The More Things Change..

by CincyJoe on Jun 30, 2010 8:00 AM CDT

As Promised, Titays..

So the Big 12 is now The Medium Sized 10 or whatever you want to call it.

All that remains are shades of the glorious Big 8 mixed with pieces of a messy Southwest Conference—elements of the past blended together to make a new drink called the "realigned" Big 12. However, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Playing in Norman will still be tough. Click the jump to find out why...

In his 11 seasons as the head coach of the Oklahoma football Sooners, Bob Stoops is 66-2 at home in Norman. SIXTY SIX AND TWO! Mack Brown is just a weak ass 60-6. What a joker...

Are you shittin me Stoopsie?

Frankly, this is a stat that seems almost unreal, but it is the real deal. If you're not Josh Fields, Les Miles, Rashaun Woods or TCU in 2005 -- you likely don't know what it's like to win in Norman. If you're not Kansas State (swear) you've likely never won in Austin.

Additionally, OU currently has the longest home winning streak in the nation at 30 games. Though the Longhorns have won the most games in conference since the inception of the Big 12 in 1996, it is the Sooners that have the most Big 12 championships at six. This means they've won 43 percent of ALL Big 12 titles—yet another mind-boggling stat.

So, if your team is playing OU in Norman or Texas in Austin, it will most likely be your toughest game of the year.

Which brings me to this..

The Red River Rivalry = Homer Call of the Century!!!

Homer Call!

OU/TX is arguably one of the best rivalries in all of college football. Two programs rich in tradition and championship banners, it's a football tradition to be cherished.

That said, for the rest of the Big 12, the neutral site of the game is a huge advantage for the two programs that lead the Big 12 in winning percentage and championships won.

Darrell K Royal - Texas Memorial Stadium is no easy place to be the visiting team and as previously discussed, Gaylord Memorial is THE toughest place to visit on the road! This is not just in the Big 12 either, but in all of college football!

So, it is my opinon that the neutral site of the red river rivalry is worth a lot more than just the Big 12 crown. It means that neither team has to play each other on the road. Can you imagine not having to play your biggest rival on the road? Ever?!?!

I aint going to Norman! Yee Haw!

This is a huge advantage to both programs. It's one fewer road game in a hostile, tough environment. It's an evenly split crowd at the Cotton Bowl. It's more games in Austin and Norman for the teams in the old North. (Although Snyder is loving this) And with 10 teams, the advantage will be even greater.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Who wants my take on this? Everyone? super.
This advantage in the RRR really presents itself when there is a disparity in talent between the two teams that season. Last year is a great example. I’m not sure who’s home game it was last year, but let’s say it was OU’s. Texas had a NC caliber team last year while OU’s was down. Part of UT’s road to the NC game did not have to go through Norman which is almost an impossible place to win. Instead they get a down OU team on a neutral field, yet the victory counts the same towards SOS, BCS ranking, and in voters eyes. An OSU, TT, or A&M does not ever get the luxury of playing a down OU or UT team at a neutral site.

So let’s say (and this is VERY hypothetical) that last year OSU had been undefeated going into Thanksgiving weekend. A shot at the BCS championship is on the line and they have to go into Norman, which is virtually a guaranteed loss. Championship run over. So OSU would have had to face this daunting challenge to escape the Big 12 undefeated, yet UT did not.

And if you don’t think the neutral field is that much of an advantage….do you think BYU would have left Norman with a victory?

by Samuel Bryant on Jun 30, 2010 9:28 AM CDT reply actions

Personally I see it the opposite. UT and OU both LOSE the chance to play a home game every other year. What if OSU had realigned with the PAC-10 and developed a rivalry with Oregon. Would the pokes see it as a benefit to play a neutral game site in Salt Lake every year?

Don’t be bitter Cincy. It doesn’t become your ordinarily strong jaw line.

by johntitmansonjr on Jun 30, 2010 9:39 AM CDT reply actions

I would counter with, it depends on how the schedule falls that particular year. Some years it may screw whoever was supposed to have the home game, sometimes it benefits the “road” team. The point is that it isn’t a level playing field with the rest of the conference. The secondary point is that the RRR is the reason OSU does not have a national championship. The tertiary point is that OU and UT programs are secretly gay for each other and that is why they have to meet at a neutral location….it’s safer that way.

by Samuel Bryant on Jun 30, 2010 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions

btw… I like how this site has devolved to just the guys that run it having a conversation.

by Samuel Bryant on Jun 30, 2010 9:51 AM CDT reply actions

Over time, the idea of a neutral field is just that – it’s neutral. I’d also argue that with the increased stadium capacity out at JerryWorld, OU had more fans at the BYU/OU game than they would have had at a regular home game. Finally, I’d argue that “touching and petting” is not gay and that everyone (including UT and OU) experiments in college.

by johntitmansonjr on Jun 30, 2010 10:43 AM CDT reply actions

btw – I’m thinking about paying my mom a couple bucks to post a comment just for some variety.

by johntitmansonjr on Jun 30, 2010 10:46 AM CDT reply actions

Pwned!!! What?

by rickytornado on Jun 30, 2010 11:53 AM CDT reply actions

Let me put it to you this way. If UT plays in Norman last year, they likely lose and don’t make it to the NC game. And the game itself is gay. Literally.

by CincyJoe on Jun 30, 2010 12:00 PM CDT reply actions

So, by your logic, if they had played in Austin in 2008 then UT would have likely won, UT would have gone to the championship game that year and everything would be exactly the same as it right now.

by johntitmansonjr on Jun 30, 2010 2:03 PM CDT reply actions

I don’t think its unfair for OU or Texas. My point was more that in a particular year…it could turn out to be unfair for OSU, Tech, A&M, or Baylor. As in the hypothetical OSU example from my first comment.

by Samuel Bryant on Jun 30, 2010 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions

If you’re speaking in hypotheticals though, it’s equally possible that a one loss UT beats an unbeaten OU in Dallas and opens the door for an OSU, Tech, etc. C’mon Sam. Admit it. You and Cincy are just mad that the Pokes didn’t get that annual neutral field rivalry game with MU in Arrowhead, aren’t you?

by johntitmansonjr on Jun 30, 2010 2:28 PM CDT reply actions

But that is the whole point. The playing field isn’t level for someone each year.

And actually I was hoping for the neutral field game with Iowa State in Ames. (see what I did there?)

by Samuel Bryant on Jun 30, 2010 2:42 PM CDT up reply actions

I just see there being so many other factors that might potentially unlevel the playing field for any given team on any year that this one is just kind of a non-factor. Nebraska taking five downs to score a touchdown or whoever that homo soccer player was who kicked the ball across the net the other day but the officials didn’t score the goal – those are things that take “level” out of the playing field. Two historically good teams playing each other on a neutral site is pretty insignificant I think. Ames is fun by the way. I had sex there once.

by johntitmansonjr on Jun 30, 2010 2:51 PM CDT reply actions