CWS
UCLA remained in the shadows of USC. This time it was the other USC though, as South Carolina beat UCLA two games to none in the College World Series. Is this a continued bad omen? Probably.
World Cup
The big matches haven't really lived up to the hype. Team USA met original expectations (round of 16), but given the draw they had and the easy path it SHOULD have been to the semifinals, getting eliminated in the first round of the knockout stage had to be disappointing. The fact is, however, they just are not a very good team. The defense is porous and the passing is pathetic, particularly when compared to the top teams in the world. Though there is promise for improvement as more and more young US players are getting jobs on overseas teams, where they can really improve (as opposed to the MLS which will never help them: see "star" striker Robbie Findley who had 3 pathetic games at the international level but DOMINATES his MLS competition). The refs have also been horrible. They don't know what offsides is, some behavior doesn't warrant the cards handed out, while other tackles nearly deserving of reds haven't even drawn yellows: they can't even freaking tell what a goal is! I love me some World Cup, though! Netherlands-Brazil Friday morning, 8am MDT. Can't wait! Germany and Argentina meet up on Saturday, also at 8am MDT. Those games should be AWESOME! Go Europe (except for Spain)! Beat those dirty, flopping South Americans!
Expansion
It appears that expansion is safe for now. The MWC has a chance to be proactive in several ways: adding teams, rearranging/balancing schedules, and positioning itself for better TV contracts. I am happy to report that they are doing nothing. While I can't blame them for not adding teams since there aren't any that improve the league at this point, the league will probably continue to dwindle in outer darkness, as a result of their doing nothing. If nothing else, the universities need to start scheduling more neutral site and big-time road games to get national exposure for the league, since the Mtn Network can't do it.
The Utes' Final Run
The move to the Pac 10/12 was definitely the right one for Utah, it would be the right thing for any non-BCS school to move up. But I think it's too bad that they are rebuilding in football (despite what Graham Watson thinks) and basketball their final year in the MWC. They will get everybody else's best shot, since they know it will be their last. It might result in one extra loss in football and two or three in hoops (but what's the difference between 16 and 18, really). The best thing for the MWC would actually be for Utah to finish in the middle of the pack and then to go to the Pac 10 and compete with the top dogs over there. The worst thing for the MWC would be for Utah to dominate the MWC this season and then go suck it up in the Pac 10. Here's hoping for a sub-par year from the Utes! It's the best thing for the conference, after all.
UNLV Runnin' (from the law) Rebels
I'm not surprised that one of the thugs from the UNLV basketball team got arrested for felony domestic battery. After watching Tre'Von Willis rape Jimmer Fredette up and down the court in both games, I knew he had it in him. In fact, watching a dozen or so UNLV games, I'm surprised only ONE of them has been arrested so far: they aren't exactly the highest caliber young men in the conference. Assuming that UNLV would not play a recent felon on their team, this dramatically changes the landscape of the MWC for next hoops season. It certainly pushes UNLV down a slot or two, also considering their sharp-shooting big man Matt Shaw has already been booted from the team, it may be an even further drop than that (he was a much better player than he was given credit for, and I viewed him as one of the "good" guys, at least on the court, where he played with passion but kept his emotions in check...maybe it was the drugs). Where they were previously going to compete with SDSU and BYU for the title, now you have to drop them into 4th fiddle behind the aforementioned two and New Mexico. I'm not saying that's how the standings will finish, but the pre-season polls will almost certainly now read: SDSU, BYU, New Mexico, then UNLV, as far as the big 4 are concerned.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
The Utah Effect
Well, what is the impact of Utah leaving the MWC for the Pac 10, at least in terms of the MWC?
Obviously, this hurts. You have one of the top 4 football programs in the conference leaving, with a recent top 5 finish and two BCS wins taken away from the conference. I think ultimately, at this point, the MWC is just concerned about getting an automatic BCS bid. With Utah AND Boise State, things looked a lot better. However, let's just look at the "trade" of Boise State and Utah.
