Rest In Peace conservative warrior and freedom fighter.
20120305
20111225
20111219
Run Sarah Run!
Open Letter of Reconsideration to Governor Palin
After Palin, who i will support with sweat and money, comes
Anyone but Obama, who i will support with a vote.
After Palin, who i will support with sweat and money, comes
Anyone but Obama, who i will support with a vote.
20111209
BCS: Leaning from AQ and Toward +1
From CBS' Murphy.
The items of note from the article for me are:
1. AQ automatically gets $22.3 million, non-AQ gets $13.2 million
2. If non-AQ gets to BCS, they get $26.4 million
What i get from this are
1. Non-BCS programs moving to BCS conference is probably more about TV contract money than BCS money. Tthe increased from about $1 million to $2 million doesn't seem to be enough to offset travel cost and conference exit fees.
2. The MWC and CUSA are unlikely to merge. As an independent conference each gets $13.2 million each, as one conference they might get only $13.2 million total. I am highly skeptical that the combined merged conference would get $22.3, same as an AQ conference, and definitely not $26.4 million, more than an AQ conference.
3. Alliance makes sense with revenue sharing if one team from the Alliance Championship makes it to the BCS, then both conference could win more money.
4. If TV money is the key, each conference will be at a minimum of 10 teams with 9 conference games per team (to get sufficient conference games for airing). 12 teams usually means 8 conference games per team so unless the conference championship game can offset this in tv negotiation, i do not see either conference going to 12. Especially with an Alliance championship format unless there is special NCAA disposition for the two conference to have an intra-conference championship and an inter-conference championship.
5. Even with the BCS as a +1 format, the money situation is unlikely to change. All conferences will continue unequal revenue sharing. And there will be additional money for making the BCS championship series (final 4) and the actual championship game itself.
My conclusion:
MWC + CUSA forms an alliance but not a merger. Both will go to 10, possibly 11 teams (which may result in less non-conference games, which means less tier 3 money for each school and less opportunity to increase strength of schedule against the dominant conferences)
MWC 2013: Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada-Las Vegas, Nevada-Reno, New Mexico, and Wyoming for a total of 8 teams. At risk for Big East poaching: Nevada or Hawaii.
MWC candidates: Utah State, San Jose State, UTEP, Idaho, New Mexico State. I suspect the first two.
CUSA 2013. Alabama-Birmingham, East Carolina, Marshal, Memphis, Rice, Southern Mississippi, Texas-El Paso, Tulane, and Tulsa for a total of 9 teams. At risk for Big East poaching: Tulsa, Memphis, East Carolina
CUSA candidates: Army, Navy, Florida International, Arkansas State, Louisiana Tech, North Texas
The items of note from the article for me are:
1. AQ automatically gets $22.3 million, non-AQ gets $13.2 million
2. If non-AQ gets to BCS, they get $26.4 million
What i get from this are
1. Non-BCS programs moving to BCS conference is probably more about TV contract money than BCS money. Tthe increased from about $1 million to $2 million doesn't seem to be enough to offset travel cost and conference exit fees.
2. The MWC and CUSA are unlikely to merge. As an independent conference each gets $13.2 million each, as one conference they might get only $13.2 million total. I am highly skeptical that the combined merged conference would get $22.3, same as an AQ conference, and definitely not $26.4 million, more than an AQ conference.
3. Alliance makes sense with revenue sharing if one team from the Alliance Championship makes it to the BCS, then both conference could win more money.
4. If TV money is the key, each conference will be at a minimum of 10 teams with 9 conference games per team (to get sufficient conference games for airing). 12 teams usually means 8 conference games per team so unless the conference championship game can offset this in tv negotiation, i do not see either conference going to 12. Especially with an Alliance championship format unless there is special NCAA disposition for the two conference to have an intra-conference championship and an inter-conference championship.
5. Even with the BCS as a +1 format, the money situation is unlikely to change. All conferences will continue unequal revenue sharing. And there will be additional money for making the BCS championship series (final 4) and the actual championship game itself.
