of the stupid mistakes in 2005 that cost them even a chance against UT. Bomar was a much better passer, AD was healthy, defense actually learned how to CATCH a ball thrown right into their hands, OL actually opened up hole instead of expecting a power-back to do it for them.

[MiccoMacey]

I think he means "see hornfans 2000-2004 because they ALWAYS came back after losing to us and said they were playing better than us at the end of the year and would be able to beat us if we played again".

[TexasLidig8r]

I think he means "see hornfans 2000-2004 because they ALWAYS came back after losing to us and said they were playing better than us at the end of the year and would be able to beat us if we played again".

Very correct.

My blood is as burnt orange as anyone but good Lord.. no matter the year, the game was played for the year, the game is over, whoever won - won, who-ever lost - lost... the "what if.. and if we played you now" scenario that was played out on hornfans got to be a real *** whip...