While I have no problem moving away from permanent divisions with a 16-team conference, there should be a more balanced scheduling format to avoid the ridiculous tiebreaker scenarios we just witnessed.

My suggestion: Split the conference teams up into 4 pods.

Texas Pod: Baylor, TCU, Houston, Texas Tech
Mountain Pod: BYU, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State
Big 8 Pod: ISU, KSU, KU, Oklahoma State
Crossover Pod: Colorado, Cincy, West Virginia, UCF

If you want to switch out Colorado and ISU, be my guest. But with Colorado being one of the latest additions, I just chose them to be the sacrificial lambs instead of ISU, as one team will have to be somewhat inconvenienced geographically.

The concept: A team plays its other pod teams annually (3 games), then one other pod each year (4 games). You would then play one team from each of the other pods (2 games), bringing a team's conference games to 9 total, which is the same as it is now.

With this format, you would still have mini-divisions each year, where 2 pods all play one another. The two mini-division winners would then play each other for the title.

Makes the most sense, as it simplifies potential tie-break scenarios.

The mini-divisions could change annually, or you could simply keep the schedules the same for two years at a time, which would ensure that every team plays a conference member both home and away during a 4-year span.

Hopefully this is something that is considered in the future.

The problem with the 4 pod idea is that you could easily end up with a 3 team tie at 2-1 and the 4th team at 0 -3. A beats B, B beats C and C beats A.. A B & C all beat D. The only logical tie breaker is who has the largest margin of victory or who beat team D the worst.

The best idea is 2 divisions of 8. You play every team in your divisions every year and 2 teams from the other division. So that you will play in 4 years every team in the other division.
That would allow you to play 3 non conference games, one strong, one medium and one soft.

The best idea is 2 divisions of 8. You play every team in your divisions every year and 2 teams from the other division. So that you will play in 4 years every team in the other division.
That would allow you to play 3 non conference games, one strong, one medium and one soft.

You can't do that to Colorado

I don't like the 2 divisions within the conference. For way too many years, the B12 North was much weaker than the B12 South and the conference championship game was against the top team from the B12 (which was from the south) against the 3rd or 4th best team in the conference (from the north). The actual top 2 teams, however that is determined, should play for the conference championship at the end of the season, and it shouldn't be determined because one team won the weaker division.

I was a fan of how it ended up this year. Literally every game during the final week was relevant. I had a Big XII game on 1 of my screens all day this past weekend.

And, the top 2 that earned it go in... not some mediocre team that won a weaker division.

Its fine as is.

We need pods or divisions, IMO. This year's results make little sense.

Could just do a north and a south (draw the line between OSU and the Kansas schools). Then, everyone is taking some inconvenience from the eastern schools.

That would put the 2 AZ schools, the 4 TX schools, OSU, and UCF in the south. Everyone else in the north. Most years, that would be relatively balanced.

Two eight-team divisions. You play everyone in your division plus 2 crossover games. Division champs face off for conference championship.

I called this problem back when everyone announced divisionless schedules. It was really predictable IMO.

contrario said:

---

I don't like the 2 divisions within the conference. For way too many years, the B12 North was much weaker than the B12 South and the conference championship game was against the top team from the B12 (which was from the south) against the 3rd or 4th best team in the conference (from the north). The actual top 2 teams, however that is determined, should play for the conference championship at the end of the season, and it shouldn't be determined because one team won the weaker division.

---

There's no way to determine that playing wildly disparate divisionless schedules. You end up with a bunch of inane tiebreakers.

2 divisions of 8, you play everyone in your division once. Top two teams from each division go to conference playoff where the divisions play each other, winners play for championship, losers play for 3rd place and an extra win to help playoff resume.

Teams that don't make conference playoff are assigned a game against the other divisions teams based on finish order.

Similar to SEC, each team ends up playing 8 games with the conference champions playing 9. Schedule a cupcake for the extra game and get our records looking better for the playoffs.

I would suggest having a televised event where you draw (use actual ping pong balls) each week opponents. Outside of the last week used for Rivalry week - - everything else is a crap shoot...Put in some criteria about prior years performance, some local regional games....but leave the rest to the imagine and luck of the draw.

