"Although standings in the conference are combined and not split among divisions, the schedule is structured as if the schools were split into two divisions. Teams play a home-and-home against teams within its division and a single game against teams from the opposite division for a total of 16 conference games. This denies Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, formerly in the Big Eight, two games a season against their opponents from that former conference, but does allow most of the other traditional rivalries to be played home-and-home."
So, there is a division based on games played (scheduling), but not based on how record is calculated. I noticed that the change I made to make the North/South division was reverted, so I thought I would post here before changing it back to see if anyone had any discussion on whether it should be or not? It doesn't really matter to me one way or the other, but I do think the North/South division makes it easier to read anyway. (Cardsplayer4life 00:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC))
I made the revert because there aren't divisions in common presentations of the Big 12 in basketball. I felt that by listing divisions, it implied that divisions exist for purposes other than scheduling. Granted, it did seem to be easier to read. I am open to going back to the divisions, and I'd like to hear what others think.Boneillhawk 03:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the template should be separated based on division. The divisions still exist, regardless of whether or not they are used for the Big 12 tournament. As has been said, they are still used for scheduling, which usually has a pretty significant effect on the conference champion. In any case, this template doesn't list teams, it lists arenas, which in my opinion should be based on location (ie divisions). -Texink[talk] 06:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
link the schools to the sports and/or basketball teams
What does everyone think, I think we should do sports, to be gender-neutral.--Levineps (talk) 02:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)