It's almost here.
After months of talking about realignment and arrests and agents and investigations into shady living arrangements, the 2010 season kicks off on Thursday with a slate of games highlighted by a rematch of the 2005 Fiesta Bowl: Pittsburgh at Utah.
All I can say is: Thank goodness.
But, in advance of the start of the regular season, it's time to offer up some preseason prognostications for the division winners and the BCS title game:
ACC-Atlantic: Florida State
ACC-Coastal: Virginia Tech
ACC Champ: Virginia Tech
Big 12-South: Oklahoma
Big 12-North: Nebraska
Big 12 Champ: Oklahoma
Big East: Pittsburgh
Big Ten: Ohio State
C-USA-East: UCF
C-USA-West: Houston
C-USA Champ: Houston
MAC-East: Temple
MAC-West: Central Michigan
MAC Champ: Temple
MWC: TCU
Pac-10: Oregon State
SEC-East: Florida
SEC-West: Alabama
SEC Champ: Alabama
Sunbelt: Middle Tennessee
WAC: Boise State
BCS title game: Oklahoma wins over Ohio State
I also think Navy will finish with the best record of the three independent squads, but Army will make a bowl game at 6-6.
Additionally, I think Boise State loses two games this year. One of those losses will be to Idaho as a going away present from the Vandals.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Maybe Superconferences weren't the wave of the future
With the recent announcement that Texas and BYU are going to play a home and home series in 2013 and 2014, the rumor mill has started to churn. Again.
After all, this marriage with the rest of the Big 12 is shotgun, at best, unless Dan Beebe can show the schools the money.
But the noise this time isn't relating to the still undecided positioning of BYU vis-a-vis its desire to be independent.
The noise this time is quite intriguing, though.
When all of the sturm und drang of the potential Pac-16 came down this spring and earlier this summer, and Texas decided to come back to the Big 12 minus two and "save it," everyone was focused on the idea of superconferences and whether they were going to be the future of Division 1-FBS football.
But as Texas has stepped up its non-conference schedule lately, adding the BYU series to a future series with Southern Cal and a four game deal with Notre Dame, some are wondering if this means a move to independence for the Longhorns is in the works.
After all, this marriage with the rest of the Big 12 is shotgun, at best, unless Dan Beebe can show the schools the money.
Notre Dame might wind up being vindicated in all of this. As BYU continues to decide its football future, and Hawai'i has mentioned that given the state of the WAC that they might go independent as well.
Maybe we were all wrong. Perhaps the future isn't in 16 team leagues like the old Western Athletic Conference or the proposed Pac-16.
Maybe the future is a return to independence.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Michigan, Ohio State, and the Tradition Paradox
tra·di·tion\trə-ˈdi-shən\ noun
2
: the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs by word of mouth or by example from one generation to another without written instruction
3
: cultural continuity in social attitudes, customs, and institutions
4
: characteristic manner, method, or style
Tradition. It's a loaded word when it comes to life at colleges and universities. I've joked with some of my colleagues in higher education that if something happens two years in a row, it's considered a tradition by the students.
But the reason I'm bringing up the word tradition is the debate surrounding the Big Ten and what to do with Michigan and Ohio State's annual late November tilt.
It's not very often that one can find something that will bring Buckeyes and Wolverines together, but apparently the controversy surrounding splitting Ohio State and Michigan into separate divisions and possibly moving the rivalry game is galling enough to both sides to forge an almost unholy alliance against such a thing.
I'm a fan of a Somerset Maughm quote when it comes to thinking about the power of tradition. The quote is, "Tradition is a guide and not a jailer."
I'm not saying that traditions aren't important; they serve as cross-generational touchstones. They do have a significance in imparting a shared experience and concept.
But one should never become slaves to tradition, because then you are trapped.
Back when the season really did end with Michigan and Ohio State playing the last week of the season, it made sense.
But the sport has evolved and the culture of sport has evolved. With the addition of the 12th regular season game, and the creation of conference title games, the end of November has not been the end of the regular season in a long, long time.
Yes, "The Game" had the attention of the entire nation in 2006, and it was memorable. But that was a perfect storm situation because of the number one versus number two element (a first for the series, if I recall).
Does The Game really lose its luster if it moves to October 22 or November 8? Do Wolverines hate Buckeyes less or more because they're playing a month earlier? Do Buckeyes not want to beat the tar out of the Wolverines because there are still regular season games left?
Of course not. To me, and this is my own inherent bias, the vitriol for your most hated rival exists no matter when that game is played. It could be first game, it could be the last game on the schedule, it could be game seven of the season—I don't find the calendar to be that important.
Tradition. It's a loaded word when it comes to life at colleges and universities. I've joked with some of my colleagues in higher education that if something happens two years in a row, it's considered a tradition by the students.
But the reason I'm bringing up the word tradition is the debate surrounding the Big Ten and what to do with Michigan and Ohio State's annual late November tilt.
