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
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.
20111111
20111107
Alliance: C-USA and MWC
Alot still depends on what happens to the Big East despite rumored invitations to Air Force, Boise State, Central Florida, Houston, Navy, and Southern Methodist. Any teams joining the Big East must realize that realignment of current Big East teams is not over. Per the West Virginia suit against the Big East state what we all know, that Cincinnati, Connecticut, Louisville, Rutgers and South Florida are all leaving. In fact, there may not be a Big East football conference if the Big 12 takes Cincinnati, Louisville, and South Florida while the ACC (or less likely the B1G) takes Connecticut and Rutgers for 2014.
The demise of the Big East, will best position the Alliance of C-USA and MWC to gain an automatic bid to the BCS. Whether each conference should have its own championship game is open for discussion due to NCAA rules. The Alliance championship game must be played in time for the BCS selection, as well as for the loser to be directed to its own bowl. Most likely this will be the first weekend in December, same time as the other conferences championship games. If there is a conference championship game then it will occur during "rivalry weekend" of Thanksgiving. The differentiation during both weekends might favor more for the C-USA and MWC conferences: Alliance championship rather than conference championship and conference championship rather than conference rivalries. But since the schedule is moved forward one week, and since the season cannot be moved forward one week (NCAA rules) then the Alliance teams may lose its bye week.
For each conference lets look at what the membership would be like, with and without losses.
C-USA.
Losing Central Florida, Houston and Southern Methodist the conference could stay at 9, add one to go to 10 (Louisiana Tech from the WAC) or add three (Louisiana Tech, upcoming UT San Antonio, and Texas State, all from the WAC). The two new Texas teams could replace Houston and Southern Methodists in the division line up, while Louisiana Tech could be in the East to replace Central Florida or in the West with Tulane moving East. If the three teams lost were Central Florida, Southern Mississippi and Tulane, then the 6 Texas teams would be West, and Tulsa and Louisiana Tech would be in the East.
Losing just one team like Central Florida the conference could stay at 11 or take Louisiana Tech (WAC) to go back to 12. Of the one team lost was Tulane, then Louisiana Tech would slide right in Tulane's spot.
MWC
Losing 2 teams (Boise State and Air Force) the conference will need two replacements and again it will be the WAC that will be raided: Utah State fills a geographic deficit, leaving Idaho, New Mexico State, and San Jose State. All four teams could take the conference to 12. Its division could be split East (Colorado State, Idaho, New Mexico, New Mexico State, Utah State and Wyoming) and West (Fresno State, Hawaii, San Diego State, San Jose State, Nevada, and Nevada Las Vegas).
It is quite possible that like the Big East, the WAC could be eliminated as a football conference. I think conference consolidations from 11 to 9 could be a good thing and one step further to equalizing the conferences with a playoff or BCS.
The demise of the Big East, will best position the Alliance of C-USA and MWC to gain an automatic bid to the BCS. Whether each conference should have its own championship game is open for discussion due to NCAA rules. The Alliance championship game must be played in time for the BCS selection, as well as for the loser to be directed to its own bowl. Most likely this will be the first weekend in December, same time as the other conferences championship games. If there is a conference championship game then it will occur during "rivalry weekend" of Thanksgiving. The differentiation during both weekends might favor more for the C-USA and MWC conferences: Alliance championship rather than conference championship and conference championship rather than conference rivalries. But since the schedule is moved forward one week, and since the season cannot be moved forward one week (NCAA rules) then the Alliance teams may lose its bye week.
For each conference lets look at what the membership would be like, with and without losses.
C-USA.
Losing Central Florida, Houston and Southern Methodist the conference could stay at 9, add one to go to 10 (Louisiana Tech from the WAC) or add three (Louisiana Tech, upcoming UT San Antonio, and Texas State, all from the WAC). The two new Texas teams could replace Houston and Southern Methodists in the division line up, while Louisiana Tech could be in the East to replace Central Florida or in the West with Tulane moving East. If the three teams lost were Central Florida, Southern Mississippi and Tulane, then the 6 Texas teams would be West, and Tulsa and Louisiana Tech would be in the East.
Losing just one team like Central Florida the conference could stay at 11 or take Louisiana Tech (WAC) to go back to 12. Of the one team lost was Tulane, then Louisiana Tech would slide right in Tulane's spot.
MWC
Losing 2 teams (Boise State and Air Force) the conference will need two replacements and again it will be the WAC that will be raided: Utah State fills a geographic deficit, leaving Idaho, New Mexico State, and San Jose State. All four teams could take the conference to 12. Its division could be split East (Colorado State, Idaho, New Mexico, New Mexico State, Utah State and Wyoming) and West (Fresno State, Hawaii, San Diego State, San Jose State, Nevada, and Nevada Las Vegas).
It is quite possible that like the Big East, the WAC could be eliminated as a football conference. I think conference consolidations from 11 to 9 could be a good thing and one step further to equalizing the conferences with a playoff or BCS.
20111106
Big 12 Realignment.
Missouri is officially going to the SEC for 2012.
