Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[digamma]

This is hilarious. The guy works for a site called Orangebloods.com and gets paid to cover Texas recruiting and athletics. Who would you expect his sources to be?

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess it's easier to make it about MBBF than to actually discuss just how badly Brown compromised his integrity in this matter.

I think it is some what about you simply because you act like you're so much up in arms about Chip Brown, but you're willing to defend a guy like Mike DeArmond. For once I just wish you'd hold the same standards for your favorites (teams, reporters, etc) as you do with others. Otherwise your arguments are watered down simply because you're such a hypocrite when the shoe is on the other foot.

You've even suggested previously that DeArmond sat on a negative story at Missouri for weeks without any reason. He sat on that story until finally another paper researched the issue and then and only then did he cover the story. DeArmond didn't sit on that story for weeks because he had better things to cover, lol.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Chip Brown didn't paint a completely accurate picture of what was going on with the Pac-10 wooing Texas and other Big-12 schools, but he put out far more accurate info than just about anyone else. Yes, it was skewed by the fact it was being fed to him by Texas officials, but it was still highly informative. I fail to see how this is a bad thing - reporters are almost always only as good as their sources, and while Brown's sources in this particular matter were from a distinct viewpoint, they were also talking. We weren't getting that level of info elsewhere.

I do find it funny how he's trying to claim he wasn't getting fed info from Dodds or Brown. Maybe that's technically true, but c'mon Brown - everyone knows you were getting your info from the Texas athletic department.

Exactly my feelings. Chip Brown was the only one releasing some what viable information at a time when a lot of people were just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks.

As for his denial regarding Dodds, he's simply protecting his sources. He knows he can't come out and say where he is getting his information from without destroying those connections, but most of us know the truth based on his old ties to the Texas athletic department.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

I never have mentioned the name Mike DeArmond in any of my posts. I was going off of whatever sources you were using earlier in the thread to make your pronouncements that it is all but a done deal and the FOIA that was denied showed there was a contract in place.

So you brought up something that had nothing to do with what was being discussed just to flame. I don't think anyone's surprised, but at least you're being honest now.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Oh I dont believe i ever argued he was wrong, but people like you and cartman were saying how Mizzou was this horrible athletic department leaking details left and right when the only school that has been proven to leak confidential details is Texas. If your going to point fingers at schools for being unprofessional if you will, point them at the proper places.

Where did we say it was a horrible athletic department except tongue in cheek? I think we might have said it didn't do a good job of safeguarding information if random posters like Mizzou fan can find out information with a snap of a finger.

Would you rather the information come from someone within the athletic department or the seasonal custodian who spoke with a student who had a class with Zaviar Gooden?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

So you brought up something that had nothing to do with what was being discussed just to flame. I don't think anyone's surprised, but at least you're being honest now.

You cannot possibly be that dense. You are either the most naive fool I've ever had the displeasure to run across, or you are a pathetic example of trolling.

Only in MBBF land can it be that he incorrectly describes the statement of someone else, and then that person is in the wrong. Incredibly obtuse.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Where did we say it was a horrible athletic department except tongue in cheek? I think we might have said it didn't do a good job of safeguarding information if random posters like Mizzou fan can find out information with a snap of a finger.

Would you rather the information come from someone within the athletic department or the seasonal custodian who spoke with a student who had a class with Zaviar Gooden?

Honestly in these situations id rather the information not come out at all, because for good or bad it will create the unholy mess we witnessed all over the country. In my ideal world, all is done behind closed doors quietly and then what happens happens. That is prob. not a realistic dream, but I find that a preferable option then the shitstorm that actually took place.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Honestly in these situations id rather the information not come out at all, because for good or bad it will create the unholy mess we witnessed all over the country. In my ideal world, all is done behind closed doors quietly and then what happens happens. That is prob. not a realistic dream, but I find that a preferable option then the shitstorm that actually took place.