It's not very often that one can find something that will bring Buckeyes and Wolverines together, but apparently the controversy surrounding splitting Ohio State and Michigan into separate divisions and possibly moving the rivalry game is galling enough to both sides to forge an almost unholy alliance against such a thing.
I'm a fan of a Somerset Maughm quote when it comes to thinking about the power of tradition. The quote is, "Tradition is a guide and not a jailer."
I'm not saying that traditions aren't important; they serve as cross-generational touchstones. They do have a significance in imparting a shared experience and concept.
But one should never become slaves to tradition, because then you are trapped.
Back when the season really did end with Michigan and Ohio State playing the last week of the season, it made sense.
But the sport has evolved and the culture of sport has evolved. With the addition of the 12th regular season game, and the creation of conference title games, the end of November has not been the end of the regular season in a long, long time.
Yes, "The Game" had the attention of the entire nation in 2006, and it was memorable. But that was a perfect storm situation because of the number one versus number two element (a first for the series, if I recall).
Does The Game really lose its luster if it moves to October 22 or November 8? Do Wolverines hate Buckeyes less or more because they're playing a month earlier? Do Buckeyes not want to beat the tar out of the Wolverines because there are still regular season games left?
Of course not. To me, and this is my own inherent bias, the vitriol for your most hated rival exists no matter when that game is played. It could be first game, it could be the last game on the schedule, it could be game seven of the season—I don't find the calendar to be that important.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Vince Lombardi and I have a question...
Couldn't have said it better myself, Vince.
I've been swamped at my day job, which is par for the course when you work in higher education. Tuesday night, as I was winding down for the evening, I saw something flash across the ESPN bottom line that caught my attention. To paraphrase, "BYU considering going independent in football."
My first reaction was, "Huh?"
My second reaction is noted above.
Come Wednesday morning, it seemed that the Cougars were close to forgoing the Mountain West and joining the WAC with their Olympic sports and basketball, and playing as an independent in football. In a deal with the WAC, they would be able to schedule somewhere between four and six WAC opponents to help fill out their schedule.
This would allow BYU to increase its profile by coming up with a television contract with ESPN to carry some games and would allow BYU to expand their own broadcasting network (which is transitioning to HD). BYU would get to keep revenue from all television appearances and any bowl games—especially if they made a BCS game as an at-large.
Wednesday afternoon, the Mountain West announced it had invited Fresno State and Nevada to join the conference, and both institutions quickly accepted.
As of last night, Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson was saying that BYU is still a member of the conference, which is true.
A couple of questions come to mind:
1) BYU has looked at being independent before, but it was with the risk of being independent in all of their sports. Joining the WAC was supposed to offer stability to those other teams. But with the Mountain West crippling the WAC by taking (arguably) three of the top programs this decade in Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada, there is not much left of the WAC. Does this move force BYU into check and bring them back into the fold for now?
2) If BYU returns to the fold, the Mountain West will sit at 11 teams, one team short of the tantalizing figure of 12 required to have a conference championship game. Does the league bite the bullet and try to get someone from the West Division of Conference USA (UTEP, Tulsa, Houston) to round out the league?
3) Does this move, with or without BYU, force ESPN and the Mountain West to come back to the table and negotiate some kind of a partial television contract? Or is such a plan already in the works?
4) Karl Benson needs to decide on a plan of action. Does he try and recruit schools from Conference USA or the Sun Belt to join? Do you look at adding Division 1-FCS schools Montana, Northern Arizona, Weber State or Eastern Washington (to name a few)? Because while you can still be a Division 1 school in some other sports with a reduced conference, it's not going to work for football to remain a FBS conference with only six members. The rumor yesterday about trying to poach UNLV and San Diego State is a total non-starter at this point; neither school is going to leave the Mountain West at this juncture.
So it looks like we are back to being in the midst of Expansionpalooza™ once again, and the ground is shifting. It's just smaller tremors than anticipated.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Why College Football Matters to Me
I've had this blog for about a year now, but I don't think that I formally introduced myself and explained the love I have for college football. I wanted to take some time this week and tell a story about the importance of college football in my life.
I went to the University of Missouri for my bachelor's degree and went on to study for a master's degree at Illinois State University. We aren't talking about college football powerhouses here. While in graduate school, I met someone and things got pretty serious – to the point where we were living together.
I received my master's degree in higher education and I was anxious to start my career. But employment opportunities in my field simply were not happening locally. An opportunity presented itself in southeast Michigan in a town called Ypsilanti (right next to Ann Arbor) at Eastern Michigan University. I jumped at the opportunity, packed up a U-Haul and moved away.
It was a rough time for us. Things were not going well. There were lots of long, late night phone calls and tears being shed. A lot of heartache. But a salve would soon appear unexpectedly that at least temporarily healed some of the wounds.
It was college football. My girlfriend and I would spend time talking on the phone and watching the games. It was a way for us to stay connected on those weekends we couldn't be together during that fall. Plug in the cell phone, turn on the tube and spend the day watching the games.
At a rough time in our relationship, it was college football that saw us through.
