You’re welcome.

Actually, to be fair most of the work was already done. TCU is already set to move the Big East next year, Texas A&M is still hoping to go to the SEC, and today the ACC officially announced that Pitt and Syracuse are moving over from the Big East. The rest is just details.

Under my plan, the six BCS automatic qualifying conferences are reduced to five, each with 14 teams. Yes, I know people keep talking about 16-team superconferences, but my plan gives you six extra teams, and if nothing else, I’m all about extra value.

So here goes:

• TCU moves to the Big East.
• Texas A&M and West Virginia move to the SEC.
• OU and Oklahoma State go to the Pac-12.
• Pitt and Syracuse go to the ACC.
• The Big Ten adds Air Force and SMU.
• What’s left of the Big 12 and Big East merge into a single conference, which also adds BYU.

Done.

Yes, you lose the Texas/Texas A&M and Texas/OU rivalries, but those ships have already sailed for the most part. There will also be considerable travel headaches, especially for sports other than football, but again, we’re already past that point as it is. The Big 12/Big East will have the most headaches but can easily divide into East-West regions for easier scheduling.

So what are the benefits?

• Each conference has the same number of teams.
• Each conference will have a conference championship game, giving each the same path to a BCS game.
• With only five AQ conferences, a sixth could be added (Mountain West?), or there could be more room in the BCS for wildcard teams, which I think is a better solution.
• Many of the traditional rivalries are left intact.
• And most importantly, we can stop talking about all this crap and get back to griping about the BCS.

Any questions?

Previously:
The future of the Big 12 and how to stop it
Wait, that was it?!
Speculating on conference expansion rumors
‘Fairness Index’ doesn’t prove the BCS is fair

The Aggies apparently weren’t too keen on their intrastate rival Longhorns getting their own television network, despite the fact that the Longhorn Network will be available to exactly seven households in America, none of which are in Austin. But logic has never been A&M’s strong suit, so they’ve chosen to abandon 100+ years of tradition and possibly as much as $30 million in exit fees in hopes that the SEC will let them in to their exclusive club. Yeah, good luck with that. Let’s see, how many Big 12 football titles has A&M won? How many BCS games have they gone to? How many National Championships have they won since the rise of the BCS? Zero. And yet they really expect to do better against the likes of Auburn, Florida, Alabama, and LSU?

I have a suspicion that winning isn’t really important to the Texas A&M Board of Regents, though. Their decision to leave is strictly fueled by pride, with a healthy dose of TV cash mixed in. Win or lose, A&M stands to make more money in the SEC, where the TV contracts are greater and revenues are shared equally among all its members. The Aggies were never going to make money off the Longhorn Network; Texas was. It’s just that simple.

Was that the right decision to make? I don’t know. And I don’t care, quite frankly. I think it was a tad petty and childish, personally. If the Aggies really wanted respect, all they had to do was go out and win ballgames. No temper tantrums necessary. That’s been the strategy of OU, and it seems to have worked out pretty well for them so far.

But right or wrong, the Aggies have made their decision, and a year after Nebraska and Colorado bolted for the Big Ten and Pac-12, respectively, Dan Beebe’s bunch is left with only nine members. So what now? Does the Big 12 recruit another school to replace A&M, or does this latest departure signal the beginning of the end of the conference? Here’s how I see the different scenarios:

Scenario 1: The Big 12 recruits a new member.

Maybe it’s BYU. Maybe Air Force. Notre Dame has been floated, but I don’t think they’d be interested. The Big 12 is attractive to non-BCS teams such as Air Force due to the conference still being a BCS automatic qualifier. That was what drew TCU to the Big East, after all. But everyone knows that Texas dominates the Big 12 when it comes to money, so any team coming in would have to be willing to do so at a discount. Who would do that? SMU, for one, who’s already publicly begged for the spot. And I’m pretty sure BYU would as well.

Odds of this happening: Very good.

Scenario 2: The Big 12 disbands.

