I understand realignment is driven by money, but somewhere a bigger pie won't make up for more slices in terms of the number of members and the available weeks for the members to play each other. Currently there are 12 weeks to a regular season. All teams will want to play non conference opponents to maintain non-conference rivalries, get in trial games, and gain exposures. Thus I believe most teams will want at least 3 non-conference games and this will leave 9 for conference plays. A ten teams conference such as the Big XII has a nine games conference schedule. However, a ten teams conference cannot hold a conference championship and loses out on an extra game to make money for the conference. If the championship game can bring in the cost of having two additional teams over ten then this will be a win win for the conference. A twelve teams conference with two divisions of 6 would yield 5 in-division games and up to 4 cross-division games. A fourteen teams conference with two divisions of 7 would yield 6 in-division games and up to 3 cross-division games. A sixteen teams conference with two divisions of 8 would yield 7 in-division games and 2 cross-division games. However, 2 cross-division games against 8 teams mean one home and one away staggered results in 2 games every 8 years; might as well not be in the same conference. Thus I believe 16 teams conference is unwieldy. Thus I see 12 or 14 as the ideal size for a conference.
Thus when looking at conference expansion and realignment, I believe most major conference realignment must consider their current size as well as well as expansion options. By major conference I mean the big 5 as classified by the BCS starting 2014 to be the B1G, SEC, Pac12, BigXII, and ACC.
The B1G just acquired Rutgers and U Maryland to go to 14. I do not see them expanding further anytime soon and I do believe when they go looking they will want an AAU school. Westward there is only Iowa State but the B1G is already in Iowa and there just isn't much to gain by adding Iowa State. Kansas is unlikely as they will not travel without Kansas State. Southward there is the SEC and they are happy where they are. Eastward are UVA, UNC, Duke, and Georgia Tech. These are all ACC schools and I will express why none of these schools will leave for the B1G.
SEC is already at 14 with the recent addition of Texas A&M and Missouri. The only candidates they would look for would be a North Carolina school and a Virginia school to expand their footprint. Again these are ACC programs and I do not see them leaving.
Pac12 is currently at 12 but their expansion options are limited now that the Texas and Oklahoma schools have locked themselves in with the Big XII. There are six potential candidates for the Pac12 and they are BYU, Hawaii, Nevada, UNLV, Colorado State and Utah State. Given the current structures of the Pac12 membership of 2+ schools per state, the U and its sibling State U, I can see the next two additions being Colorado State and Utah State. I just do not see BYU or any other MWC teams being invited.
Big XII is currently at 10 and will expand. They can take 2-4 teams given that they already own the rights to the Big XIV. Who they take will depend on what happens with Maryland exit from the ACC and the $50 millions fee. If Maryland's exit goes well and not have to pay most of the $50 millions, then the Big XII will raid the ACC for Florida State and Clemson or Miami to go to 12. If Maryland's exit is difficult, then it will be difficult for the Big XII to buy out an ACC team in the same manner the B1G can help with Maryland's exit. In that case I believe the best candidates for the Big XII are Louisville, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, South Florida, Northern Illinois, and BYU. Though committed to the ACC, that they are not yet full members and thus, like TCU, may be able to leave with minimal cost. Pittsburgh would make a great regional partner for West Virginia and resume the backyard brawl rivalry. Pittsburgh is also a good market, a good program, and reasonably competitive in football. Cincinnati could be taken with Louisville for the regional synergy with each other as well as with Pittsburgh and West Virginia. Again the Keg of Nail rivalry between Louisville and Cincinnati would be preserved. Three teams would result in an odd number and team number 14 will be needed. South Florida will bring the Big XIV to Florida but will be on its own without realistic prospect for a future partner other than Miami. BYU would give the Big XIV an national marque. Northern Illinois will be considered only if they win against Florida State in the Orange Bowl as they might make a nice regional rival for Iowa State and provide a foothold in the Chicago market.
The ACC conference will hold largely because the core of the conference are the North Carolina schools and the Virginia schools, much like the Big XII held because of Texas and Oklahoma. These 6 schools, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, UVA and VT will allow the ACC to endure, and as such so will BC. Whether Clemson, GT, FSU and Miami leave will depend in part on what happens with Maryland's exit. GT is attractive to the B1G and will need a partner to be taken, but Clemson, FSU and Miami are not AAU members. All four might be attractive to the Big XII. If the Maryland exit is difficult these four teams will not leave. If the Big XII then take Pittsburgh and Louisville, the ACC will counter by taking UConn (despite BC resistance in order to maintain a northern foothold with Syracuse), Navy and South Florida (possibly). My bet is Clemson, GT, FSU and Miami will all stay with the ACC.