So this time of year reminds me of that dark place, and as each passing day brings us closer to kickoff, I can't help but feel excited for the sport that brought be back closer to my girlfriend (and now wife).
It ties into one of the greater things I think about sports. Do we care about what happens on the field too much? Of course. But there are times that the outcome on the field is not nearly as important as the ability to simply share the experience with someone you love.
So that's where my love of college football comes from, in part. It is a reminder of the love of my wife.
(A version of this piece appears on Southern Pigskin.)
I went to the University of Missouri for my bachelor's degree and went on to study for a master's degree at Illinois State University. We aren't talking about college football powerhouses here. While in graduate school, I met someone and things got pretty serious – to the point where we were living together.
I received my master's degree in higher education and I was anxious to start my career. But employment opportunities in my field simply were not happening locally. An opportunity presented itself in southeast Michigan in a town called Ypsilanti (right next to Ann Arbor) at Eastern Michigan University. I jumped at the opportunity, packed up a U-Haul and moved away.
It was a rough time for us. Things were not going well. There were lots of long, late night phone calls and tears being shed. A lot of heartache. But a salve would soon appear unexpectedly that at least temporarily healed some of the wounds.
It was college football. My girlfriend and I would spend time talking on the phone and watching the games. It was a way for us to stay connected on those weekends we couldn't be together during that fall. Plug in the cell phone, turn on the tube and spend the day watching the games.
At a rough time in our relationship, it was college football that saw us through.
So this time of year reminds me of that dark place, and as each passing day brings us closer to kickoff, I can't help but feel excited for the sport that brought be back closer to my girlfriend (and now wife).
It ties into one of the greater things I think about sports. Do we care about what happens on the field too much? Of course. But there are times that the outcome on the field is not nearly as important as the ability to simply share the experience with someone you love.
So that's where my love of college football comes from, in part. It is a reminder of the love of my wife.
(A version of this piece appears on Southern Pigskin.)
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Three Grudge Matches To Watch in 2010
One of the great things about college football is the rivalry games—those clashes between fanbases and teams that plain old don’t like each other. The intensity on the field (and occasionally in the stands or the parking lot) can get ugly from time to time, but if the two teams are evenly matched, they can provide great theater and some instant classics.
Heading into this season, with the realignment mess that took place in May and June, three rivalry games coming up in 2010 are going to be worth taking a look at. Because depending on how things shake out, outside of a bowl game, this might be the last time these three matchups will be scheduled.
Texas at Nebraska (October 16): As the Big 12 teetered on the brink of collapse, Nebraska was able to find a lifeline and will be departing for the Big Ten starting next season. Texas (depending on your perspective) either saved the Big 12 or used their position as a potential cash cow to elevate themselves over their peers.
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Athletic Director and Icon, would take the second position, methinks. And all of this conference maneuvering came on the heels of what might go down in Nebraska lore as “:01,” referring to the second that was added back to the clock at the end of the Big 12 title game last December.
Of course, there is a chance that the October 16 meeting in Lincoln won’t be the only matchup between the two. If things play out as both fan bases would like them to, they would rematch for the conference title in December.
But that October 16 meeting will be a doozy.
BYU at Utah (November 27): One of the issues that was brought up time and time again during the realignment fiasco was BYU and their Mormon heritage, and how that would have potentially been an impediment to the Cougars finding a home in a new conference if the massive dominoes had fallen.
When the dust settled, though, it was Utah that was moving on up to the Pac-10 (soon to be 12) and BYU is left behind in the Mountain West Conference. Since these two have been battling for supremacy (along with TCU) in the Mountain West for the last few years, the questions about the continuation of this series when Utah leaves has yet to be resolved. It would be a shame if the “Holy War” ended after this season, but you have to believe that BYU would love nothing more than to ruin Utah’s chances at a third undefeated season in six years.
Boise State at Idaho (November 12): This one is going to be a barnburner. I thought a few weeks ago that it was one of the trap games that Boise State was going to have to avoid if they were to run the table yet again. That was before Boise State president Bob Kustra called Vandals fans, for lack of a better term, classless. According to the Idaho Statesman, Kustra was referencing an article in the Idaho student newspaper that was titled “Who do we hate?”:
Well, okay then. Kustra has not backed down from the comments, but I can guarantee you that the game at the Kibbie Dome will be an extremely difficult ticket to acquire, and that it will be a raucous atmosphere at kickoff. And if the Broncos are still undefeated and in position to make a run at a BCS title game appearance, I think the Vandals would cherish a win in that game more than any other.
I will watch a lot of college football, but these games will be must see television for me.
Heading into this season, with the realignment mess that took place in May and June, three rivalry games coming up in 2010 are going to be worth taking a look at. Because depending on how things shake out, outside of a bowl game, this might be the last time these three matchups will be scheduled.
Texas at Nebraska (October 16): As the Big 12 teetered on the brink of collapse, Nebraska was able to find a lifeline and will be departing for the Big Ten starting next season. Texas (depending on your perspective) either saved the Big 12 or used their position as a potential cash cow to elevate themselves over their peers.