With only nine teams remaining, OU, OSU, and others may decide to get out while they have the chance. OU, OSU, and Tech go to the Pac-12. Missouri goes to the Big Ten. Kansas and K-State go to the Big East. Baylor goes to the Mountain West. And Iowa State goes, um, somewhere. And Texas? They go independent, happy to still be flush with cash on their very own burnt orange island. Would this really happen? Maybe eventually, but I don’t think any time soon. As long as OU keeps winning Big 12 titles, they’ll probably be content to stay, and none of the other conferences have expressed much interest in expanding further. So if the Big 12 eventually breaks up, it probably won’t happen for at least a few more years.

Odds of this happening: Unlikely.

Scenario 3: The Big 12 does nothing.

But what if the Big 12 chooses to stay at nine members? Is that even realistic? Well, the Big East only has eight teams right now, nine if you count TCU, which joins next year. And they’re an AQ conference. And with two of the Big 12 being Texas and OU, I can’t see them losing their AQ status. So in a way, there’s not that much of an incentive to rush to fill the 10th spot. Only when it becomes financially necessary to do so will the Big 12 be forced to expand. Why do you think they chose not to replace Nebraska and Colorado? How sustainable is such a scenario in the long run? Not much. But again, that’s in the long run. In the short run, it’s actually very doable.

Odds of this happening: Possible.

Obviously, nothing in college sports is set in stone. Heck, it’s even possible that A&M could change its mind if the SEC doesn’t give it an invite. All I know is that the college football season kicks off tomorrow with TCU and Baylor. And right now, that’s all that matters.

Previously:
Wait, that was it?!
Speculating on conference expansion rumors
Longhorns Inc., Part 2
Longhorns Inc.

Every year before, during, and after college football season, the anti-BCS crowd (which is legion) trots out to exclaim how evil the Bowl Championship Series is and how only a true playoff system would right its many wrongs. All in the name of fairness, they cry. And I suppose I’m a member of that crowd, having written at length about the current system’s lack of fairness and underlying motive to generate as much money as possible (see here, here, here, here, here, aaand… here).

But I don’t think anyone outside of BCS corporate headquarters really questions the unfair nature of the current bowl system. I mean, all anyone has to do is look at this year’s season to see that using polls and computers to choose a national champion is a joke. Auburn, Oregon, and TCU all finished the regular season undefeated, yet TCU was shut out of a chance to play for the title. Why? Because the voters and computers decided it was so.

So surely a playoff system is the answer, right? Give the little guys as much of a chance to win as the big boys. Let the debate be settled on the field rather than on paper. Then everything will be perfect.

Except that it won’t.

I’ve mentioned before about how according to a couple of economists, the BCS is statistically fairer than a playoff system. Their argument is that no matter how big the bracket is, somebody is gonna be left out. But the bigger you make it, the less fair it becomes because it diminishes the accomplishments of the top-seeded teams. And how could a playoff system be considered fair if statistically better teams fall to statistically worse ones?

Joe Posnanski at Sports Illustrated further expands on this idea by pointing out how flawed the NFL’s playoff system is:

Is a playoff really MORE FAIR? What does fair even mean? This year in college football, the BCS system had Oregon play Auburn for a trophy they called the national championship trophy. This left out other very good teams, particularly undefeated TCU. This wasn’t fair. There was much griping about it, and rightfully so. It is absurd and somewhat arrogant to believe that we can use our eyes and our computer systems and our innate sense of the game to look at more than 100 Division I football teams playing somewhat self-determined schedules and simply pick the two best teams. The flaws in the system are obvious.

But aren’t the playoff flaws obvious, too? This year in the NFL, the playoff system included a seven-win team and took one 10-6 wild-card team while leaving two other 10-6 teams at home. The system made a 12-win team and two 11-win teams go on the road for their first game, while three teams with 10 or fewer wins (including the NFL’s first seven-win playoff team) played home games. This year, the NFL rewarded New England and Atlanta for their 14- and 13-win seasons by giving them an extra week to heal and home field advantage. This seems like a seismic advantage. But is it really? We cannot argue that they promptly lost convincingly — making that one loss much more important than their stellar 16-game seasons. We cannot argue that 12 of the last 24 bye teams have lost their first playoff game.