1) In the four-year BCS cycle, Boise State is going to help more than Utah would have. Boise State has 2 top 10 finishes, including a BCS win. Utah had only 1 top 10 finish, including a BCS win. Projecting forward this year: Boise State will start in the top 5, meaning they could go 11-1 and still qualify for a BCS bowl game. Utah MIGHT start in the top 25, but would have to go undefeated to even have a chance for a BCS game this season. Boise State would be much more likely to finish in the top 10. Boise State is an improvement. The 3 criteria the BCS uses to evaluate conferences for BCS qualification are: average ranking (Boise State 7.5, Utah 14.5), highest BCS ranking finish (Boise State 6, Utah 6), and number of teams in the final BCS standings (both of these teams have finished in the top 25 both years, with Boise State almost a certainty to do it this year, while Utah is up in the air). Obviously the conference is stronger with both of them!
2) Boise is not a big TV market, however, it dominates the Boise market. Salt Lake is a much bigger market, but Utah is 3rd fiddle in the market behind the Jazz and BYU. When you talk about eyeballs that the schools bring to television sets, Utah is higher in the aggregate because of its larger alumni base, but as far as the "target market" is concerned, roughly as many people in Salt Lake watch Ute games as do in Boise for Broncos games. For the MWC, this is about as close to a wash as you can get. Now that the Utes are in the Pac 10, obviously, they will have more eyeballs watching them.
3) I would say the fan bases attending games are essentially equivalent. Utah fans point to higher attendance numbers, which is true, if you subscribe to the Utes' inflated attendance numbers. On multiple occasions I have watched an announced sellout when there were THOUSANDS of, perhaps even ten thousand plus, empty seats. In addition to that, thousands of people attend each game without having to purchase tickets, since the university hands them out to anyone intersted on the streets and in the dorms. I remember specifically watching a game they played against Utah State a few years back, when they announced over 20,000 people in attendance. The stadium was MAYBE 25% full, i.e. at most 10,000 fans. This would be essentially a wash as well for the MWC. Now that Utah is in the Pac 10, however, they might actually sell out their games, instead of just reporting that they did.
4) Other sports: Boise State has beat Utah in the Director's Cup Standings (a measurement of the success of the entire athletic program) 2 of the last 3 years. I would say the Boise State men's basketball program is in a better place RIGHT NOW than Utah's is, (however, that would be the ONLY time in the history of the two programs that this is true), but neither of them will/would be competitive for the foreseeable future in the MWC. Utah has a more successful women's gymnastics team and they have baseball, which Boise State does not. Boise State has a better wrestling team. Does any of this really matter? We're done here.
If the ultimate goal is an automatic BCS bid (which it HAS to be, if not, then these gurus are a bunch of idiots), then Boise State helps more than Utah does for this 4-year cycle. Again, it would be better to have both in the conference! If you could only have one, the MWC has the better option currently with Boise State. There is no guarantee that either (or both of them together) would help the conference get the bid: that onus falls on New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV, CSU, and Wyoming to pick up the slack at the bottom.
What I don't see happening is the MWC expanding further unless BCS teams become available. Houston, Fresno State, Nevada (the names often thrown around as candidates for MWC expansion) don't help. The average ranking for teams in the MWC is the one criteria of concern for the conference (since they qualify in the other two BCS conference criteria: number of teams in top 25 and highest finish in BCS rankings), as they average about 60th (which is the 7th best conference, losing to the 6th place conference by a pretty hefty margin too). Adding a bunch of teams in the 40's doesn't bring that number down very much (unless it is accompanied by dropping some of the sub-100 schools!). The only way for that number to go down is for the aforementioned 5 teams to start going 3-1 or 4-0 in non-conference play, without scheduling down! CSU and SDSU are, realistically, the only two of those 5 who could even go 3-1 this season. Oh well. Maybe next year.
Obviously, this hurts. You have one of the top 4 football programs in the conference leaving, with a recent top 5 finish and two BCS wins taken away from the conference. I think ultimately, at this point, the MWC is just concerned about getting an automatic BCS bid. With Utah AND Boise State, things looked a lot better. However, let's just look at the "trade" of Boise State and Utah.
