Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, TrashMaster G said:

Question: Did one of those two teams agree to give up their turn hosting Farmageddon, or is this being treated as a one-off and the hosting rotation continues after this year?

KSU gave up the home game.  We won’t go back to Manhattan until ‘28 if current scheduling holds.

Edited by Al_4_ISU
Posted
4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

KSU gave up the home game.  We won’t go back to Manhattan until ‘28 if current scheduling holds.

I'd love to see the finances behind this decision. Moving a rivalry game to Week 0 is harder on both teams.

TV money > Sold-out home game for KSU?

Posted
13 hours ago, texifornia said:

Week Zero promo is out. College football is so close.

 

Dublin is great. Wonder how many fans will travel vs locals attending...

Posted
4 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Dublin is great. Wonder how many fans will travel vs locals attending...

It’s always attended well and sold out. The Irish love it as well. I’d love to see Texas play Notre Dame there. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
5 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

KSU gave up the home game.  We won’t go back to Manhattan until ‘28 if current scheduling holds.

Am I misremembering or is it currently not an annual/ protected game? I really hope the conference changes that someday if so. 

Posted
8 minutes ago, LTbear said:

Am I misremembering or is it currently not an annual/ protected game? I really hope the conference changes that someday if so. 

It’s not being played in 2027.  Both fanbases are livid.  Both ADs couldn’t care less.

  • Rage+1 5
Posted
1 hour ago, DFW Horn said:

I'd love to see the finances behind this decision. Moving a rivalry game to Week 0 is harder on both teams.

TV money > Sold-out home game for KSU?

Back in the day I remember that Stillwater businesses expected at least 6 home games a year so we were fine playing neutral site games so long as the schedule allowed for six home games. Looks like KSU still gets six home games this year. I found they also are playing Arizona as a non-conference game from pre-realignment scheduling. I wonder if that's the last one?

Posted
27 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

It’s always attended well and sold out. The Irish love it as well. I’d love to see Texas play Notre Dame there. 

I would probably have to find a way to make that game.

Posted
48 minutes ago, Crockett said:

Dublin is great. Wonder how many fans will travel vs locals attending...

I think both ISU and KSU sold out their allotments, but a solid 1/3rd of the crowd tends to be locals.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Looks like BYU will be starting a true freshman at QB after the Retzlaff drama and exit. 

Bachmeier had offers from Alabama, Notre Dame, Texas A&M, Michigan, Oregon, Arkansas and Michigan State coming out of high school. He chose Stanford, won the starting job in the spring, but with the departure of the HC he transferred to BYU and now won the starting job again. The team is good enough that he just needs to be solid and manage the game. Could be a bumpy year or special year if he steps up because the rest of the pieces are in place. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
8 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:
8 hours ago, Crockett said:

Dublin is great. Wonder how many fans will travel vs locals attending...

I think both ISU and KSU sold out their allotments, but a solid 1/3rd of the crowd tends to be locals.

That should make for a neat fan experience with some good interaction to be had I'm thinking.

Posted
On 8/15/2025 at 10:41 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

It’s not being played in 2027.  Both fanbases are livid.  Both ADs couldn’t care less.

Similar to Baylor and TCU not playing Texas Tech this year. The BUTT Bowl and TCU/Tech games aren't on Farmageddon's level, but they're still rivalry games that are usually really good games compared to random ass games like Baylor @ Cincinnati or Tech vs UCF.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

The Big XII is perfectly set up for pod scheduling. Why are conferences so against this? I sort of got it when there were still divisions but now it would be solely for scheduling to keep locals together on an annual basis. I just do not understand. 
 

West: BYU, UU, ASU, AU

North: ISU, KU, KSU, CU

South: TT, Baylor, TCU, OKST

East: WVU, UCF, Cincy, UH
 
The only geographic outlier is UH but somebody has to go east and UH makes far more sense than ISU because the north is perfectly set up as old Big 8 rivals. UH is a newb with more recent history with the AAC newbs. WVU would have the biggest beef but sorry you got nowhere else to go haha.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The Big XII is perfectly set up for pod scheduling. Why are conferences so against this? I sort of got it when there were still divisions but now it would be solely for scheduling to keep locals together on an annual basis. I just do not understand. 
 