Let me repeat that stat: Since 2005, the top-seeded (i.e. most deserving) NFL teams have lost in the first round of the playoffs 50 percent of the time. Posnanski goes on to speculate why this is, but regardless of the reason, his point is that they lost nonetheless. Is that fair? Strictly speaking, no.

The bottom line is that while picking a national champion with a computer is hardly perfect, a playoff system may not ideal either. Both systems have flaws. Both could be considered unfair. Both are — in the real world — driven by money rather than a sense of justice. Not that I’m defending the BCS, mind you. I still think some sort of playoff system, regardless of its potential flaws, is better than what we have now.

Just don’t expect too much of it.

Previously:
Legislating a playoff system isn’t the answer
‘Fairness Index’ doesn’t prove the BCS is fair
The BCS: ‘Communistic’ or not?
Yes, the BCS is flawed. What’s your point?

Anyway, I didn’t really have anything in particular to blog about, so I thought I’d throw a bunch of random things into one big post and let you pick out the stuff you’re mildly interested in.

First off, college football. I normally post a lot of college football stuff every year, but I haven’t written anything all season (which is now almost over). So what did I miss? A horrendous year for the Texas Longhorns but another undefeated season for the TCU Horned Frogs for starters. The Horns will bounce back, but not easily. They’ll (hopefully) fire a few coaches (Greg Davis, please?) and be a lot stronger next year. Of course, so will most of the other Big 12 South schools. Tech will be better, OSU and A&M are getting stronger, and OU is always a threat. The days of Mack Brown just showing up and being handed an automatic victory are over, at least for the foreseeable future. They won’t have another crappy season next year, but they won’t be undefeated either. I would say 9-3 is probably realistic. Not that that will appease the powers that be, but whatever. Parity in college football is long overdue.

As for TCU, the big news as of this morning is that the Frogs are jumping over to the Big East as of 2012. I’m not really fond of their decision. Yes, it puts them in a (weak) BCS AQ conference and gives them more national exposure, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. It seems like a short-term solution to a long-term problem. A stronger Mountain West conference, bolstered by Boise State, would likely be in contention for an AQ bid within a couple of years, but now TCU will be stuck a conference that sucks in football but dominates in basketball. Of course, the MWC — even with AQ certification — still wouldn’t have the big TV contracts that the Big East does. So perhaps the choice is really between Versus and ESPN. And really, there’s no contest there.

A big plus for TCU bailing on the Mountain West, though: We won’t have to see the Frogs play at Boise State. The Broncos come to Fort Worth in 2011, and then the Frogs will be in the Big East the next year. I’m sorry, but I just can’t watch Boise State games; that horrendous blue turf makes my eyes bleed.

I’m not about to complain if TCU doesn’t make it to the National Championship this year. Playing in the Rose Bowl against a very good Wisconsin team is not a bad consolation prize at all.

This past Sunday was my first week back in the Children’s ministry at church. I had sat out my last six-week rotation due to my leg injury. It was really good to be back. I genuinely love serving there, and I had missed being a part of it. Not sure yet what this rotation will be like. Last year we did a very big and involved Christmas pageant, but thankfully I don’t think we’re doing that again.

Speaking of my leg, it’s doing a lot better. The fracture is healed, and I’m gradually gaining my strength and stability back. Now I just have to pay off the rest of my medical bills.

I mentioned back in August that I had volunteered to coach my daughter’s soccer team. We wrapped up the season at the end of October with a record of 2-5-1. I learned a ton along the way, and I think I’d be much better the next time around. What surprised me most was how emotionally invested I got, and that wasn’t always a good thing. I let my frustration with the players and parents get to me too much, and I had to learn to let it go and just have fun. I think that’s where experience helps.

Also in October, I started a year-long commitment with the rest of my church to read through the Bible in a year. I’m happy to report that I’ve kept up. So far, I’ve read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers in the Old Testament and John, Romans, Hebrews, and Acts in the New Testament. It’s been very interesting. One of the cool things is how the Old and New Testaments parallel each other. You have the story of Creation in Genesis and then another “In the beginning” in John. The introduction of the Mosaic Law in Exodus and then a contrast between the Law and grace in Romans. A detailed list of sacrifices in Leviticus, and Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice in Hebrews. The beginning of Israel’s disobedience in Numbers, and the beginning of the apostles’ obedience in Acts.