1) In the four-year BCS cycle, Boise State is going to help more than Utah would have. Boise State has 2 top 10 finishes, including a BCS win. Utah had only 1 top 10 finish, including a BCS win. Projecting forward this year: Boise State will start in the top 5, meaning they could go 11-1 and still qualify for a BCS bowl game. Utah MIGHT start in the top 25, but would have to go undefeated to even have a chance for a BCS game this season. Boise State would be much more likely to finish in the top 10. Boise State is an improvement. The 3 criteria the BCS uses to evaluate conferences for BCS qualification are: average ranking (Boise State 7.5, Utah 14.5), highest BCS ranking finish (Boise State 6, Utah 6), and number of teams in the final BCS standings (both of these teams have finished in the top 25 both years, with Boise State almost a certainty to do it this year, while Utah is up in the air). Obviously the conference is stronger with both of them!
2) Boise is not a big TV market, however, it dominates the Boise market. Salt Lake is a much bigger market, but Utah is 3rd fiddle in the market behind the Jazz and BYU. When you talk about eyeballs that the schools bring to television sets, Utah is higher in the aggregate because of its larger alumni base, but as far as the "target market" is concerned, roughly as many people in Salt Lake watch Ute games as do in Boise for Broncos games. For the MWC, this is about as close to a wash as you can get. Now that the Utes are in the Pac 10, obviously, they will have more eyeballs watching them.
3) I would say the fan bases attending games are essentially equivalent. Utah fans point to higher attendance numbers, which is true, if you subscribe to the Utes' inflated attendance numbers. On multiple occasions I have watched an announced sellout when there were THOUSANDS of, perhaps even ten thousand plus, empty seats. In addition to that, thousands of people attend each game without having to purchase tickets, since the university hands them out to anyone intersted on the streets and in the dorms. I remember specifically watching a game they played against Utah State a few years back, when they announced over 20,000 people in attendance. The stadium was MAYBE 25% full, i.e. at most 10,000 fans. This would be essentially a wash as well for the MWC. Now that Utah is in the Pac 10, however, they might actually sell out their games, instead of just reporting that they did.
4) Other sports: Boise State has beat Utah in the Director's Cup Standings (a measurement of the success of the entire athletic program) 2 of the last 3 years. I would say the Boise State men's basketball program is in a better place RIGHT NOW than Utah's is, (however, that would be the ONLY time in the history of the two programs that this is true), but neither of them will/would be competitive for the foreseeable future in the MWC. Utah has a more successful women's gymnastics team and they have baseball, which Boise State does not. Boise State has a better wrestling team. Does any of this really matter? We're done here.
If the ultimate goal is an automatic BCS bid (which it HAS to be, if not, then these gurus are a bunch of idiots), then Boise State helps more than Utah does for this 4-year cycle. Again, it would be better to have both in the conference! If you could only have one, the MWC has the better option currently with Boise State. There is no guarantee that either (or both of them together) would help the conference get the bid: that onus falls on New Mexico, SDSU, UNLV, CSU, and Wyoming to pick up the slack at the bottom.
What I don't see happening is the MWC expanding further unless BCS teams become available. Houston, Fresno State, Nevada (the names often thrown around as candidates for MWC expansion) don't help. The average ranking for teams in the MWC is the one criteria of concern for the conference (since they qualify in the other two BCS conference criteria: number of teams in top 25 and highest finish in BCS rankings), as they average about 60th (which is the 7th best conference, losing to the 6th place conference by a pretty hefty margin too). Adding a bunch of teams in the 40's doesn't bring that number down very much (unless it is accompanied by dropping some of the sub-100 schools!). The only way for that number to go down is for the aforementioned 5 teams to start going 3-1 or 4-0 in non-conference play, without scheduling down! CSU and SDSU are, realistically, the only two of those 5 who could even go 3-1 this season. Oh well. Maybe next year.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Graham Watson Is A Joke!
