And up with the puff of white smoke, there is expansion news in college sports.
But it's the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament expansion that is the news of the day before the NFL Draft consumes all sports news like Galactus.
The men's tournament will expand to 68 teams next year, getting to a number that is at least divisible by four unlike the awkward 65 that has been in place since 2001.
That gigantic whooshing noise you heard was from many college basketball fans who were petrified that the tournament was going to swell to 96 teams for 2011 and ruin the perfect balance of an 8 1/2" by 11" sheet of paper that has lines for 64 teams.
If you are one of those people, I've got news for you:
68 is just the starting point.
Look back in history to when the tournament first started to evolve to the allegedly perfect 64/65 and you will see an interesting metamorphosis:
1978 - 32 teams
1979 - 40 teams
1980 - 48 teams
1983 - 52 teams
1984 - 53 teams
1985 - 64 teams
2001 - 65 teams
Let's disregard 1984 and 2001, since those expansions led to only one extra bid.
Between 1978 and 1985, in a span of 7 years, the tournament doubled in size.
Now, going from 65 to 96 would not be a doubling in size, but adding 33 percent more teams.
Can't you see that happening by 2017? I know I can. And, quite frankly, it probably will — especially because we could see some radical realigning of conferences on the horizon that will reshape the college athletics landscape.
If the shuffling of deck chairs happens on the football side, it will definitely affect the NCAA tournament. If the Big Six BCS leagues consolidate as some of us think they will, the men's tournament will have no choice but to expand because of the imbalance of power and the almighty dollar.
So sleep well tonight, those of you who are against tourney expansion.
Your nightmare may not begin for another 12-18 months.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
NCAA Tempting Fate With New Taunting Rule
The good thing about writing a weekly column is that I have time to review the news of the week and reflect on it before commenting.
The worst feeling, though, is when you’ve written what you think is a solid piece, and then news happens after you’ve hit “send.”
Because the NCAA decided last week that college football players weren’t being good enough sports and that starting in 2011, if a team taunts the opposition on the way to the end zone, the taunting team will lose the touchdown and be penalized from the spot of the foul.
Yep. It doesn’t even have to be the player that is about to score; it could be a teammate up field who taunts.
No touchdown.
Seems a bit extreme, doesn’t it?
Considering some of the recent instances of overzealous officiating (especially last season in the SEC), are we really sure that we want to give the officials even more latitude in exercising subjective judgment?
Do we really want to give these guys that kind of control?
I know I don’t.
Hell, at this point I barely want to give most college football officials the power to call holding.
While I am a believer in instant replay because it can help make sure that the right calls are made most of the time, I think on some level it has contributed to the declining nature of officiating. Calls are not made with confidence anymore, and I think that some officials are either relying on replay to bail them out or trying not to make an embarrassing call.
But I don’t solely want to rag on officials. I think the NCAA itself shouldn’t even have considered this rule.
To me, it’s too subjective as far as what can be considered taunting in some circumstances. ESPN’s Bruce Feldman drew attention to a play by Notre Dame wide receiver Golden Tate last season. To most eyes, it looks like a tame touchdown catch.
But to Dave Parry, the coordinator of officials, it would have been taunting. No TD.
Again, are you kidding me with this?
I can understand wanting to encourage sportsmanship; the academic in me can see that.
But this is sports we’re talking about. And some of these acts are really celebrations. Sure, they might cross the line a little bit, but the penalty on the ensuing kickoff was enough.
Taking points off the board because of an emotional outburst by young men with adrenaline pumping through their systems is borderline ridiculous.
And if it costs someone a BCS bid in 2011, you can bet that this rule will go away just like that.
The worst feeling, though, is when you’ve written what you think is a solid piece, and then news happens after you’ve hit “send.”
Because the NCAA decided last week that college football players weren’t being good enough sports and that starting in 2011, if a team taunts the opposition on the way to the end zone, the taunting team will lose the touchdown and be penalized from the spot of the foul.
Yep. It doesn’t even have to be the player that is about to score; it could be a teammate up field who taunts.
No touchdown.
Seems a bit extreme, doesn’t it?
Considering some of the recent instances of overzealous officiating (especially last season in the SEC), are we really sure that we want to give the officials even more latitude in exercising subjective judgment?
Do we really want to give these guys that kind of control?
I know I don’t.
Hell, at this point I barely want to give most college football officials the power to call holding.
While I am a believer in instant replay because it can help make sure that the right calls are made most of the time, I think on some level it has contributed to the declining nature of officiating. Calls are not made with confidence anymore, and I think that some officials are either relying on replay to bail them out or trying not to make an embarrassing call.
But I don’t solely want to rag on officials. I think the NCAA itself shouldn’t even have considered this rule.
To me, it’s too subjective as far as what can be considered taunting in some circumstances. ESPN’s Bruce Feldman drew attention to a play by Notre Dame wide receiver Golden Tate last season. To most eyes, it looks like a tame touchdown catch.
