CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big XII => Topic started by: CWSooner on July 28, 2019, 09:45:16 PM
-
An OU-Texas title game possibility makes the Oct game slightly less important
The Oklahoman
July 28, 2019
Berry Tramel
Sooners and Longhorns invaded the Dallas Metroplex, put on the pads, walked onto the field of an iconic stadium doused in crimson and burnt orange, and entered an alternate universe.
They were in Arlington, not Dallas. In JerryWorld, not the Cotton Bowl. In the shadow of Six Flags, not the State Fair of Texas. In December, not October.
Strange. Very strange.
“Did feel a little weird,” Lincoln Riley said. “The game felt different, the atmosphere, the vibe, everything around it was a little different.”
That’s the opposite of OU-Texas in October. That game FEELS the same every year. No matter the records. No matter the rankings. No matter the coaches. No matter the quarterbacks. The Red River Rivalry is unassailable. The same yesterday, today and forever.
But now comes a fraternal twin. OU-Texas in December, in the Big 12 Championship Game. We had it last season. We’re projected to have it this season, with the Sooners picked first and the Longhorns second. And the championship game was different.
“It wasn’t so much OU-Texas,” Riley said. “We were both playing for a championship. We were playing for a playoff berth, too. Kyler (Murray) was probably playing for a Heisman Trophy. There was a lot of different … it is weird to say, but a lot of bigger storylines than the fact that it was OU-Texas.”
All parties are quick to say a rematch didn’t detract from the October classic.
OU nose guard Neville Gallimore: “It’s a game you’re playing for pride, playing for the Golden Hat. We know how we feel about them. We know how they feel about us.”
Sooner receiver CeeDee Lamb: “It was a fight. It's like, man, it was a blow-for-blow two times in one year. I tip my hat off to them guys. They come out every year with their best foot forward and they fight. And so do we.”
But still. The truth of the 2018 OU-Texas game in the Cotton Bowl was that it was not even the biggest OU-Texas game of the season. The Sooners lost in Dallas (a 48-45 thriller) yet still won the Big 12 (a 39-27 thriller) and made the national semifinal Orange Bowl.
The Red River game remains glorious. But its impact has lessened, just a tad. Even to this extent. In my annual rankings of every upcoming Big 12 game, from most important to least important, I don’t have OU-Texas No. 1. Iowa State-Texas gets that slot.
I know, that sounds counter-intuitive. But remember what we just talked about. OU-Texas last October did NOT determine a spot in the conference title game. When the Big 12 had divisions, OU-Texas usually was a division title game. When the Big 12 had no championship game, OU-Texas could be a title elimination affair.
But now, OU-Texas can be like the insufferable title to the CBS pregame show before the NCAA basketball finals – Prelude to a Championship.
Meanwhile, other games could hold greater consequences. Iowa State-Texas, for instance. The ‘Horns are picked second, the Cyclones third. If the preseason Big 12 poll holds form, ISU-Texas will determine a spot in the Big 12 Championship Game. Iowa State making the Big 12 title game, at Texas’ expense or otherwise, would be a historic achievement for the Cyclones and a great thing for the conference, in terms of parity.
So I put Iowa State-Texas No. 1. OU-Texas is No. 2, because even a prelude to a championship is a big deal when it’s an ancient holy war.
Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby made the case that the October game is bigger now than ever before.
“I think it can't do anything but enhance the rivalry, although it's fair to argue that that rivalry couldn't be enhanced any more than it already is,” Bowlsby said. “It's pretty highly anticipated. I think this year's game with OU and Texas picked one and two in the league probably has more anticipation to it than what we may have had before, and of course that is multiplied by the fact that they played in the championship game last year.”
It’s certainly possible that the “weirdness” of December, playing a high-stakes game but in a more sterile environment than the pandemonium of the State Fair, will make OU-Texas fans appreciate the October game even more. Will help fans realize what they have.
OU-Texas is a game that inflames passion whether it’s a battle of unbeatens or a repeat of 1997, when the Sooners entered 2-3 and the Longhorns 2-2, having beaten only Rutgers and Rice.
But in 2019, with the addition of a fraternal twin, OU-Texas stakes have dipped ever so slightly.
Berry Tramel
-
Slightly, perhaps. The winner of the first game obviously avoid having that conference L that could be pivotal.
-
You know how it goes, CD. You've got UGA-UF and the WLOCP.
Before the downsized Big 12 created a CCG, OU-Texas was for--among other things--a year's worth of bragging rights. If your team won, it was sweet to savor the victory for 12 months. If your team lost, that loss stung for 12 months. And it had been that way since 1929.
Now there is the possibility that fans can only savor the win, or suffer from the loss, for 2 months.
After OU lost to Texas in the RRS last year, most OU fans believed that the Sooners still had a great shot at making the CCG. But we especially wanted to meet Texas there. I imagine that, had it been the other way around, Texas fans would have felt the same way.
-
that's why the first game is equally important
if ya drop the RRS ya might not make the CCG
-
that's why the first game is equally important
if ya drop the RRS ya might not make the CCG
True.
But the RRS goes from the most emotionally important game to tied with the potential CCG rematch for that honor. By the logic of that, the RRS is slightly less important.
-
UGA can't play UF twice of course (barring both get picked for the playoff).
Imagine UT beats OU who then runs the rest of the table and OU beats UT in the CG. Both are 12-1 and likely in the playoff (in many years) with a chance to play again.
Imagine those two in an NC game.
-
UGA can't play UF twice of course (barring both get picked for the playoff).
Imagine UT beats OU who then runs the rest of the table and OU beats UT in the CG. Both are 12-1 and likely in the playoff (in many years) with a chance to play again.
Imagine those two in an NC game.
Crazy world we live in. It could definitely happen, and even more likely after the playoff expands to 8 teams.
-
With 8 teams, we could easily have 3 from the same conference, maybe even 4 in unusual years, depending on how many are at large.
I never understood the origins of "at large", it sounds criminal to me.
Is there an "at small" referencing something?
-
At large and at small sound awfully sizist, to me. Definitely not PC.
For an 8-team playoff I'd expect a no-4-team-from-any-conference rule, and likely a no-3-team rule. One of the main points of the expansion-- at least politically-- would be to avoid antitrust/collusion cases from popping up from the G5. So allowing in 3-4 teams from one P5 conference wouldn't gain you any political leverage.
What I see as the most likely 8-team pool gives you the P5 champs as auto-bids, and then 3 more so you could wedge in Notre Dame and a couple of G5 teams.
-
^^^^^^^
Also please note I'm not saying I actually WANT the above to happen, simply that I view it as the most logical progression from where we are now.
-
I understand, it's most likely, and I think a G5 team would often be selected, perhaps by force. If you pick the P5 champs plus three others, meaning the three "best", you COULD still have 4 teams from one conference in the playoff. It would have to be a year with ND being mediocre and the second team in every other conference being pretty bad, along with the G5s.
There is a chance that two teams would play three times in a season, even with the current system.
UGA could play Auburn thrice obviously.
-
I understand, it's most likely, and I think a G5 team would often be selected, perhaps by force. If you pick the P5 champs plus three others, meaning the three "best", you COULD still have 4 teams from one conference in the playoff. It would have to be a year with ND being mediocre and the second team in every other conference being pretty bad, along with the G5s.
There is a chance that two teams would play three times in a season, even with the current system.
UGA could play Auburn thrice obviously.
I'm about 99.9% certain that there would be a requirement from 4 of the 5 P5 conferences that no conference ever gets 4 teams in.
I'm about 87.3% that there would be a requirement from 3 of the 5 P5 conferences-- and all of the attorneys from every G5 school plus roughly 90% of Congress-- that no conference ever gets even 3 teams in.
Yes, it would absolutely be "by force." But that's the only way it'll ever happen. Congress has been THIS close to blowing up the entire thing anyway based on antitrust, and allowing ANY one P5 conference 4 teams, or even 3 most likely, will inevitably result in the hammer being dropped.
-
Imagine UT beats OU who then runs the rest of the table and OU beats UT in the CG. Both are 12-1 and THE BOOMER SOONERS are in the playoff
fixed it
-
fixed it
Probably. In this scenario, Texas would have a loss in the final game of the season.
The reason the SEC backdoored 2 teams into the CFP a couple years ago, was that those two teams did NOT face each other in the SEC conference championship game, so neither had an immediate loss just before the tournament selection.
-
I rue the day we go to the 8-team playoff.
Better go back to bowls-n-polls than that.
-
I rue the day we go to the 8-team playoff.
Better go back to bowls-n-polls than that.
Agree with you there. I'd much rather go back to the old bowl system, old conference alignments, eliminate the 24/7 sports "news" cycle, etc. It's all become so much more jaded.
Not everyone agrees with me, but I will say that the one REALLY positive thing about conference realignment (the 1996 version) was Texas and OU becoming conference rivals. For me, it just amped up what was already an extremely passionate rivalry. Not only did we WANT to beat y'all every year, but we absolutely NEEDED to more often than not, in order to achieve ANY of the team's goals (win the division, win the conference, play in a major bowl, etc.).
And I feel that way despite the fact that, since the formation of the B12, the Sooners have gotten the better of us the majority of the time. Even so, I still love this game as a conference rivalry. But I know not all Longhorns and Sooners agree with me on that one.
-
just one of the reasons the sooners sided with the Horns on alignment of the big 12 and giving up the annual game with the Huskers
the Sooners got the Horns as an annual conference rival, I suppose the Huskers were supposed to continue on with the Buffs, but Ralphie is a COW!
-
just one of the reasons the sooners sided with the Horns on alignment of the big 12 and giving up the annual game with the Huskers
the Sooners got the Horns as an annual conference rival, I suppose the Huskers were supposed to continue on with the Buffs, but Ralphie is a COW!
I don't know this for certain, but I think there were some movers and shakers in Soonerland who were tired of what had become the annual ass-kickings at the hands of the Huskers and just opted for the easy way out. Maybe they had encountered some members of the famous HPS, I don't know.
In any event, they settled for ass-kickings only half the time--the coward's way out, IMO.
I agree with Utee that the OU-Texas rivalry got amped up even more, but for OU the cost was the annual Nebraska game.
OU should have fought to keep that as an annual game. We might have lost that fight, but we should have at least made it.
If, after the next round or two of realignment, OU, Texas, and Nebraska all ended up in the same division of the same conference, I would be a happy man.
-
I don't know this for certain, but I think there were some movers and shakers in Soonerland who were tired of what had become the annual ass-kickings at the hands of the Huskers and just opted for the easy way out. Maybe they had encountered some members of the famous HPS, I don't know.
In any event, they settled for ass-kickings only half the time--the coward's way out, IMO.
I agree with Utee that the OU-Texas rivalry got amped up even more, but for OU the cost was the annual Nebraska game.
OU should have fought to keep that as an annual game. We might have lost that fight, but we should have at least made it.
If, after the next round or two of realignment, OU, Texas, and Nebraska all ended up in the same division of the same conference, I would be a happy man.
What I highlighted in (Sooner) red above-- I've seen you, and Cousin Fred, and others mention it as a possibility before. I can certainly understand the mindset at the time, but if true, man that's so short-sighted and sad. Ultimately the loss of NU-OU an an annual rivalry game was a fundamental flaw in the B12, an internal crack that would eventually become more severe over time. That's my opinion anyway.
I certainly would have been in favor of supporting an alignment that allowed that to continue as an annual game, even if it meant some weird/odd combinations of forced x-divisional rivalries for the other teams.
-
Yep. Short-sighted, sad, and the fundamental flaw in the Big 12.
All of the above.
-
Perhaps they thought it would only be for the short term, 10 seasons or so.
Long enough to hire Stoops and build the Sooners back to normal, long enough to put the Huskers in their place politically
it could always have been changed to protected crossovers after 10 seasons of experience to see what teams might matchup the best
of course 10 from 1996 was 2006 and when things started to get warm no concessions were offered either way to hold the conference together
-
You're giving the 1995 Sooner PTBs a break I don't think they deserve, Fearless.
We were running on about 5 out of 8 cylinders--on the field and off--at that time.
-
always try to give the benefit of the doubt
I look for the best in folks
even Longhorns
-
why would anybody be against an 8 team playoff
seems like the best solution to the we was robbed cry
-
the we was robbed cry
will never go away
it's human nature
March Madness @ more than 64 teams still has that issue
I'm old school, screw the crybabies
If you didn't get in the 4 team playoff it's VERY simple, your team didn't play well enough to earn a spot
-
why would anybody be against an 8 team playoff
seems like the best solution to the we was robbed cry
There are worse things than the "We wuz robbed" cry.
Like a fluke team winning the NC.
The bigger the field, the more likely than an undeserving team wins it.
I don't mind what we have now, but the reason I was against it was because I knew it would immediately lead to demands that it be expanded.
-
I don't even like what we have now, but that's largely due to the subjective nature of ESPN's selection committee.
That's why one thing I DO like about a potential 8-team playoff, would be IF the subjectivity were partially removed by forcing the use of the objective criterion of "P5 champs only, earn the autobids." Then of course ESPN could still worm in Notre Dame or backdoor a second undeserving SEC team using at-large, but at least for every team in the P5, you know before the season the one guaranteed way to get into the CFP.
And sure you might get a 9-4 type team as a conference champion, but that's actually a fault of the conference and how it selects its champion, not a fault of the playoff. If conferences played full roundrobins and no CCG, you'd reduce the chance of a total clunker team making the playoff.
-
I am against an 8 team playoff. I could be talked into a 6 team version. I prefer the system we have now because I KNOW that ESPN is the Leader in Sports and has all the experts on staff, other venues are mostly clunkers.
-
ESPN serves its own agenda and is a complete farce.
I'd rather almost ANY other entity make the selections, but ESPN pays for the tournament, so ESPN gets to make the selections.
And no thanks on a 6-team version, giving byes is stupid IMO. Every team should play the same number of games.
-
I tend to think ESPN's influence is far less than most seem to think, especially over the Committee.
Maybe that's because I ignore them personally with they tongue wagging shows. I think the Committee has gotten it right, pretty much, though I would have made a few different choices for #4. Doesn't mean I'm right, and one of those 4 picks won it all.
-
I tend to think ESPN's influence is far less than most seem to think, especially over the Committee.
Maybe that's because I ignore them personally with they tongue wagging shows. I think the Committee has gotten it right, pretty much, though I would have made a few different choices for #4. Doesn't mean I'm right, and one of those 4 picks won it all.
I'm not sure why you would think this? ESPN owns the committee. ESPN pays for the entire CFP. They bought the CFP, and they pay for the Committee. They are the ONLY entity that pays for the CFP and the committee. They have ABSOLUTE control over the committee.
That you tend to agree with their choices is another discussion, but there's no debate on this one-- the committee does exclusively what ESPN desires.
-
both y'all have had this debate more than a few times, but carry on
-
I don't even like what we have now, but that's largely due to the subjective nature of ESPN's selection committee.
That's why one thing I DO like about a potential 8-team playoff, would be IF the subjectivity were partially removed by forcing the use of the objective criterion of "P5 champs only, earn the autobids." Then of course ESPN could still worm in Notre Dame or backdoor a second undeserving SEC team using at-large, but at least for every team in the P5, you know before the season the one guaranteed way to get into the CFP.
And sure you might get a 9-4 type team as a conference champion, but that's actually a fault of the conference and how it selects its champion, not a fault of the playoff. If conferences played full roundrobins and no CCG, you'd reduce the chance of a total clunker team making the playoff.
partially removed?!?!?!?
WTH???
-
partially removed?!?!?!?
WTH???
Not sure what you're not understanding?
Currently the process is entirely subjective.
Using the criterion of P5 conference-champ auto-bid would make that portion objective, however, still having 3 at-large bids would retain partial subjectivity in the process.
I don't much like it, but I'd be willing to live with it, if we got the auto-bids for conference champs portion implemented, and also enacted rules against more than 2 teams from any conference. Seems like a decent compromise to me.
-
yes, it's partial and a "decent" compromise
I just hope if things change, we get better
-
yes, it's partial and a "decent" compromise
I just hope if things change, we get better
I'm not as vehement about all this as I once was, indeed these days it's largely an academic exercise for me. I watch about 1/20th the amount of college football that I did a decade ago, and probably about 1/50th the amount of NFL.
Things are going to continue to change, and probably not to my liking, and nobody is ever going to consult me on it, so what to do what to do?
-
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2019/4/3/governance.aspx (https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2019/4/3/governance.aspx)
I'm not seeing where ESPN is involved. That doesn't mean they aren't of course. There are some impressive names "colluding" if ESPN is running the show.
Who at ESPN makes the decisions behind the scenes? They just feed these to the committee?
-
https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2019/4/3/governance.aspx (https://collegefootballplayoff.com/sports/2019/4/3/governance.aspx)
I'm not seeing where ESPN is involved. That doesn't mean they aren't of course. There are some impressive names "colluding" if ESPN is running the show.
Who at ESPN makes the decisions behind the scenes? They just feed these to the committee?
ESPN pays all of the bills. ALL of them. Do you think the "governance" is simply going to say "ESPN."
And yes, the powers that be at ESPN feed them to the committee. Why wouldn't they?
-
I personally do not think ESPN influences the committee. Maybe that is naive.
-
I think it's extremely naive. I guess we can leave it at that. :)
-
Without evidence, it's speculation. Maybe, maybe not. I don't see how they can do it effectively. Who is ESPN anyway? Do they meet and decide which 4th team brings the highest ratings and then send that message down the line? What if the committee laughs and ignores the message?
Sounds like conspiracy stuff to me.
-
Without evidence, it's speculation. Maybe, maybe not. I don't see how they can do it effectively. Who is ESPN anyway? Do they meet and decide which 4th team brings the highest ratings and then send that message down the line? What if the committee laughs and ignores the message?
Sounds like conspiracy stuff to me.
Of course it does. *shrug*
-
(Entering late to the thread)
I guess on paper the game is 'less important' but as stated, it will always mean something more (to the fans anyway) to get that win than any other on the schedule. The good thing as a fan is that media opinions or stats don't truly impact the inner-excitement of a rivalry game or make it less meaningful of a game to look forward to, even if the weight of the win isn't as powerful as it once was with the rematch possibility.
For me, I get excited and more amped up for many games that don't seem to have national/major importance in the standings anyway. Like in the NFL, the Texans and Cowboys play against eachother sometimes (almost always in preseason, it seems) and it doesn't have much of any impact on the teams' conference standings, but it sure as hell is one of the most fiery & fun games to watch in these parts, even if the results are pretty meaningless overall.
As long as I'm still having fun as a fan, and the games are as intense as they always have been, it is not much bother to me if others perceive the RRR as diminished importance as it once was, and will always remain a strong rivalry game no matter the level of talent the teams field against eachother.
-
ou sucks
That is all.
-
That's not all.
Texas blows.
NOW it is all.
-
Ha!
ole~
big hands