It would make for some entertaining viewing and you could have a lot of fun with each of the match-ups as you announce....

SirBearALot said:

---

The best idea is 2 divisions of 8. You play every team in your divisions every year and 2 teams from the other division. So that you will play in 4 years every team in the other division.
That would allow you to play 3 non conference games, one strong, one medium and one soft.

---

Agreed. Not sure why everyone thought going divisionless would fix division imbalances. This is much worse. For big 12, I think you go something like East/West (names don't matter) and you try to protect most rivalries

West
Colorado
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
BYU
Kansas
Kansas State
Iowa State

East
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU
Houston
Cincinnati
West Virginia
UCF

Now for this year, you can easily argue West would have been a much tougher division, but this conference will likely be very cyclical.

Here is what I would do:

• Split into two eight-team divisions.
• Open the season with an eight-game conference schedule (all division opponents; one crossover).
• Play a four-team conference playoff for the title with the semifinals on the final week of the regular season. One division's No. 1 team plays the other division's No. 2 and the winners meet for the championship on championship week.
• Everyone else plays a seeded crossover game the final week of the regular season with the top non-qualifying finishers playing each other on down the line to the worst non-qualifying finishers. Some juggling could be done on the off chance teams have already met.

Voila. This solves the division imbalance problem, gives the leagues two more premium games to sell to TV partners and ensures that the Big 12's best teams will have the best strengths of schedule possible at the end of the season. It also gives you a handy way to rank teams for bowls at the end of the year, if that matters.

Two Divisions -- East and West

I would put Tech in the west and Iowa State in the east

You play your whole division every year plus 4 from the other division that rotate every two years for a home and home situation.

Eliminate the garbage games against Tarleton State etc

West
Colorado
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
BYU
Kansas
Kansas State
Texas Tech

East
Oklahoma State
Iowa State
Baylor
TCU
Houston
Cincinnati
West Virginia
UCF

Riff Raff said:

---

Two Divisions -- East and West

I would put Tech in the west and Iowa State in the east

You play your whole division every year plus 4 from the other division that rotate every two years for a home and home situation.

Eliminate the garbage games against Tarleton State etc

West
Colorado
Arizona
Arizona State
Utah
BYU
Kansas
Kansas State
Texas Tech

East
Oklahoma State
Iowa State
Baylor
TCU
Houston
Cincinnati
West Virginia
UCF

---

I don't like those divisions. If you must split the Texas schools, send Houston east with its former Big East/AAC mates and keep Baylor, TCU and Tech together.

Same with Iowa State and the former Big Eight schools. Regionality, history and tradition should be preserved/protected as much as it can be.

Rivalry weekend in the Big XII can be much better than it was.

Big XII gotta figure that out. Cant be hard.

Married A Horn said:

---

Rivalry weekend in the Big XII can be much better than it was.

Big XII gotta figure that out. Cant be hard.

---

The first step is protecting/cultivating more rivalries. Every team in our conference should have at least four teams they're playing every single season. Giving every team one such team (at most) is a massive unforced error.

What would they be?

Baylor vs TCU
Utah vs BYU
Kansas vs KState
Arizona vs Az State

Are there any other natural ones? U cant match up others via geography that weekend... but u cant force rivalries.

Married A Horn said:

---

What would they be?

Baylor vs TCU
Utah vs BYU
Kansas vs KState
Arizona vs Az State

Are there any other natural ones? U cant match up others via geography that weekend... but u cant force rivalries.

---

Colorado vs. Tech (flag bowl)
Iowa State vs. Oklahoma State (old Big 8)
Cincinnati vs. West Va. (old Big East)
Houston vs. UCF (old AAC)

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Married A Horn said:

---

What would they be?

Baylor vs TCU
Utah vs BYU
Kansas vs KState
Arizona vs Az State

Are there any other natural ones? U cant match up others via geography that weekend... but u cant force rivalries.

---

Colorado vs. Tech (flag bowl)
Iowa State vs. Oklahoma State (old Big 8)
Cincinnati vs. West Va. (old Big East)
Houston vs. UCF (old AAC)

---

Ok...but are those real rivalries? I have a hard time thinking Tech & Colorado are rivals. What about the other 3?