So on Friday, Boise State, a non-BCS team, joined the MWC, a non-BCS conference. The only article written by the non-BCS blogger on ESPN was about, yup, you guessed it: Colorado, a BCS team, joining the Pac 10, a BCS conference. What a joke!
Also, has anybody else noticed that ESPN is the ONLY site saying that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State joining the Pac 10 is a done deal and is imminent? To this point, they have been using Orangebloods.com as their source. This morning, Orangebloods actually reported the opposite, stating that Texas was going to stay with the Big XII. So now, ESPN goes to other "anonymous" sources to continue pimping it's Pac 16 baby. Stop pushing your 16-team super-conference agenda!
And while you're at it, remind your non-BCS blogger that she is to report on non-BCS teams, i.e. the biggest non-BCS event since the Fiesta Bowl is Boise State joining the MWC: so report on it. She's been spending a little too much time sulking that her beloved Mizzou got the shaft from the Big Ten!
Also, has anybody else noticed that ESPN is the ONLY site saying that Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State joining the Pac 10 is a done deal and is imminent? To this point, they have been using Orangebloods.com as their source. This morning, Orangebloods actually reported the opposite, stating that Texas was going to stay with the Big XII. So now, ESPN goes to other "anonymous" sources to continue pimping it's Pac 16 baby. Stop pushing your 16-team super-conference agenda!
And while you're at it, remind your non-BCS blogger that she is to report on non-BCS teams, i.e. the biggest non-BCS event since the Fiesta Bowl is Boise State joining the MWC: so report on it. She's been spending a little too much time sulking that her beloved Mizzou got the shaft from the Big Ten!
Thursday, June 10, 2010
My Proposal
If the Pac 10 manages to get 5 more teams from the Big XII (Colorado is officially gone), here is my proposal for what Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and Baylor (and possibly Missouri):
1) Vote as a block to keep the Big XII alive. It takes 9 votes to dissolve the conference. If the conference dissolves, the dissenters do not need to pay the penalty for leaving (around $9 Million per school). 8 (or maybe only 7) schools have to pay $60-70 Million in aggregate to the conference for leaving. That's a nice little trophy for their loyalty, i.e. they don't get as screwed as they thought.
2) Do not join another conference, instead, invite the best available surrounding teams. If you go to the MWC you are stuck with SDSU, UNLV, New Mexico, Wyoming, and CSU. Instead, invite the best MWC teams to join you: BYU, Utah, Air Force, and TCU. That's a pretty solid 8-team football league. Hoops isn't bad either (mostly thanks to Kansas, Kansas State, and Baylor). If you want to take it a step further, grab the two most westerly Big East teams (assuming the Big East gets raided by the Big Ten and that conference's teams are looking for a place to land) Louisville and Cincinnati. They have average to decent football teams and both have very good basketball teams. If 12 is a magical number, add Houston and either Tulsa, SMU, Boise State (or you have Missouri if they didn't get an invitation to the Big Ten party).
Why? Keep your BCS status. Keep your TV contracts, i.e. don't have to get the Mtn./raw deal. Maintain your presence in the Midwest, Denver, and Texas. Add the Salt Lake, Cincinnati, and Louisville markets. Keep the Big XII championship game. BYU and Air Force have decent-sized national followings because of their religion and cadets, respectively. Utah also a sizable national following with their multiple BCS (and the first ever BCS) runs. Louisville and Cincinnati are nationally known. Houston and TCU have very respected histories and are certainly football programs on the rise/at the top in TCU's case.
I see it like this: it's better than where any of these teams will end up if they are not careful. It's better than the MWC, it's better than C-USA, and it's better than where the BCS teams will end up when their leagues disappear. Someone please point out the flaws? No, seriously, do point them out because I want to know what I'm missing.
Heck, if you want to be like everyone else and go to 16, add: the remaining two of Tulsa/SMU/Boise State, plus New Mexico and CSU (or maybe Louisiana Tech/UTEP/Rice/UNLV). That secures the Denver area for the conference, adds another viable football (Boise State) and hoops (New Mexico or even UNLV) program, and gives you all of New Mexico's televisions (what better do they have to do there than watch Alford cuss out college kids on their senior night?).
