It’s finally here.

Introducing the 2023 football schedule. #GoCoogs pic.twitter.com/5NqKlJpoOG

— Houston Football (@UHCougarFB) January 31, 2023

My first reaction is that even by typical aggy scheduling standards, this is a favorable schedule - especially the 8 home games part. Looks like we're pretty much gifted bowl qualification and will hopefully take advantage of it to achieve a lot more than just that.

bear2 is right. Whats "super weird" or "bizarre" is others that think its such a great concept. Again we know with this strange combo of teams next year it probably has to be this way but doesn't mean we can't comment on it.

If Ok St wasn't in turmoil and had one of their more normal squads I would put $ down on them being in the conference title. They still have a decent shot even if they are mediocre. Gift schedule although I know their fans are upset having to play all the new teams at the end with no rival Texas teams included.

Quinton said:

---

bear2 is right. Whats "super weird" or "bizarre" is others that think its such a great concept. Again we know with this strange combo of teams next year it probably has to be this way but doesn't mean we can't comment on it.

---

The current CFB setup in most leagues would be the college basketball equivalent of playing a 16- or 18-game conference schedule for nothing but conference tournament seeding. If that was actually proposed, people would laugh.

For some reason, we accept it in football ... and then oddly complain about a real playoff like every other sport has devaluing the regular season. It makes no sense.

College football had it right there first time. Leagues that want to play a conference title game should have at least 12 teams in split divisions. They make no sense whatsoever otherwise. And beyond being an affront to sound logic, they're patently unfair to the winners of the regular season matchups, which see literally no benefit from that win.

The schedule-makers appear to have been under the impression that Kansas State is located in Texas, an understandable mistake really.

— RedditCFB (@RedditCFB) January 31, 2023

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

bear2 is right. Whats "super weird" or "bizarre" is others that think its such a great concept. Again we know with this strange combo of teams next year it probably has to be this way but doesn't mean we can't comment on it.

---

The current CFB setup in most leagues would be the college basketball equivalent of playing a 16- or 18-game conference schedule for nothing but conference tournament seeding. If that was actually proposed, people would laugh.

For some reason, we accept it in football ... and then oddly complain about a real playoff like every other sport has devaluing the regular season. It makes no sense.

College football had it right there first time. Leagues that want to play a conference title game should have at least 12 teams in split divisions. They make no sense whatsoever otherwise. And beyond being an affront to sound logic, they're patently unfair to the winners of the regular season matchups, which see literally no benefit from that win.

---

I honestly don't understand your point. How would having divisions address any of your complaints? How does the static division membership improve anything? You are still playing tor a spot in the conference champ game regardless of being in a division or not. And you are ultimately playing for a spot in the national tournament just like basketball.

bear2be2 said:

---

wongobear said:

---

Super weird takes on hating the CCG. I personally find a final matchup between two top teams very exciting. Nobody complains about a playoff rematch in the NFL (or maybe they do, I dunno).

Anyway, the real reason the Big XII ccg exists in 2023 is to be able to sell it to a network. Networks are more likely to buy it if they are guaranteed to get 2 ranked teams playing with high stakes implications. Just like everything else, it is about money.

I would bet that the official playoff rankings will be at least one of the tie breakers if not the first one. This guarantees the Big XII gets its two teams most likely to qualify for the playoff (or a playoff bye) playing each other in the last game. It also gets more viewers.

---

That's because a national playoff makes sense. You take the best teams from every division and play a fair playoff with concise rules for inclusion and benefits for those who excelled most in the regular season.

Negating the results of a regular season spent playing conference opposition to crown a conference champion on the results of one neutral site game that has already been played does not.

It's just a shameless money grab sold as something important.

---

If the best teams (whether from opposing divisions or not) play each other in the ccg it is, effectively, the first round of the playoffs.

I think BYU wins this one hands-down. What a pretty setting.

Which new Big 12 stadium do you want to visit first? @Heartland_CS pic.twitter.com/n5RQQLYjPB

— Derek Duke (@DerekDuke25) February 1, 2023

Thought there would be a bunch more Thursday and Friday night games but I only see 4 total..none for us...

wongobear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

bear2 is right. Whats "super weird" or "bizarre" is others that think its such a great concept. Again we know with this strange combo of teams next year it probably has to be this way but doesn't mean we can't comment on it.

---

The current CFB setup in most leagues would be the college basketball equivalent of playing a 16- or 18-game conference schedule for nothing but conference tournament seeding. If that was actually proposed, people would laugh.

For some reason, we accept it in football ... and then oddly complain about a real playoff like every other sport has devaluing the regular season. It makes no sense.

College football had it right there first time. Leagues that want to play a conference title game should have at least 12 teams in split divisions. They make no sense whatsoever otherwise. And beyond being an affront to sound logic, they're patently unfair to the winners of the regular season matchups, which see literally no benefit from that win.

