You are hereWant to see KU-Texas twice a year? An alternative idea for Big 12 scheduling
Want to see KU-Texas twice a year? An alternative idea for Big 12 scheduling
So I'm just thinking back to Big 12 media days, when it was discovered that Kansas coach Bill Self and Texas coach Rick Barnes had been talking about scheduling a second game between the teams each season that would be nonconference and alternate between Dallas and Kansas City.
While that sounds like a fun idea for everyone involved, I'm not so sure it's the best way to get these two teams on an even playing field once a year. How about the Big 12 actually takes care of that by changing the way the Big 12 schedule is put together?
As of now, Kansas has an easier road to the Big 12 regular season title than whoever the best team is in the South. KU has six games against Iowa State, Colorado and Nebraska each year. This season, for instance, there is no *down* team in the South. I know that the power between South and North is cyclical more in basketball than in football, but overall, there are usually more competitive teams in the South.
Which begs the question: If the Big 12 standings are not divided into North and South for basketball, why is the schedule structured as if they were? It would be one thing to do it this way if the Big 12 were structured like the SEC, where there is a West champion and an East champion. Then the seeds are divided up as "E1, E2, ..." and "W1, W2, ..." In the Big 12, it's just 1-12.
Here is my plan, which is certainly not revolutionary in any way: The Big 12 keeps its format of playing 6 teams once and 5 teams twice, but it takes away the rigidity of having to play the five teams in your football division twice. Each team has three teams (two from its football division and one from the other football division) that it plays twice every year and two rotating spots that change each season.
It could look something like this for deciding which teams play twice:
Kansas: Kansas State, Missouri, Texas, Rotate, Rotate
Kansas State: Kansas, Missouri, Baylor, Rotate, Rotate
Missouri: Kansas, Kansas State, Texas A&M, Rotate, Rotate
Iowa State: Nebraska, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Rotate, Rotate
Nebraska: Colorado, Iowa State, Oklahoma, Rotate, Rotate
Colorado: Iowa State, Nebraska, Texas Tech, Rotate, Rotate
Texas: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Rotate, Rotate
Texas A&M: Texas, Baylor, Missouri, Rotate, Rotate
Texas Tech: Baylor, Oklahoma State, Colorado, Rotate, Rotate
Oklahoma: Texas, Oklahoma State, Nebraska, Rotate, Rotate
Oklahoma State: Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Iowa State, Rotate, Rotate
Baylor: Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Kansas State, Rotate, Rotate
This allows for Kansas and Texas, the marquee rivalry in the league, to be showcased twice each season. And it balances the schedule more between North and South.
If the Big 12 isn't willing to do something like this, then it should follow the SEC model and award a North and South crown and divide the seeds up in the Big 12 Tournament.
Posted in
The North, this year, as it has been for most of the years since the big 12's inception is stronger than the South. It was last year as well, Texas went 2-4 against the North last year. People always seem to discount Kansas when comparing the two. You can't just offset Kansas and whoever is the top south school. Kansas' dominance in this league is unprecedented, it is far greater than the football dominance of either UT or OU.
After just returning from watching a game in Austin, I can pretty confidently say that there are 4 venues in the North that are much more difficult to play at than any in the South unless OSU is good. As pure venues, not the teams necessarily. The ISU crowd up in Ames a few weeks ago that I attended was much better than the UT crowd in Austin. KSU and MU are both better atmospheres also.
There is no guarantee that 5 years down the road Texas-KU will still be the marquee matchup it is today (or it's built up to be; Texas doesn't look so scary anymore). To arbitrarily assign teams to foes they would play twice, you are effectively trying to create "new" rivalries that don't really have the history between schools that the others do. Take your KSU-Baylor matchup, for example. What's the basis for them playing twice in a season, as opposed to KSU-A&M, Baylor-Nebraska, or any other combination of North & South teams that could play each other.
I agree with the other poster that KSU fans - like myself - would certainly like to have Texas on our floor every year just as much as KU would. In most cases, KSU would probably benefit from it MORE than KU would because KSU doesn't have the history and the name to get them into the tourney on a "weak" year that KU may have; hence, having Texas twice would be one more chance for a "marquee" win.
I think expanding the conference season is the only legitimate option. That's why it will probably never happen.
As much as I'd love to play Texas twice a year as a KU fan I really don't see a good way to do it. I'd personally really like to see the full 22 game conference season, but that won't happen. Maybe Mizzou will go to the Big 10 then we could maybe sell a 20 game conference season.
Sorry, I don't really like it. I say either keep it the way it is, or go to a complete "rotation" where there are no "keyed" rivalry games. I don't expect that to happen though because these rivalries are big money.
I mostly don't like it because it isn't exactly fair for a lot of reasons. I'm sure a school like K-State would love to have Texas scheduled at home each year too... why does KU automatically get that? What happens in 5 years, when say, the UT program falls apart and Oklahoma is the best team by far in the South... then do you switch and have them play KU?
I think the only truely fair thing is to go on a full rotation... but nobody will agree to that.
Top 6 from the previous year play each other twice, all others once.
Doesn't work perfectly for teams that graduate a lot and have a down year the next, see North Carolina. :-)
But, all in all, it would be pretty fair and make for more marquee games in the Big 12 to televise.