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.

Pac-10 Expansion Speculation: Realignment into divisons

As a strictly mental exercise, I wanted to think about how the Pac-10 would realign if they did expand. There are a couple of possible alignments to think about. There is the traditional East/West Alignment, where a line is drawn among the cities that make up the conference and voila!

Now, all of these alignment assume that the Pac-10 takes the two most viable candidates, which are Utah and Colorado.

Alignment 1:
East
Colorado
Utah
Arizona
Arizona State
Washington State
USC

West
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Stanford
Cal
UCLA

Of course, this would break up the Washington/Washington State and the USC/UCLA rivalries. So why not go East/West, but with a twist: Take each of the pairings and split them up not based on pure geographical location, but based on their location within the pairing:

Alignment 2:
East
Colorado
Arizona
USC
Cal
Washington State
Oregon

West
Utah
Arizona State
UCLA
Stanford
Washington
Oregon State

Of course, you can always go with the typical North/South geographic realignment:

Alignment 3:
North
Colorado
Utah
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State

South
Cal
Stanford
USC
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona State

Of course, there is another option, which makes no regard for the actual geographical location. It's more about trying to balance out the divisions with regards to the perceived relative strengths and weaknesses of the football programs while trying to do some preservation of rivalries.

The rivalries for those who wind up cross-divisional can be handled within the scheduling structures that the conference would create. I believe that this is sort of what happened with the ACC, and why they call their divisions "Atlantic" and "Coastal"

Alignment 4:
Division 1
Oregon
Oregon State
Washington
Washington State
Cal
UCLA

Division 2
Colorado
Utah
Arizona
Arizona State
USC
Stanford

Again, this is all supreme speculation, as Pac-10 expansion is still a long, long way away for being a done deal. But it does make for some fun mental gymnastics.

Pac-10 Expansion Sidebar: The realistic choices

After we highlighted Teddy Greenstein's Chicago Tribune piece about Big Ten expansion possibilities the other day, I came across this piece by the San Jose Mercury News' Jon Wilner looking at Pac-10 expansion.

Some interesting notes from Wilner's blog (which is a must read):

* Voting on expansion will have to be unanimous. All of the schools are going to have to agree to this or it's not going to work.
* Like most things in sports, this all comes down to money. The Pac-10 wants to increase their revenues, since they are outpaced significantly by the Big Ten and the SEC. They don't need to match those two conferences, but they need to get closer.
* An interesting point that Wilner highlights is that one of the ways to get more money is to, for lack of a better term, expose the conference more. That would mean playing games on off days and nights. More football games on Thursdays, for example, or basketball games on Monday.
* A television network could be formed, perhaps by partnering with the Big 12 or the ACC.

Of course, if the conference were to expand by potentially poaching Colorado (considered the best fit among western schools), I don't know how excited the Big 12 would be about partnering with the Pac-10.

However, we all know that expansion is the way to get new markets and new exposure. I'll let Wilner explain the field:

San Diego State, Fresno State, UNLV, Nevada and Boise State are not part of the equation, multiple sources told me. No way, no how. They don’t work academically and they don’t work in the TV homes/revenue equation.

Unless Missouri or Texas (presumably with Texas A&M) are available — and at this point there’s no substantive reason to believe they are — then only three options exist for the conference: Utah, BYU and Colorado.

And for all practical purposes, there are only two options: Colorado and BYU, or Colorado and Utah.

Utah and BYU together simply will not work.

As I speculated a few weeks ago (and have since gotten confirmation on), you cannot add two mouths and only one trough, especially when that trough is the Salt Lake City market, which is not exactly Dallas-Ft. Worth.

Well, Missouri would be available, but not for the Pac-10. Mizzou would rather join the Big Ten if they're going to jump ship.

And while BYU/Utah makes sense if you look at the rest of the Pac-10 and the natural pairings that occur because of geography, if your goal is to make more money, you need two distinct television markets to maximize eyeballs.