My conclusion:
MWC + CUSA forms an alliance but not a merger. Both will go to 10, possibly 11 teams (which may result in less non-conference games, which means less tier 3 money for each school and less opportunity to increase strength of schedule against the dominant conferences)
MWC 2013: Air Force, Colorado State, Fresno, Hawaii, Nevada-Las Vegas, Nevada-Reno, New Mexico, and Wyoming for a total of 8 teams. At risk for Big East poaching: Nevada or Hawaii.
MWC candidates: Utah State, San Jose State, UTEP, Idaho, New Mexico State. I suspect the first two.
CUSA 2013. Alabama-Birmingham, East Carolina, Marshal, Memphis, Rice, Southern Mississippi, Texas-El Paso, Tulane, and Tulsa for a total of 9 teams. At risk for Big East poaching: Tulsa, Memphis, East Carolina
CUSA candidates: Army, Navy, Florida International, Arkansas State, Louisiana Tech, North Texas
20111124
20111113
Big 12 Rivalries: New & Old
The Big 12 should try to maintain three sort of rivalries and play them annually. Firstly are the annual cross division rivalries that will define the divisions.
Texas & Oklahoma (Red River Rivalry since 1900)
Kansas & Kansas State (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Texas & Kansas State (Chisholm Trail since 1913)
Iowa State & Kansas State (Farmageddon since 1917)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Baylor & Texas Tech (Texas Farm Bureau Shootout since 1929)
There are four intrastate rivalries within of the three core Big 12 States: Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Thus each division should have one Kansas program, one Oklahoma program, and at least one Texas program. The annual cross division rivalries should thus be Kansas & Kansas State, and Oklahoma & Oklahoma State. Since the Texas and Oklahoma Red river Rivalry is the oldest, if they are not set as annual cross division rivals, then they need to be in the same division. Then given the Chisholm Trail rivalry, Kansas State and Texas needs to be in the same division. Then Farmageddon puts Iowa State and Kansas State in the same division. So far we have:
Division A & Division B
Texas & ?
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & ?
Texas Tech and Baylor needs to be placed, as well as new addition to the Big 12 Texas Christian. Texas has played 100 games against Baylor, 82 against Texas Christian, and 60 against Texas Tech. This means Texas' annual cross division rival should be either Baylor or Texas Christian, and the other to be in the same division. This leaves Texas Tech in the opposite division from Texas. However, there appears to be a preference by both Texas and Texas Tech to maintain the Chancellor Spur's rivalry. Ultimately rivalry is not just how long the teams have been playing but how much emotions and desires the teams have in playing each other. Since it would be an imbalance to place both of the Texas public universities in one division and both Texas private universities in the other, it seems appropriate to place Texas and Texas Tech as the annual cross division rivals. Baylor with 100 games against Texas will be in the same division as Texas as Baylor only has an 82 games series with Texas Tech. For Texas Christian, the rivalry with Baylor spans 107 games versus 54 with Texas Tech, leaving these two as natural cross division rivals and Texas Christian and Texas Tech to be in the same division. This then leaves the arrangement as:
Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & ?
Next to be placed is West Virginia. Given its geographical proximity and an empty cross division annual rival. West Virginia will become Iowa State's annual cross division rival. This will be a brand new rivalry as neither teams have played each other before.
Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & West Virginia
But this is only 10 teams and there would be no need for divisions. There is a general expectation that the Big 12 will go back to 12 with the addition of Louisville as 11th. Brigham Young has been mentioned but this seems to have fizzled for now. There has been hopes for Notre Dame but this remains just wishful thinking. Cincinnati have been discussed and would be a natural rival for Louisville. West Virginia list Louisville as a rival rather than Cincinnati so both should be in the same division. The Big 12 with 12 teams would thus be configured as:
Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian ("Holy War" since 1899)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & West Virginia (since 2012)
Cincinnati & Louisville (Keg of Nails since 1929)
These annual cross division rivalry games should be played early in the conference play if not at the beginning of conference play. These same two rival teams may end up in a rematch in the conference championship game as their respective division champions. The more game between the first meeting and the rematch the better. These annual cross division games should also be aligned such that all teams have equivalent exposure to the Big 12 geographically as well as to integrate new members with old members.
