Conferences, Demographics, and Realignment

I want to look at the current demographics of the conferences and thus make some projection about their movement forward into the future, including realignments. Keep in mind that conferences are not the same as teams and on field performances, conferences are about (academic) institutions who seek to grow bigger, stronger, and more prosperous. Prosperity is key here so that yes, it is about money. Business of College Sport is an excellent source for more information on this topic. Ultimately institutions grow by having more members. They best do this by providing academic quality to attract students. But in any business, there has to be some marketing and broadcasted games are a good way of raising brand awareness in millions of home for several hours at a time. Sports however isn't just about raising brand awareness but also about maintaining brand awareness with graduates, linking them back to the four (or is it five now?) years spent on campus. This the circle is closed when you look at the goals of institutional growth, to attract applicants, to raise student enrollment, and to maintain alumni support. I understand that there is substantial mobility of people in the United States but for the most part, only a few institutions are truly national (or international) brands. Most institutions are regional at best and many are really just state wide brand in practical terms. By practical terms I mean most students are from instate (for the tuition discount) and most alumni remain in state. A good alumni base is important for their continued financial support, and nearby alumni are a valuable asset. Nearby alumni are more likely to attend the games, remain involved, and thus more likely to contribute to the institution financially. Only a few institutions have access to multimillion dollars donors so these should not be counted on for growth. For conferences, if their member institutions grow, so will the conference.

My hypothesis is that for regional (all non national or international institution) institutions, their potential for growth is higher when the institution is based in a growing state. Growth is driven best by economic, but population growth is a reasonable surrogate as people will move for better economic options. To compare one state's population against another, I will simply use the 2010 census and the resulting changes to the state's congressional seats. From the WSJ:

• States Losing Seats

1. New York: -2
2. Ohio: -2
3. Illinois: -1
4. Iowa: -1
5. Louisiana : -1
6. Massachusetts: -1
7. Michigan: -1
8. Missouri: -1
9. New Jersey: -1
10. Pennsylvania: -1

• States Gaining Seats

1. Texas: 4
2. Florida: 2
3. Arizona: 1
4. Georgia: 1
5. Nevada: 1
6. South Carolina: 1
7. Utah: 1
8. Washington:1

Now lets look at the individual conferences and their net change of congressional seats (CS). Since we are looking at population changes as a marker for potential growth, a state can impact more than one conferences. This is a qualitative measure rather than a quantitative measure though numbers are being used. Starting first with the Major Five then the Minor Five.

• ACC: +1 (for Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and New York)
• B1G: -7 (for Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania)
• Big XII: +4 (for Texas)
• Pac12: +3 (for Arizona, Utah, and Washington)
• SEC: +6 (for Texas, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Missouri)
• Big East: +2 (for Texas, Florida, Ohio, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania)
• CUSA: +5 (for Texas, Florida and Louisiana)
• MAC: -6 (for New York, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan)
• MWC: +2 (for Nevada and Utah)
• Sun Belt: +4 (for Texas, Georgia and Louisiana)

Since I am proposing to use population growth as a potentiator for growth, I would be remiss not to consider the current state of the conference. For this I propose to use stability; after all nothing potentiate growth more than current stability. For stability I will just look at whether a conference has lost any members in the last 5 years. While some might argue that grants of rights (GoR) enhances stability and I agree, it doesn't factually provide stability as it has not been tested legally.

The ACC.  The ACC is unstable for having lost Maryland recently to the B1G. The ACC is also a risk per Internet rumors (yes I know that is the worse kind) of possibly losing Clemson, FSU, Georgia Tech, Miami, Duke, NC State, UNC, UVA, and VTech. While I remain skeptical that any of these teams will leave, I guess it can happen still. And if the 4 North Carolina schools stay, I think UVA and VTech will as well and thus the conference will survive. However, losing the southern schools like FSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Miami will mean losing all four states with growing population, leaving ACC at a net loss of -3 CS. Interesting enough, at least by demographic shift, the addition of Pittsburgh and Syracuse does not help the ACC with the future growth regardless of the quality of the two programs added.  As is, at +1 CS the ACC is holding. But should the ACC lose both FSU and Miami, then the ACC should consider another Florida team such as USF. UConn and Cincinnati are unlikely to add much long term growth potential.

