Just a rumor, but....

Texas @ MSU
Kansas @ Kentucky
West Virginia @ Tennessee
Kansas State @ Auburn
LSU @ TCU
Texas @ Mississippi State
Florida @ Texas Tech
Alabama @ Baylor
Iowa State @ Texas A&M
Missouri @ Oklahoma State
Arkansas @ Oklahoma

Why do the whorns/Dogs get a two-game series??

Kidding.

Pass.

Didn't we just play iowa st a couple year ago? Why not match us up with somebody else.

Full disclosure, I'm going to be disappointed if we get anyone but Texas, but Iowa State would probably be my least favorite.

This would be pretty lame considering we had Iowa St. here just a couple years ago. It appears they'll do pretty much anything to not have us play tu either here or in Austin.

I'd be interested to know if the coaches/schools have input, I've got to think they do.

Either way, as stated before, A&M should be forced to have a game with ONE of the following every single year.
- texas
- baylor
- tech
- tcu

Preferably, I'd like to see TWO of these teams on the schedule every year, or at least ONE of those listed above plus another of these:
- smu
- houston
- utep
- utsa
- uta
- texas state

I'd like to play Tech and TCU, but not nearly as much as I'd like to play Texas or Baylor.

I'd also put Houston and maybe SMU a plateau above the rest in that second group. We don't really get anything out of playing UTEP, UTSA, UTA or Texas State but playing Houston would be cool.

it better be a home game and like everyone else i would prefer not to be an ISU rematch from 3 yrs ago

I have no problem with the matchup. The teams are totally different than 3 years ago. They just wear the same colors on their uniform.

It would be silly for the SEC-Big 12 challenge to match us up with another in-state Big 12 team as that would mean it isn't a home and home. If we are going to play one of them, it should be a home and home.

Why would that be 'silly'? It's not like we've been getting a bunch of them for home-and-homes anyway.

Obviously if we already had Baylor and/or Texas on the schedule we wouldn't want to play them again, but that doesn't appear to be the case so I'm all for whatever scenario can get us the most interesting opponents.

In order, my preference (without doing the background on who should be at home vs on the road based on previous years) would be:

1 - Texas
2 - Baylor
3 - Tech
4 - Kansas
5 - Oklahoma
6 - Oklahoma State
7 - TCU
8 - West Virginia
9 - Kansas State
10 - Iowa State

I don't want to go to Austin or Waco etc without them making the return trip to College Station. Lets sign a home and home if we play and not have the conference mandate a one year game without a return trip being part of the arrangement.

if this were 2015-16 when we have a home-away with baylor on the schedule, then the matchup is fine. but we arent (publicly at least) working on adding series with tech, tcu, texas, or baylor right now so we should be pushing for challenge games against the 4 texas schools.

I disagree that Texas A&M should be forced to play the Texas Big 12 teams. If anything we should at most rotate through them as part of an overall rotation through all the other Big 12 teams. TCU is a very interesting matchup especially because Jamie is likely to take them to the next level and it will be fun to see that develop.

As to playing Iowa State again? Well...that's kinda lame. But let's assume that those are the matchups that our media partner asked for with a bit of tweaking by the two conference offices. So it's "just TV" in that sense.

I feel very little affinity to the Big 12. Of the teams I thought I was glad to be in a conference with about the Big 12 v. SWC, OU and Nebraska are the hardest nosed competitors that we got to match up with in most sports. While we were in the Big 12 I felt the t.u. / Texas A&M Lone Star Showdown was pretty special. When we left there was little reason for Texas to rally the other two Big 12 teams at the time (TCU hadn't joined the Big 12 at that point) to try and prevent us from having major college games in Texas.

More importantly: their strategy failed and as soon as there is an honest, fair offer of resuming some form of periodic play in our regular scheduling then we could consider allowing the conference to schedule us in special series. Otherwise it's better to be satisfied with our new conference rivalries and let them grow without the distraction of especially Austin. If it goes long enough the Arkansas (currently 74 meetings) series of football games will exceed the Texas series. And then not too long after that so will LSU (currently 56 meetings).

In fact I'll propose this: we don't have to wait 100 years. just 45 more...then we should play Texas less than once a year so the Arkansas series stays ahead. Problem solved.

An issue with the challenge is that the SEC has 4 more teams than the Big 12. That can lead to some not ideal matchups.

And I see why the conference isn't going to match us up with an in-state opponent. You re treading on politics there. If there were a SEC-ACC challenge, it should be up to Clemson and South Carolina and Florida St. and Florida to determine an arrangement to play not have the conference office mandate a game without a return trip for the other school. The conference offices don't need to get cute and do that. That decision making power should reside with the conference members for those matchups.

Gap said:

---

An issue with the challenge is that the SEC has 4 more teams than the Big 12. That can lead to some not ideal matchups.

And I see why the conference isn't going to match us up with an in-state opponent. You re treading on politics there. If there were a SEC-ACC challenge, it should be up to Clemson and South Carolina and Florida St. and Florida to determine an arrangement to play not have the conference office mandate a game without a return trip for the other school. The conference offices don't need to get cute and do that. That decision making power should reside with the conference members for those matchups.

---

Excellent.

I think some of y'all are way overthinking this. There are no politics here. Nobody gives a **** about whether or not we play Texas or Baylor in basketball.

I think the conferences should, as much as possible, try to pair up teams that are expected to be about as good as each other next year first and foremost, and then just pick opponents that are interesting.

Who would give a crap about Texas playing Mississippi State or us playing Iowa State? I also don't really care about a return trip, that's not part of the deal with the SEC/Big 12. They might have to come here, we might have to go there, that's the deal.

But this year we're due to be at home and Texas is due to be on the road, and we both look like middle-of-the-road teams for next year, so let's do it.

I would, like most everyone else on here, like to play Texas and Baylor every year, but since that doesn't look like it's happening any time soon I'll settle for a one-off.

the fact that the SEC has 4 more teams means that there may be years we dont participate but it doesnt limit our opponents to any of the 10 B12 schools.

just curious. but where does the rumored schedule come from?

Nowhere noteworthy

Gig'em Gazette?

_lefraud_ said:

---

Gig'em Gazette?

---

Maybe the DMN via Gig'Em Gazette via SBNation via a guy at the chicken.

1 for 1

Kansas at Kentucky, combined with Barnes' statement, would seem to confirm WVU @ Tennessee

Barnes told reporters on Tuesday night at Tennessee's Atlanta Big Orange Caravan stop that his Vols will likely host West Virginia or Kansas this year as a part of the Big 12/SEC Challenge.

from bob's thread, the actual matchups

Alabama at Baylor
Arkansas at Texas Tech
Florida at TCU
Texas at Georgia
Kansas at Kentucky
Iowa State at Ole Miss
South Carolina at Oklahoma State
West Virginia at Tennessee
Kansas State at Texas A&M
Vanderbilt at Oklahoma

Kinda sucks for Auburn to be left out again.

If they had a sense of humor they'd have put Auburn against Oklahoma State or Kansas.