The remaining rivalries can be set up for rivalry weekend, the Thanksgiving weekend game.
Rivalries weekend games for division A:
Texas & Oklahoma (Red River Rivalry since 1900)
Kansas State & Iowa State (Farmageddon since 1917)
Baylor & Cincinnati (Battle of the Bears? since 2012 given that it is the Baylor Bear versus Cincinnati Bearcats)
Rivalries weekend games for division B:
Kansas & Louisville (The Birds Kansas Jayhawks versus Louisville Cardinals with both as basketball powerhouses)
Oklahoma State & Texas Christian
Texas Tech & West Virginia.
I went with Oklahoma State & Texas Christian with Texas Tech & West Virginia rather than Oklahoma State & West Virginia and Texas Tech & Texas Christian for a variety of reasons. Firstly Oklahoma State & Texas Christian and Texas Tech & West Virginia are more even matches. Secondly there appears a frontier commonality both present with Texas Tech and West Virginia. Thirdly it may be preferable not to have intrastate rivals for rivalry weekend. Fourthly it seems better not to pit the two new teams as rival for each other rather than integrate them into the conference by building rivalries with the original Big 12 teams. Naturally the four teams will play their three potential rivals (for Oklahoma State versus Texas Christian, Texas Tech or West Virginia; for Texas Christian versus Oklahoma State, Texas Tech or West Virginia; for Texas Tech versus Oklahoma State, Texas Christian or West Virginia; and for West Virginia versus Oklahoma State, Texas Christian or Texas Tech).
Naturally member teams should maintain rivalries in their non-conference schedule as well.
Baylor & ?
Cincinnati & Miami of Ohio (Victory Bell) and Pittsburgh (River City Rivalry)
Iowa State & Iowa (Cy-Hawk Trophy)
Louisville & Kentucky (Governor's Cup)
Kansas & Missouri (Border War)
Kansas State & Nebraska
Oklahoma & Nebraska
Oklahoma State & Tulsa
Texas & Texas A&M and Arkansas, possibly UCLA
Texas Christian & Southern Methodist (Battle for the Iron Skillet)
Texas Tech & Texas A&M
West Virginia & Pittsburgh (Backyard Brawl) and Syracuse (Ben Schwartzwalder Trophy)
Since Missouri and Texas A&M have both left the Big 12, neither Kansas nor Texas has expressed any interests to maintain the rivalries. This may apply to Nebraska as well. In these instances Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech should consider other regional programs such as Arkansas, Colorado State, Louisiana State, and New Mexico to build a non-conference regional rivalry series with.
Note
The divisions as listed above will have:
30 BCS points from 2008-2010 for Division A with Baylor (0 pts), Texas (12 pts),
Oklahoma (9 pts), Kansas State (0 pts), Iowa State (0 pts), and Cincinnati (9 pts).
26 BCS points from 2008-2010 for Division B with Texas Christian (15 pts), Texas Tech (3 pts), Oklahoma State (5 pts), Kansas (0 pts), and West Virginia (3 pts).
Texas & Oklahoma (Red River Rivalry since 1900)
Kansas & Kansas State (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Texas & Kansas State (Chisholm Trail since 1913)
Iowa State & Kansas State (Farmageddon since 1917)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Baylor & Texas Tech (Texas Farm Bureau Shootout since 1929)
There are four intrastate rivalries within of the three core Big 12 States: Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Thus each division should have one Kansas program, one Oklahoma program, and at least one Texas program. The annual cross division rivalries should thus be Kansas & Kansas State, and Oklahoma & Oklahoma State. Since the Texas and Oklahoma Red river Rivalry is the oldest, if they are not set as annual cross division rivals, then they need to be in the same division. Then given the Chisholm Trail rivalry, Kansas State and Texas needs to be in the same division. Then Farmageddon puts Iowa State and Kansas State in the same division. So far we have:
Division A & Division B
Texas & ?
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & ?