The B1G. The B1G is rock stable, having lost none and gained 3 (Maryland, Nebraska, and New Jersey). However, the future demographic shift for the B1G states are abysmal with a conference net of -7 (-6 without the recent addition of Rutger). The mainstay programs of the B1G are Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State are all states losing CS. I believe for the near future the B1G will remain stable because all members are AAU (except Nebraska) but in the long term demographic will trump academic. For the B1G to expand by geographic continuity, the situation will not change much as New York is a loser of CS, the North East and the MidAtlantic (Virginia and North Carolina) and Kansas are neutral in terms of CS growth. I guess this is why the B1G is looking at Georgia Tech.

The Big XII. The Big XII is unstable because it has lost four members (Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas A&M). The Big XII demographic potential for growth is focused on one state: Texas. True the Big XII also has no states losing population. The reliance on Texas, and indirectly UT, may potentiate instability rather than enhances it.  Should any of the Southern ACC teams become available for membership, the Big XII should jump at the chance. I would actually not suggest waiting but go out and actively recruit. I would also consider teams in the nearby Mountain states of Utah, Arizona and Nevada.

The Pac 12. The Pac 12 is a stable conference having lost no members and having gained two (Colorado and Utah). The Pac 12 also has 3 states gaining CS: Arizona, Utah and Washington and no states losing CS. The Pac 12 should be expected to continue for a while, but is limited only by limited expansion options. Only Texas and Nevada are nearby states with growing CS. No wonder it would have been a coup accompli had the Pac 12 been able to take OU, OSU, TTU and UT.

The SEC. The SEC is a stable conference having lost no members and having gained two (Missouri and Texas A&M). Texas A&M was a huge gain, allowing the SEC a regular presence in Texas (+4 CS). The SEC has four states gaining CS and two states losing CS. One of the states losing CS is Louisiana and this maybe an aberration as a result of depopulating New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The other is Missouri, which is likely an addition only to balance out Texas A&M. The SEC is  on solid footing having a major presence in both Texas and Florida, not just the top two growth states but also the top 2 of three states for college football recruits.

Of the five major conferences I would rank the top two as the SEC and the Pac12. The B1G looks good now but have limited long term growth potential. The weakest two conferences are the ACC and the Big XII. They both likely know this and thus discussion for an alliance. I am skeptical an alliance would be a durable solution. Perhaps a full merger might work but that will never happen. Since the ACC is not looking to poach any programs from the Big XII whereas the Big XII is clearly interested in taking from the ACC, the Big XII through action alone may have a better future than the ACC.

I believe demographic shifts will affect the major five more than the minor five because of the current disparity in finances. Institutions in the minor five will always jump to the major five if given the opportunity to do so. Whether the major five will consider demographic shift is less certain to me but perhaps their should. A substantial amount of conference income come from TV broadcast rights with contract running for 10+ years, moving past the next census date of 2020.  Thus the money gains today will certainly trump that of future growth potential from population gains. Another consideration is that stability may not mean the same as with the major five conferences. If a conference has no team of value to the major conferences, then it may appear stable but stability would not mean value or potential for growth.

The Big East. Clearly an unstable conference having lost five teams to the majors (Louisville, Pittsburgh, Rutger, Syracuse, and West Virginia). The teams the Big East has sought to replenish and actually expand its membership include teams from Texas and Florida. In both states the Big East has position themselves with two programs each and this can only add synergy. If the Big East can hold as is I believe it has a reasonable future for growth. Current Big East teams at risk for jumping ship are USF, UConn and Cincinnati. Of these I would value USF the highest.

The CUSA. Another unstable conference having lost half its membership with six teams to the Big East (East Carolina, Central Florida, Houston, Memphis, SMU, and Tulane). Clearly the CUSA value maintaining a presence in Florida (FAU and FIU) as well as Texas (North Texas and UT San Antonio). The FCS addition of Old Dominion (VA) and UNC Charlotte (North Carolina) are population growth neutral. Louisiana (Louisiana Tech) will likely gain a CS in the next census. Like the Big East if the CUSA can hold and maintain competitive play, it might be pretty good.