That leaves the Big XII with:
Baylor
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Christian
Texas Tech
and West Virginia.
When West Virginia can start Big XII play remains unclear as they are suing, and being counter sued, by the Big East, to start Bug XII play in 2012. A big question still as a drag out legal contest in itself, regardless of who wins, may prevent a working schedule for the Big XII play. I have no question they can play by 2013 because that is when the Big East will be reconstituted with new members, who themselves have a year hold obligation with their own current conferences.
Thus if there is only 9 teams in the Big XII then television contracts might have to be renegotiated (from the TV carriers) as I believe the threshold for this is 10 teams. The only one of the independent team is likely to be able to start conference play by 2012. Of the four, Army is not interested in any conference, Navy is being courted by the Big East, Notre Dame won't give up its independence to help out any conference, and so that leaves BYU. BYU was previously courted by the Big XII but nothing became of it for uncertain and unpublished reasons. Unpublished means that there is still an opportunity to renegotiate. Interesting enough, BYU has also been mentioned as a traveling partner for Boise State to go to the Big East. If BYU turned down the Big XII, I would be skeptical they would choose the Big East instead, but if the Big East was more pliant, then it could happen.
The Big XII needs to make a renewed push for BYU, and perhaps to entice it, consider taking Boise State as well. I understand that there is concerned about Boise State's academics, and a programs academic's reputation and standing lingers longer than on field football prowess, but as long as there is a commitment to academic excellence, it might be reasonable to consider them.
Taking both BYU and Boise State would leave the conference at 12, where the conference started in 2010. But when you rebuild, you should always look to rebuild bigger and better. Again I believe the Big XII should become the Big XIV, no later than 2014. Work today and make plans for tomorrow. Going to XIV would also allow the Big XII to renegotiate its TV contracts for more money, not just keep the same or lose (if there is only 9 teams for 2012).
Who should these 2 teams be? Again we should keep the idea of loco-regional rivalry and traveling partner in mind. Thus i propose the following "couples" in order of appeal.
1. Central Florida & South Florida. Pros: Both are reasonably competitive programs. Both are within a major media market. Both have good fan bases. Both are located in a state rich in potential recruits. Cons: Neither has a long history for football in the national college football psyche. Distance from the Big XII (though this is a minor con).
2. Cincinnati & Louisville. Pros: Both are current AQ conference members. Both are competitive in football. Both have good media markets for viewers. Both have good fan bases. Both are in the Ohio Valley region for recruiting purposes. And both are ready and willing. In addition, Louisville has an excellent basketball program. Cons: While competitive, neither has a long history for football in the national college football psyche.
3. Southern Mississippi & Tulane. Pros: Both are in good football recruiting areas of the Southeastern Conference. Southern Mississippi has a long tradition of football competitiveness and Tulane has a long tradition for academics as an AAU member. Cons: Southern Mississippi has a decent fan base but no significant TV market. Tulane is in a good TV market but with a small fan base, it is unclear they can deliver viewers.
4. Colorado State & Wyoming. Pros: Both are neighboring states. Both has decent fan bases (similar in size to Louisville & Cincinnati). Colorado State is in a former Big XII state with likely many Big XII viewers already. Wyoming has the Wyoming market locked up. Cons: Neither are in good media market. While decent, neither are particularly strong on the football field. Neither are in states rich with recruits.
5. Houston & Southern Methodist. Pros: Both are competitive on the field. Both are in good media markets. Cons: Both are in Texas where there is already 4 Big XII teams so unclear whether there will be a gain in viewers, fans or recruits. Both have relatively small fan bases and thus may not deliver their media market.
6. Rice & Tulane. Pros: Both are AAU members. Both are in good media markets. Cons: Both are poor football performers. Both have small fan base and thus may not deliver their media market.
So a reconfigured Big XII
Division A & Division B (as annual cross division rivalry games)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Baylor & Texas Christian (Great Revival since 1899)
Iowa State & West Virginia
the additions:
Brigham Young & Boise State
Central Florida & South Florida
Cincinnati & Louisville
Tulane & Southern Mississippi
Colorado State & Wyoming
Southern Methodist & Houston
Rice & Tulane
Notes:
1. Interesting enough, taking Central Florida & South Florida as well as Cincinnati & Louisville will likely kill off the Big East before they can reform. Then their BCS Auto Qualifier can go to the MWC & C-USA Alliance Champion.
2. The two matched teams, being loco-regional rivalries, should try to stagger their home games so that in any fall weekends, there will be a nearby Big 12 game within driving distance, whether it be in Provo or Boise, Orlando or Tampa Bay, Cincinnati or Louisville, New Orleans or Hattiesburg, Fort Collins or Laramie, Dallas and Houston, or Houston & New Orleans.
3. Alternative pairings would be BYU & WVU (West & East) and Iowa State & Tulane (North & South). All pairings should be somewhat competitive.
4. My preferred are Cincinnati & Louisville and Rice & Tulane.
That leaves the Big XII with:
Baylor
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Christian
Texas Tech
and West Virginia.
