As regards to the conference championship game, should the Big XII keep the current format which matches up the teams with the best records in the north and south divisions (and risk another blowout like last year) or do away with the divisions and just match up the two teams with the best records? Last year, that would have meant a Texas vs. Texas Tech rematch.
Things to consider before making your decision...
- The Big XII is already tough enough, why force the issue when the Big 10, Pac 10 and Big East don't even have conference championship games? In other words, why risk a shot at a BCS or National Title if you don't have to.
- Matching the two teams with the best records would make a loss to a divisional foe less dramatic. More to the point, as Texas fans, would you really want to play the Sooners twice in one season, especially if you'd already beaten OU once on a neutral site in October?
that's not going to happen because of the revenue generated by a championship game is too good to pass up. In that case, I would vote to do
away with the divisions and let the teams with the best records in the conference play it out. Since there are more teams in the Big XII than can be accommodated on an 8-game conference schedule, each team should get 3 or 4 teams from the conference that they play every year and rotate the rest.
For example, Texas would always play OU, A&M, Tech and maybe Baylor and rotate the rest...OU would always play Texas, OSU and Nebraska and rotate the rest. That way you keep the annual rivalries alive and well like they do in the Big 10 and Pac 10. But unlike those conference, if by chance the two teams in the Big XII with the best records didn't meet in the regular season
(think Iowa and Michigan, 2004), then we'd still settle it on the field in the championship game.