From your perspective, I would agree

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

Honestly in these situations id rather the information not come out at all, because for good or bad it will create the unholy mess we witnessed all over the country. In my ideal world, all is done behind closed doors quietly and then what happens happens. That is prob. not a realistic dream, but I find that a preferable option then the shitstorm that actually took place.

Well your idea worked well enough for the US constitution.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

You cannot possibly be that dense. You are either the most naive fool I've ever had the displeasure to run across, or you are a pathetic example of trolling.

Only in MBBF land can it be that he incorrectly describes the statement of someone else, and then that person is in the wrong. Incredibly obtuse.

If I'm that big of a problem, put me on your ignore list. The rest of the board will be thankful you did so.

[Wolfpack]

A log to put on the slowly dying embers:

Memphis To Big East, Says Another Radio Station - SBNation.com

I'm somewhat skeptical because while it sorta works to move the football membership to 9 teams (balanced home-and-away conference schedules), it would make basketball nightmarish with 17 members to sort out. If the Big 10 is plotting to take some Big East members soon or the Catholic non-football schools are ready to jump ship, then this makes much more sense. I haven't heard anything like that going on, though.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If I'm that big of a problem, put me on your ignore list. The rest of the board will be thankful you did so.

No, I quite enjoy him pointing out your blind homerism and logical fallacies.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

No, I quite enjoy him pointing out your blind homerism and logical fallacies.

It doesn't have anything to do with that. Someone else made the same assertion I did and it didn't draw flies. I make a similar assertion and the thread erupts. It's amusing I suppose, but his rebuttal is more blind homerism than what I posted.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I don't think anyone would be surprised by A&M already making back-door agreements. In fact, it makes perfect sense. They're laying the framework to depart from the Big 12 by their comments last week concerning the $20M guarantee by the commish. They know that the Big 12 isn't going to be able to make that happen.

A&M To SEC In 2013? - I Am The 12th Man

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

A log to put on the slowly dying embers:

Memphis To Big East, Says Another Radio Station - SBNation.com

I'm somewhat skeptical because while it sorta works to move the football membership to 9 teams (balanced home-and-away conference schedules), it would make basketball nightmarish with 17 members to sort out. If the Big 10 is plotting to take some Big East members soon or the Catholic non-football schools are ready to jump ship, then this makes much more sense. I haven't heard anything like that going on, though.

I'm sure I have probably said this earlier in this thread, but even though there aren't any good options, I kind of wish the Big East would just add another team so that they could have a 4 home/4 away conference schedule. Plus, if/when some combination of Rutgers/Syracuse/Pitt leave, we'll have a little bit bigger nucleus remaining.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I don't think anyone would be surprised by A&M already making back-door agreements. In fact, it makes perfect sense. They're laying the framework to depart from the Big 12 by their comments last week concerning the $20M guarantee by the commish. They know that the Big 12 isn't going to be able to make that happen.

A&M To SEC In 2013? - I Am The 12th Man

Just from a purely observational standpoint, I would be interested to see if Texas has enough gravitational pull to help pull a team like Houston or SMU or TCU (although, I understand they already have a BCS-like budget) up to the the level of a competitive Big 12(ish) team. I'm guessing A&M could be replaced pretty quickly by another in-state team (which would probably hurt A&M, Tech, and Baylor in recruiting).

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Just from a purely observational standpoint, I would be interested to see if Texas has enough gravitational pull to help pull a team like Houston or SMU or TCU (although, I understand they already have a BCS-like budget) up to the the level of a competitive Big 12(ish) team. I'm guessing A&M could be replaced pretty quickly by another in-state team (which would probably hurt A&M, Tech, and Baylor in recruiting).

Will Texas still be interested in staying in the Big 12 if A&M leaves? There's reasons to stay or go.

As for adding teams, I don't think the Big 12 will be adding any more Texas schools. I think if they add a team they might look at a footprint they don't already have.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

Will Texas still be interested in staying in the Big 12 if A&M leaves? There's reasons to stay or go.

As for adding teams, I don't think the Big 12 will be adding any more Texas schools. I think if they add a team they might look at a footprint they don't already have.

At this point I'm not sure A&M leaving would be enough to collapse the Big-"12" - from a competitive standpoint, bringing TCU in to the mix would be basically a wash. But I don't know if any of those other Texas schools (TCU included) would draw as many eyeballs as A&M.

Seems inevitable that the Big-"12" is going to collapse, probably sooner than later. And the Pac-12 will be waiting...

[tarcone]

I can see A&M wanting to get out of the Texas shadow. If they go to the SEC and the rest go West. Thats a HUGE reruiting advantage for A&M.

[I. J. Reilly]

If the Big-12 does implode, it will be interesting to see what the Pac-12 can do. Presumably they will only have 4 slots to offer, which will make it hard to bring in both Texas and Oklahoma.

Also, what exactly does A&M offer to the SEC? I guess the SEC West teams would get a bit of a bump in recruiting Texas kids, but it’s not like those teams are struggling to attract talent now.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

If the Big-12 does implode, it will be interesting to see what the Pac-12 can do. Presumably they will only have 4 slots to offer, which will make it hard to bring in both Texas and Oklahoma.

Why do you say this?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

If the Big-12 does implode, it will be interesting to see what the Pac-12 can do. Presumably they will only have 4 slots to offer, which will make it hard to bring in both Texas and Oklahoma.

Also, what exactly does A&M offer to the SEC? I guess the SEC West teams would get a bit of a bump in recruiting Texas kids, but it’s not like those teams are struggling to attract talent now.

I don't think it would be that hard. It would be Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and then a battle between the Pac-12 wanting Kansas and the Texas State Legislature trying to force Baylor on us (which won't happen).

[Arles]

Yeah, if the big 12 implodes and A&M leaves, Texas, OU, OSU and either TT/Kansas will all head to the Pac-10.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Arles

Yeah, if the big 12 implodes and A&M leaves, Texas, OU, OSU and either TT/Kansas will all head to the Pac-10.

D'oh - forgot about TT. Yeah, highly likely they'd be the 4th team. Kansas missed their chance when expansion didn't happen this offseason and Utah got the invite Kansas likely would have gotten.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Why do you say this?

Well, you would have to fit 5 teams (UT, OU, OSU, TT and Baylor) into 4 slots. So the Pac-12 would have to convince Texas to drop Baylor instead of just adding TCU to the Big-12, and there is no way that TCU would be getting the revenue share that A&M was getting. Judging from how Texas approached this last round of negotiating, I can guess which scenario they would like better.

Edit to add:
this of course changes if other conferences pull teams out of the Big-12, which could very easily happen.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Well, you would have to fit 5 teams (UT, OU, OSU, TT and Baylor) into 4 slots. So the Pac-12 would have to convince Texas to drop Baylor instead of just adding TCU to the Big-12, and there is no way that TCU would be getting the revenue share that A&M was getting. Judging from how Texas approached this last round of negotiating, I can guess which scenario they would like better.

I dont think Texas would need to be convinced to drop Baylor. They didn't care about them this past round of expansion and I doubt they would the next time

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

From Jim Delany at Big Ten media day:

"I don't know if it (Big 12) will hold together or not."

"I don't see them as a player, really." Delany says of ND in expansion. "I see ND in the big East for many years to come.

"We'll pause, but we're not necessarily turning our back on [future] expansion."

Give this guy credit. He knows how to play his cards in what seems like a neutral manner while throwing the other players into a state of fear or chaos. I'll be glad when he finishes up his moves and busts up the rest of the Big 12.

[DeToxRox]

Delaney also mentioned how in 3-4 years he expects the Big 10 to have 9 conference games. That'd mean 5 road games every other year just from the conference alone. Will be interesting to see if that means any of the B10 teams will stop scheduling ND.

[Blade6119]

The Big East explored the possibility of adding four Big 12 teams had the Big 12 disbanded in June, a Big East source told SNY.tv.

The Big East would have targeted Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State and Missouri, swelling its ranks to 12 football teams and 20 basketball programs, the source said.

