NCAA Football 12 Video - New Custom Conferences

[prowler]

Quote: Originally Posted by dochalladay32

I imagine TB is still going to pick up the rival of the team you replaced, IIRC. People are misinterpreting protected rivalries it seems. It's not like an actual rivalry, although it can be. It just means you are going to play a specific team in the other division every year. As for TB, as far as I remember, the way it worked last year, if I were to replace Akron, my TB team would play Kent as it's rival. From a video earlier, it mentioned that if you split up Alabama and Auburn, the Iron Bowl will still be played and scheduling will try and make the game when it is supposed to be. So you could replace Akron with Northwestern Montana Community College, but you aren't getting out of that Kent game, unless you are that team and doing the schedule yourself. I made my classic setups around this so that the teams I replaced had rivals that made at least a little bit of sense. Everyone and their mother says they are going to get rid of EMU, but do you really want to see Texas State vs. Central/Western Michigan show up on the schedule? I'm hoping maybe this is loosened a bit and then using TB in my classic setups is great. May not have rivals, but they are teams that are now FCS or haven't played in a couple of decades. They don't really have FBS rivals any more.

I completely understand the intended purpose of protected rivals; what I was saying is with it in place it should force TB squads to have at least one rival that actually counts. The past two years you could replace Auburn to get Alabama as a rival but it was purely cosmetic. Rivalry records stayed blank for TB squads and using the pitch on recruits was counterproductive.

As of right now we don't know if that issue has been fixed and if it hasn't, the only way for a TB squad to get an actual working rival is by manipulating protected rivals.

[dochalladay32]

Quote: Originally Posted by prowler

I completely understand the intended purpose of protected rivals; what I was saying is with it in place it should force TB squads to have at least one rival that actually counts. The past two years you could replace Auburn to get Alabama as a rival but it was purely cosmetic. Rivalry records stayed blank for TB squads and using the pitch on recruits was counterproductive. As of right now we don't know if that issue has been fixed and if it hasn't, the only way for a TB squad to get an actual working rival is by manipulating protected rivals.

Yea, I see what you mean, but I don't think the game is going to treat it as a rivalry. It's like in the SEC, MSU plays Kentucky every year. I know quite a few people that went to MSU and Kentucky was not seen as a rivalry game by any means. Protected rivalries is a bad description. It's just a protected game, that in some cases, may be a rivalry like Tennessee and Alabama. It wouldn't help me in any case because all of my TB teams are going to be in conferences without divisions; no protected rivalries.

[renatus]

play yankee teams? does that make such a difference for texans fans?

[blamalex]

But if all of these super confrences played out then how would BCS tie-ins work, in real life. I think it's crap that the BIG East winner gets an auto bid. It's a horrible game every year. Oklahoma slammed UCONN last year. If something like this happened then the only BCS confrences should be SEC, PAC-12, B1G, and ACC. That is assuming Texas and Oklahoma leaves the Big 12. A 9-3 Alabama team is still twice as good as an undefeated Boise State...so the at large bids need to consider conference prestige and strength of schedule.

[renatus]

"twice as good?"

when will people come to terms B State is a REALLY good team?

[Sandman1924]