As interesting as it is, though, my faith has definitely been challenged. The more I read, the more questions I have. And the more questions I ask, the more questions that branch off from there. I can definitely understand why someone would read the Bible and walk away an atheist; much of it makes no sense whatsoever by modern standards. I guess that’s where faith comes in. I don’t have to understand everything or have all the answers in order to accept it. And that’s actually a pretty liberating realization.

My wife has asked several times what I want for Christmas. I can think of a lot of stuff that we can’t afford but not a lot of things that we can. When I was growing up, I always had a Christmas list that was ten pages long; nowadays I have a hard time coming up with ten things total. I guess that means I’m getting old.

By the way, get off my lawn!

While I’m on the subject of Christmas, can someone please explain why we as Christians put more emphasis on Christmas than on Easter? We have this huge month-long celebration for the birth of Christ, but His death and resurrection are a much bigger deal if you ask me. So I vote for moving all the pomp and circumstance of Christmas to Easter. Who’s with me?

Previously:
Thoughts on Genesis
I signed up for WHAT?!
August, you suck too
Wait, that was it?!

But really, I’m not superstitious. Even though I listened to the same mix tape before each football game in high school. (I don’t remember what songs were on there, but I’m sure “Eye of the Tiger” was one of them.) And even though I ditched my Texas Rangers Claw and Antlers t-shirt last night halfway through Game 1 of the World Series when the Rangers were down 8-2. (And changed my Twitter avatar, which I had replaced with the Claw after the Rangers won the ALCS.)

But I’m not superstitious, I promise. Even though our high school football team went undefeated in the regular season all three years I was there, even making it to the state championship my junior year. Even though after banning Longhorn shirts following 5 straight losses to OU, Texas has beaten the Sooners in the last 4 out of 6 games and has gone to the BCS National Championship twice (winning in 2005). Even though TCU was undefeated in the regular season last year, played in its first BCS bowl, and is undefeated and ranked No. 4 in the BCS so far this year.

But did I have anything to do with that? Not at all. I don’t really believe that the shirt I’m wearing or the mug I’m drinking out of could influence a football or baseball game any more than a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon rain forest could cause a tornado in West Texas.

That’s just silly. Just as silly as avoiding black cats, believing a broken mirror could cause seven years of bad luck, or hotels not building a 13th floor. They’re all myths, urban legends, old wives tales. Nonsense.

But if you ask me what I’m wearing for the rest of the World Series, I can tell you it won’t be my Claw and Antlers shirt.

In what can only be explained as a miracle (by football-loving Baptists, at least), the Big 12 has been saved from destruction, with the ten remaining members swearing allegiance to Dan Beebe and the unnamed sports network (*cough*FoxSports*cough*) that bribed them to stay.

Who would’ve guessed that at the end of the day all of this realignment mess was really just about money? Huh.

So for now, there are no 16-team superconferences. No realignmentpocalypse. No ripping of the very fabric of the time-space continuum. Heck, not even a single punch thrown (unless you count Vince Young’s pummeling of an irate OU fan outside a Dallas strip club). In fact, Big 12 ADs would be singing “Kum Ba Yah” right now if it weren’t for the fact that they were too busy counting their enormous stacks of cash.

Where, then, does that leave us?

Big 12.

Appreciate the irony for a moment that the Big Ten now has 12 teams while the Big 12 now has ten. I wonder if they’ll trade names. Probably not, but anyway…

The biggest winner by far out of this whole deal is the University of Texas. UT, OU, and A&M get more money than the other seven teams, plus UT gets the opportunity to create their own network, which has been their end-game all along. And now that the Big 12 Championship game is no longer, UT benefits even more. Other winners include Baylor and what’s left of the Big 12 North, who would’ve been kicked to the street if the Big 12 had imploded.

But the losers? Us, the fans. Seriously, if you’re a UT fan, how can you be happy that an already weak Big 12 has become exponentially weaker. I mean, how many times can you watch UT or OU beat the crap out of Kansas and Iowa State before you change the channel? At least with the Pac-16 arrangement, there was the possibility of Texas playing some tougher teams. Now, Texas and OU are virtually guaranteed at least 10 wins every season, even with mediocre players.