"For the 24 hours where it looked like they were leaving [the Big 12], then this idea had legs," the source said Tuesday at Big East football media day.

[MrBug708]

Baylor would have made more sense then ISU

[Swaggs]

There is a bit of smoke coming out that the Big East is making a push to have Villanova make the jump up to FBS. The non-football BE schools have been against adding another football playing team, but it appears as if there has been an increasing threat to split and 3 or 4 of the non-football schools have recognized that without the football schools, revenues will go down considerably and their ADs will no longer be functional. The Big East schools have supposedly agreed to help finance the move for Villanova (which sounds like a dreadful idea to me), but school officials are worried that they will not be able to adequately fund a program and meet the Title IX required by additional football scholarships. Georgetown may also have a similar offer, but is not seriously considering the move.

Kind of interesting scenario and worth keeping an ear open to see if anything comes of this.

[Logan]

Villanova has been adamant about not having an interest in moving up for years. It doesn't make sense for them. Some smoke maybe, but no fire.

[DeToxRox]

The Big East needs to just add Memphis and UCF and get it over with.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

Originally Posted by Logan

Villanova has been adamant about not having an interest in moving up for years. It doesn't make sense for them. Some smoke maybe, but no fire.

yeah, it's been a popular rumor since all the re-alignment stuff started. it's mostly from the b.e. blogosphere.

the cuse community has desperately wanted the conf. to lean on the non-fb schools but it's not going to happen. the providence guys that run the league only care about hoops.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like Purple Book Cat has finally come out of the woodwork after a two month hiatus over at the Northwestern Rivals board. He was the poster who was feeding information directly from the Big Ten meetings and correctly predicted the Nebraska move. Here's his latest post on what the Big Ten is doing behind the scenes to reel in Notre Dame and Texas.

"I had a delightful chat tonight with my friend again over a Fireplace Inn rack of ribs. We've been in touch over the last few months, but nothing really newsworthy since the addition of Nebraska that wasn't all over the press. Tonight, however, my friend shed some light on the Big Ten strategy with regard to Notre Dame.

One of the reasons the Big Ten is pushing the 9 game schedule right now (in particular, without pushing the 13 game schedule) relates specifically to Notre Dame. The brass still believes that it can pull Notre Dame, and therefore Texas, into the league. Switching to the 9 game schedule, aside from allowing Big Ten schools to play each other more often, serves an alternate purpose - one much more important in the Big Ten's view. Michigan State, Purdue, and Michigan will feel significant pressure to remove Notre Dame from their schedule, or at least limit matchups, in subsequent years.

Those three schools will need to make some tough scheduling choices when they lose one of their nonconference games. The Big Ten brass is betting that the Boilers, Spartans, and Wolverines are going to have a pretty steep disincentive to lock in to never playing any other BCS-level opponents in the non-conference schedule. Clearly Northwestern has among the cupcakiest of cupcake schedules. But even the traditional powers like to schedule their creampuffs once in awhile (like Appalachian State, right Michigan?) What school would want to schedule a quality BCS noncon opponent, Notre Dame, and then face NINE Big Ten games? (At least this is what Jim is thinking.)

If you haven't heard the news, Notre Dame and Texas have been talking - to the point where they scheduled a series. The timing is no coincidence. These two schools have met and will continue to regularly meet to discuss the terms of their mutual entry into the Big Ten conference. Jim wants to counter ND's position by making the alternative painful for the Irish. The loss, or potential loss, of its longstanding, regularly scheduled Big Ten rivals is an event that may rise to the threshold necessary to force Notre Dame's hand. Even if ND loses only one or two games of its Michigan, MSU, and Purdue rivalries each year, this will alter the course of ND's independence and prestige significantly.

The Texas situation is less clear. Since we have been talking, there have been intra-school elements at Texas pulling the school in different directions. The Big Ten is betting that Texas isn't going to stay very content in the Big 12 as is, and that the ND joint option will unify enough school and political support to enable Texas to gravitate toward the Big Ten superconference.

The strategy is still there, and Delany is still a genius in my purple book."