The MAC. The MAC is probably unstable. Temple was lost to the Big East before becoming full member but the rest of the conference may not be attractive to the other conferences. Like the B1G the MAC has horrible demographic with a net of -6 CS. The MAC has a grim future despite having busted the BCS this past year. Unlike the B1G that can compensate for demographic decline by recruiting out of state by academic and reputation, the MAC cannot.

The MWC. Of the minor conferences, only the MWC has lost no members despite having members coveted by other conferences (Boise State and San Diego State). And gains in membership will allow the MWC to stage a conference championship for the first time. The MWC also have very good demographic with no states losing CS and two states gaining (Nevada and Utah). If the MWC can hold long enough to maintain conference unity and stave off any expansion from the Pac 12 or the Big XII, the future could make it the best of the minor and if consistent, leverage itself as a future major conference.

The Sun Belt. Another unstable minor conference having lost four teams to the CUSA. These losses have place them outside Florida but still maintaining a presence in Texas. Taking Georgia State help some but Georgia State is currently an FCS program. The Sun Belt should look to another Florida team. Of note all four Sun Belt bowl teams have remained with the Sun Belt.

Of the Minor Five conferences the MWC has the clear lead, closely followed by the Big East and CUSA. Next I believe comes the Sun Belt. The MAC I would place at the bottom of all conferences for future growth.

Economic Growth

As we all know, this supposed "Recovery Summer" is any thing but and this should come as no surprise. What is a surprised is that the Democrats actually believe their economic plans would actually stimulate the economy. Lets review what their plans entailed. Firstly was the 800 billion dollars stimulus package. Common sense would say that government spending is always wasteful and inefficient and that any such money that does make it to projects will only be short lived and at best, maintain employment as is rather than grow it. Once the government fund dries up, so would the activities associated cease and those employed for the project be at risk for being cut.

The second plan the Democrats enacted was Obamacare. The argument goes that if the cost of health care was reduced, the cost savings would go toward economic growth and increased hiring. The first fallacy here is that nothing in Obamacare actually goes toward decreasing the cost of health care, it just spread the cost around differently. Then there is the second fallacy is that if it the healthcare cost of hiring is reduced, more people will be hired. Things just simply do not work that way. Employers do not hire because they can afford to hire, they hire only because they have work that needs to be done, work that will help them generate a profit. In addition, Obamacare also increases the administrative cost for the employer so that while it may be cheaper upfront to hire, it will be more costly to administer the hiring.

The third plan the Democrats enacted was regulating the financial market. By financial market I mean Wall Street and the banks, not the home purchase lending policies that led to the housing bubble burst that led to the economic collapse 2-3 years ago. While more rigid standards and oversight may make for a more stable financial environment, a more stable financial environment in itself does not stimulate economic growth, especially in the short term as firms have to spend administrative costs to stay in compliance.

Lets look at things from a different perspective, what it does take to generate economic growth.
Firstly, there has to be a perceived opportunity for profit. By painting the economic environment as impending depression rather than a transitory recession to correct for the housing bubble burst. The Democrats intentionally fear mongered to get justification to enact their economic plans (faulty plans at that) without sufficient regards for the national perception. They then made it worse by predicting an over optimistic scenario that never came. Never came because their policies and plans are just wrong. The Democrats then made a second mistake in criticizing capitalism and the drive for profit. The opportunity well for profit was deliberately poisoned.

Secondly, there has to be available credit to finance project to take opportunity for profit. This was the main reason for the bail-outs but the bail-outs was resented by most Americans. The bail-outs was also directed at a few large firm whereas the majority of economic activities in the nation were with small and medium firms. These small and medium firms also suffered disproportionately from the housing bubble defaults. Thus the bail out did not and could not stimulate growth. In addition, the low interest rate as determined by the Federal Reserves was not in any meaningful way different from the interest rates before the economy soured. And since it cannot really go lower even when the economic environment is worse, there wasn't any growth to be derived.