Pac-10.

The only Big 12 team that the Pac-10 managed to snag was Colorado, an accomplishment that commissioner Larry Scott should probably leave off his résumé. Sure, they get the Denver TV market, but what they don’t realize is that people in Denver care way more about the Broncos and shoveling their driveways than they do about college sports. (Meanwhile, for their jumping the gun and bolting to the Pac-10, Colorado will have to pay between $6 and $8 million to the Big 12, money that they don’t have to spend right now.) There’s also the possibility that the Pac-10 could get Utah away from the Mountain West. If they do, good for them. But with USC crippled by NCAA penalties, it’s gonna take more than a decent Utah team to salvage this mess of a conference.

Mountain West.

The Mountain West picked up Boise State, but if Utah heads to the Pac-10, they’re back to square one. Still, that’s not a bad place to be. Even without Utah, the MWC is on a path to BCS automatic qualification and is certainly gaining national recognition. They’ll be fine, regardless of what happens with the Utes.

Big Ten.

All this expansion nonsense started with the Big Ten, but after all the dust settles, their only net gain will be Nebraska. They now have enough teams to have a conference championship game, but little else changes. Oh, except now the other members have to share TV revenue with one more team. Boy, for a conference that prides themselves on academics, they sure don’t understand math very well.

SEC.

There was a lot of talk that the SEC would invite Texas A&M, but nobody could ever explain what the Aggies brought to the table. Instead, they’ll stick with the teams they have now, which is the smartest decision to come out of this entire process. The SEC is the most dominant conference in the nation, both in athletic success and TV deals. They don’t need to expand, and they knew that all along.

So there you have it. After months of rumors and speculation, theories about how the entire face of college sports was about to change overnight, the end result was a total of only 3 or 4 teams changing hands. That’s not to say there won’t be more changes next year, but for now, the status quo has largely been maintained.

Only with more money.

Previously:
Speculating on conference expansion rumors
Longhorns Inc.

Is this college sports or As The World Turns?

The latest rumors have the Pac-10 asking Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, OU, Oklahoma State, and Colorado to be their new BFFs, thus elevating the Pac-10 to a 16-team superconference and completely decimating the Big 12. That would leave Baylor out in the cold, a result that doesn’t sit well with Waco’s state senator, David Sibley, who is apparently now fighting to have the Bears superglued to the other Texas teams. Meanwhile, the Big Ten, which has been rumored to be courting everyone from Texas to Nebraska to the North Dakota School for the Deaf, is supposedly focusing its efforts on Notre Dame. And Boise State, which was a lock for the Mountain West, is putting its plans on hold to see how everything else shakes out.

And of course, everything in the previous paragraph will be null and void by the time you finish reading this post.

Personally, I’m fine with the UT et. al heading to the Pac-10. I would prefer that to them going to the Big Ten or SEC; I just think it’s a better fit. What I would hate to see is Texas and A&M separated from Tech and OU. Those rivalries are just too good to relegate to non-conference status.

If the Pac-10 does expand to 16 (plus-or-minus Baylor or Colorado), the Big Ten and SEC would almost certainly follow suit, probably gobbling up Nebraska and/or Missouri or other Big East or ACC teams. The result would be three superconferences plus a handful of wannabes. Can you imagine how much griping about the BCS there’d be at that point? Yikes!

As far as Baylor is concerned, though, as I tweeted yesterday, I think they’d be better off in the Mountain West, where they’d face their old Southwest Conference rival TCU every year in addition to Utah and Air Force. Strictly looking at football (which is where all the money is, and let’s face it, that’s what’s driving all of this), the Bears have a much better chance at success in the Mountain West than they do anywhere else. They’ll never win a Big 12 championship, and they would certainly never have a chance in the Pac-16. Which is why I wish Sibley and his buddies in Austin would stay out of it. It was Austin politics that got Baylor into the Big 12 instead of TCU 16 years ago; we don’t need to repeat that same mistake this time around. (And understand, I’m not bashing Baylor. I like Baylor a lot, which is why I want to see them be successful.)

