Old Big 8/SWC...10 years later

[BIG_IKE]

Who do you think has had the biggest benefit of the merger and creation of the Big 12? Looking at where everyone standing 10 years later one has to wonder if it wa sin the best interest of all the schools. Let's discuss..

OLD BIG 8
Oklahoma (9-2)
Nebraska (8-3 )
Kansas State (7-5 )
Missouri (7-4 )
Kansas (6-5 )
Oklahoma State (6-5)
Iowa State (4-8)
Colorado (2-9)

OLD SWC

Texas (9-2)
Houston (9-3)
TCU (8-2)
Texas A&M (8-3)
Texas Tech (7-5)
Rice (6-5)
SMU (6-5)
Baylor (4-8)


13 of 16 Schools are Bowl Eligiblenot too bad I guess.
Does anyone think we made a mistake with the teams chosen to form the conference?

[OSUAggie]

Are you arguing we shoulda stuck to the Big 8 or that we chose the wrong Texas schools to include into the conference?

[BIG_IKE]

Either or....I have no real opinion. Nothig is really predictable I guess.
There are old SWC teams that could beat some of our current members, but that has not always been the case the last 10 years..

[Blues1]

JMHO - But --- If it wasn't for us and neb -- The Big 12 champ team would be from texas about 75% of the time.....So what does that tell you....!!! -- ?

[OSUAggie]

I think the most interesting thing to have seen is what would have happened to the Texas schools.. They were falling apart when they were together in the SWC... The Big XII gave them all life, other than Baylor.

[TexasBoomer]

Colorado should not have been included. Arkansas should have been. Texas didn't want Arkansas because they were to good - lost to them in big games. Should Ark had been included there would be 2 teams to consistently beat Texas. Now there is only one.
Also do away with the north - south stuff. Play everyone!

[Tuloma]

Texas was by far the greatest benefactor, it got them out of a dying confernce and the putrid Cotton Bowl, now they get to play good teams and not the Rice, Smu and Houston's. And they get to play in the really good bowl games.

[plumbob]

We should have taken Arkansas or TCU instead of Baylor.

[sooneron]

Texas was by far the greatest benefactor, it got them out of a dying confernce and the putrid Cotton Bowl, now they get to play good teams and not the Rice, Smu and Houston's. And they get to play in the really good bowl games.
But they played Rice this year and Houston a couple of years ago. I think they play tcu next year.

[colleyvillesooner]

But they played Rice this year and Houston a couple of years ago. I think they play tcu next year.

I think what he meant was they don't have to play them every year.

[BIG_IKE]

Big 12 Champs

1996 Texas
1997 Nebraska
1998 Texas A&M
1999 Nebraska
2000 Oklahoma
2001 Colorado
2002 Oklahoma
2003 Kansas State
2004 Oklahoma
2005 Texas
2006? NU,OU or Texas

Championships by Big 8 teams: 70%
Championships by SWC teams: 30%
Big 8 Conference Members: 66%
SWC Conference Members :33%

I guess it's about what it should be.

[OSUAggie]

plus... in '96 and '98, the Big 8 teams were much better teams in the champoinship game

[fadada1]

We should have taken a bus full of window-lickers instead of osu.
i agree.

[FourKings]

Texas was by far the greatest benefactor, it got them out of a dying confernce and the putrid Cotton Bowl, now they get to play good teams and not the Rice, Smu and Houston's. And they get to play in the really good bowl games.

Without question Tex would not have played for the MNC with Rice, Baylor, TCU, Houston and SMU in the middle of thier schedule, not to mention any other patsy they would have lined up.
Tex benefitted greatly from the merger, I doubt it would have effected the Big 8 as much, the SWC was coming to an end, as much a political deal as the merger was, its been a good thing for veryone involved.
The Arkansas comment was right on IMO, they would flat roll half the teams in Big 12, even when they were struggling in SEC, too bad we dont have them now!
Tex playing small non-competitive schools is a choice by the con man, i dont see how they have gotten the respect this year they have from the polls, I just dont see it, but, nother story all together.

[plumbob]

i agree.

That's what I meant to say.:D

[OklahomaRed]

Colorado should not have been included. Arkansas should have been. Texas didn't want Arkansas because they were to good - lost to them in big games. Should Ark had been included there would be 2 teams to consistently beat Texas. Now there is only one.
Also do away with the north - south stuff. Play everyone!


Arkansas was long gone to the SEC by the time the Big 12 was formed. If you are looking at nothing but football, then we should have left OSU and Baylor out and included someone else. If Arkansas was around, sure; however, Rice, OSU, Kansas, and Baylor are not to bad at some other sports (i.e. baseball, basketball, & women's athletics).

[TexasLidig8r]

Colorado should not have been included. Arkansas should have been. Texas didn't want Arkansas because they were to good - lost to them in big games. Should Ark had been included there would be 2 teams to consistently beat Texas. Now there is only one.
Also do away with the north - south stuff. Play everyone!

Wow.. this is so wrong for so many different reasons.

First, Arkansas was long gone to the SEC before the merger of the 4 Texas schools and the Big 8. Arkansas never was, and never will be, an option.

Texas' overall record against the Pig Hillbillies is 55 - 21.

Now, who is the other school who "consistently" beats Texas? (and don't make me go into the two in a row and series smack with you).

As for playing everyone, that will never happen. That would leave room for exactly 1 non-conference game on a 12 game schedule.

:rolleyes: