Texas Longhorn TV Network

#76
#76
Fair enough. I'd still love a situation where Bama and Tennessee are in the same division, but I can deal with not having that, as long as they play every year.
 
#77
#77
I like the fact that there is the potential for two Bama-UT games in a given year. I'm quite shocked that it hasn't happened in 19 years of divisional play.
 
#78
#78
tvolsfan said:
I'm not doubting you, but I do feel like Tennessee and Bama fans would raise enough hell for it to count for something. I really think OSU and Michigan could have avoided the idiocy which forced them to be in separate divisions.
Click to expand...

It will ruin their rivalry in the same way that divisional play has largely ruined UT-Alabama. First they'll have to start rooting for each other sometimes because of the division standings, and then 15 years of that will go by, and then all the young kids will be wondering why the old guys worry so much about Ohio State/Michigan when Penn State & Wisconsin/Michigan State & Nebraska are obviously the more important games.
 
#79
#79
bamawriter said:
I like the fact that there is the potential for two Bama-UT games in a given year. I'm quite shocked that it hasn't happened in 19 years of divisional play.
Click to expand...

The fact that it hurts whoever loses in both conference and division standings is unfortunately a big hindrance there.

I don't think any of the "cross-division" yearly rivals have played each other in the second championship game, have they?
 
#80
#80
Vercingetorix said:
It will ruin their rivalry in the same way that divisional play has largely ruined UT-Alabama. First they'll have to start rooting for each other sometimes because of the division standings, and then 15 years of that will go by, and then all the young kids will be wondering why the old guys worry so much about Ohio State/Michigan when Penn State & Wisconsin/Michigan State & Nebraska are obviously the more important games.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely.

The Bama-UT rivalry has fallen in stature because both teams haven't been good at the same time for the last decade or so.

The problem with putting UM and OSU in separate divisions isn't that they might play twice or that they might have to root for each other. It's that they might play twice in consecutive weeks. And for the possibility to occur, both teams would most likely have to have locked up championship game berths prior to the regular season matchup. If you're about to play the same team in two consecutive weeks, and the second game is for the conference title while the first game means next to nothing, how amped up are you going to be for the first game?

Bama and Tennessee will never have that issue, because they play long before either team has a chance to clinch its division.
 
#81
#81
TrueOrange said:
The fact that it hurts whoever loses in both conference and division standings is unfortunately a big hindrance there.

I don't think any of the "cross-division" yearly rivals have played each other in the second championship game, have they?
Click to expand...

No cross-division rivals have met up twice, but teams have played twice in the same year. The fact that those repeat matchups weren't between rivals is more of a quirk than anything else.
 
#82
#82
bamawriter said:
Maybe...

But let's say TAMU and Oklahoma joined, and Arkansas left for the East.

Alabama and Tennessee won't willingly give up their rivalry. Nor will UGA and Auburn. The SEC wouldn't want to split up Florida and LSU, even if the schools wanted to. And a cross-division rivalry between Arkansas and A&M would be a given since they already play frequently. So that's 4 out of 7 cross-division rivalries that are set in stone.

The overwhelming interest from most parties would be to keep that system in place
Click to expand...

It matters to fans, but I don't know that it will matter enough to the men running modern SEC athletic departments. Call me a cynic, but I think divisions would be realigned and the permanent opponent scheduling kept or not kept based almost entirely on what CBS and ESPN thought would maximize television ratings.
 
#83
#83
Vercingetorix said:
It matters to fans, but I don't know that it will matter enough to the men running modern SEC athletic departments. Call me a cynic, but I think divisions would be realigned and the permanent opponent scheduling kept or not kept based almost entirely on what CBS and ESPN thought would maximize television ratings.
Click to expand...

UT-Bama, UGA-AU, UF-LSU all do solid ratings. How many times have any of these games not been picked up by CBS or ESPN's primetime slot over the past decade? I can think of the 2007 Bama-UT game and that's it.

Ratings will dictate that these rivalries stay in place.
 
#84
#84
bamawriter said:
I disagree completely.

The Bama-UT rivalry has fallen in stature because both teams haven't been good at the same time for the last decade or so.