Quote: Originally Posted by He1nousOne1

Whew! That is alot to respond to so thank you for putting all of that into your response. I didn't know that about Oklahoma and Oklahoma State being tied at the hip. I remarked earlier about how at this stage of the buildup to a BCS dominated by Superconferences you are going to have Institutions "playing poker" with their bluffs. That is easy to do when the major players have yet to begin "bidding". When those bids begin to be tossed into the pot you will begin to see faces changing and statements being rescinded. Of course that may just be my opinion but I highly doubt any Conference lucky enough to land Oklahoma into it is going to raise an objection to them being allowed to have Oklahoma State on their schedule each and every year. Iowa gets to have Iowa State on theirs every single year just fine and I highly doubt that would change if the B1G goes to 16 and Iowa State is not in that final cut. Like I said, I could be wrong but I really do not think it is in Oklahoma's best interests to go to the Pac instead of the SEC simply because they want to remain in the same conference with Oklahoma State. We are talking a couple years down the road of course but sooner or later Texas is going to make a choice and I think it is between B1G and SEC. The public talk about going to the PAC in my opinion is just as likely for Texas to be a ploy to get the B1G and the SEC to ante up on their offers to Texas. Of course they both want the biggest name in Texas football in their Conferences. If Texas is willing to play against Yankee teams for most of the year then they will go to the B1G due to Academics and a great shot at equal consideration for the National Championship spotlight. If the whole geographic and cultural differences gap is just too far to cross for that move to the B1G then I personally think they will get over the Academic issue with the SEC. I still just see that as maneuvering for now. When pressure begins to build for them to make a choice you will see these bluff arguments seem to not matter as much. An Independent Texas in my opinion has a harder time getting to the National Championship then a Big12 Texas and Football is KING in the state of Texas, that just wont fly. When/if Texas throws in its 10 gallon hat to the SEC you will then see Oklahoma "realize" that its rivalry with Texas means more for the health of its football program then the in state rivalry with Oklahoma State. If the SEC can receive back room agreements from Florida State and/or Clemson/Georgia Tech for addition to the East then they will have that to add to show to Texas that time is winding down on the offer. Choose or we offer it to A&M. At that point Longhorns and Sooners reach out to hold hands as they realize just how much they love each other deep down and how they cannot be apart. Watch that Cowboy love fade away. The only other far off option I could see happening is that Alabama and Auburn move to the East conference and Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas A&M join the SEC West conference. With the East conference being so weak right now Alabama and Auburn might find that option to be feasible. Imagine an Alabama vs Texas/Oklahoma SEC championship game? Yeah, that's big. Edit: Hell I forgot to respond to the TCU talk. Folks seem to take this move to the Big East not so seriously. TCU is not on par yet with the bigger Texas programs. They have a lot of hype around them based upon how they have played against lesser teams. Yeah they did great against Wisconsin but I base my judgements upon more then one game in a year. If they really wanted to go big they would have joined the Big12 along with their fellow Texas teams. They didn't, they ran over to the Big East for an easy BCS consideration. They are willing to play yankee's and travel long distance for every single away game rather then stay in the region and play the bigger Texas teams. The Big12 in my opinion would have eaten TCU alive over the course of seasons. If anything they will help the Big East entice some of the lesser Texas teams to join the Big East as well. As soon as Texas makes a move, the chatter by the teams down below will begin immediately. When Texas leaves the Big12 dies, it will be the signal flare that starts the race. I would look for Baylor to follow their Christian rivals TCU over to the Big East when that happens. My long term prediction for the Big East will be that it has up to possibly four teams from Texas in it. TCU Baylor Houston Texas Tech/SMU Texas Tech would be the more obvious choice perhaps but I dont see the current Big East teams wanting to be steamrolled too much by the state of Texas so taking two Conference USA texas teams makes more sense in my opinion. That and I think the Ohio State situation is going to create an increased sympathy for what SMU went through. Texas Tech and Oklahoma State can run over to the Mountain West. They will dominate from the start and then they can take advantage of the system in a way TCU became famous for doing.

In an effort to prevent more essays, I'll try to keep this a little shorter

The OU-Okie State combo was surprising to me when I first heard it, too. I always figured that the OU vs. TX rivalry would control conference politics, but surprisingly it hasn't. OU's president David Boren along with members of the athl. dept. implied last summer that they had no interest in playing in a conference without OSU. The reasoning is that the board of regents understands how much the state of Oklahoma benefits from OU's notoriety. As long as OSU can stay associated with OU, it's image is exposed on a larger scale, too. Separating those ties would be damaging to OSU over time. So it's not so much about the rivalry or some kind of state pride or any kind of love/hate for the Cowboys as much as its about not hanging the other state institution out to dry. In other words, the Board of Regents, said they won't let OU go out on its own, regardless of how good it may be for OU.

And as far as OU vs. TX is concerned, they've only been in the same conference for the lifetime of the Big XII, yet they managed to play eachother every year for well over 100 years despite being in different conferences for the vast majority of the time. That's why I think it's more likely Texas goes after the West Coast TV and recruiting zones as opposed to the SEC where there are so many schools fighting for the same players. It would work out well for Texas to control it's own Pac ## division as well as milk its TV network deal while it beats Utah, Colorado, ASU, Arizona, UCLA and matches up regularly with USC. On the other hand, they don't stand to make any more money in the SEC or B1G than in the PAC, but would have to deal with much more competition in the SEC, albeit a better match for the small sports programs, and would be completely foreign in the B1G. Living in Texas, I can tell you that there's no interest at all for the fans down here to see "Yankee" teams, and I doubt you'll see significant amounts of Texas fans traveling to colder climates like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, etc. when it's comfortable in Texas in the fall. Going to Ames, IA is already far enough, and only worth it because it's usually a guaranteed W on the schedule.

Also, I doubt the SEC will ever make the first move in any of this. Mizzou started it last time, and I wouldn't be surprised if they start it up again. They could send requests to join the B1G or the SEC or maybe even the Big East if they think it might increase their odds of a BCS game. I think we all agree that the Big XII will eventually collapse as the remnants of the Big 8 start playing their odds and looking for better shots. Once we're there, I bet we'll see the PAC take their shot again at the TX/OK teams. B1G will match the PAC team for team as best as they can do, and the SEC may or may not expand. They're strong enough they really don't need to if they don't feel pressure to. And until any of these other superconferences start to bring in enough attention to start stealing recruits out of the SEC, I doubt more and more that the SEC makes any new moves.

Eh, but what do I know.... I agree that there's going to be so much wheeling and dealing under the table that there's no way to predict how anything will really go down and we can't put any real confidence that what anybody has said to this point will necessarily be maintained once the dollar signs start flying.

[Sandman1924]

So much for keeping it short.

[mercalnd]

Quote: Originally Posted by blamalex

A 9-3 Alabama team is still twice as good as an undefeated Boise State...

Just as a 12-1 Alabama is twice as good as a 12-0 Utah... oh wait!