Thirdly, there has to be an economic infrastructure facilitative for profit. Stability of the financial market is facilitative but not stimulative; it is the minimum necessary. When the financial market is unstable, economic growth is unlikely. When the the financial market is stable, economic growth is not a result. What is more important regarding economic infrastructure is the administrative cost or barrier to profit. There are two aspects here, the actual administrative cost to remain in legal compliance. The greater the cost, the more onerous the process, the less likely the risk to make a profit will be taken. This administration has sought to increased regulations of business. When you add on increased taxation on profits, even just the threat of increased taxation on profit, will dampen any enthusiasm for growth. Note, the other aspect of economic infrastructure that impedes economic growth is the amount corruption. I have no doubt that a significant amount of the economic stimulus was spent with a political component.

These same factors also explain why centralized economies do not produce the same economic growth as free capitalism.

Bottom line is that this administration has done everything possible to impede economic growth. It has demonized profit. It has increased the cost to make a profit. It threatened taxation on profit.

Capitalism and Creating Jobs

This was published in the WSJ by Bill Burbage on Thursday 20090730. I thought it made alot of sense and rather insightful. Perhaps it was obvious but sometimes the obvious needs to be restated.

No entrepreneur has ever had an objective of “creating jobs.” Everybody, employers and individuals alike, constantly seeks to eliminate jobs. As Adam Smith put it in “The Wealth of Nations,” all of the tools and machines that we use are designed to “facilitate and abridge labour,” i.e., to reduce jobs. People go into business to make a profit. If any jobs are created in the process, they are created because there is no way to avoid it. Employees are expensive.

To create more jobs, the sovereign must remove as many obstacles as he can between the entrepreneur and his ability to make a profit. No other stimulus is necessary. As Smith says: “The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition, when suffered to exert itself with freedom and security is so powerful a principle that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations.”

In his wildest nightmare Smith could not have imagined the “impertinent obstruction” of a 15.3% payroll tax—not on profits but on total revenues. Mandates by the federal government have made the hiring of an employee more akin to adopting him and his family.

To those who think that a recovery is automatic based on historical or cyclical experience, consider that Cuba has not recovered in 50 years. It will not recover in another 50 years unless it restores an environment that is not hostile to entrepreneurial activity; neither will the U.S. Instead of eliminating the obstacles that already exist, we are preparing to pile on even more with the carbon tax and health-care reform.

Government Bailout & Executive Pay Cap

I am all for the government imposing a cap on executive compensations with regard to salary, bonuses, and buy-outs. Firstly, it only applies to companies accepting government buy-outs and thus the government has a responsibility to see to it that the money is well spent and not wasted. This occurs in most other circumstances of government financial supports whether it be NIH research grants or federal moneys to states. Federal money should always come with restrictions. Secondly, and perhaps even more important, I hope this executive compensation restriction is such that the vast majority of large companies, those that are "too big to fail" would think twice about asking for federal hand-outs. I rather them take a chance on failure. I think this would be better for the companies, the economy, and the tax payers. Now small companies might be tempted to take government money but since our economy is built on the back of small and medium companies, I am fine with this.

Job Economics

Two interesting reads today regarding jobs and economics. Firstly, a review from the MIT Press on a book entitled "Minimum Wages" by David Neumark and William L. Wascher.

In this book, David Neumark and William Wascher offer a comprehensive overview of the evidence on the economic effects of minimum wages. Synthesizing nearly two decades of their own research and reviewing other research that touches on the same questions, Neumark and Wascher discuss the effects of minimum wages on employment and hours, the acquisition of skills, the wage and income distributions, longer-term labor market outcomes, prices, and the aggregate economy. Arguing that the usual focus on employment effects is too limiting, they present a broader, empirically based inquiry that will better inform policymakers about the costs and benefits of the minimum wage.

Based on their comprehensive reading of the evidence, Neumark and Wascher argue that minimum wages do not achieve the main goals set forth by their supporters. They reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers and tend to reduce their earnings; they are not an effective means of reducing poverty; and they appear to have adverse longer-term effects on wages and earnings, in part by reducing the acquisition of human capital. The authors argue that policymakers should instead look for other tools to raise the wages of low-skill workers and to provide poor families with an acceptable standard of living.