In my opinion the Big East, without the Catholic BB schools, and without Boise State and probably SDSU in football, will likely cease to exist as an independent FBS conference. Some have suggested some sort of merger with CUSA and I think this is reasonable. The alternative is to build itself as a new football conference but with membership consisting of Temple, Navy, UConn, Cincinnati, USF, UCF, ECU, Memphis, Tulane, SMU and Houston, this grouping of teams has neither cohesion nor identity to exist as a whole.
Of the minor conferences, I believe the MAC appears most stable. With the addition of UMass they are at 13. They should be searching for a 14th and the best options are Temple (which was a member before bolting for the Big East), UConn (if they are not taken by the ACC), Marshal and Western Kentucky (both current CUSA members), and possibly Army.
The MWC will got to 12 with at least Boise State and SDSU. They could go with 14 with SMU and Houston, both Big East invitees. SMU and Houston will move west only if they believe the competition is better in the MWC, to recruit in California rather than Florida, and thus potentially lay the exposure groundwork in Pac 12 markets for future considerations by the Big XII. Neither are candidates for the Big XII or the SEC. Alternative schools are BYU, UTEP, Tulsa, Idaho, New Mexico State. BYU is unlikely because as long as they can set up 6 games with MWC teams, they will be fine with their current TV arrangements. Idaho and New Mexico State are also unlikely because they just don't have a tradition of being competitive.
The Sun Belt are scheduled to lose FAU, FIU, UNT and Middle Tennessee to the CUSA but is gaining Texas State, Georgia State, and UT Arlington (non football) to end at 9 football members. The Sun Belt should make every effort to keep at least three of these programs to get to 12 for a conference championship game. FAU and FIU should be taken as a set to keep Florida. UNT should be consider as a Texas partner with Texas State and similarly Middle Tennessee make a nice regional partner for Western Kentucky. If all four teams are kept the Sun Belt should look at New Mexico State to bring the conference membership to 14. Alternatively the Sun Belt could reach out to USF, UCF and ECU to got to 12 but this seem unlikely. With a presence in Florida and Texas the conference should be decent.
CUSA can pick up former members that left for the Big East that could not found membership in the Majors. These are SMU, Houston, ECU, Memphis, Tulane, and UCF. They are already at 12 so these will take them to 18. If Houston and SMU decide to go to the MWC, and if FAU, FIU, UNT and Middle Tennessee stay in the Sun Belt then CUSA should make an effort to take USF and or Navy. CUSA membership would be the current members, minus Houston and SMU, with Old Dominion, North Carolina Charlotte, UT San Antonio, and Louisiana Tech, without the Sun Belt additions, would leave the CUSA with 14, 16 with USF and Navy.
20121231
20121228
New read
I find Avik Roy's blog at Forbes an informative read on healthcare policies.
I've added him and updated the blog roll.
I've added him and updated the blog roll.
Fiscal Cliff
I say we go over it. If the only way to impose entitlement cuts is to raise taxes for all then I am for it.
20121122
20121111
2012 Presidential Election Demographic
This Washington Post article on the demographic of the 2012 presidential election is interesting.
Naturally some reservation on the data must be kept as the data is from exit polling and that the 2012 presidential election turn out was about 9-10 millions less than that of 2008. Never the less this should give the Republican Party some cause for hope moving into the future when evaluating shifts toward the right since 2008.
The Trends
Males: +4% points gain
Females: +1%
Age 18-29: +5% (-6% for democrats)
Age 30-34: -1% (no change for democrats)
Age 45-64: +2% (-3% for democrats)
Age 65+: +3% (-1% for democrats)
White: +4%
Black: +2%
Hispanic:-4%
Asians: -9%
Other: +7% (-8% for democrats)
No high school education: (+1% for democrats)
High school graduate: +2% (-1% for democrats)
Some college / associate degree: +1% (-2% for democrats)
College graduate: +3%
Postgraduate study: +2% (-3% for democrats)
Income under $50k: no change
Income $50k - $99k: +5%
Income $100k or more: +5%
Married men: +7% (-8% for democrats)
Married women: +2% (-1% for democrats)
Unmarried men: +2%
Unmarried women: +2% (-3% for democrats)
Ideology liberal: +1% (-3& for democrats)
Ideology moderate: +2% (-4% for democrats)
Ideology conservative: +4% (-3% for democrats)
Males: +4% point gain
Age 18-29: +5% (-6% for democrats)
White: +4%
Income $50k - $99k: +5%
Income $100k or more: +5%
Married men: +7% (-8% for democrats)
Ideology conservative: +4% (-3% for democrats)
Religion Jewish: +9%
Why the Republicans are typically seen as a party of white conservative married men, I believe gains in the young voters, working people, and Jews need to be solidified. The majority of young voters and Jews still voted for democrats. Identify why these voters switch and build on these causes. Men and those with income greater than $50k only became more likely to vote Republican this election and these gains absolutely cannot be taken for granted.
