BoomerNTX
~Boomer FN Sooner~
- 1,830
- 276
- 83
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2013
- Location
- Ft. Worth
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
The NCAA says you have to have 12 teams to have divisions. The NCAA said you had to have 12 teams to have a CCG. The later rule was revised if a Conference had a round robin. Perhaps the rules will evolve to allow 5 team divisions. The B12 doesn't just want to add teams to allow it to have divisions. I know not all B12 fans will agree, but the loss of aTm and Neb hurt us. Mizz and Col not so much. Bringing in TCU and WV were good for the B12.
So, were we allowed to have divisions as things are do we have a South Div comprising the Texas teams(UT, TT, TCU, BU) plus OU and the North Div comprising OSU, KSU, KU, ISU and WV?
Most know that SEC membership is cherished. We may get tired of the ESPN nepotism, some of the SEC ince$t amongst rivals, etc....but at what point do teams not named Bama get tired of little brother status? Sort of like France claiming they won WWII. If indeed D is the shit, then a LSU or aTm should dominate the B12, right? aTm.....UT is feeling their oats and think they're better than you again. Unless ya'll meet in a Cotton Bowl or something, who knows?
Anyway, the B12 wanted the CCG so we would have exposure during Championship Week. Every year, with a Round Robin, there will be a rematch. Two years into it, and folks already grumbling. If we had the divisions, as things stand, would be OU vs WV. So, we'd have two teams playing each other two weeks in a row. There would never be a TX/OU B12 CCG. Remember 2008 when TX wasn't happy with OU being the B12 South champ to the extent TX falsely claimed the B12-S title on their gym wall?
As an old fuck, I enjoyed the old rivalries of UT vs aTm on Thanksgiving week. Also like Bedlam around Turkey day. It is what it is, however, so we either 1) add teams we may not care to add to allow divisions; 2) drop the CCG we asked for or; 3) play the RR replaying a battle already fought in the CCG. Or if we can elicit another rule evolution, get 5 team divisions so its a North vs South CCG. Would still be a rematch however, unless we add more non-conf games to our schedules and do the non division bi-annual rotation.
So, were we allowed to have divisions as things are do we have a South Div comprising the Texas teams(UT, TT, TCU, BU) plus OU and the North Div comprising OSU, KSU, KU, ISU and WV?
Most know that SEC membership is cherished. We may get tired of the ESPN nepotism, some of the SEC ince$t amongst rivals, etc....but at what point do teams not named Bama get tired of little brother status? Sort of like France claiming they won WWII. If indeed D is the shit, then a LSU or aTm should dominate the B12, right? aTm.....UT is feeling their oats and think they're better than you again. Unless ya'll meet in a Cotton Bowl or something, who knows?
Anyway, the B12 wanted the CCG so we would have exposure during Championship Week. Every year, with a Round Robin, there will be a rematch. Two years into it, and folks already grumbling. If we had the divisions, as things stand, would be OU vs WV. So, we'd have two teams playing each other two weeks in a row. There would never be a TX/OU B12 CCG. Remember 2008 when TX wasn't happy with OU being the B12 South champ to the extent TX falsely claimed the B12-S title on their gym wall?
As an old fuck, I enjoyed the old rivalries of UT vs aTm on Thanksgiving week. Also like Bedlam around Turkey day. It is what it is, however, so we either 1) add teams we may not care to add to allow divisions; 2) drop the CCG we asked for or; 3) play the RR replaying a battle already fought in the CCG. Or if we can elicit another rule evolution, get 5 team divisions so its a North vs South CCG. Would still be a rematch however, unless we add more non-conf games to our schedules and do the non division bi-annual rotation.