West: BYU, UU, ASU, AU

North: ISU, KU, KSU, CU

South: TT, Baylor, TCU, OKST

East: WVU, UCF, Cincy, UH
 
The only geographic outlier is UH but somebody has to go east and UH makes far more sense than ISU because the north is perfectly set up as old Big 8 rivals. UH is a newb with more recent history with the AAC newbs. WVU would have the biggest beef but sorry you got nowhere else to go haha.

Right and I get not wanting divisions or you end up with 7-5 CU as the B12 North champion. You have scheduling pods, but have the standings be like they currently are where it's the top 2 get a trip to Arlington regardless of the pod. As far as UH not fitting, they'd still get a Texhoma game a year plus a vast improvement to the schedule over their AAC days. You could even have it where inter-pod scheduling is uneven if you want more UH vs Texhoma or CU vs Western teams.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Right and I get not wanting divisions or you end up with 7-5 CU as the B12 North champion. You have scheduling pods, but have the standings be like they currently are where it's the top 2 get a trip to Arlington regardless of the pod. As far as UH not fitting, they'd still get a Texhoma game a year plus a vast improvement to the schedule over their AAC days. You could even have it where inter-pod scheduling is uneven if you want more UH vs Texhoma or CU vs Western teams.

And the issue of some teams having an easier path to the top 2 spots is already an issue since you can’t do a round robin with 16 teams. A handful of “protected” games is just dumb. This would protect all of the relevant ones.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
37 minutes ago, 'stache said:

The Big XII is perfectly set up for pod scheduling. Why are conferences so against this? I sort of got it when there were still divisions but now it would be solely for scheduling to keep locals together on an annual basis. I just do not understand. 

Same, I do not understand why conferences have such an issue with informal pods. 

You do not have to treat it like the NFL and have 4 formal divisions, because you can't for the purpose of CCGs (can't do a 4 team playoff within your conference), but an informal division to keep historical rivals together for scheduling purposes is what fans want.

I want Texas to play OU, aggy and arkansas every single year.  I do not want to give up arky just to play Kentucky or MSST or South Carolina instead.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

The Big XII is perfectly set up for pod scheduling. Why are conferences so against this? I sort of got it when there were still divisions but now it would be solely for scheduling to keep locals together on an annual basis. I just do not understand. 
 

West: BYU, UU, ASU, AU

North: ISU, KU, KSU, CU

South: TT, Baylor, TCU, OKST

East: WVU, UCF, Cincy, UH
 
The only geographic outlier is UH but somebody has to go east and UH makes far more sense than ISU because the north is perfectly set up as old Big 8 rivals. UH is a newb with more recent history with the AAC newbs. WVU would have the biggest beef but sorry you got nowhere else to go haha.

I could support this, even if the East pod is a bunch of misfits. West (with ASU on the rise and AU somewhat competitive now) and South pods would be the saltiest. 

Posted
17 minutes ago, Crockett said:

East pod is a bunch of misfits

The expansion to add those 4 schools was a misfit reaction in and of itself.  Was so fucking random.  So it fits. 

Posted (edited)

If USC/UCLA had announced their exit a year earlier, or UT/OU announced their move a year later, the eastern AAC misfits would likely not have been added. Just more realignment absurdity based on arbitrariness such as, in this case, timing.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I always liked the idea of bringing in Cincy and BYU.  Houston and UCF will always feel weird to me.

Cincy made some sense as a partner for WV in terms of geography, and its only 600 miles from Ames.  Houston made sense when the Big 12 lost SE Texas to the SEC (LSU, aggy and Texas all gone) + the money Fertitta has pumped into their program(s). 

UCF..... that one was dumb.  Memphis was the better geographic play - less than 500 miles to Cincinnati, Stillwater and Lawrence

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Cincy made some sense as a partner for WV in terms of geography, and its only 600 miles from Ames.  Houston made sense when the Big 12 lost SE Texas to the SEC (LSU, aggy and Texas all gone) + the money Fertitta has pumped into their program(s). 

UCF..... that one was dumb.  Memphis was the better geographic play - less than 500 miles to Cincinnati, Stillwater and Lawrence

It just cracks me up that only being 600 miles away from the 2nd closest school is a good argument for logical conference geography.