---

I honestly don't understand your point. How would having divisions address any of your complaints? How does the static division membership improve anything? You are still playing tor a spot in the conference champ game regardless of being in a division or not. And you are ultimately playing for a spot in the national tournament just like basketball.

---

My point is that conference championship games are largely stupid and unnecessary in most cases. And they don't make any sense whatsoever without divisions. With divisions, you can at least insulate the teams on each side enough that there's some compelling reason to play one at the end of the season. Without them, you either have an unnecessary rematch, a standings quagmire that requires a series of indecipherable tiebreakers or matchups influenced as heavily by the teams you missed as the teams you beat.

Conference title games (as applied at the FBS level) don't exist at any other level of football, and there's a reason for that. They're manufactured money grabs and little more. At every other level, you play your conference/district schedule and move on to a robust playoff. Only at the DI FBS level do we feel it necessary to squeeze a few more pennies out of consumers with a manufactured game of contrived importance.

And we've let these conference titles games wag the dog to the point that we're abandoning sound scheduling conventions and matchups that have been played annually for a quarter-century or more (see ours with OU and OSU) in favor of "natural rival" nonsense in an effort to accommodate them.

Five to 10 years from now, we'll have three games on our schedule that really mean anything beyond the impact they have on the standings. That means if you're not in the playoff mix, you're playing nine games a year against opponents you don't really care about. In other words, we're ditching what most fans love about college football ... and for what? A conference title game that is as likely as not to be a rematch?

It's all so dumb. But, as they always do, the folks in charge of high major college football have convinced fans that what is best for their bottom line is best for the sport. As Big Dan Teague said, "It's all about the money, boys."

historian said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

wongobear said:

---

Super weird takes on hating the CCG. I personally find a final matchup between two top teams very exciting. Nobody complains about a playoff rematch in the NFL (or maybe they do, I dunno).

Anyway, the real reason the Big XII ccg exists in 2023 is to be able to sell it to a network. Networks are more likely to buy it if they are guaranteed to get 2 ranked teams playing with high stakes implications. Just like everything else, it is about money.

I would bet that the official playoff rankings will be at least one of the tie breakers if not the first one. This guarantees the Big XII gets its two teams most likely to qualify for the playoff (or a playoff bye) playing each other in the last game. It also gets more viewers.

---

That's because a national playoff makes sense. You take the best teams from every division and play a fair playoff with concise rules for inclusion and benefits for those who excelled most in the regular season.

Negating the results of a regular season spent playing conference opposition to crown a conference champion on the results of one neutral site game that has already been played does not.

It's just a shameless money grab sold as something important.

---

If the best teams (whether from opposing divisions or not) play each other in the ccg it is, effectively, the first round of the playoffs.

---

Except, it's not. Because we saw teams lose their conference title games and make the CFP in the four-team era and we'll see that happen routinely once it's expanded to 12.

If the goal is more compelling games with higher stakes, let's cut the nonsense and expand the playoff to 24 or 32 teams like every other level has and replace the conference title games with good cross-conference matchups. That would be way better for the sport than watching any rematch or arbitrary product of schedule luck in a conference championship game.

bear2be2 said:

---

wongobear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

bear2 is right. Whats "super weird" or "bizarre" is others that think its such a great concept. Again we know with this strange combo of teams next year it probably has to be this way but doesn't mean we can't comment on it.

---

The current CFB setup in most leagues would be the college basketball equivalent of playing a 16- or 18-game conference schedule for nothing but conference tournament seeding. If that was actually proposed, people would laugh.

For some reason, we accept it in football ... and then oddly complain about a real playoff like every other sport has devaluing the regular season. It makes no sense.

College football had it right there first time. Leagues that want to play a conference title game should have at least 12 teams in split divisions. They make no sense whatsoever otherwise. And beyond being an affront to sound logic, they're patently unfair to the winners of the regular season matchups, which see literally no benefit from that win.

---

I honestly don't understand your point. How would having divisions address any of your complaints? How does the static division membership improve anything? You are still playing tor a spot in the conference champ game regardless of being in a division or not. And you are ultimately playing for a spot in the national tournament just like basketball.

---

My point is that conference championship games are largely stupid and unnecessary in most cases. And they don't make any sense whatsoever without divisions. With divisions, you can at least insulate the teams on each side enough that there's some compelling reason to play one at the end of the season. Without them, you either have an unnecessary rematch, a standings quagmire that requires a series of indecipherable tiebreakers or matchups influenced as heavily by the teams you missed as the teams you beat.

Conference title games (as applied at the FBS level) don't exist at any other level of football, and there's a reason for that. They're manufactured money grabs and little more. At every other level, you play your conference/district schedule and move on to a robust playoff. Only at the DI FBS level do we feel it necessary to squeeze a few more pennies out of consumers with a manufactured game of contrived importance.

And we've let these conference titles games wag the dog to the point that we're abandoning sound scheduling conventions and matchups that have been played annually for a quarter-century or more (see ours with OU and OSU) in favor of "natural rival" nonsense in an effort to accommodate them.