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Athletic Director and Icon, would take the second position, methinks. And all of this conference maneuvering came on the heels of what might go down in Nebraska lore as “:01,” referring to the second that was added back to the clock at the end of the Big 12 title game last December.
Of course, there is a chance that the October 16 meeting in Lincoln won’t be the only matchup between the two. If things play out as both fan bases would like them to, they would rematch for the conference title in December.
But that October 16 meeting will be a doozy.
BYU at Utah (November 27): One of the issues that was brought up time and time again during the realignment fiasco was BYU and their Mormon heritage, and how that would have potentially been an impediment to the Cougars finding a home in a new conference if the massive dominoes had fallen.
When the dust settled, though, it was Utah that was moving on up to the Pac-10 (soon to be 12) and BYU is left behind in the Mountain West Conference. Since these two have been battling for supremacy (along with TCU) in the Mountain West for the last few years, the questions about the continuation of this series when Utah leaves has yet to be resolved. It would be a shame if the “Holy War” ended after this season, but you have to believe that BYU would love nothing more than to ruin Utah’s chances at a third undefeated season in six years.
Boise State at Idaho (November 12): This one is going to be a barnburner. I thought a few weeks ago that it was one of the trap games that Boise State was going to have to avoid if they were to run the table yet again. That was before Boise State president Bob Kustra called Vandals fans, for lack of a better term, classless. According to the Idaho Statesman, Kustra was referencing an article in the Idaho student newspaper that was titled “Who do we hate?”:
“This is a great example of why my wife and I no longer travel to Moscow
games,'' Kustra said. "It's a culture that is nasty, inebriated and civilly
doesn't give our fans the respect that any fan should expect when visiting an
away team. ... I don't think at Boise State you're going to find that, so for me
personally, when I read what Pete said I knew, I knew.
"For me, this is not about football. For me, this is a cultural issue. It's
about fans having to learn how to treat other fans and universities. What
bothers me more than anything else, is that the fans are not about denigrating
our athletic program. ... What bothers me personally is the denigration of our
academic programming. That's what I simply can't tolerate.
"I've seen rivalries all over America…but I've never seen the nastiness
aimed at the quality of our academic program that I find here in Idaho from the
University of Idaho Vandals and as long as that goes on, why would I want to
encourage a game where people don't know how to act like grownups?”
Well, okay then. Kustra has not backed down from the comments, but I can guarantee you that the game at the Kibbie Dome will be an extremely difficult ticket to acquire, and that it will be a raucous atmosphere at kickoff. And if the Broncos are still undefeated and in position to make a run at a BCS title game appearance, I think the Vandals would cherish a win in that game more than any other.
I will watch a lot of college football, but these games will be must see television for me.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Running the numbers: Big 12 since 1996
Lately, as I've been driving around town, I've heard a promo for Colin Cowherd's radio show. I'm not the biggest fan of Cowherd (I find him to be condescending, pompous and arrogant) but the premise of the promo is interesting.
Cowherd was asking, based on the fact that Colorado and Nebraska are soon departing the Big 12, who the third best football program in the conference will be.
It got me to thinking: Based on record, who actually has been the best in the league over the last fifteen years.
So I went to the record book (i.e. College Football Data Warehouse) and took a look at the records for everyone in the conference from the inaugural season (1996) through last year (2009).
Note that in my analysis, I did not count title games as conference games, but I did color code the winner to clarify who is the recognized champion.
Some thoughts:
1. Texas is number one both in overall record and in conference wins/losses during this time period, posting a .785 record in conference games and .782 overall.
2. Nebraska and Oklahoma are tied for second in overall winning percentage (.716) but Oklahoma leads in conference winning percentage (.714 to .669).
3. Texas has almost as many losses (39) as Baylor does wins (43) in the same time period.
4. Three teams have won the South Division title outright (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma) with one getting a partial share in 2008 (Texas Tech).
5. Four teams have won or shared the North title (Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado)
6. Oklahoma has won the conference title game six times. Second is Texas with three.
7. Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas have each won one BCS title.
Now, here's the funny thing about the initial question as posed by Cowherd, and maybe it's the dirty little secret that some folks don't realize:
Colorado hasn't really been a player in the Big 12 since 2002. Sure, they won two North Division titles in 2004 and 2005, but 4-4 and 5-3 conference records don't exactly mean that you were a superpower. The North Division was going through, for lack of a better term, a malaise.
Okay, malaise isn't quite right. The North was putrid in 2004 and 2005. Someone had to win it, and Colorado was the best of a sad, sorry bunch of teams.
And yes, while Nebraska has name recognition and a great, glorious history, they haven't really been setting the world alight since Dr. Tom retired as head coach and Frank Solich was forced into exile in Athens, Ohio.
Bo Pelini has done a great job so far, and maybe he will be able to resurrect the program wholly and make the 'Huskers a national power again. Hell, if they can get a half decent, consistent offense that might do it. The defensive talent is definitely there.