1) Vote as a block to keep the Big XII alive. It takes 9 votes to dissolve the conference. If the conference dissolves, the dissenters do not need to pay the penalty for leaving (around $9 Million per school). 8 (or maybe only 7) schools have to pay $60-70 Million in aggregate to the conference for leaving. That's a nice little trophy for their loyalty, i.e. they don't get as screwed as they thought.
2) Do not join another conference, instead, invite the best available surrounding teams. If you go to the MWC you are stuck with SDSU, UNLV, New Mexico, Wyoming, and CSU. Instead, invite the best MWC teams to join you: BYU, Utah, Air Force, and TCU. That's a pretty solid 8-team football league. Hoops isn't bad either (mostly thanks to Kansas, Kansas State, and Baylor). If you want to take it a step further, grab the two most westerly Big East teams (assuming the Big East gets raided by the Big Ten and that conference's teams are looking for a place to land) Louisville and Cincinnati. They have average to decent football teams and both have very good basketball teams. If 12 is a magical number, add Houston and either Tulsa, SMU, Boise State (or you have Missouri if they didn't get an invitation to the Big Ten party).
Why? Keep your BCS status. Keep your TV contracts, i.e. don't have to get the Mtn./raw deal. Maintain your presence in the Midwest, Denver, and Texas. Add the Salt Lake, Cincinnati, and Louisville markets. Keep the Big XII championship game. BYU and Air Force have decent-sized national followings because of their religion and cadets, respectively. Utah also a sizable national following with their multiple BCS (and the first ever BCS) runs. Louisville and Cincinnati are nationally known. Houston and TCU have very respected histories and are certainly football programs on the rise/at the top in TCU's case.
I see it like this: it's better than where any of these teams will end up if they are not careful. It's better than the MWC, it's better than C-USA, and it's better than where the BCS teams will end up when their leagues disappear. Someone please point out the flaws? No, seriously, do point them out because I want to know what I'm missing.
Heck, if you want to be like everyone else and go to 16, add: the remaining two of Tulsa/SMU/Boise State, plus New Mexico and CSU (or maybe Louisiana Tech/UTEP/Rice/UNLV). That secures the Denver area for the conference, adds another viable football (Boise State) and hoops (New Mexico or even UNLV) program, and gives you all of New Mexico's televisions (what better do they have to do there than watch Alford cuss out college kids on their senior night?).
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
For Boomer
Since there is so much info out about expansion, for my bro who is too busy to follow it all (and apparently can't form opinions about it on his own anyway), I'll try my best to sum it up.
The Big Ten scenarios:
1) No expansion.
2) Big Ten adds Notre Dame and ceases to expand beyond that.
3) Big Ten adds Nebraska, Missouri, and probably three Big East teams (Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse).
Notre Dame doesn't want everyone to expand to 16 and be the only one left out, particularly if the Big East falls apart as a result, since all of Notre Dame's other sports are in the Big East. But if they join the Big Ten, the 16-team conference scenario is less likely. If the Big Ten expansion stops at 12 teams, then they don't NEED to join a conference. But it won't stop at 12, unless Notre Dame is the one addition. So Notre Dame is really in a lose-lose situation. The Big Ten is in a win-win situation: they either get Notre Dame and have a 12-team conference, or expand to 16 teams, including Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse (if they can't get Texas that is, which I'm not sure they can if it's a competition between the Pac 10, SEC, and Big Ten). Nebraska, Missouri, and any Big East teams will gladly go to the Big Ten, if offered, so there is no issue there with having their invitations accepted. Timing might be the biggest issue here, as the Big Ten's window to get Nebraska and Missouri might close as early as this Friday.
The Big XII scenarios:
1) Nobody leaves, they all make nice, they all stay together. The Big Ten got Notre Dame to agree to join them (by Friday) and doesn't need Nebraska or Missouri.
