The Big 12 announced Friday that it will bring back the Big 12 Championship Game in 2017, which is fine.

Sure, it's only a matter of time before the Big 12 Championship Game costs the Big 12 a slot in the College Football Playoff, but the conference wants one and it's within the rules to have one, so whatever, it can have one.

So what if playing a round-robin schedule among your 10 schools makes the point of having a conference championship somewhat meaningless. Those checks will clear all the same, right?

What I found confusing about the Big 12's announcement -- or the most confusing, anyway -- was that the conference is probably going to go back to having divisions while still playing a round-robin schedule, which is just strange. What's the point of having divisions if everybody plays everybody anyway? All that's going to do is set up a scenario in which one division has a team that goes 11-1 and a team that goes 10-2, while the other division champion is 8-4 and lost to the team that went 10-2.

We know it's going to happen, and we'll laugh when it does.

But again, whether it makes sense or not, the Big 12 seems to like the idea, so all we can really do is sit back and wait for it to blow up in the Big 12's face.

We can also spend some time trying to figure out how the divisions will look.

The logical way to do things in most instances is to divide things up geographically, but that wouldn't really make sense for the Big 12 because six of the conference's 10 schools are located in Oklahoma and Texas.

Instead, what the Big 12 should do is learn from its past and try to find some competitive balance in its divisions. Back when the Big 12 actually had 12 schools, it faced a situation where the Big 12 North winner spent too much time destroying the Big 12 South winner's legitimate BCS hopes. The Big 12 will not want a repeat of that.

So without further ado, here's what I think makes the most sense in a situation that doesn't really make any sense at all.

Oklahoma Division Texas Division
Oklahoma Texas
Oklahoma State TCU
West Virginia Texas Tech
Kansas Baylor
Kansas State Iowa State

I named the divisions after Oklahoma and Texas because, no matter what, Oklahoma and Texas are going to be the most important schools in the Big 12, and I had to call them something.

What matters here is the schools in each division, not the names.

The first thing I wanted to ensure was that Texas and Oklahoma are not in the same division. It's the most important rivalry in the conference and by putting them in separate divisions, you create a chance for the two rivals to play twice a season. The good news is the annual meeting between the two takes place earlier in the year, so you aren't facing a situation where they'd be playing twice in a three-week time span or something.

Second, I wanted to keep in-state rivals within the same division. That's why the four Texas schools all share a division, and I just had to shoehorn Iowa State in there because the only other option is West Virginia and, let's be honest, putting Kansas and Iowa State in the same division goes against that whole "competitive balance" principle.

So, of all the possible combinations, I believe this is what makes the most sense. But before you get mad at me, let's all try to remember that none of this actually makes any sense.

The Big 12 wants to go back in time, and that means it needs divisions again. USATSI