Yes, losing Nebraska will deal a blow to the name recognition of the conference, and also may be the loss of a great program. I don't think the loss of Colorado hurts the Big 12 all that much.
But who will fill the void?
If one is to go by the numbers historically, it would be Texas A&M, Texas Tech or Kansas State. They are the only other programs (besides the aforementioned) that are over .500 in conference for the history of the league.
But Texas Tech is going through a coaching (and philosophy) transition, and I don't know if Tommy Tuberville will stay in Lubbock for that long if he can win and win big.
Texas A&M might be ascendant, but as long as defensive inconsistency continues to plague this team, they will spin their wheels under Mike Sherman.
And while Bill Snyder was called in to fix the mess of Ron Prince, Snyder's age, and the change in the college football universe since his first reclamation of the Wildcats don't seem to be in his favor.
Baylor and Iowa State don't have much of a track record at all.
Kansas is also going through a coaching change right now, and I wonder about Turner Gill and if he might be overrated for one winning season at Buffalo.
Missouri and Oklahoma State have had their moments lately, but are still viewed as nouveau riche programs that have to establish more of a work history (again, consistency) than the last four or five years.
Quite frankly, maybe there isn't anyone that will fill the "void" (if you want to view it that way) being left by Colorado and Nebraska. It could be that, really, since about 2002, there hasn't been a void anyway. There's been a glut of teams that go anywhere from 6-6 to 8-4 in the regular season, with maybe a program or two bubbling up to give Oklahoma and Texas a run for their money.
But from looking at things, it seems that the future of the Big 12 will be the same as its present a recent past:
Texas, Oklahoma and everyone else.
Cowherd was asking, based on the fact that Colorado and Nebraska are soon departing the Big 12, who the third best football program in the conference will be.
It got me to thinking: Based on record, who actually has been the best in the league over the last fifteen years.
So I went to the record book (i.e. College Football Data Warehouse) and took a look at the records for everyone in the conference from the inaugural season (1996) through last year (2009).
Note that in my analysis, I did not count title games as conference games, but I did color code the winner to clarify who is the recognized champion.
Some thoughts:
1. Texas is number one both in overall record and in conference wins/losses during this time period, posting a .785 record in conference games and .782 overall.
2. Nebraska and Oklahoma are tied for second in overall winning percentage (.716) but Oklahoma leads in conference winning percentage (.714 to .669).
3. Texas has almost as many losses (39) as Baylor does wins (43) in the same time period.
4. Three teams have won the South Division title outright (Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma) with one getting a partial share in 2008 (Texas Tech).
5. Four teams have won or shared the North title (Kansas State, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado)
6. Oklahoma has won the conference title game six times. Second is Texas with three.
7. Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas have each won one BCS title.
Now, here's the funny thing about the initial question as posed by Cowherd, and maybe it's the dirty little secret that some folks don't realize:
Colorado hasn't really been a player in the Big 12 since 2002. Sure, they won two North Division titles in 2004 and 2005, but 4-4 and 5-3 conference records don't exactly mean that you were a superpower. The North Division was going through, for lack of a better term, a malaise.
Okay, malaise isn't quite right. The North was putrid in 2004 and 2005. Someone had to win it, and Colorado was the best of a sad, sorry bunch of teams.
And yes, while Nebraska has name recognition and a great, glorious history, they haven't really been setting the world alight since Dr. Tom retired as head coach and Frank Solich was forced into exile in Athens, Ohio.
Bo Pelini has done a great job so far, and maybe he will be able to resurrect the program wholly and make the 'Huskers a national power again. Hell, if they can get a half decent, consistent offense that might do it. The defensive talent is definitely there.
Yes, losing Nebraska will deal a blow to the name recognition of the conference, and also may be the loss of a great program. I don't think the loss of Colorado hurts the Big 12 all that much.
But who will fill the void?
If one is to go by the numbers historically, it would be Texas A&M, Texas Tech or Kansas State. They are the only other programs (besides the aforementioned) that are over .500 in conference for the history of the league.
But Texas Tech is going through a coaching (and philosophy) transition, and I don't know if Tommy Tuberville will stay in Lubbock for that long if he can win and win big.
Texas A&M might be ascendant, but as long as defensive inconsistency continues to plague this team, they will spin their wheels under Mike Sherman.
And while Bill Snyder was called in to fix the mess of Ron Prince, Snyder's age, and the change in the college football universe since his first reclamation of the Wildcats don't seem to be in his favor.
Baylor and Iowa State don't have much of a track record at all.
Kansas is also going through a coaching change right now, and I wonder about Turner Gill and if he might be overrated for one winning season at Buffalo.
Missouri and Oklahoma State have had their moments lately, but are still viewed as nouveau riche programs that have to establish more of a work history (again, consistency) than the last four or five years.
Quite frankly, maybe there isn't anyone that will fill the "void" (if you want to view it that way) being left by Colorado and Nebraska. It could be that, really, since about 2002, there hasn't been a void anyway. There's been a glut of teams that go anywhere from 6-6 to 8-4 in the regular season, with maybe a program or two bubbling up to give Oklahoma and Texas a run for their money.