I think Cincy is a lot like Pitt culturally.  They have a decent chunk of their own fans in their city despite their state being dominated by the land grant school.  Cool stadium.  Made the 4 team playoff.  Good hoops culture too.  It doesn’t seem like a commuter school to me.

Edited by Al_4_ISU
Posted
7 hours ago, 'stache said:

The Big XII is perfectly set up for pod scheduling. Why are conferences so against this? I sort of got it when there were still divisions but now it would be solely for scheduling to keep locals together on an annual basis. I just do not understand. 
 

West: BYU, UU, ASU, AU

North: ISU, KU, KSU, CU

South: TT, Baylor, TCU, OKST

East: WVU, UCF, Cincy, UH
 
The only geographic outlier is UH but somebody has to go east and UH makes far more sense than ISU because the north is perfectly set up as old Big 8 rivals. UH is a newb with more recent history with the AAC newbs. WVU would have the biggest beef but sorry you got nowhere else to go haha.

Because they don't really fix the problem.  Why do people want to force freaking pods?

The answer has been and will be divisions because they provide continuity in the competition played within that division. 

Yes, most likely one side is going to be stronger and people are going to bitch about it. So be it, this is price for conferences growing to these ridiculous clusterfucks. 

Posted
7 hours ago, Js1 said:

Cincy made some sense as a partner for WV in terms of geography, and its only 600 miles from Ames.  Houston made sense when the Big 12 lost SE Texas to the SEC (LSU, aggy and Texas all gone) + the money Fertitta has pumped into their program(s). 

UCF..... that one was dumb.  Memphis was the better geographic play - less than 500 miles to Cincinnati, Stillwater and Lawrence

LSU was in the Big 12???

Posted
18 hours ago, 'stache said:

The Big XII is perfectly set up for pod scheduling. Why are conferences so against this? I sort of got it when there were still divisions but now it would be solely for scheduling to keep locals together on an annual basis. I just do not understand. 
 

West: BYU, UU, ASU, AU

North: ISU, KU, KSU, CU

South: TT, Baylor, TCU, OKST

East: WVU, UCF, Cincy, UH
 
The only geographic outlier is UH but somebody has to go east and UH makes far more sense than ISU because the north is perfectly set up as old Big 8 rivals. UH is a newb with more recent history with the AAC newbs. WVU would have the biggest beef but sorry you got nowhere else to go haha.

Cosigned 

Posted
15 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

I always liked the idea of bringing in Cincy and BYU.  Houston and UCF will always feel weird to me.

Agreed, but they were probably the best available at the time. I think the only other school that could have made a viable argument was Memphis. 

Posted
19 hours ago, 'stache said:

The Big XII is perfectly set up for pod scheduling. Why are conferences so against this? I sort of got it when there were still divisions but now it would be solely for scheduling to keep locals together on an annual basis. I just do not understand. 
 

West: BYU, UU, ASU, AU

North: ISU, KU, KSU, CU

South: TT, Baylor, TCU, OKST

East: WVU, UCF, Cincy, UH
 
The only geographic outlier is UH but somebody has to go east and UH makes far more sense than ISU because the north is perfectly set up as old Big 8 rivals. UH is a newb with more recent history with the AAC newbs. WVU would have the biggest beef but sorry you got nowhere else to go haha.

They're also a commuter school so in this case they could commute...east.

Posted
On 7/25/2025 at 5:51 AM, LTbear said:

CU and Utah fans both think they're B1G candidates. Tech seems to be getting a little delusional. Anecdotally, it seems like most of the other fanbases know they're not going to the B1G or SEC. Maybe a few jayhawks - I don't see them much. 

Personally, I'm just interested in who's left from the ACC if the big brands every do leave. Maybe a couple from Louisville/ Pitt/ NC State/ Ga Tech/ Va Tech/ Miami become available. 

Meh.  10 years ago I would have really cared and really wanted CU in the B1G.  Don't care anymore.  College football is unrecognizable from what it used to be.

I'll still watch and I'll still pull for the Buffs, but I hate where CFB is and where it is going.

Posted (edited)
On 8/18/2025 at 7:26 PM, PGFrog said:

Because they don't really fix the problem.  Why do people want to force freaking pods?

The answer has been and will be divisions because they provide continuity in the competition played within that division. 