The problem with putting UM and OSU in separate divisions isn't that they might play twice or that they might have to root for each other. It's that they might play twice in consecutive weeks. And for the possibility to occur, both teams would most likely have to have locked up championship game berths prior to the regular season matchup. If you're about to play the same team in two consecutive weeks, and the second game is for the conference title while the first game means next to nothing, how amped up are you going to be for the first game?

Bama and Tennessee will never have that issue, because they play long before either team has a chance to clinch its division.
Click to expand...

The consecutive-weeks thing is dumb of them to do, but I think people are fixating too much on the possibility of a rematch which might happen twice a decade. The thing that will eat away at the OSU/UM rivalry, IMO, is that once you shift to a system where the focus of your season is getting to the conference championship game, then the inexorable math of the standings means that a divisional game against a division contender counts basically twice as much as any cross-division game. (I.e., if Tennessee beats Alabama, it's no more helpful than beating Ole Miss or Arkansas or even Vandy or Kentucky, but if we beat UF or UGA, it's both a win for us and a big loss for them.) We have five threads per offseason about whether people hate Florida or Alabama more, and the (inevitably younger) fans who hate Florida more all point to how much more that game means in division play.

Imagine a scenario in which OSU and Wisconsin spend the next decade battling it out for mastery of the Leaders (ugh) Division, like UT-Florida in the 90s. It wouldn't take long for younger Buckeye fans to start circling that game on their calendars as much as the Michigan game. Meanwhile Michigan's over there battling it out every year with Nebraska. Fast forward 20 years, and OSU/Michigan becomes like UT/Alabama, which last year a current UT student on this board called "a fun classic old-school matchup, not all about hate like the Florida game." Makes me want to throw up.
 
#85
#85
Vercingetorix said:
It will ruin their rivalry in the same way that divisional play has largely ruined UT-Alabama. First they'll have to start rooting for each other sometimes because of the division standings, and then 15 years of that will go by, and then all the young kids will be wondering why the old guys worry so much about Ohio State/Michigan when Penn State & Wisconsin/Michigan State & Nebraska are obviously the more important games.
Click to expand...
I've lived most of my life in central Ohio and am actually a student at OSU right now. I understand what you're saying, but I'll be stunned if it happens that quickly.
 
#86
#86
tvolsfan said:
I've lived most of my life in central Ohio and am actually a student at OSU right now. I understand what you're saying, but I'll be stunned if it happens that quickly.
Click to expand...

It'll take 15-20 years. All the people who have grown up detesting Michigan as the only meaningful yardstick of Big 10 play will have to get old and irrelevant, and a new generation of fans will have to grow up for whom the most important thing is winning the division and getting to the B10CG.

Remember all the guys on this board who complained that the biggest obstacle to getting rid of Fulmer was the older fans who gave him too much credit for beating Alabama, when Florida was obviously the game that really mattered? Those same arguments will eventually come to OSU and Michigan.
 
#87
#87
Vercingetorix said:
It'll take 15-20 years. All the people who have grown up detesting Michigan as the only meaningful yardstick of Big 10 play will have to get old and irrelevant, and a new generation of fans will have to grow up for whom the most important thing is winning the division and getting to the B10CG.

Remember all the guys on this board who complained that the biggest obstacle to getting rid of Fulmer was the older fans who gave him too much credit for beating Alabama, when Florida was obviously the game that really mattered? Those same arguments will eventually come to OSU and Michigan.
Click to expand...
You're assuming that the OSU fanbase operates like a normal fan base where winning the conference is more important than beating a particular rival. That's not necessarily the case here. The fans really seem to enjoy their recent dominance over Michigan much more than their string of conference titles. Coopers firing made it evident that winning conference titles and being in the national title hunt didn't mean anything here if you kept losing to Michigan. And I'm not saying Cooper was a great coach who should have been retained, but I don't think most schools would have fired him when OSU did. Tressel inherited an 8 win team and went 7-5 his first season, but it was considered a huge success because they won in Ann Arbor.

Anyways, I wouldn't be stunned if they are back in the same division in a few years.
 