Married A Horn said:

---

What would they be?

Baylor vs TCU
Utah vs BYU
Kansas vs KState
Arizona vs Az State

Are there any other natural ones? U cant match up others via geography that weekend... but u cant force rivalries.

---

Cincinnati-West Virginia, Oklahoma State-Tech and Houston-UCF (space theme) could all grow into good rivalries for the conference if cultivated. They might seem forced at first, but familiarity breeds contempt ... as we saw during the Big 12's round robin days, when we had some pretty heated annual matchups with the old North schools.

Even though every conference has storied rivalries at year end, they each end up with a few schools that don't fit into the rivalry weekend:

SEC:
UGA, SC, UK, FLA all play instate nonconference rivals
UT/Aggy, Egg Bowl, Iron Bowl, Vandy/Other UT all make sense
But then you are left with Arky/Mizzou and OU/LSU, neither of which fit

B1G:
OhioSt/Mich, Ill/NW, Minn/Wisc, IU/Purdue, Oregon/Wash all make sense. Neb/Iowa is developing into a newly hated rivalry. USC/UCLA alternates final weekend with USC/Notre Dame.
But they are still left with PennSt/MD and Mich St/Rutgers

ACC:
So far flung only a few rivalries make sense
FlaSt, Clemson and Louisville play instate noncon rivals
UNC/NCSt, UVA/VT, Duke/Wake all make sense
But then they are still left trying to figure out what to do with SMU, Pitt, Miami, Syracuse and BC. Stanford/Cal played next-to-last weekend because with 3 playing noncon rivals, somebody else was going to have to find a noncon opponent. This year it was Stanford losing to San Jose St the final weekend.

Yeah, i dont mind there being non rivalry games on rivalry weekend. Im pretty much saying there will be some and I dont see the need to force them if they arent there.

But us vs tcu and byu vs utah should be on that weekend. Idk why they cant.

Married A Horn said:

---

Yeah, i dont mind there being non rivalry games on rivalry weekend. Im pretty much saying there will be some and I dont see the need to force them if they arent there.

But us vs tcu and byu vs utah should be on that weekend. Idk why they cant.

---

The problem with what the Big 12 has done is that they've eliminated rivalries that are there as annual meetings, like Baylor-Tech (the longest running annual meeting of any old Southwest Conference teams) and Iowa State-Kansas State.

To create rivalries, you need to have teams that are playing every season. And the Big 12 has abandoned a model that did that for one that has us playing UCF, Cincinnati, Arizona, Arizona State, etc., as often as we do our original Big 12 mates.

I want more games against teams I care about playing and fewer against teams I don't.

Ugh. We gotta change that. Will ut play aggy and ou every year?

We cant kill off butt bowl and revivalry bowl or even skip years on it.

UH vs UCF call it the "Commuter Bowl"

Geographic divisions are going to be a hard sell. The non-Texas teams want to play Texas teams every year and just going to Tech would not meet this criteria.

I would love to hear feedback on doing seeding based divisions. Every two years divisions reset based on the previous year's results. 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16 in one division and 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15. Then you could have one or two cross division/rivalry games. These games will not impact division standings for the conference championship. The powers that be can use them in the tie breaker formula for conference rank for division seeding.

For those arguing that we need to play more conference games, 9 is already too many. They limit the number of wins the conference can have. By our contract with the cable networks, we have to have 9, but 8 would be better. There's a reason the SEC has multiple bowl teams with 2-6 conference resumes.

You could leave the last week open. Preset home and away and then top teams play each other. Prevents a team from skating through the worlds easiest schedule.

boykin_spaniel said:

---

You could leave the last week open. Preset home and away and then top teams play each other. Prevents a team from skating through the worlds easiest schedule.

---

You don't want that! I know it sounds great because (in theory) strength of schedule matters, but it really doesn't. It's a fake talking point that's only brought out to prop up brand name teams. Big12 should want to get as many 11-1 or 12-0 teams going into championship weekend as possible. Anything less is an excuse to leave them out of the playoff.