On the cusps are the 3% gains.
Age 65+: +3% (-1% for democrats)
College graduate: +3%
Religion Protestant or other Christian: +3%
In summary, the Republican needs to solidify the base (married men, white and conservatives), build on gains made with men, those making over $50k, the elderly, college graduates and Christians. Reach out much more to the young, Jews, Hispanics, and Asians. Build on your strengths and at the same time address your weakness.
Note I did not include independents, and those who are doing better/worse than four years ago as these are essentially referendum on the incumbent. Given the broad gains made by the Republicans, that Obama still won reinforces my hypothesis of the cult of Obama as the cause of his electoral victory rather than any fundamental shift in American ideology.
Naturally some reservation on the data must be kept as the data is from exit polling and that the 2012 presidential election turn out was about 9-10 millions less than that of 2008. Never the less this should give the Republican Party some cause for hope moving into the future when evaluating shifts toward the right since 2008.
The Trends
Males: +4% points gain
Females: +1%
Age 18-29: +5% (-6% for democrats)
Age 30-34: -1% (no change for democrats)
Age 45-64: +2% (-3% for democrats)
Age 65+: +3% (-1% for democrats)
White: +4%
Black: +2%
Hispanic:-4%
Asians: -9%
Other: +7% (-8% for democrats)
No high school education: (+1% for democrats)
High school graduate: +2% (-1% for democrats)
Some college / associate degree: +1% (-2% for democrats)
College graduate: +3%
Postgraduate study: +2% (-3% for democrats)
Income under $50k: no change
Income $50k - $99k: +5%
Income $100k or more: +5%
Married men: +7% (-8% for democrats)
Married women: +2% (-1% for democrats)
Unmarried men: +2%
Unmarried women: +2% (-3% for democrats)
Ideology liberal: +1% (-3& for democrats)
Ideology moderate: +2% (-4% for democrats)
Ideology conservative: +4% (-3% for democrats)
Religion Protestant or other Christian: +3%
Religion Catholic: +3% (-4% for democrats)
Religion something else: +1% (+1% for democrats as well)
Religion Jewish: +9%
Religion none: +3% (-5% for democrats)
Republicans made gains in all these demographic groups except Hispanics and Asians. The Hispanic population, and to a lesser extent the Asian population, are both growing in significance in population and economic power. Hispanic constitute 16% of the population, with Asian as 5% and African-American as 13%. Clearly for the Republicans to gain in future election, outreach programs to the Hispanic and Asian population need to receive much greater emphasis.
Of the remaining demographic groups, assuming a polling margin of error of 3%, leaving gains of 4% or more as significant, the following groups moved toward the Republicans.
Age 18-29: +5% (-6% for democrats)
White: +4%
Income $50k - $99k: +5%
Income $100k or more: +5%
Married men: +7% (-8% for democrats)
Ideology conservative: +4% (-3% for democrats)
Religion Jewish: +9%
Why the Republicans are typically seen as a party of white conservative married men, I believe gains in the young voters, working people, and Jews need to be solidified. The majority of young voters and Jews still voted for democrats. Identify why these voters switch and build on these causes. Men and those with income greater than $50k only became more likely to vote Republican this election and these gains absolutely cannot be taken for granted.
On the cusps are the 3% gains.
Age 65+: +3% (-1% for democrats)
College graduate: +3%
Religion Protestant or other Christian: +3%
Religion Catholic: +3% (-4% for democrats)
In summary, the Republican needs to solidify the base (married men, white and conservatives), build on gains made with men, those making over $50k, the elderly, college graduates and Christians. Reach out much more to the young, Jews, Hispanics, and Asians. Build on your strengths and at the same time address your weakness.
Note I did not include independents, and those who are doing better/worse than four years ago as these are essentially referendum on the incumbent. Given the broad gains made by the Republicans, that Obama still won reinforces my hypothesis of the cult of Obama as the cause of his electoral victory rather than any fundamental shift in American ideology.
20121107
A thought on Obama's victory
In retrospect I think we all should have foreseen an Obama reelection. In 2008 Obama got elected not based on the Democratic platform, Obama got elected as a person. There was a cult of personality around Obama. Though diminished some, that cult of personality remains in 2012. Thus it did not matter that Obama lied about Benghazi or Romney. Thus it did not matter that the economy remains as bad today as it was when he took office. Thus it did not matter that he broke so many promises. To his followers he was their guy, and their vote was his. Loyal fans cheer for their team even in losing season.
The Democrats should not assume the turn out in 2008 and 2012 will be duplicated in 2016. It wasn't about the Democratic turnout, it was the Obama turnout.
The Democrats should not assume the turn out in 2008 and 2012 will be duplicated in 2016. It wasn't about the Democratic turnout, it was the Obama turnout.