Last edited:
#88
#88
tvolsfan said:
You're assuming that the OSU fanbase operates like a normal fan base where winning the conference is more important than beating a particular rival. That's not necessarily the case here. The fans really seem to enjoy their recent dominance over Michigan much more than their string of conference titles. Coopers firing made it evident that winning conference titles and being in the national title hunt didn't mean anything here if you kept losing to Michigan. And I'm not saying Cooper was a great coach who should have been retained, but I don't think most schools would have fired him when OSU did. Tressel inherited an 8 win team and went 7-5 his first season, but it was considered a huge success because they won in Ann Arbor.

Anyways, I wouldn't be stunned if they are back in the same division in a few years.
Click to expand...

For the vast majority of the Big Ten's history, the two have been virtually the same thing. The split to divisions means that's not true anymore.

If you're a 40-year-old OSU fan, how many times during your life has the B10 championship come down to that last game? In contrast, how many times will that be true over the next 20 years in a divisional system?
 
#89
#89
the SEC would add A&M, OU,OSU, Mizzou they would not add FSU or any other school in the ACC
 
#90
#90
GoBigOrangeVols said:
can't wait to bring in aTm and hopefully FSU in the east.. tt, baylor, okie state can go fly a kite, don't want them.

Sooners would be alright too, but not as geographically relevant as the others. If we went all the way to 16 my choices would be aTm, FSU, Sooners, Hokies.. in order.
Click to expand...


volger said:
I wouldnt mind seeing MU join the SEC.
Click to expand...


crazyguy said:
aTm has a great traditon...that would fit well with the sec. And I have a ton of aTm friends. I'm pulling for aTm and FSU in the SEC.
Click to expand...

Vols4life said:
the SEC would add A&M, OU,OSU, Mizzou they would not add FSU or any other school in the ACC
Click to expand...

If the conference were to add two teams from a dissolving Big 12, I would like/hope it to be aTm and Missouri

makes sense both geographically...and i'd feel monetary/market wise too
 
#91
#91
I gotta think the Big Ten would make a run at Mizzou. St. Louis market, AAU school, etc.

TAMU is the only school I could see landing in the SEC, but say they wanted another school to go with -- who would it be? Texas is taken care of (and the rest of the BXII South would go westward anyhow), Mizzou to the Big Ten and I doubt you could get any of the ACC schools to jump ship.
 
#92
#92
Texas has set themselves up to become independent. The PAC 10 won't take with their tv deal, and the SEC is below their standards.

Just give it time. We'll be there shortly. The folks in Lawrence are shopping as we speak.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#94
#94
The SEC is below their standards, and they know they'd instantly go from 10-11 wins a year to 8 wins a year.

You're right, if/when the BXII disolves, Texas going independent is the only thing I can see happening (of course I'm sure state leg. will mandate they still play A&M, TTU and Baylor every year)
 
#95
#95
bamawriter said:
The Big 10 could have had Missouri already. Missouri did everything they could to get a Big 10 invitation, and the conference didn't want them.
Click to expand...

I think if the Big Ten could have pulled more teams in a non cluster-eff fashion, they would have taken them. It's still very possible IMO.
 
#97
#97
TXVOL07 said:
Texas has set themselves up to become independent. The PAC 10 won't take with their tv deal, and the SEC is below their standards.

Just give it time. We'll be there shortly. The folks in Lawrence are shopping as we speak.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
What do you mean by the SEC is below their standards? Serious question.
 
#98
#98
milohimself said:
I gotta think the Big Ten would make a run at Mizzou. St. Louis market, AAU school, etc.

TAMU is the only school I could see landing in the SEC, but say they wanted another school to go with -- who would it be? Texas is taken care of (and the rest of the BXII South would go westward anyhow), Mizzou to the Big Ten and I doubt you could get any of the ACC schools to jump ship.
Click to expand...
What about Oklahoma?
 
#100
#100
tvolsfan said:
What do you mean by the SEC is below their standards? Serious question.
Click to expand...

Texas mentality = We are far superior in academics, morals, recruiting strategies, and general standards of achievement than any hickville school in the SEC. Yes that includes you Vandy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top