Now complement the above with the following article by C Edmund Wright at American Thinker

When the jobs report for November came out last week, many so-called "experts" were shocked at the massive loss of an estimated 533 thousand jobs. Even a Time /CNN organization called "The Curious Capitalists" were at a loss to explain it.


Let me attempt to help out these "curious capitalists" (though I am still skeptical that anyone working for CNN or Time is either curious or a capitalist). I caused part of this job loss and I know precisely why; the election. The results portend big trouble for small business.


The job destruction process has started. We are about 20% of the way through our ramp down process and on schedule to complete the shut down by spring 2009. Watch the financial news and you will see continued job cuts each month. We are not alone in our strategy. Far from it. Atlas has shrugged all over the country.


Like many business owners, we are no longer willing to take all of the financial and legal risks and put up with all of the aggravation of owning and running a business. Not with the prospects of even higher taxes, more regulation, more litigation and more emboldened bureaucrats on the horizon. Like others we know, we are getting out while the getting is, well, tolerable. Many who aren't getting out are scaling back.

Those in government, especially the recently elected administration, just do not seem to understand how economic work. While the government intention may be good, their results is far short of good.

Republican Party: Abandon the Evangelical and Shift to Center?

The point of a political party should not be about winning elections, nor should it be about pandering to the voters. The point of a political party is to enact positive change to our nation, and that means moving the middle away from the middle. The left understood this very well, why do we not? By moving toward the middle and abandoning out core principles we deserve to lose each and every time.

I am not religious. I do not see the evangelical faction of the Republican party pushing God onto the agenda. I see them as pushing a pro-life and pro-family agenda and i have no problem with either of these. Even as a libertarian the government still has to protect its weakest members and maintain the most basic unit of our society and community.

Having said this, I think the party should push these on the State level. Abortion is not and should not be a federal issue. It has no place in our constitution and all powers not explicitly given to the feds in the constitution belongs to the state. We should leave it there.

I would say the same of marriage. Having said that, I also think marriage should be a church issue and make civil unions a legal issue. I personally think civil union legal rights should only be given to families (i.e. couples with kids), whether the couple is heterosexual or homosexual).

The party should continue to push for strong nation defense primarily on the national level. Other aspects of the Republican principles like small government, fiscal responsibility, economic opportunity, and personal responsibility apply equally to State and Federal levels.

Political Party & Elections

With the recent 2008 election losses, some commenter have suggested that the Republican Party become more centrist in order to win. I think this misses the point of political parties in general. If the goal of any political party is to win election, then it is only about empowering some to lead others. Shouldn't we be primarily concerned about where we are being led to? It has to be about ideology first.

And if the party's ideology is in tune with the center, then how can any candidate from that party even possibly be leading rather than just manage the status quo once elected. Now if the status quo is great, then we may not want to expend the effort to make things better. But i assure you that things can be better. And once the premise that things can be better, then you have to ask how can you enact policies to change and make things better. And as soon as you do so, then you are proposing non-centrist ideas.

The goal then of any party is to suggest actionable plan that appeals to the center, to be adopted by the center, to make the party ideals mainstream. When this occur, it is not the party becoming more mainstream, it is actually the center being shifted toward the party's ideology. Thus in order for a party to be successful, it must have non-mainstream non-centrist ideas. However, if the party actionable plan is too extreme, then it will not appeal to the center. Society adopt changes very slowly.

In a previous post i suggested some principles the Republican party should adhere to, cultivate, and build upon.

Strong National Defense
Small Government in Society
Conservative Fiscal Policy
Fair Economic Opportunity
Culture of Personal Responsibility
Traditional Family Value

These may not be new ideas, but they are great ideas have made our nation great and should continue to guide our nation forward. These ideas continue to appeal and resonate with most Americans. Thus the solution for the Republican party to win elections is not to become more centrist. Rather, it is for the Republicans to offer and deliver meaningful changes and improvement to America that remain congruous to these principles.

My Political Party

As part of my on going “back to the blackboard” rethinking of everything (political), I want to work out some ideas on what and how I want my political party to work. When I say “my” what I mean is the party I want to be a part of rather than having my own political party.