But from looking at things, it seems that the future of the Big 12 will be the same as its present a recent past:
Texas, Oklahoma and everyone else.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Brain Trauma and Football: Reform Of Some Kind Is Needed
My son was born on September 8, 2007, which I remember not just for his birth, but also because it was the day that Dennis Dixon ran wild against Michigan in the Big House on the heels of Appalachian State stunning the Wolverines a week earlier.
Now, in 2007 most of us football fans hadn’t yet heard of the term chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. We might have heard of punch-drunk syndrome, which CTE is a variant of, but CTE itself was not really on the radar screen.
Well, over the last couple of years, thanks to the efforts of Dr. Bennet Omalu, a forensic pathologist in Pittsburgh, this condition is now known and public. CTE recently re-entered the news in football as Chris Henry, the former West Virginia Mountaineer and Cincinnati Bengal, was diagnosed as having the condition. Henry died last December when he fell from the back of a pickup truck during an argument with his fiancée.
One of the thoughts about what causes CTE is repeated blows to the head. They don’t have to be full on, diagnosed concussions, though; rather, a person can have lots of smaller blows to the head that cumulatively damage the brain.
Remember, the brain is not right up against the skull. There is a space between where the brain is located in the skull and the edge of the skull. Brain injury results from the brain hitting the skull with force.
According to Dr. Omalu in an article by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Chris Henry’s brain “didn’t look like the brain of a 26 year old.”
(Picture from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
And keep in mind, Chris Henry was a young wide receiver. Not a retired offensive lineman like Pittsburgh Steelers Mike Webster or Justin Strzelzcyk. Not a retired safety like Philadelphia Eagle Andre Waters. Henry was an active player who had less than 60 NFL games played. Also, Chris Henry, for all of his issues, never missed a game with a diagnosed concussion.
That makes this an issue that should cut across all levels of the sport. Do I think that football should be outlawed? Not at this time. Obviously, a lot more research needs to be done, but some changes do need to be made in the short term with regards to equipment and the (sometimes) false sense of security it can provide. Also, changes probably need to be made to how the game is administered on game day and also during practices and the teaching of the game at the high school and lower levels.
Change is going to need to come and be driven by individuals within the game. It is one thing to play a high risk sport. But with lives potentially on the line, I know in good consciousness I couldn’t allow my boy to play the game as it is right now.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Only One Winner in the Expansion Game
The 2010 expansion race ended not with the cataclysmic change that was expected, but instead with a small whimper.
The expected galvanization of the college athletics landscape never materialized in the manner many thought it would.
Instead of mega conferences, we had:
1) Colorado bolting to the Pac-10, where they seem to be quite happy with each other so far.
2) Nebraska bolting to the Big Ten, torching their peers and feeling like they were forced out. Stay classy, Nebraska administration.
3) Boise State moving up another weight class by joining the Mountain West Conference.
There are still a couple of smaller dominoes that need to fall, as it appears that the Pac-10 might invite Utah to join the conference as a 12th member and, it is assumed, that the Mountain West would then invite someone to replace Utah.
But the Big Ten going to 16 teams, plundering the Big East and the Big 12? Didn't happen.
The mega Pac-10, which would have encompassed three time zones and a large geographic footprint? Didn't happen.
The long desired marriage of the Big Ten and Notre Dame? Yeah, right. That didn't happen either.
Instead what we wound up with was a Big 12 with ten teams, a Big Ten with 12 teams, and a Pac-10 with 11 teams.
Larry Scott, Pac-10 commissioner, tried to hit a home run and instead appears to have hit a ground rule double.
Jim Delany, Big Ten commissioner, tried to swing for the fences as well as and came up short, too.
The Mountain West tried to get on base, but may have just hit a foul ball if they lose Utah.
As far as I can see, only one institution has emerged from this dust up as a winner.
It's Texas.
Texas has played the role of Verbal Kint/Keyser Söze brilliantly in all of this. Texas has controlled the narrative over the last week or so and played the media game with an amazing level of skill.
In fact, Texas has been so good at controlling the spin surrounding this conference expansion game that they have somehow managed to be painted as the savior of the Big 12 — even though they were talking with not one, not two but THREE different conferences. In addition to having the Pac-10 on the hook, Texas was chatty with the Big Ten (and there were emails that said as much) and met with the SEC.
No matter what anyone else says, this came down money. As Randy Moss would say:
Texas wins because:
1) They controlled the narrative from start (on June 9) to finish.
2) They will, if Dan Bebee's deus ex machina is working properly, a significantly larger amount of revenue from the Big 12 minus 2 television deal.
3) They have been given the go-ahead to create their own Longhorn Sports Network, which will reap them additional cash
4) Assuming most things in the conference play out like they have, it will truly come down to Texas and Oklahoma for the Big 12 title most years in the new round-robin format for the league. Considering that poll inertia occurs most years, Texas remains in the BCS hunt without having to play that pesky conference title game.