20121106
20121027
Birth cover up
First thing first, I believe Obama, being a child of an American citizen, has a legitimate angle to be president of the US. Second thing, he already is president of the US. However, I find the following tibits from a circulating email interesting as they suggests a cover up of sort.
1.Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is "African-American" when the term wasn't even used at that time?
2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961 & lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right ? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ." This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except for the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist ? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya
3. On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital." This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home," respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978? http://http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx
http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx
Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media ?
4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama’s book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I'm not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when he was born. That should have put his father’s date of birth approximately 1936—if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!!!) Now we need a non-revised history book—one that hasn't been altered to satisfy the author’s goals—to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn't have been more than 9. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes (still qualifies as a “liar”)?
1.Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is "African-American" when the term wasn't even used at that time?
2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961 & lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right ? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya , East Africa ." This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except for the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist ? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya
3. On the Birth Certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital." This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home," respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978? http://http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx
http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx
Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media ?
4. Perhaps a clue comes from Obama’s book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. I'm not a math genius, so I may need some help from you. Barack Obama’s “birth certificate” says his father was 25 years old in 1961 when he was born. That should have put his father’s date of birth approximately 1936—if my math holds (Honest! I did that without a calculator!!!) Now we need a non-revised history book—one that hasn't been altered to satisfy the author’s goals—to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn't have been more than 9. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes (still qualifies as a “liar”)?
20121004
$716,000,000,000.00
I watched the first presidential debate last night between President Obama and Governor Romney. No doubt whatsoever that Romney won by an impressive command of facts and figures.
I am once again excited about the chances of defeating Obama and steer this nation from a path of self destruction. The wallet will once again open to the cause.
$716,000,000,000.00 is the amount that Romney repeatedly hammered Obama with. The figure is the amount Obama is cutting from medicare.
I am once again excited about the chances of defeating Obama and steer this nation from a path of self destruction. The wallet will once again open to the cause.
$716,000,000,000.00 is the amount that Romney repeatedly hammered Obama with. The figure is the amount Obama is cutting from medicare.
20120518
Big 14 and Beyond
There has been new rumors regarding Big XII expansion so I want to update this earlier post to accommodate the potential new addition of Florida State University, along with some potential ACC stable mates. Firstly, the division split are based on matched regional rivalries and so that these match teams will be in opposite divisions but will play annually, preferably opening conference play so that should they both end up being devision champs, the rematch will be the last conference champs. These matched regional teams will also even up travel for teams in both divisions and provide equivalent regional exposures. Thirdly existing Big XII teams should be matched with newcomers as much as possible. Thus I present:
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 & Notre Dame/Louisville/Northern Illinois
West Virginia & Virginia Tech (Black Diamond Trophy)
Florida State & Miami (Battle of Sunshine State)
Note each division has 2 Texas teams, 1 Oklahoma team, 1 Kansas team, 1 Midwest team, 1 Appalacia team, and 1 Florida team. The most difficult match was for Iowa State and though Notre Dame maybe ideal in terms of draw, academic and regionality, it still seem unlikely Notre Dame would join any conference. After Notre Dame I think Louisville, who is favored to join the Big XII would be a decent regional match. However, I actually think Northern Illinois, who field a pretty decent football team and located just in the neighboring state would make the best match for Iowa State. To make the Big XVI take Clemson & Georgia Tech to gain the South Carolina and Georgia market.
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 & Notre Dame/Louisville/Northern Illinois
West Virginia & Virginia Tech (Black Diamond Trophy)
Florida State & Miami (Battle of Sunshine State)
Clemson & Georgia Tech
Now that is a super conference!
An alternative match set: to Clemson & Georgia Tech would be Cincinnati & Louisville (Keg of Nails since 1929)
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 & Notre Dame/Louisville/Northern Illinois
West Virginia & Virginia Tech (Black Diamond Trophy)
Florida State & Miami (Battle of Sunshine State)
Note each division has 2 Texas teams, 1 Oklahoma team, 1 Kansas team, 1 Midwest team, 1 Appalacia team, and 1 Florida team. The most difficult match was for Iowa State and though Notre Dame maybe ideal in terms of draw, academic and regionality, it still seem unlikely Notre Dame would join any conference. After Notre Dame I think Louisville, who is favored to join the Big XII would be a decent regional match. However, I actually think Northern Illinois, who field a pretty decent football team and located just in the neighboring state would make the best match for Iowa State. To make the Big XVI take Clemson & Georgia Tech to gain the South Carolina and Georgia market.
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 & Notre Dame/Louisville/Northern Illinois
West Virginia & Virginia Tech (Black Diamond Trophy)
Florida State & Miami (Battle of Sunshine State)
Clemson & Georgia Tech
Now that is a super conference!
An alternative match set: to Clemson & Georgia Tech would be Cincinnati & Louisville (Keg of Nails since 1929)
20120305
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)