Lessons Learned from Conference Expansion

Now that most of the dust has settled from conference expansion, let's see what we have learned.

1. Notre Dame is not the most powerful school in the country. That designation now belongs to Texas. Texas was able to turn college football on its head and then put it back on its feet, all in less than one week. The Longhorns had grown men fearing for their futures and desperately begging Texas to keep the status quo. Most importantly, Texas was able to leverage more money and control in the Big 12.

2. Expansion is all about money. Being good in football or basketball took a back row seat to other factors like the size of a school's local media market, the number of television sets that watch a school's games, and the impact on travel costs. Each conference did not hide that they would not expand if the current membership would not receive as much TV and other monies. Schools that have not fielded competitive teams in years (Colorado) were viewed more favorably than schools that win more than anyone else (Boise State). Schools that are very logical additions geographically (Pitt) are being rejected for schools that expand the conference footprint (Nebraska).

3. There are no loyalties. Each school will do what is best for it. While conferences were created to better the collective group, that won't stop one part of that group from leaving if a better offer comes along. Utah, with a BYU grad as school president and a former BYU player as its head football coach, had no concern about the impacts of its move on BYU and the rest of the Mountain West. Colorado couldn't accept the Pac-10's invite fast enough to throw Baylor to the curb. While doom and gloom was being forecasted for Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, and Iowa State, Nebraska happily jumped to the safety of the Big 10. The Boise State Broncos probably have not thought twice about how the WAC will be the Sun Belt of the West once they leave.

4. The Pac-10 is properly situation on the left coast. I, for one, was shocked to see the way certain schools in that conference openly opposed the addition of religious schools like Baylor and BYU. Come on, this is sports we are talking about. Why are you going to let liberal ideas get in the way of a good sports competition? Each conference has its own identity, but it is hard to find another conference that cares more about its identity than the Pac-10.

5. The power of the people. From the outset last December, all conferences proclaimed that this would be a 12 to 18 month process. That did not stop fans and media from talking about expansion and postulating expansion scenarios. Facts and data were being thrown out left and right arguing the merits of School A vs. School B. Demands for updates and leaks to the media fueled the fire. The people were heard and a mere six months later, the Big 10 and Pac 10 have made their moves (as well as the Mountain West, but that was more reactionary). The Big 12 is uncertain what it will do, but be assured that whatever timetable is set will be sped up by the people pushing for a resolve.

The Big 12 Will Be Fine

Let's say Nebraska and Missouri leave the Big 12 for the Big 10. Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Colorado then follow suit and leave for the Pac-10. Now what? Well, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor, first of all, I can assure you that the sun will rise the next day, and when it does rise here is the plan for you.

The Big 12 leftovers will be in a favorable situation, for being leftovers. Being positioned in the middle of the country, they have the option now of picking and choosing from the strong schools on the west and east of them. Take your time, because you will have time, and look at the following candidates.

Mountain West (MWC)
Air Force, BYU, TCU, and Utah

Big East
Cincinnati, Louisville

Conference USA
Houston, SMU, Southern Mississippi, and Tulsa

These schools provide two key ingredients: 1) An expanded conference footprint, while maintaining the traditional Big 12 footprint, and 2) A conference that could still be an automatic qualifyier in the BCS. You can pick your size, anywhere from 9 to 12 teams (5-8 in addition to the four leftovers). Here are some scenarios:

Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Iowa State
Houston
TCU or SMU
Cincinnati
BYU or Utah
Air Force
As long as you take TCU over SMU, this conference should be stong enough for a BCS AQ. The only problem is that long term, SMU might be better at getting attention in Dallas/Ft. Worth and Texas in general. :

Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Iowa State
Houston
TCU or SMU
Cincinnati
BYU
Utah
Air Force
Louisville
Southern Mississippi
This will give you 12 teams to hold a championship game. You are taking a chance on BCS AQ status with Louisville, but the basketball showdowns with Kansas could be too irresistable. Hopefully with both BYU and Utah, the conference will be strong enough to get AQ status.

The moral of this post is to keep your heads high Jayhawks, Wildcats, Bears, and Cyclones. The Big 12 has a future, and it might not be all that bad.

END THE PAROCHIALISM OF COLLEGE CONFERENCES

College sports have thrived under the organizational structure of conference for several decades now. These conferences have created identities through the years, which, in many cases, involves the geographical location of the schools in the conference. The Atlantic Coast Conference, Mid-America Conference, Southeastern Conference, and Pacific 10 Conference all refer to specific regions of the country.

From time to time, these conferences have grown in size by incorporating additional teams. Currently, the Big 10 and the Pac-10 conferences have expressed an interest in growing. Ask any “expert” on the subject of conference expansion and he or she will tell you that expansion consists of many factors in addition to the regional location aspect already mentioned. Academics (admission standards, research accreditation) and athletic competitiveness in all sports, and money are some of the bigger issues.