2) One or two teams leave, probably to the Pac 10 (probably Colorado).
3) 4-6 teams end up leaving and the rest try to save the Big XII by adding some combination of the following teams: BYU, TCU, Houston, Utah, or Tulsa. This scenario would probably only be the result of a Pac 10 grab that is not accompanied with a Big Ten grab.
4) The conference disseminates to the Pac 16 and Big Sixteen. Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Colorado or Baylor look to the MWC.
I believe that Texas wants to stay in the Big XII, as currently constituted (and also would be willing to stay in a Big XII if only Colorado leaves). If Nebraska and Missouri do not commit to stay in the Big XII this Friday (i.e. those schools feel that the Big Ten will invite them), then Texas would not want to stay in the Big XII and would go with all of its friends to the Pac 10. It's theoretically possible that the Big Ten only takes ND, Nebraska and Mizzou commit to the Big XII, but Texas leaves with 5 companions for the Pac 10 anyway. Mind you, I think that is the least likely scenario of them all, but it still could happen and the remaining Big Six would add a few teams and remain a BCS conference (a much lower one on the totem pole).
The Pac 10 scenarios:
1) No changes.
2) Add two teams, likely Colorado and Utah.
3) Go big or go home: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Baylor or Colorado.
I think the Pac 10 wants to expand, but only if it helps the conference. I don't think the Utah/Colorado combination helps them that much. It doesn't give them access to recruiting grounds or markets that they aren't already utilizing. I think they will do that over doing nothing, but they obviously want the big fish (Texas), if they can catch it. How disappointing would a CU/U of U addition be after dreams of the Texas market and recruiting?
The SEC scenario:
1) Continue to do whatever it wants and continue to make the most money and be the most successful. Any expansion plans would probably include 3 or 4 ACC teams.
The ACC:
1) If the Big East remains intact, they would do nothing.
2) If the Big East collapses, pick up the best of the rest: Connecticut, West Virginia, Cincinnati. I'm not sure they would touch South Florida or Louisville (maybe Louisville for the hoops). Perhaps they would add a C-USA team as well?
The Big East:
1) Hope.
2) Pray.
The Big Ten scenarios:
1) No expansion.
2) Big Ten adds Notre Dame and ceases to expand beyond that.
3) Big Ten adds Nebraska, Missouri, and probably three Big East teams (Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse).
Notre Dame doesn't want everyone to expand to 16 and be the only one left out, particularly if the Big East falls apart as a result, since all of Notre Dame's other sports are in the Big East. But if they join the Big Ten, the 16-team conference scenario is less likely. If the Big Ten expansion stops at 12 teams, then they don't NEED to join a conference. But it won't stop at 12, unless Notre Dame is the one addition. So Notre Dame is really in a lose-lose situation. The Big Ten is in a win-win situation: they either get Notre Dame and have a 12-team conference, or expand to 16 teams, including Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse (if they can't get Texas that is, which I'm not sure they can if it's a competition between the Pac 10, SEC, and Big Ten). Nebraska, Missouri, and any Big East teams will gladly go to the Big Ten, if offered, so there is no issue there with having their invitations accepted. Timing might be the biggest issue here, as the Big Ten's window to get Nebraska and Missouri might close as early as this Friday.
The Big XII scenarios:
1) Nobody leaves, they all make nice, they all stay together. The Big Ten got Notre Dame to agree to join them (by Friday) and doesn't need Nebraska or Missouri.
2) One or two teams leave, probably to the Pac 10 (probably Colorado).
3) 4-6 teams end up leaving and the rest try to save the Big XII by adding some combination of the following teams: BYU, TCU, Houston, Utah, or Tulsa. This scenario would probably only be the result of a Pac 10 grab that is not accompanied with a Big Ten grab.
4) The conference disseminates to the Pac 16 and Big Sixteen. Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Colorado or Baylor look to the MWC.