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Looks like Purple Book Cat has finally come out of the woodwork after a two month hiatus over at the Northwestern Rivals board. He was the poster who was feeding information directly from the Big Ten meetings and correctly predicted the Nebraska move. Here's his latest post on what the Big Ten is doing behind the scenes to reel in Notre Dame and Texas.

The 9 game schedule is an interesting strategy, and as a way to lure Notre Dame it makes sense, because otherwise it hurts the conference in terms of BCS berths (much like it has the Pac-10).

As far as Texas goes, I'll believe them joining the Big Ten when I see it. I think there's no way in hell Texas politics will allow Texas to jump into another league without taking other Texas schools with them. A&M will be OK since they appear to have an invite to the SEC, but even that split of the rivalry will upset many in Texas. What will kill Texas to the Big Ten is leaving Tech and Baylor behind.

The Pac-10's refusal to take Baylor may kill an eventual Pac-16 with Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Tech coming on board, but that's a far more likely scenario than Texas being allowed to jump solo to the Big Ten.

[Kodos]

I want my
I want my
I want my Conference 'm'geddon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Even if ND loses only one or two games of its Michigan, MSU, and Purdue rivalries each year, this will alter the course of ND's independence and prestige significantly.

LOL

At least 2 of those 3 could vanish from the ND schedule without any real ill effect to the prestige of the Irish, and at the rate things are going it may not be long until all 3 could.

[Swaggs]

I really, really dislike the lack of quality OOC games and think/hope the Big Ten would get punished, by voters, if they refuse to play any OOC games against other BCS conferences (not saying that they will, since this is just a writer or poster).

It is hard enough to measure teams who do not play against one another against one another, but it helps give some point of reference if your conference won or lost a lot of games to quality teams and you are the best team in that conference. I think the Big Ten is one of the top conferences, but winning the conference in a year when the only outside measuring stick (prior to bowl season) is playing against MAC or subdivision teams doesn't really show me much if there are undefeated teams from other power conferences.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I really, really dislike the lack of quality OOC games and think/hope the Big Ten would get punished, by voters, if they refuse to play any OOC games against other BCS conferences (not saying that they will, since this is just a writer or poster).

It is hard enough to measure teams who do not play against one another against one another, but it helps give some point of reference if your conference won or lost a lot of games to quality teams and you are the best team in that conference. I think the Big Ten is one of the top conferences, but winning the conference in a year when the only outside measuring stick (prior to bowl season) is playing against MAC or subdivision teams doesn't really show me much if there are undefeated teams from other power conferences.

Well it should be noted Michigan is rumored to be playing Alabama in 2012, Michigan State has future games vs West Virginia and Alabama, OSU has always played tough OOC games. Penn State has Bama this year.

I doubt much changes in that regards.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Well it should be noted Michigan is rumored to be playing Alabama in 2012, Michigan State has future games vs West Virginia and Alabama, OSU has always played tough OOC games. Penn State has Bama this year.

I doubt much changes in that regards.

Also, they will have a championship game now. One extra hurdle to prove they are worthy.

[panerd]

I am not sure any of the BCS conference teams are all that different in regards to their schedules. They all play about 1 quality game and 2-3 creampuffs. All the way from Kansas or Washington State up to Texas or Ohio State. Sometimes people think the Pac-10 is the only conference playing big boys but wouldn't all of the teams playing USC, Oregon, Arizona State, UCLA (in the past) be doing to same thing?

[MrBug708]

There are only so many PAC-10 teams to go around

Side note that really isnt important, but why would you put UCLA with in the past in parenthesis?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

There are only so many PAC-10 teams to go around

Side note that really isnt important, but why would you put UCLA with in the past in parenthesis?

Seriously? They haven't been that good in the past couple of years. I was saying most people won't argue that Texas playing UCLA at home is a challenging game for Texas.

EDIT: Of course they are a team that no BCS team wants to face in LA and that most would have some trouble with at home. Plus they have a great past. But they aren't even top 50 material the last 4-5 years.