Texas Tech and Baylor needs to be placed, as well as new addition to the Big 12 Texas Christian. Texas has played 100 games against Baylor, 82 against Texas Christian, and 60 against Texas Tech. This means Texas' annual cross division rival should be either Baylor or Texas Christian, and the other to be in the same division. This leaves Texas Tech in the opposite division from Texas. However, there appears to be a preference by both Texas and Texas Tech to maintain the Chancellor Spur's rivalry. Ultimately rivalry is not just how long the teams have been playing but how much emotions and desires the teams have in playing each other. Since it would be an imbalance to place both of the Texas public universities in one division and both Texas private universities in the other, it seems appropriate to place Texas and Texas Tech as the annual cross division rivals. Baylor with 100 games against Texas will be in the same division as Texas as Baylor only has an 82 games series with Texas Tech. For Texas Christian, the rivalry with Baylor spans 107 games versus 54 with Texas Tech, leaving these two as natural cross division rivals and Texas Christian and Texas Tech to be in the same division. This then leaves the arrangement as:
Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & ?
Next to be placed is West Virginia. Given its geographical proximity and an empty cross division annual rival. West Virginia will become Iowa State's annual cross division rival. This will be a brand new rivalry as neither teams have played each other before.
Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & West Virginia
But this is only 10 teams and there would be no need for divisions. There is a general expectation that the Big 12 will go back to 12 with the addition of Louisville as 11th. Brigham Young has been mentioned but this seems to have fizzled for now. There has been hopes for Notre Dame but this remains just wishful thinking. Cincinnati have been discussed and would be a natural rival for Louisville. West Virginia list Louisville as a rival rather than Cincinnati so both should be in the same division. The Big 12 with 12 teams would thus be configured as:
Division A & Division B
Baylor & Texas Christian ("Holy War" since 1899)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Iowa State & West Virginia (since 2012)
Cincinnati & Louisville (Keg of Nails since 1929)
These annual cross division rivalry games should be played early in the conference play if not at the beginning of conference play. These same two rival teams may end up in a rematch in the conference championship game as their respective division champions. The more game between the first meeting and the rematch the better. These annual cross division games should also be aligned such that all teams have equivalent exposure to the Big 12 geographically as well as to integrate new members with old members.
The remaining rivalries can be set up for rivalry weekend, the Thanksgiving weekend game.
Rivalries weekend games for division A:
Texas & Oklahoma (Red River Rivalry since 1900)
Kansas State & Iowa State (Farmageddon since 1917)
Baylor & Cincinnati (Battle of the Bears? since 2012 given that it is the Baylor Bear versus Cincinnati Bearcats)
Rivalries weekend games for division B:
Kansas & Louisville (The Birds Kansas Jayhawks versus Louisville Cardinals with both as basketball powerhouses)
Oklahoma State & Texas Christian
Texas Tech & West Virginia.
I went with Oklahoma State & Texas Christian with Texas Tech & West Virginia rather than Oklahoma State & West Virginia and Texas Tech & Texas Christian for a variety of reasons. Firstly Oklahoma State & Texas Christian and Texas Tech & West Virginia are more even matches. Secondly there appears a frontier commonality both present with Texas Tech and West Virginia. Thirdly it may be preferable not to have intrastate rivals for rivalry weekend. Fourthly it seems better not to pit the two new teams as rival for each other rather than integrate them into the conference by building rivalries with the original Big 12 teams. Naturally the four teams will play their three potential rivals (for Oklahoma State versus Texas Christian, Texas Tech or West Virginia; for Texas Christian versus Oklahoma State, Texas Tech or West Virginia; for Texas Tech versus Oklahoma State, Texas Christian or West Virginia; and for West Virginia versus Oklahoma State, Texas Christian or Texas Tech).
Naturally member teams should maintain rivalries in their non-conference schedule as well.
Baylor & ?
Cincinnati & Miami of Ohio (Victory Bell) and Pittsburgh (River City Rivalry)
Iowa State & Iowa (Cy-Hawk Trophy)
Louisville & Kentucky (Governor's Cup)
Kansas & Missouri (Border War)
Kansas State & Nebraska
Oklahoma & Nebraska
Oklahoma State & Tulsa
Texas & Texas A&M and Arkansas, possibly UCLA
Texas Christian & Southern Methodist (Battle for the Iron Skillet)
Texas Tech & Texas A&M
West Virginia & Pittsburgh (Backyard Brawl) and Syracuse (Ben Schwartzwalder Trophy)
Since Missouri and Texas A&M have both left the Big 12, neither Kansas nor Texas has expressed any interests to maintain the rivalries. This may apply to Nebraska as well. In these instances Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech should consider other regional programs such as Arkansas, Colorado State, Louisiana State, and New Mexico to build a non-conference regional rivalry series with.