But to Dave Parry, the coordinator of officials, it would have been taunting. No TD.
Again, are you kidding me with this?
I can understand wanting to encourage sportsmanship; the academic in me can see that.
But this is sports we’re talking about. And some of these acts are really celebrations. Sure, they might cross the line a little bit, but the penalty on the ensuing kickoff was enough.
Taking points off the board because of an emotional outburst by young men with adrenaline pumping through their systems is borderline ridiculous.
And if it costs someone a BCS bid in 2011, you can bet that this rule will go away just like that.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Big Ten and Pac-10 Expansion: Mechagodzilla wonders what else he can shoot
I've had to go underground from the sports blogging scene because work/home life/blogging balance wasn't happening. Having my allergies flare up wasn't happening, either.
So naturally, when I head off for my mini-sabbatical, all hell decides to break loose. Of note to me:
1) The NCAA's new celebration rule, which I will get to tomorrow. Suffice to say, it won't be pretty.
2) The Big Ten conversation regarding expansion? Yeah, the time line
Although
As usual, I am fashionably late to the party, but let's take a look at what might happen if the Big Ten does decide to expand and idiotically chooses to go with a 16 team model.
Why do I think a 16 team model idiotic? Well, when you're trying to divide something up, it's much easier to swallow having to share with 11 other people than with 15 other people. Be it food or cash, no one really likes to share. Why else would ND be so adamant about touting their independence in football?
Oh, and a 16 team conference in football was tried once. It was just about 20 years ago that the Western Athletic Conference was 16 teams large. (Note that I said "large" and not "strong.") After three years of this super-conference, eight schools said screw it and split off to form the Mountain West. It was too unwieldy.
Granted, geography played a role in that, as the old Super WAC stretched from Oklahoma to Hawai'i. That kind of travel wouldn't exist for the super-conferences of this era, but I find it hard to believe that tension wouldn't eventually rip these leagues apart
I don't know many marriages that exist as a form of gold digging lasting that long, do you?
Let's being by getting the ball rolling by projecting who the Big Ten would take to raise their number to 16. They would need to add five teams, and while Notre Dame insists (for now) that they have no desire to join a conference unless their hand was forced, we will honor their wishes and leave them out of this little reindeer game.
The Big Ten would then look westward to the Big 12 North and pluck two teams: Missouri and Nebraska. Missouri brings the St. Louis TV market, decent academics and also a slice of Kansas City. Nebraska brings a lot of football tradition and the entire Sea of Red plus the state of Nebraska.
From the Big East, the Big Ten would offer Pittsburgh, Rutgers and Syracuse bids.
Meanwhile, on the west coast, the Pac-10, who is also looking to expand, might decide to go all in as well and jump from ten teams to sixteen. For the Pac-10, as they try to negotiate a new television contract, I think that what will matter most is trying to get the league recognized outside of the Pacific time zone.
The easiest way to do that might be to expand beyond the Rocky Mountains. Rumor has it that if the Pac-10 goes to twelve teams, that Utah and Colorado are the preferred targets.
However, if you're going to add more teams, why not shoot for the moon and invite four rivals from the now staggering Big 12? Forget about adding Boise State and TCU or BYU if you're the Pac-10; if you want to be relevant, go after the big fish and invite Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State? That would increase the profile of the league on the fields and courts and increase the visibility by now having a conference with brand names that spans across three time zones.
(Let me be clear here if you haven't already figured it out: I am completely guessing here. I have no inside information; this is all a product of an extremely fertile imagination trying to guess at what would be the most catastrophic scenario for some conferences.)
Now let us turn our attention to the south. I don't think that there is any way that the Big Ten and Pac-10 would expand and the SEC would stand pat. I just can't see that happening.
This is an arms race, and you'd better believe that the SEC will keep up. But I don't see them having to reach far to poach teams.
Dear ACC:
We would like Florida State, Clemson, The U and Georgia Tech. K, thanks, buh bye.
Love,
The SEC
Which would leave us with this Big Ten:
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan State
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Northwestern
Ohio State
Penn State
Pittsburgh
Purdue
Rutgers
Syracuse
Wisconsin
somehow trying to fit a "6" into their logo
the Pacific-16:
Arizona
Arizona State
California
Colorado
Oregon
Oregon State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Stanford
Texas
Texas A&M
Utah
UCLA
USC
Washington
Washington State
and the new SEC (no name change necessary):
Alabama
Arkansas
Auburn
Clemson
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Georgia Tech
Kentucky
LSU
Miami (FL)
Ole Miss
Mississippi State
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
These three conferences would be at the top, and a decimated Big 12, an almost dead Big East, the three independent schools, a damaged ACC and the Mountain West minus the team that broke through the BCS glass ceiling.
In Part II, we will look at what the options are for the rest of the BCS leagues and the Mountain West, and wonder what Notre Dame will do?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)