5) They have asserted their will and flexed their muscles, cementing their hold on a conference they already dominated to some extent. Hell, there is even a chance that the five lost souls (Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor and Iowa State) have decided to vote the income that will be withheld from Colorado and Nebraska to be redirected towards Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma.
Gangsta.
Nothing about this situation suggests largesse on the part of the Longhorns; they held the power in this situation and used some well timed and placed media leaks to get information out there, and kept feeding that source to serve their own purposes.
Of course, again, I think it's prudent to remind folks that this is all dependent on a new Fox Sports Net television deal that is not exactly, um, real or finalized at this point; this whole thing is hanging by a handshake.
Plus, considering the enmity that this has brought out, I don't buy that this game is over.
So once again, congrats Texas. Check and mate. Job well done.
The expected galvanization of the college athletics landscape never materialized in the manner many thought it would.
Instead of mega conferences, we had:
1) Colorado bolting to the Pac-10, where they seem to be quite happy with each other so far.
2) Nebraska bolting to the Big Ten, torching their peers and feeling like they were forced out. Stay classy, Nebraska administration.
3) Boise State moving up another weight class by joining the Mountain West Conference.
There are still a couple of smaller dominoes that need to fall, as it appears that the Pac-10 might invite Utah to join the conference as a 12th member and, it is assumed, that the Mountain West would then invite someone to replace Utah.
But the Big Ten going to 16 teams, plundering the Big East and the Big 12? Didn't happen.
The mega Pac-10, which would have encompassed three time zones and a large geographic footprint? Didn't happen.
The long desired marriage of the Big Ten and Notre Dame? Yeah, right. That didn't happen either.
Instead what we wound up with was a Big 12 with ten teams, a Big Ten with 12 teams, and a Pac-10 with 11 teams.
Larry Scott, Pac-10 commissioner, tried to hit a home run and instead appears to have hit a ground rule double.
Jim Delany, Big Ten commissioner, tried to swing for the fences as well as and came up short, too.
The Mountain West tried to get on base, but may have just hit a foul ball if they lose Utah.
As far as I can see, only one institution has emerged from this dust up as a winner.
It's Texas.
Texas has played the role of Verbal Kint/Keyser Söze brilliantly in all of this. Texas has controlled the narrative over the last week or so and played the media game with an amazing level of skill.
In fact, Texas has been so good at controlling the spin surrounding this conference expansion game that they have somehow managed to be painted as the savior of the Big 12 — even though they were talking with not one, not two but THREE different conferences. In addition to having the Pac-10 on the hook, Texas was chatty with the Big Ten (and there were emails that said as much) and met with the SEC.
No matter what anyone else says, this came down money. As Randy Moss would say:
Texas wins because:
1) They controlled the narrative from start (on June 9) to finish.
2) They will, if Dan Bebee's deus ex machina is working properly, a significantly larger amount of revenue from the Big 12 minus 2 television deal.
3) They have been given the go-ahead to create their own Longhorn Sports Network, which will reap them additional cash
4) Assuming most things in the conference play out like they have, it will truly come down to Texas and Oklahoma for the Big 12 title most years in the new round-robin format for the league. Considering that poll inertia occurs most years, Texas remains in the BCS hunt without having to play that pesky conference title game.
5) They have asserted their will and flexed their muscles, cementing their hold on a conference they already dominated to some extent. Hell, there is even a chance that the five lost souls (Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor and Iowa State) have decided to vote the income that will be withheld from Colorado and Nebraska to be redirected towards Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma.
Gangsta.
Nothing about this situation suggests largesse on the part of the Longhorns; they held the power in this situation and used some well timed and placed media leaks to get information out there, and kept feeding that source to serve their own purposes.
Of course, again, I think it's prudent to remind folks that this is all dependent on a new Fox Sports Net television deal that is not exactly, um, real or finalized at this point; this whole thing is hanging by a handshake.
Plus, considering the enmity that this has brought out, I don't buy that this game is over.
So once again, congrats Texas. Check and mate. Job well done.
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Bell Starts Tolling for Big 12: A Rare Fan's eye view post
It’s a muggy, typical late summer night in Missouri.
It’s August 31, 1996. I’m about a week or two into the start of my undergraduate career at the University of Missouri. I’m sitting in the lounge in the basement of my residence hall because I didn’t have a television in my room.
I’m watching history as the University of Texas kicks off against Mizzou to signal the start of a new era.
I was able to watch the on-field birth of the Big 12 conference, an amalgamation of the old Big 8 and four survivors from the wreckage of the old Southwest Conference (Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech and Baylor).
Now, from my office and home 14 years later, I find myself watching its death throes.
Colorado has tipped the first domino, bolting for the Pac-10, where they actually are a better cultural fit (although geographically it’s a haul).
Nebraska announced their intentions to apply to the Big Ten Friday afternoon.
Texas will wait until Tuesday to announce that they are moving to the Pac-10 with Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, according to Chip Brown of Orangebloods.com.
Texas A&M is apparently talking to the SEC about membership over there. We will see what comes after the Texas State Board of Regents meets on Tuesday.