Yes, most likely one side is going to be stronger and people are going to bitch about it. So be it, this is price for conferences growing to these ridiculous clusterfucks. 

The "problem" is unfixable with 16 team conferences that cannot do round robins. Divisions don't work either not only because as you recognize they are suseptible to weak and strong divisions, but with 16 teams it leads to conference teams seeing each other maybe once a decade or more which sucks. As long as there is a CCG from here on out it will be the top two teams in the standings regardless of scheduling inequities in any given year. We already have a few "protected" annual games that make things really weird. If you don't like the word "pod," then just say that each team gets 3 annual "protected" games. Again, I'm not talking about "pods" as in divisions or subdivisions as used in the NFL or other sport, I'm talking scheduling only so that each team plays three nearby (relatively) teams every year. It makes sense for geography, provides some annual regularity and possibly new rivalry-ish sentiment, while still allowing for teams outside of the "pod" or "protected" schedule to play each other semi-regularly over a decade. Any setup that doesn't have annual farmageddon is flat out stupid.

Edited by 'stache
Posted
2 hours ago, 'stache said:

The "problem" is unfixable with 16 team conferences that cannot do round robins. Divisions don't work either not only because as you recognize they are suseptible to weak and strong divisions, but with 16 teams it leads to conference teams seeing each other maybe once a decade or more which sucks. As long as there is a CCG from here on out it will be the top two teams in the standings regardless of scheduling inequities in any given year. We already have a few "protected" annual games that make things really weird. If you don't like the word "pod," then just say that each team gets 3 annual "protected" games. Again, I'm not talking about "pods" as in divisions or subdivisions as used in the NFL or other sport, I'm talking scheduling only so that each team plays three nearby (relatively) teams every year. It makes sense for geography, provides some annual regularity and possibly new rivalry-ish sentiment, while still allowing for teams outside of the "pod" or "protected" schedule to play each other semi-regularly over a decade. Any setup that doesn't have annual farmageddon is flat out stupid.

Understand the issue can't be fixed, but seems like not only a Rube Goldberg approach to scheduling, but makes it even more cumbersome.  The obvious answer is we let Tech just go independent until they get their SEC invite and then let the eastern schools join the ACC. True, we still have Houston, but gets us down to a workable number.

Posted
15 hours ago, 'stache said:

The "problem" is unfixable with 16 team conferences that cannot do round robins. Divisions don't work either not only because as you recognize they are suseptible to weak and strong divisions, but with 16 teams it leads to conference teams seeing each other maybe once a decade or more which sucks. As long as there is a CCG from here on out it will be the top two teams in the standings regardless of scheduling inequities in any given year. We already have a few "protected" annual games that make things really weird. If you don't like the word "pod," then just say that each team gets 3 annual "protected" games. Again, I'm not talking about "pods" as in divisions or subdivisions as used in the NFL or other sport, I'm talking scheduling only so that each team plays three nearby (relatively) teams every year. It makes sense for geography, provides some annual regularity and possibly new rivalry-ish sentiment, while still allowing for teams outside of the "pod" or "protected" schedule to play each other semi-regularly over a decade. Any setup that doesn't have annual farmageddon is flat out stupid.

Exactly.

Part of the problem in all of this is that both ISU and KSU athletic departments refuse to embrace what literally everyone else acknowledges is a big deal.  Their fans want the game protected, and anyone who remotely follows the Big 12 wants the game protected, but the people who have the power and position to advocate for this refuse to give a fuck and I hate it.

On a totally different tangent, on top of Farmageddon being protected, I always thought it would be cool for ISU/KSU/OK State to have had a Commander In Chief style trophy for the old Big 8 ag schools.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

Meh.  10 years ago I would have really cared and really wanted CU in the B1G.  Don't care anymore.  College football is unrecognizable from what it used to be.

I'll still watch and I'll still pull for the Buffs, but I hate where CFB is and where it is going.

You dont think the news out of the SEC yesterday was a step in the right direction?

Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

You dont think the news out of the SEC yesterday was a step in the right direction?

It's definitely a good thing, but it doesn't change the overall trajectory of the sport.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

It's definitely a good thing, but it doesn't change the overall trajectory of the sport.

Kindly elaborate? Sure, it doesn't effect the Big 12 as much, but it's done away with pussy scheduling, and it's cementing long term rivalries for decades to come, hopefully. Is the rest of the gripe just NIL stuff, or are we talking about how they money will be withheld from smaller schools who need it for their budgets?