Five to 10 years from now, we'll have three games on our schedule that really mean anything beyond the impact they have on the standings. That means if you're not in the playoff mix, you're playing nine games a year against opponents you don't really care about. In other words, we're ditching what most fans love about college football ... and for what? A conference title game that is as likely as not to be a rematch?

It's all so dumb. But, as they always do, the folks in charge of high major college football have convinced fans that what is best for their bottom line is best for the sport. As Big Dan Teague said, "It's all about the money, boys."

---

Ok, I get you better now. The $$ for the CCG is certainly a primary motivator, and I am upset that we are losing opponents that I care about (and have been for years), but I still don't think having divisions really addresses any of your complaints. With divisions, you still play only 9 of the 14 teams and it is still luck of the draw if those will be the best 9 or the worst.

I could see something like playing 2 rounds of Big XII conference playoffs perhaps addressing your concerns. At least then the top 4 teams would qualify and that could eliminate a schedule imbalance and help to better determine the top team.

We will have 14 teams next and 12 moving forward, for the time being. Not everyone will play each other. What if the 3 best teams are BU, BYU, OSU, but BYU didn't play BU or OSU? A lot of people griped TCU got to beat a few teams with injured quarterbacks. CCG makes sure your best team is your best team. As Parch mentions sometimes maybe the best team loses that game, but tough luck because conferences want them and networks want them.

I do agree CCGs make more sense with divisions. Easier for there to be 2 clear winners in each division. As I admitted earlier it still doesn't mean the best 2 teams play in the CCG.

bear2be2 said:

---

historian said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

wongobear said:

---

Super weird takes on hating the CCG. I personally find a final matchup between two top teams very exciting. Nobody complains about a playoff rematch in the NFL (or maybe they do, I dunno).

Anyway, the real reason the Big XII ccg exists in 2023 is to be able to sell it to a network. Networks are more likely to buy it if they are guaranteed to get 2 ranked teams playing with high stakes implications. Just like everything else, it is about money.

I would bet that the official playoff rankings will be at least one of the tie breakers if not the first one. This guarantees the Big XII gets its two teams most likely to qualify for the playoff (or a playoff bye) playing each other in the last game. It also gets more viewers.

---

That's because a national playoff makes sense. You take the best teams from every division and play a fair playoff with concise rules for inclusion and benefits for those who excelled most in the regular season.

Negating the results of a regular season spent playing conference opposition to crown a conference champion on the results of one neutral site game that has already been played does not.

It's just a shameless money grab sold as something important.

---

If the best teams (whether from opposing divisions or not) play each other in the ccg it is, effectively, the first round of the playoffs.

---

Except, it's not. Because we saw teams lose their conference title games and make the CFP in the four-team era and we'll see that happen routinely once it's expanded to 12.

If the goal is more compelling games with higher stakes, let's cut the nonsense and expand the playoff to 24 or 32 teams like every other level has and replace the conference title games with good cross-conference matchups. That would be way better for the sport than watching any rematch or arbitrary product of schedule luck in a conference championship game.

---

With an auto bid for conference champ, a ccg between the conference's 2 best would be the first round of the playoff.

historian said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

historian said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

wongobear said:

---

Super weird takes on hating the CCG. I personally find a final matchup between two top teams very exciting. Nobody complains about a playoff rematch in the NFL (or maybe they do, I dunno).

Anyway, the real reason the Big XII ccg exists in 2023 is to be able to sell it to a network. Networks are more likely to buy it if they are guaranteed to get 2 ranked teams playing with high stakes implications. Just like everything else, it is about money.

I would bet that the official playoff rankings will be at least one of the tie breakers if not the first one. This guarantees the Big XII gets its two teams most likely to qualify for the playoff (or a playoff bye) playing each other in the last game. It also gets more viewers.

---

That's because a national playoff makes sense. You take the best teams from every division and play a fair playoff with concise rules for inclusion and benefits for those who excelled most in the regular season.

Negating the results of a regular season spent playing conference opposition to crown a conference champion on the results of one neutral site game that has already been played does not.

It's just a shameless money grab sold as something important.

---

If the best teams (whether from opposing divisions or not) play each other in the ccg it is, effectively, the first round of the playoffs.

---

Except, it's not. Because we saw teams lose their conference title games and make the CFP in the four-team era and we'll see that happen routinely once it's expanded to 12.

If the goal is more compelling games with higher stakes, let's cut the nonsense and expand the playoff to 24 or 32 teams like every other level has and replace the conference title games with good cross-conference matchups. That would be way better for the sport than watching any rematch or arbitrary product of schedule luck in a conference championship game.

---

With an auto bid for conference champ, a ccg between the conference's 2 best would be the first round of the playoff.

---

It would seed the playoff. It would only be an eliminator in certain cases.

Finally, a compelling argument for divisions I can agree with. Well done.