[MrBug708]

That's a pretty ignorant answer then

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

That's a pretty ignorant answer then

I realize you are a UCLA fan and did not include the "UCLA (in the past)" part to signify any sort of disagreement with UCLA fans. I was merely saying they were a huge game for somebody about 4-5 years ago. The UCLA-Texas game won't even be close. I bet you right now the line is at least 17 points.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by panerd

I realize you are a UCLA fan and did not include the "UCLA (in the past)" part to signify any sort of disagreement with UCLA fans. I was merely saying they were a huge game for somebody about 4-5 years ago. The UCLA-Texas game won't even be close. I bet you right now the line is at least 17 points.

Fair enough on the disagreement, but UCLA has always played a tough OOC schedule. I'm not delusional to think that teams play UCLA because its UCLA but because of where they play. There are three teams who have never played a Div-1AA team and I will let you guess which conference claims all three teams.

As for the Texas-UCLA game this year, there aren't too many teams in the country that Texas won't be too concerned about. Mack Brown isn't a fool, so I'm pretty sure he is aware of how bad his team lost last time he faced UCLA.

And your initial statement was pretty ignorant. You took the time to include (in the past) on UCLA, but you somehow think Arizona State is relevant on any stage? That's ignoring the fact that they are playing two cream puffs and are a bad example of any PAC-10 scheduling argument

[panerd]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Fair enough on the disagreement, but UCLA has always played a tough OOC schedule. I'm not delusional to think that teams play UCLA because its UCLA but because of where they play. There are three teams who have never played a Div-1AA team and I will let you guess which conference claims all three teams.

As for the Texas-UCLA game this year, there aren't too many teams in the country that Texas won't be too concerned about. Mack Brown isn't a fool, so I'm pretty sure he is aware of how bad his team lost last time he faced UCLA.

And your initial statement was pretty ignorant. You took the time to include (in the past) on UCLA, but you somehow think Arizona State is relevant on any stage? That's ignoring the fact that they are playing two cream puffs and are a bad example of any PAC-10 scheduling argument

Honestly my intial statement was going to be USC, Oregon, and UCLA and then I thought about it and UCLA hasn't been great the past few years so I added Arizona State as a third. (obviously mistakenly thinking they were a big player in the pac-10). I remember that undefeated stretch they had a few years ago and forgot how it turned out. I just never took UCLA out, not thinking it would make you (or anyone) mad.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by panerd

Honestly my intial statement was going to be USC, Oregon, and UCLA and then I thought about it and UCLA hasn't been great the past few years so I added Arizona State as a third. (obviously mistakenly thinking they were a big player in the pac-10). I remember that undefeated stretch they had a few years ago and forgot how it turned out. I just never took UCLA out, not thinking it would make you (or anyone) mad.

I think it was the "in the past" part that set Bug off. I agree with you that UCLA hasn't been great stuff for years and they need to prove it on the field before they get the respect. That said, if you're going to bother to put "in the past", that's probably a sign you should drop the UCLA mention altogether and throw in Cal, Oregon State or Stanford (more recent on the Furd) if you're aiming for upper echelon Pac 10 teams with a recent history of quality teams.

As for Texas-UCLA, Bug's made statements about that before that I don't agree with. I think Texas is going to win that one going away, even in somewhat of a down year for them. They're just way too talented, top to bottom and they're playing at home. That said, I'll bet that it won't be a blowout, but something around a two-TD solid win, and UCLA will come out of it looking a little better than people had given them credit for.

[tarcone]

Notre Dame would suffer tremendously if they lost Michigan, MSU and Purdue.
Loss of regional rivalries is not something you want.

As for Big10 teams playing only creampuffs. Are you serious? Sure the bottom half of the league might. Oh wait I believe Minnesota plays USC this season. Illinois plays Mizzou and at Fresno St, (Not many teams in any conference would take that game). Michigan plays UConn, and Notre Dame.

And have you seen Oklahomas OOC schedule? Wow. FSU, Air Force, at Cinci. All 3 games right before the Texas game.