Note
The divisions as listed above will have:
30 BCS points from 2008-2010 for Division A with Baylor (0 pts), Texas (12 pts),
Oklahoma (9 pts), Kansas State (0 pts), Iowa State (0 pts), and Cincinnati (9 pts).
26 BCS points from 2008-2010 for Division B with Texas Christian (15 pts), Texas Tech (3 pts), Oklahoma State (5 pts), Kansas (0 pts), and West Virginia (3 pts).
20111112
Big 12: Old vs New by BCS points
BCS Points are described here. The next evaluation will look at the 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 season. The points are used as part 3 of a 3 parts evaluation to determine automatic qualification for the 2012-2013 season.
So lets look at how the old Big 12 compares to the new Big 12 with the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons.
0 for Baylor
0 for Colorado
0 for Iowa State
0 for Kansas
0 for Kansas State
4 for Missouri
3 for Nebraska
9 for Oklahoma
5 for Oklahoma St
12 for Texas
2 for Texas A&M
3 for Texas Tech
38 total points
So here is the Big 12 as it appears now for 2012, having lost Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas A&M but with Texas Christian and West Virginia over the same time period.
0 for Baylor
0 for Iowa State
0 for Kansas
0 for Kansas State
9 for Oklahoma
5 for Oklahoma St
12 for Texas
15 for Texas Christian
3 for Texas Tech
3 for West Virginia
47 total points
The new Big 12 even with just 10 teams is nearly 24% better than the old in raw points. Since the BCS formula then modify this for conferences less than 12 teams, the 10 teams Big 12 will gain a 12.5% bonus to yield a modified points of 52.875 points.
Should the Big 12 decides to go to 12 with Louisville and Cincinnati, the new points would be:
0 for Baylor
9 for Cincinnati
0 for Iowa State
0 for Kansas
0 for Kansas State
0 for Louisville
9 for Oklahoma
5 for Oklahoma St
12 for Texas
15 for Texas Christian
3 for Texas Tech
3 for West Virginia
56 total points
Going to 12 teams with both Louisville and Cincinnati will make the Big 12 even stronger by BCS points, not just to mention more markets for viewers and fans, and the Ohio river valley to recruit.
So lets look at how the old Big 12 compares to the new Big 12 with the 2008, 2009 and 2010 seasons.
0 for Baylor
0 for Colorado
0 for Iowa State
0 for Kansas
0 for Kansas State
4 for Missouri
3 for Nebraska
9 for Oklahoma
5 for Oklahoma St
12 for Texas
2 for Texas A&M
3 for Texas Tech
38 total points
So here is the Big 12 as it appears now for 2012, having lost Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas A&M but with Texas Christian and West Virginia over the same time period.
0 for Baylor
0 for Iowa State
0 for Kansas
0 for Kansas State
9 for Oklahoma
5 for Oklahoma St
12 for Texas
15 for Texas Christian
3 for Texas Tech
3 for West Virginia
47 total points
The new Big 12 even with just 10 teams is nearly 24% better than the old in raw points. Since the BCS formula then modify this for conferences less than 12 teams, the 10 teams Big 12 will gain a 12.5% bonus to yield a modified points of 52.875 points.
Should the Big 12 decides to go to 12 with Louisville and Cincinnati, the new points would be:
0 for Baylor
9 for Cincinnati
0 for Iowa State
0 for Kansas
0 for Kansas State
0 for Louisville
9 for Oklahoma
5 for Oklahoma St
12 for Texas
15 for Texas Christian
3 for Texas Tech
3 for West Virginia
56 total points
Going to 12 teams with both Louisville and Cincinnati will make the Big 12 even stronger by BCS points, not just to mention more markets for viewers and fans, and the Ohio river valley to recruit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)