I have been reading about the possible conference expansions and all this rhetoric about academics and water polo being as important as football brings one word to mind: parochial. I don’t expect anything different since educating America’s brightest young minds should be the primary goal of colleges and universities, but let’s be honest with ourselves. When expansion is announced where does it make headlines and generate endless discussion and debate? College football media outlets. Football is the driving force behind all expansion. I graduated from a school that is a member of the Mountain West Conference (MWC), but we never competed academically with other MWC schools. The chemistry department did not have trivia bowls with conference rivals. The English department did not meet on weekends to have essay write offs with other MWC member schools. Maybe it looks good for recruiting after a down year or it helps with those conference advertising spots during athletic events when your team is losing by 30 points to be able to promote a strong academic resume, but people rarely associate athletics and academics in college sports. Conference alignment pertains to sports and sports only, and even then, conference alignment is flexible. The smaller sports like lacrosse and wrestling are not sanctioned by all schools, so some schools compete in one conference for the small sports and another conference for the big sports.

It is time to revamp the conference structure we have come to know in college sports. We need conferences that are assembled based more on competitiveness. It is time to kick out teams like Vanderbilt, Baylor, Iowa State, Duke, Maryland, Kansas, Mississippi State, Washington State, and Indiana who show little commitment to football and field a competitive team once a generation, and let teams like Boise State, BYU, Utah, and TCU replace them.

BCS: Oklahoma--The Original Ohio State

In recent years, I have been surprised by how the college football world has turned on Ohio State and placed them in a catagory of their own. After the first national championship game loss to Florida following the 2006 season, Ohio State was only put in the same game the next year against another SEC team because no one else in the automatic qualifying conferences had one loss. After LSU beat Ohio State that year Ohio State was black listed and cries were being made that even an undefeated Ohio State should not be considered for the national championship game implying they had lost the privilege. The next year came, 2008, and Ohio State was overwhelmingly beat by USC early in the year (no one seemed to care that Chris Wells, Ohio State's star running back was injured) and the Buckeye's were further tarnished, as well as completely eliminated from the national championship, even if they won the rest of their games. As I witnessed all of this happening, I wondered why Ohio State was judged so harshly, even when they were not the first to disappoint in BCS championship games, and had a better historical record in BCS games than another team: Oklahoma. Oklahoma has been some what of a teflon team. Consider the following results:

1. 2003--Oklahoma was obliterated by Kansas State in the Big 12 Championship game 35-7, yet somehow, they remained in the top 2 of the BCS rankings. USC was number 1 in both the AP poll and the USA Today (Coaches) poll, but they did not play for the national championship. Oklahoma went on to lose to LSU in the national championship game.
2. 2004--Oklahoma was one of three undefeated teams (USC and Auburn were the others) from the "Big Six" conferences. Again, Oklahoma qualified to play in the national championship game. This year, Oklahoma lost 55-19 in the national championship game leaving everyone wishing undefeated Auburn had gotten the chance to play USC instead.
3. 2006--Oklahoma was playing Boise State in the Fiesta Bowl. This marked the first time that a team from outside the "Big Six" conferences was playing a recognized national power in a BCS bowl game. (Utah's opponent in the 2004 Fiesta Bowl--Pittsburgh--was no where near elite status.) The BCS now had its chance to legitimize its witholding automatic qualification to conference champions outside the "Big Six" conferences. Rather than carrying the BCS banner proudly, Oklahoma lost to Boise State.
4. 2007--Playing a West Virginia team that did not have its head coach (Rich Rodriguez had already left to start coaching Michigan) and that had lost embarassingly to Pittsburgh in the last game of the season, Oklahoma played its way to a 20 point loss.
5. 2008--Oklahoma lost to Texas in the regular season. At the end of the year, despite identical win-loss records, Oklahoma held a higher BCS ranking and qualified for the Big 12 Championship game, which they won, and that win propelled Oklahoma into the BCS championship game over the team that had beaten them, as well as a slew of other one-loss teams that could argue they deserved to play in the championship game. Continuing their trend, Oklahoma lost to Florida.
6. 2009--Now to start this year, Oklahoma became the first team ranked in the top 5 to lose to a team outside the "Big Six" conferences when it lost to BYU.

Does it seem fair to anyone that Oklahoma's failures have not blighted their perception, whereas Ohio State's failures have? The worst part of it all is that Oklahoma usually has been surrounded by controversy as to whether it should be in these games. Nevertheless, they could not win to silence their detractors. Ohio State on the other hand, was undefeated and had beated two teams during the season that were ranked number 2 when they played in 2006, and, as previously noted, Ohio State had the best record in the nation in 2007. In 2008, when most teams were being criticized for scheduling weak non-conference opponents, Ohio State went on the road against a top 5 team, without the heart and soul of their offense. To clarify, my point is that if we want to be so harsh on Ohio State (I don't disagree that Ohio State should be handicapped for their recent blunders) we have to be just as harsh, or harsher on Oklahoma. Furthermore, teams outside the "Big Six" conferences are expected to go undefeated just to play in a BCS bowl; the BCS championship game isn't even an option. Judging by past performance, everyone needs to seriously question: does an undefeated Oklahoma deserves to be in the national title game? In my judgment, Oklahoma should be disqualified from playing in the BCS championship game, and Oklahoma should have to go undefeated to play in one of the other BCS bowl games. Under that condition, Oklahoma can restore the privilege of playing in the national championship game by posting a winning record in its next 5 BCS bowl games. The point is, if the College Football world is going to establish a judgment system for the BCS and its National Championship game then the whole College Football world needs to be put through the same judgment process.