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.

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 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.

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.

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 may be accelerating a bit won't be accelerating after all, contrary to media reports.

Although no word came out of yesterday's meeting of the conference commissioners the time line isn't accelerating, that hasn't stopped, well, everyone who has access to a blog from chiming in. Check out this post from Rock M Nation (thanks, Bill C.!) for a list of what people have written over the last 24 hours or so.

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?