When West Virginia can start Big XII play remains unclear as they are suing, and being counter sued, by the Big East, to start Bug XII play in 2012. A big question still as a drag out legal contest in itself, regardless of who wins, may prevent a working schedule for the Big XII play. I have no question they can play by 2013 because that is when the Big East will be reconstituted with new members, who themselves have a year hold obligation with their own current conferences.
Thus if there is only 9 teams in the Big XII then television contracts might have to be renegotiated (from the TV carriers) as I believe the threshold for this is 10 teams. The only one of the independent team is likely to be able to start conference play by 2012. Of the four, Army is not interested in any conference, Navy is being courted by the Big East, Notre Dame won't give up its independence to help out any conference, and so that leaves BYU. BYU was previously courted by the Big XII but nothing became of it for uncertain and unpublished reasons. Unpublished means that there is still an opportunity to renegotiate. Interesting enough, BYU has also been mentioned as a traveling partner for Boise State to go to the Big East. If BYU turned down the Big XII, I would be skeptical they would choose the Big East instead, but if the Big East was more pliant, then it could happen.
The Big XII needs to make a renewed push for BYU, and perhaps to entice it, consider taking Boise State as well. I understand that there is concerned about Boise State's academics, and a programs academic's reputation and standing lingers longer than on field football prowess, but as long as there is a commitment to academic excellence, it might be reasonable to consider them.
Taking both BYU and Boise State would leave the conference at 12, where the conference started in 2010. But when you rebuild, you should always look to rebuild bigger and better. Again I believe the Big XII should become the Big XIV, no later than 2014. Work today and make plans for tomorrow. Going to XIV would also allow the Big XII to renegotiate its TV contracts for more money, not just keep the same or lose (if there is only 9 teams for 2012).
Who should these 2 teams be? Again we should keep the idea of loco-regional rivalry and traveling partner in mind. Thus i propose the following "couples" in order of appeal.
1. Central Florida & South Florida. Pros: Both are reasonably competitive programs. Both are within a major media market. Both have good fan bases. Both are located in a state rich in potential recruits. Cons: Neither has a long history for football in the national college football psyche. Distance from the Big XII (though this is a minor con).
2. Cincinnati & Louisville. Pros: Both are current AQ conference members. Both are competitive in football. Both have good media markets for viewers. Both have good fan bases. Both are in the Ohio Valley region for recruiting purposes. And both are ready and willing. In addition, Louisville has an excellent basketball program. Cons: While competitive, neither has a long history for football in the national college football psyche.
3. Southern Mississippi & Tulane. Pros: Both are in good football recruiting areas of the Southeastern Conference. Southern Mississippi has a long tradition of football competitiveness and Tulane has a long tradition for academics as an AAU member. Cons: Southern Mississippi has a decent fan base but no significant TV market. Tulane is in a good TV market but with a small fan base, it is unclear they can deliver viewers.
4. Colorado State & Wyoming. Pros: Both are neighboring states. Both has decent fan bases (similar in size to Louisville & Cincinnati). Colorado State is in a former Big XII state with likely many Big XII viewers already. Wyoming has the Wyoming market locked up. Cons: Neither are in good media market. While decent, neither are particularly strong on the football field. Neither are in states rich with recruits.
5. Houston & Southern Methodist. Pros: Both are competitive on the field. Both are in good media markets. Cons: Both are in Texas where there is already 4 Big XII teams so unclear whether there will be a gain in viewers, fans or recruits. Both have relatively small fan bases and thus may not deliver their media market.
6. Rice & Tulane. Pros: Both are AAU members. Both are in good media markets. Cons: Both are poor football performers. Both have small fan base and thus may not deliver their media market.
So a reconfigured Big XII
Division A & Division B (as annual cross division rivalry games)
Kansas State & Kansas (Sunflower Showdown since 1902)
Oklahoma & Oklahoma State (Bedlam Series since 1904)
Texas & Texas Tech (Chancellor's Spurs since 1928)
Baylor & Texas Christian (Great Revival since 1899)
Iowa State & West Virginia
the additions:
Brigham Young & Boise State
Central Florida & South Florida
Cincinnati & Louisville
Tulane & Southern Mississippi
Colorado State & Wyoming
Southern Methodist & Houston
Rice & Tulane
Notes:
1. Interesting enough, taking Central Florida & South Florida as well as Cincinnati & Louisville will likely kill off the Big East before they can reform. Then their BCS Auto Qualifier can go to the MWC & C-USA Alliance Champion.
2. The two matched teams, being loco-regional rivalries, should try to stagger their home games so that in any fall weekends, there will be a nearby Big 12 game within driving distance, whether it be in Provo or Boise, Orlando or Tampa Bay, Cincinnati or Louisville, New Orleans or Hattiesburg, Fort Collins or Laramie, Dallas and Houston, or Houston & New Orleans.
3. Alternative pairings would be BYU & WVU (West & East) and Iowa State & Tulane (North & South). All pairings should be somewhat competitive.
4. My preferred are Cincinnati & Louisville and Rice & Tulane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)