One thing’s for certain, though. Change is coming in college sports. With so much money at stake, it’s undeniable. It may be a complete shake-up, or it could just affect a handful of teams, but something is eventually gonna give. I just hope fans don’t get lost in the process.

Update, June 9:
Orangebloods.com is now reporting that Nebraska has unofficially accepted the invitation to the Big Ten, which pretty much guarantees the Big 12 South teams will bolt to the Pac-10. And yes, that will include Baylor and not Colorado. If UT has any say over the matter — and they absolutely do — there’s no way they would choose the Buffaloes over the Bears. First, Waco is just up the road from Austin (and conveniently directly between Austin and the Red River Rivalry game in Dallas). Second, there is a huge amount of history and tradition between the two SWC schools, something both Mack Brown and Darrell Royal highly value. And third, there’s always the political factor, which shouldn’t be ignored.

Of course, there’s always a chance UT could decide to keep the Big 12 intact, gambling on its attempt to form its own TV network. But I don’t think that’s gonna happen. There’s no loyalty in Texas (both the school and the state) to the Big 12 North, so there’s little incentive in Austin to keep this sinking ship afloat.

So where does that leave the other five Big 12 North teams? The most logical choice for Colorado would be the Mountain West, and probably for Kansas and K-State as well. If the MWC goes through with their plans to add Boise State, that would go a long way toward acceptance as an automatic qualifier for the BCS. Plus, Kansas and K-State both bring a lot to the table in basketball, so that would be a huge win for the MWC.

As for Missouri and Iowa State, they’re probably out of luck, at least in the short run. The Big Ten doesn’t seem interested in Mizzou any more, instead focusing on Notre Dame and then probably looking east to Rutgers and maybe Pitt. I suppose one or both teams could go to the Mountain West or Big East, but that’s probably the best case scenario.

Then that leaves the SEC. So far, they haven’t shown much interest in expanding, and really, they have no reason to from a financial standpoint. But with a 16-team Pac-10 and an expanding Big Ten, I think they’re gonna be forced to keep up whether they want to or not, at which point they’ll probably target teams such as Miami and Virginia Tech in the ACC.

It’ll most likely take a few years for all the dominoes to fall, but the momentum is definitely picking up!

Previously:
More March Madness is, well, madness
Legislating a playoff system isn’t the answer
The BCS: ‘Communistic’ or not?

The United States, Germany, Norway, Canada and Russia will be allowed in.

But not Belarus, Kazakhstan or Liechtenstein. They’ll have to compete in the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Olympics.

Unless, of course, a couple of them are unbeaten. Then they’ll play one another in the Fiesta Bowl.

BCS proponents argue that in basketball, the already-bloated playoff system makes the regular season irrelevant, and if that’s true, then a 96-team playoff would make it even more so. That alone should be reason enough not to fatten the tournament any more than it is.  But Andrea Adelson of the Orlando Sentinel points out another reason, one that would drastically affect college football as well:

One more point to consider in this story. If the tournament does expand to 96 teams, this could pave the way for superconference expansion. The idea of superconferences has been batted around for quite some time, and gained steam again when the Big Ten said it is considering expanding and could add more than one team. With more teams being allowed into the NCAA tournament, all conferences would have the green light to expand. Why? Because they wouldn’t have to worry about their teams beating up on each other and missing March Madness. Even the middle-of-the-pack teams would get in.

What would that mean to college football? It would essentially give even greater power to the traditional conferences and schools. All the non-BCS conferences, including the Mountain West and WAC, would become irrelevant because its good teams would be poached. The more powerful conferences would raid the not-so-powerful conferences. TV deals would explode, giving more cash to many programs that are already rolling in it. In essence, the face of college football would be totally changed.

To say this is all about money is of course just stating the obvious. And of course, just like with the BCS, the fans are on the losing end of the deal. March Madness is big enough already, probably even too big considering how lopsided many of the first-round games usually are. The last thing we need is to make it bigger, especially if it threatens non-BCS conferences such as the Mountain West.

Previously:
Legislating a playoff system isn’t the answer