hook me

How is 2-7-7 easier? As @TKthunder2 pointed out above it makes scheduling more complicated because it doesn't come out even TEXAS: a&m, OU Year 1: Arky, LSU, Bama, Auburn, MSU, OM, Mizzou Year 2: UK, Vandy, UF, TN, UGA, SC.... and....? You have an empty spot that you have to fill with one of the teams you played in year 1. Is it an impossible solution? No. Is it an added headache that is completely unnecessary? Absolutely. With the 3-6-6 you're already playing every team every other year just like the 2-7-7, you're protecting more rivalries than the 2-7-7, and it makes it easier to balance the schedule, & it comes out perfectly even unlike the 2-7-7. I don't see a world where the 2-7-7 makes sense in a 16 team conference. 1-7-7 which they won't do because it's only 8 conference games, or 3-6-6.

If the SEC is serious about protecting their rivalries they're going to have the 3-6-6. You're going to choose between the Iron Bowl & Bama/TN? I don't think so. RRS or UT/a&M? UGA/FL or UGA/Auburn? Why would you choose to destroy rivalries within your own conference when there's no need to? Very Big 12ish. It just doesn't make sense & like you said, 2-7-7, while helping but not completely solving the rivalry problem, doesn't make sense from a general scheduling standpoint. There's too much money to not go to 9 conference games & there's not a better way to do 9 conference games than 3-6-6 to protect rivalries & have a somewhat balanced schedule. The expanded CFP helps assuage worries about missing the playoffs because of a tough schedule, you still have 2 patsy OOC games you can split up to help break up the schedule, & you can charge much more for home tickets because you're seeing every team from the SEC much more often & UT/OU have been added to that mix.

Your list needs some help. How do some teams play a team every year but the other team doesn't? In other words, MSU plays Bama every year but Bama doesn't have them? Same thing with LSU. OM has Arky but Arky doesn't have them, SC doesn't have Mizzou..

Holy shit I just looked because I assumed the title of the thread just hasn't been changed & I'll be damned, he just skipped out on doing it this year. That guy just can't help but be a laughing stock.

If you don't want to engage with any of the 10+ reasons people have given you as to why teams & fans would/should care then stop asking the damn question. "A player may get hurt". We could lose Ewers, Banks, Worthy, & Murphy in the Spring game but we're still playing it. We lost Neyor & Angilau in fall camp last year, should we not have fall camp to prevent injuries? We lost Ewers in Q1 vs. Bama & he missed the next 3 games - should he not have played? Should he not play @ Bama this year since we could go 12-1 & still make the playoffs? Also, your TCU example makes no sense because they actually tried to win the Big 12 & lost in a really good game. How does the narrative of their Championship Game loss change if they sat their star players for the Big 12 Championship? "They sat all their star players & forfeited the Big 12 championship just to get blown out by UGA?" Yeah, sounds smart. Also, it's fucking TCU & they were happy just to be there given their record from the year before. Your example of McCaffrey is equally stupid because that was a top 10 pick that decided to skip the fucking Sun Bowl not a coach benching players in the Conference Championship game. Stop the idiocy, have a nice weekend, & try again next week if you come up with something better than injuries in a violent sport, TCU, & CMC.

Don't schools have a maximum number of official visits they're allowed to host? If that hasn't/doesn't change then this new rule will probably be beneficial for the top 10% of prospects who would have a roster spot reserved at any school no matter what so long as they're actually interested in that school. I'm sure staffs are smart enough to sniff out the ones that have no interest in actually going to that school & are just looking for money & a good time on their 10th visit.

If you don't think football conference championship games matter then that's your shitty opinion to have, but don't act like it should be any sort of popular opinion. The hardware that goes in the trophy room that you get to show to recruits, the giant ring you get to wear into recruits houses right before the early signing period while other coaches are having to game plan along with recruit, the extra week of rest, the time afforded for players to not have to worry about game prep while taking finals, the guarantee of not having to play on the road or get a more difficult draw because you're seeded lower in the playoff, only having to win 3 playoff games instead of 4, the money paid in bonuses to the coaches for the the championship win & likely making it to the quarterfinals, and whatever else I missed that people can think of. Fans don't typically like watching teams tank on purpose, but when you tank in a conference championship game I couldn't imagine the outrage. And where exactly would it stop? You sit the QB because he's the star but what about the LT, WR, LB, CB? What's the locker room attitude when you work all year only for the coaches to decide that one individual (or 2 or 3) are too important to risk in the fucking conference championship game so everything they preached about being a team, sacrificing for the program, playing every game like it's the most important game ever, & everything else coaches say to motivate & create team chemistry & unity was just a bunch of bullshit? Edit: You probably wouldn't have a ring to wear into recruits house just the bragging rights, but you get the idea.

100%

Well I'd imagine no one will be happy if your star QB blows his knee out but if you're worried about injuries then you follow the wrong sport. That injury could happen during any play of any game or any rep of any practice before that. If he's hurt going into the game then I'd understand resting him, but if he's healthy then he plays just like he would against the cupcakes earlier in the season when you wouldn't have needed him to win.

Only conference champions can get a bye week & there's no guarantee that the loser of the title game would be a 5-8 seed which play the first round game at home. Also, conference championships usually come with a nice bonus for the HC as well as recruiting usefulness and, as always, bragging rights.