Firstly, I want to know what are our core principles. I want these principles enshrined in the party's charter or its constitution. The principles that matter to me, and ones that I also believe to have broad appeals are:

Strong National Defense
Small Government in Society
Conservative Fiscal Policy
Fair Economic Opportunity
Culture of Personal Responsibility
Traditional Family Value

These may not be new ideas, but they are great ideas have made our nation great and should continue to guide our nation forward. The current issues and challenges should always be considered, referenced and debated on these core principles. While these should be our principles, our actions should remain decisive, ethical and magnanimous. Our means must be compatible with our goals.

Secondly our spending priorities should be:

1. Fund our party organization and groups on all college campus. They will be the future of the party. Even if they don’t, an educated voter is much preferred over an ignorant one.
2. Develop a 50 states effort. If we give up states like California, Washington, and New York we will never win.
3. Fund election campaign. How much funding support should consider the candidate compatibility with party principles, appeal to party members, and electability.
4. Fund charity projects. Our ultimate goal through politics is a stronger and better America, but crisis will develop that will transcend politics. We have to demonstrate we care for more than political power.
5. Fund research projects. We need proof that our principles as applied to the issues are actionable, effective and beneficial.

Thirdly I would like the party to interact more with its members. The party cannot be just about fund raising and votes. I would like to see that every year (or every other year) a convention is held for party members. During this convention current stance in response to current issues and challenges should be addressed. Proponents and opponents should debate where and how the party should respond. Then the members (those present and over the net) votes and thus party positions delineated and updated. Politicians can also make announcement for the upcoming year.

Fourthly political candidates for the party should be judged based on how close they are to the core principles of the party. Their appeals are determined through a series of state level election. The states should be grouped regionally; one state from each region would then hold its primary election each month. Allow a few weeks for the candidates to debate, retool, hold rallies, and then repeat with a new set of states, again one from each region. The states within each regional group can decide among themselves what order they shall hold their primary election. Likely I would prefer that each primary election is limited to party members but at the same time, each primary election should also serve as recruiting opportunity for non-members to join up and thus vote.

What I do not want my party to be a hateful opposition party. When they other party cannot do something, we should take no glee if the America would suffer for it, we should say we can do it. When they do something right, we don’t say that it was no good, we say we can do better. I also do not want my party to be into identity politics. We should court Hispanics because they share many of our principles of small government, conservative fiscal policy, and economic opportunity. We should reach out to African-Americans because only through returning to traditional family value, accepting a culture of personal responsibility, and embracing economic opportunity can they be strong and free. We should stop bashing gays. We should be pro-immigration and come up with a new term for “illegal immigrants.” We cannot be viewed as an anti-minority or anti-immigrant party.

The funny thing is that I have never truly identified myself as a Republican until this election. I voted for W and have been fairly happy with him (I am primarily a Strong National Defense guy) and since he won, I could remain an independent. I was never really all that into McCain until Palin. Now that the Democrats are in power I figure the best way get them out of power is to throw my lot in, for now at least, with the Republicans. And if the Republicans do not offer me participation other than my vote, then I will still judge each candidate based on my party platform and vote appropriately.

Conservatives & Republicans

Conservatives and Republicans are not synonymous. The contentious line between the two will only be highlighted with this election losses. There has been consideration for Republicans to build a bigger tent to get more independent voters. Conservatives have considered moving to form their own party that better represent their thoughts. And then there are the Libertarians, with many similar ideologies.

I believe the Republicans should continue to be a political machinery to elect candidates. I believe the Republicans should be a party of strong national defense, sound fiscal policies, small government, personal responsibility, economic opportunity, and family value.

I believe if people can identify personally with 3 or 4 of these six platform, then they should be welcomed into the party, as long as there will not be compromises on the other 2 or 3 platforms. Then we can have that big tent without driving away conservatives or independents. I do not believe there needs to be or should be a split between Conservatives and Republicans. I also believe that it would be a good thing for the Republican Party and conservatives to continue to have some differences of opinion as a contest of ideas can only make both stronger.

I believe the party should also reach out to Libertarians for similar reasons.