I believe that Texas wants to stay in the Big XII, as currently constituted (and also would be willing to stay in a Big XII if only Colorado leaves). If Nebraska and Missouri do not commit to stay in the Big XII this Friday (i.e. those schools feel that the Big Ten will invite them), then Texas would not want to stay in the Big XII and would go with all of its friends to the Pac 10. It's theoretically possible that the Big Ten only takes ND, Nebraska and Mizzou commit to the Big XII, but Texas leaves with 5 companions for the Pac 10 anyway. Mind you, I think that is the least likely scenario of them all, but it still could happen and the remaining Big Six would add a few teams and remain a BCS conference (a much lower one on the totem pole).
The Pac 10 scenarios:
1) No changes.
2) Add two teams, likely Colorado and Utah.
3) Go big or go home: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Baylor or Colorado.
I think the Pac 10 wants to expand, but only if it helps the conference. I don't think the Utah/Colorado combination helps them that much. It doesn't give them access to recruiting grounds or markets that they aren't already utilizing. I think they will do that over doing nothing, but they obviously want the big fish (Texas), if they can catch it. How disappointing would a CU/U of U addition be after dreams of the Texas market and recruiting?
The SEC scenario:
1) Continue to do whatever it wants and continue to make the most money and be the most successful. Any expansion plans would probably include 3 or 4 ACC teams.
The ACC:
1) If the Big East remains intact, they would do nothing.
2) If the Big East collapses, pick up the best of the rest: Connecticut, West Virginia, Cincinnati. I'm not sure they would touch South Florida or Louisville (maybe Louisville for the hoops). Perhaps they would add a C-USA team as well?
The Big East:
1) Hope.
2) Pray.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
I Couldn't Resist
Expansion, expansion, expansion. It's on everyone's minds (and everyone's sports shows...). So the MWC didn't invite Boise State. Initially, I thought it was idiotic not to add them. But the more I think about it, they probably made the most prudent decision, based on the current status of college football. Since they don't have any of the bargaining chips, trying to be proactive doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and might even leave them worse off than if they did nothing. So, what happens now? Well, with expansion, there are likely only 3 external possibilities, and I will present them, along with how I believe the MWC responds.
1) No changes take place with conference realignment. This may make the Boise State decision a good idea. If the MWC can gain BCS status without adding Boise State, why add them? Realistically, the MWC can only get screwed by NOT adding Boise State if they do not gain BCS status without them. But there is no guarantee they would get it WITH them either. If nothing happens in the next three weeks, they could still add Boise State prior to July 1, but they will do so knowing that the landscape didn't shift beneath their decision.
2) A few small changes take place, but no super conferences are formed. I think the MWC was rolling the dice that this would NOT happen. This is probably the worst case scenario for the MWC. In this case, they are quite likely to have one of their top programs "poached" by the Big XII or Pac 10. If it happens BEFORE July 1, 2010, they could still add Boise State and recover. If it happens after July 1 (or if two of the top MWC teams leave the conference), they are in big trouble and will have little chance of gaining BCS status.
3) Major shifts happen with the Pac 10, Big Ten, and SEC, as they all expand to 16. The Big XII dissolves and the ACC and Big East are forced to join together with what's left of their conferences after the "Big Three" raids are finished. So now we have 4 16-team "super" conferences, though the ACC/Big East wouldn't be so super. The MWC has only one realistic play here: add Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State (if they have to), and Baylor or Colorado (whichever gets left out of Pac 10, Big Ten expansion), along with Boise State and Fresno State from the WAC and Houston from Conference USA. If the other 4 go to 16, the MWC has to go to AT LEAST 12, but, realistically, they have to take the leftovers from the Big XII, and, in all likelihood, has to add 2-4 others to get to 16. This is just to try to keep up. That conference would be better than the ACC/Big East combo conference, which would lose 5 or 6 of their best teams to the SEC and Big Ten/Sixteen. With major shifts, the BCS is going to have to rewrite a lot of their rules and stipulations. Who knows, it might even be the start of some kind of playoff system...doubtful.