SDSU & CAL don't move the needle. They're leeches, even by Big 12 standards they're bleh. The UCF/UH/Cincy move were necessities to stabilize the conference but now that they're in somewhat of the drivers seat for the B1G & SEC sloppy-seconds they can be much MUCH more selective. Take UA & CU to start the dominoes & hope UO & UW come knocking. If not, there's no reason to panic & add as you're in prime position to reap some of the benefits of the ACC implosion in the near future. If Utah gets over itself and asks nicely then maybe you add them & ASU but Cal, Stanford, OSU, WSU, & any other Western school isn't worth it. Wait for Pitt, VA Tech, NCST, & maybe GT to become available, see if UCONN & gonzaga want to be added as basketball members & you've got yourself a damn good basketball conference with some of the biggest names out there to go along with an entertaining football conference.

The asshole in me really wants the SEC to pass on FSU & UM sighting a "gentlemen's agreement" to not allow another FL school into the SEC.

That's not the question at all. The question is do you want OU & a bunch of other schools or do you want OU, Bama, LSU, UGA, UF & a bunch of other schools. I'd prefer the second every day of the week & 60 years of (mostly) shitting all over TTU & calling it a mud bath doesn't change that. I can see why it would matter to TTU fans but I'll take exciting games vs. big schools & hope our admin figures out how to beat them than having 1 marquee conference + 1 marquee OOC game a year. Also, with Arky & a&m already in the SEC it's a no brainer as far as rivalries go. OU ....large gap.... a&m, Arky ........very large gap........ 3rd tier of "rivalries" that include TTU, BU, & TCU that are only rivalries because both schools are in TX & we've shared a conference for 60ish years (except for TCU who we forced to wander the desert for a few decades). So we're rekindling better rivalries & more marquee matchups. As far as non rivalry, non marquee conference games go I'd take Ole Miss, Tennessee, & Auburn games over ISU, KSU, & KU.

Plenty of people watch games that have nothing to do with their season if there are big names involved. I watched UM/OSU while on a weekend getaway. I watched UGA/TN, USC/UCLA, UO/UGA (before it got out of hand in the 1st half), TN/Bama, a&m/Bama, Bama/LSU, & several other games that had nothing to do with my favorite school because they were interesting & a big name was involved (usually 1-1/2 or 2 big names). You know what I didn't watch much/any of? KSU/ISU, BU/TTU, OSU/TCU, TTU/ISU etc. etc. etc. and most of those had a direct impact on UTs season. That doesn't even include the B1G/ACC/PAC equivalents of those games. People want to watch big names & the big names already have a big following so even when they're not in contention for a playoff bid & not playing another big name they're still getting viewers. UT vs OU/Bama/LSU/UGA/UF is better for college football than UT vs ISU/KSU/OSU/TTU/BU/TCU/UH ever was or will be. It's more interesting, even when UT is 3-3 or maybe I should say, especially when UT is 3-3. 3-3 UT vs 6-0 KSU is nothing compared to 6-0 or 5-1 or even 4-2 LSU or UGA. That's what I mean when I say it depends on your definition of "good for college football". Is a lot more premium content consolidated into only 2 conferences better than a lot less premium content spread nation-wide? I'd say yes, but I'm also a fan of a school that generates that premium content & gets mocked for losing to non-premium schools. You'd say no, but you're a fan of a school that doesn't generate that content & whose season is made by beating one of those premium schools (OU or UT).

I get not taking the UCLA football program seriously but, damn, that's a low blow.

I guess it would depend on your definition of "good for college football". Consolidation of brands makes for marquee matchups which drives excitement & makes games better to watch & attend. UT vs OU/LSU/Bama/UF/UGA is 1000x better than KSU/ISU/KU/BU/TCU. USC vs OSU/UM is 1000x better than CU/ASU/UA/Cal. Regional rivalries are great for those within the region, but have little excitement anywhere else. Even UT vs a&m has very little pull outside of TX. The good thing is, those other fanbases have enough support & history that when the eventual split comes the second-tier league should still be very entertaining unlike the XFL/USFL.

Geology talk?

Objectively awful jerseys.

I wonder if we had known that our starting QB would miss 3-3/4 games & our backup would be immediately hobbled for those same games if more people may have guessed less wins. maybe, maybe not.

Wife & I will be at Jerry World 3/31. She bought the tickets, I got the bill. If anyone is in need of a highly functioning kidney let me know.

Not surprising that aggy makes an awful corn maze. Also, not surprised they cut their paths by hand.

OSU, TCU, & Bama all lose a ton. KSU returns a lot but loses their RB which is the end of the world to some people around here - we get them at home though. OU sucked shit last year, I'm sure they'll be better but not sure just how much better they'll be. There's not a whole lot on our schedule that scares me. @Bama, OU, KSU, & @ISU are the only real games that I'm looking at as potential losses this year. I think we're better than all of those teams to different degrees, but those are the ones that I'm not sure about. As always, the key will be staying healthy. Ewers missed 3-3/4 games last year & had an injured finger in another. We went 2-3 in those games. You can't predict injuries & weather, but there's not team on this schedule that I'd trade our starting 22 for. Maybe a piece here or there, but the whole 22 is better than anyone we'll play.