Posted
2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Kindly elaborate? Sure, it doesn't effect the Big 12 as much, but it's done away with pussy scheduling, and it's cementing long term rivalries for decades to come, hopefully. Is the rest of the gripe just NIL stuff, or are we talking about how they money will be withheld from smaller schools who need it for their budgets?

Between NIL, the portal and the way all the money and power in CFB has been amassed by the B1G and SEC, I'm just not as interested in CFB as I used to be.  Only a select few teams can afford the top players and you never know who will even be on the team from year to year. Lower tier teams are now being used as farm teams for the top teams because players can leave at any time.

The ironic thing is I don't have a problem with NIL.  The players deserve a cut of all the money they make the schools.  But when combined with the portal, it has guaranteed that only maybe 10 teams ever have a real shot at winning it all. If your team is one of them (and UT is), I can see how you like it.  For the rest of us, it's not good.  And as our interest wanes, so will profits and payouts to all teams.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

 

On a totally different tangent, on top of Farmageddon being protected, I always thought it would be cool for ISU/KSU/OK State to have had a Commander In Chief style trophy for the old Big 8 ag schools.

I like how you subtly suggest no one gives a fuck about Kansas

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

Between NIL, the portal and the way all the money and power in CFB has been amassed by the B1G and SEC, I'm just not as interested in CFB as I used to be.  Only a select few teams can afford the top players and you never know who will even be on the team from year to year. Lower tier teams are now being used as farm teams for the top teams because players can leave at any time.

The ironic thing is I don't have a problem with NIL.  The players deserve a cut of all the money they make the schools.  But when combined with the portal, it has guaranteed that only maybe 10 teams ever have a real shot at winning it all. If your team is one of them (and UT is), I can see how you like it.  For the rest of us, it's not good.  And as our interest wanes, so will profits and payouts to all teams.

The thing is- y’all couldn’t win NCs before. In the BCS era, NCs were won by teams in the SEC, B1G and a couple of ACC teams that might get into the SEC or B1G. 
 
Of B12 teams, the only ones to win MNCs were Colorado (1990) and TCU (1935, 1938). 
 
What you could do, and you hate that these days might be over, is beat a blue blood and screw up their season. Those were games that delighted IR8 schools and they hate that they’re diminished 

Edited by statsman
Posted
3 minutes ago, statsman said:

The thing is- y’all couldn’t win NCs before. In the BCS era, NCs were won by teams in the SEC, B1G and a couple of ACC teams that might get into the SEC or B1G. 
 
Of B12 teams, the only ones to win MNCs were Colorado (1990) and TCU (1935, 1938). 
 
What you could do, and you hate that these days might be over, is beat a blue blood and screw up their season. Those were games that delighted IR8 schools and they hate that they’re diminished 

So I should invest a bunch of time and money to hope my team can be a spoiler?  That's not gonna happen.

BTW, I'm a CU fan.  My team has the same number of NCs in my lifetime (50 years) as Texas does. But their trajectories are going to be very different going forward.

Posted
3 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Kindly elaborate? Sure, it doesn't effect the Big 12 as much, but it's done away with pussy scheduling, and it's cementing long term rivalries for decades to come, hopefully. Is the rest of the gripe just NIL stuff, or are we talking about how they money will be withheld from smaller schools who need it for their budgets?

I personally don’t give a shit if SEC plays 8 or 9 games. It doesn’t fix that the conferences are too big and the media payouts still don’t make sense when it comes to the basement of those leagues. It drives me crazy that the conferences are still in competition with each other instead of working together like the pro leagues. The collapse of the PAC just about did it for me. It makes zero sense that the western half of the country doesn’t have a geographic league at the highest level. Cal and Stanford in the Atlantic Coast Conference is just too ridiculous for me to handle.

There have always been haves and have nots so that doesn’t bother me as much. I also think the portal is fair but can’t stand how many players are using it and I can’t keep track of the roster anymore. The overall absurdity is where the sport is losing me but I’m also older so I can’t use myself as some sign that the sport is in trouble overall. I suspect it probably is going to lose overall interest to a noticeable degree soon.

  • Hook 'Em 4

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...