As far as what I think is going to happen, I believe the Pac 10 invites 6 Big XII teams. I think they all accept. I think the Big Ten invites 1 or 2 Big XII teams, Notre Dame, and 2 or 3 Big East/ACC teams. I think they all accept. The SEC raids the ACC, taking Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson or Virginia Tech. The Big East and ACC join forces. The universities and conferences have seen so much money dangled in front of them with these potential super conferences, I think it'd be tough to stop it from happening at this point.
As much as I hate to admit it, the MWC might actually have done the smart thing not to add Boise State. Yet. Wait and see if anything happens in the next two or three weeks and then take another vote on whether to expand/add BSU or not. If the rumors die or if something actually happens, it will be easier to make a good decision based on those facts. I hate that they aren't being proactive, it's tough to cheer for teams and a conference that MUST be reactive, but that is just where they are at this point. Now imagine how the Big East is feeling! At least the MWC had an option, the Big East is just waiting to see WHO will jump ship, and WHEN.
Note: BYU fans, you do not have much room to complain about this, I can almost guarantee you that your university president was one of at least 3 presidents to vote AGAINST expansion.
1) No changes take place with conference realignment. This may make the Boise State decision a good idea. If the MWC can gain BCS status without adding Boise State, why add them? Realistically, the MWC can only get screwed by NOT adding Boise State if they do not gain BCS status without them. But there is no guarantee they would get it WITH them either. If nothing happens in the next three weeks, they could still add Boise State prior to July 1, but they will do so knowing that the landscape didn't shift beneath their decision.
2) A few small changes take place, but no super conferences are formed. I think the MWC was rolling the dice that this would NOT happen. This is probably the worst case scenario for the MWC. In this case, they are quite likely to have one of their top programs "poached" by the Big XII or Pac 10. If it happens BEFORE July 1, 2010, they could still add Boise State and recover. If it happens after July 1 (or if two of the top MWC teams leave the conference), they are in big trouble and will have little chance of gaining BCS status.
3) Major shifts happen with the Pac 10, Big Ten, and SEC, as they all expand to 16. The Big XII dissolves and the ACC and Big East are forced to join together with what's left of their conferences after the "Big Three" raids are finished. So now we have 4 16-team "super" conferences, though the ACC/Big East wouldn't be so super. The MWC has only one realistic play here: add Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State (if they have to), and Baylor or Colorado (whichever gets left out of Pac 10, Big Ten expansion), along with Boise State and Fresno State from the WAC and Houston from Conference USA. If the other 4 go to 16, the MWC has to go to AT LEAST 12, but, realistically, they have to take the leftovers from the Big XII, and, in all likelihood, has to add 2-4 others to get to 16. This is just to try to keep up. That conference would be better than the ACC/Big East combo conference, which would lose 5 or 6 of their best teams to the SEC and Big Ten/Sixteen. With major shifts, the BCS is going to have to rewrite a lot of their rules and stipulations. Who knows, it might even be the start of some kind of playoff system...doubtful.
As far as what I think is going to happen, I believe the Pac 10 invites 6 Big XII teams. I think they all accept. I think the Big Ten invites 1 or 2 Big XII teams, Notre Dame, and 2 or 3 Big East/ACC teams. I think they all accept. The SEC raids the ACC, taking Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson or Virginia Tech. The Big East and ACC join forces. The universities and conferences have seen so much money dangled in front of them with these potential super conferences, I think it'd be tough to stop it from happening at this point.
As much as I hate to admit it, the MWC might actually have done the smart thing not to add Boise State. Yet. Wait and see if anything happens in the next two or three weeks and then take another vote on whether to expand/add BSU or not. If the rumors die or if something actually happens, it will be easier to make a good decision based on those facts. I hate that they aren't being proactive, it's tough to cheer for teams and a conference that MUST be reactive, but that is just where they are at this point. Now imagine how the Big East is feeling! At least the MWC had an option, the Big East is just waiting to see WHO will jump ship, and WHEN.
Note: BYU fans, you do not have much room to complain about this, I can almost guarantee you that your university president was one of at least 3 presidents to vote AGAINST expansion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)