Meanwhile, Missouri’s chancellor came out and affirmed Missouri’s commitment to the Big 12—for now.
It’s a time of upheaval right now; an uncertain future lay ahead for some of the schools in the conference.
And as a fan of one of the schools with an uncertain future, it leaves me nervous.
“Stop being so sensitive about your alma mater. If you want to write about this stuff, you can’t be so sensitive.”
I was chided on Twitter today by SI.com’s Andy Staples for being oversensitive about the characterization of my alma mater as crawling back to the Big 12 after being snubbed by the Big Ten.
It was a moment of weakness, to be sure. I consider myself to be fair and honest in assessing all teams in college football; I don’t think it’s fair to any of my readers to do otherwise when it comes to on field performance and off-field behavior.
But at the same time, there is a lot at stake here. Expansion is a big deal, both in the classroom and on the athletic fields and courts. It’s hard to sit by and see your school mocked as weak or whining; as having to crawl back home because you were played by someone else.
And make no mistake about it: It will be a blow to the ego for fans of all of the left behind schools — especially if it means merging with a Conference USA or coming up with some other kind of zombie league.
So pardon me for having pride in my school, but know that this Tiger is worried about what the future holds for him and his school.
After all, central theme of this whole expansions debate has been looking out for number one.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Sunday, June 6, 2010
An Ultimatum? That's the best you can do?
(Update: 12:08pm PDT) According to the Austin American Statesman, it was the Big 12 presidents who delievered this ultimatum to Nebraska and Missouri. My original sentiment still stands, though, that the conference commissioner has to have something to do with this ultimatum. Oh, and I still think the ultimatum is bullshit.)
I rarely use this space to beat the drums for my own school or to vent about the goings on affecting my alma mater.
But with the expansion rumors flying fast and furious over the last few days (while I've been fighting sickness, naturally), I feel that I need to take a stand.
I've yet to say anything about the spineless, feckless leadership of Dan Beebe, current commissioner of the Big 12 conference.
Well, I think it is time for that to end.
Dan Beebe took over as commissioner of the conference in 2007.
In three years, he might be overseeing its death, and he has no one to blame but himself for this.
Of course, instead of owning up to the responsibility, he is trying to force the responsibility for the demise of the league on two schools from the North division.
At least, that is how it appears to me with the rumor that Nebraska and Missouri have been given until either this coming Friday or next Friday to pledge their loyalty to the Big 12.
Excuse me?
This is all Missouri and Nebraska's fault for wanting to move to the Big Ten?
The timeline for Big Ten expansion still has about six months (minimum) before it will probably be resolved.
And having worked at a Big Ten institution, I can tell you that the glacial timeline is appropriate for that league. Tradition demands that one be deliberate, after all.
Meanwhile, the Pac-10 appears to already be set on offering the entire south division except for Baylor an invitation, and yet there is no mention of an ultimatum for those schools — who are a helluva lot closer to being given an shot at a new league.
Let's say you run a multi-million dollar corporation. You have two fellow corporations looking to steal away some of your twelve employees. You know that one company may be coming by within the next six to twelve months to poach two solid employees, and that another company is planning on trying to poach six employees tomorrow. Those six include your top two producers.
So why would be willing to let those six employees talk with the rocket fast corporation while telling the two employees who might be interested in the opportunity six to twelve months away that "We need to know your future plans now?"
It logically makes no sense to shame Missouri and Nebraska into staying, telling them, "You'd better stay or else." while letting Oklahoma and Texas et. al do whatever the hell they want.
You've already acknowledged, by refusing to discuss changes to the revenue-sharing model, that you consider the conference's bread to be buttered by Texas and Oklahoma.
If that be the case, then why let them walk with a smile and a hearty wave and instead try to lower the hammer on Missouri and Nebraska?
The perception is already out there that Missouri isn't worth the trouble; they're too busy trying to run away from the league because it's been too hard for them and hell, even if they leave, it won't matter because the league will thrive. Heck, they might even get an exemption to play a championship game because it's Division 1 football. It's the Big 12. It ain't intramurals.
Never mind if perception is reality or not in this instance, because in Dan Beebe's world, you don't try and get loyalty oaths from the schools that are bringing in the most revenue. That, apparently, is too logical.
Would a Big 12 network have been a panacea in this instance? Who knows? If the revenue from that network was distributed inequitably, it probably wouldn't have been.
But why have the talks about a Big 12 network seemingly been ongoing for three years with no movement towards actually establishing a network, while the Big Ten and the Mountain West both have television networks? (Granted, the Mountain West Network has issues of its own, but that's a conversation for another time.)
Can someone tell me what Dan Beebe's greatest accomplishment has been in three years running this league? Because as hard as I try, I can't seem to find anything that he has done that has helped move the Big 12 forward.
As far as I can tell, the death of the conference might wind up being his greatest accomplishment.
But if the conference goes down in flames next week, well, he can always say he stuck it to the Huskers and the Tigers.
Way to go, Dan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)