And in this scenario, with the finalists being BYU, Utah and Colorado, I would take Colorado and Utah as being the newest members of the Pac-10 (Pac-12? Pacific Coast Conference?).

Why not BYU? Well, that's another post.

Pac-10 Expansion Round 3: C.R.E.A.M.

(For previous installments on Pac-10 Expansion, visit here and here.)

Round three of Pac-10 expansion talk has us looking at some financial information about the current membership of the conference and the contenders.

The information looked at in this exercise is taken from reports that the colleges and universities across this land submitted to the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education. The site "Equity in Athletics Data Analysis" has all of the nasty bits about how much schools spend on athletics.

Time to make some more sausage.

The factors we are examining today for the schools are:
1) Number of players on the football team
2) Operating expenses per player
3)  Expenses by the football program
4) Revenue brought in by the football program
5) Profit/loss by the football program
6) Athletic department revenue
7) Athletic department expenses
8) Profit/loss by the athletic department

The numbers are from the last fiscal year for higher education (July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009). Before we go any further, let me post the cautionary note from the OPE:

"Please note that valid comparisons of athletics data are possible only with study and analysis of the conditions affecting each institution"

Everyone got that? Okay?

Great. Here we go:

Pac-10 Financial Analysis 

Once again, it appears that the best fit for the Pac-10 if it were to expand would include some combination of Colorado, BYU and Utah. While their spending habits (especially for BYU and Utah) are more in line fiscally with Washington State than with, say, USC, they are definitely ahead of Fresno State or Boise State with regards to the funds available and funds expended.

Pac-10 Expansion Round 2: Television Market Share

In the first round of Pac-10 expansion talks, I posted the reputational academic bonafides of the current Pac-10 Schools and their potential new brethern.

In this round, we will look at the television markets that are currently being utilized and what a newcomer would have to offer.

Now, when talking markets, we are going to refer to the specific regional markets for these teams. The market sizes are done based off of data from Nielsen Media Research.

So, while Oregon games might be shown in Portland, the designated market for Oregon is Eugene.

It's important to note that the Pac-10 has six schools in the top fifteen markets, including two teams in the number two market of Los Angeles, CA. So, obviously, the Pac-10 would probably want to bring in a market with a pretty significant reach.

Also note that some markets encompass more than one city.

First, the Pac-10 schools. Home market in parentheses:
Arizona (Tucson): 66
Arizona State (Phoenix): 12
California (San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose): 6
Oregon (Eugene): 119
Oregon State (Eugene): 119
Stanford (San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose): 6
UCLA (Los Angeles): 2
USC (Los Angeles): 2
Washington (Seattle/Tacoma): 13
Washington State (Spokane): 75

And the potential contenders that I have identified for ascencion to the Pac-10:
Boise State (Boise): 112
Brigham Young (Salt Lake City): 31
Colorado (Denver): 16
Fresno State (Fresno/Visalia): 55
Utah (Salt Lake City): 31

As in round one, it looks like Colorado, Utah and BYU are the front runners after round two, as the Denver and Salt Lake City markets outpace Fresno and Boise.

Pac-10 Expansion Round 1: Academics

So now that the call has gone out from Pac-10 commish Larry Scott that the Pac-10 will be looking into expansion by two members over the next 12 months or so, I thought it would be fitting to jump on the bandwagon and see who the most likely candidates are.

Immediately, because this is football driven, the most likely candidates that came to mind for most folks were BYU and Utah. Boise State, Colorado and even Fresno State have been mentioned in some circles as potential targets as well.

Since the Big Ten is also mulling expansion (as I wrote about here), I thought it would be a good time to do some in-depth analysis of the situations.

We'll get to the Big Ten soon. Let's start with some Pac-10 comparisons.

Expansion at this point is being driven by the almighty dollar and by football; conference championship games are viewed as cash cows by the leagues, and as a way to stay relevant and potentially get two teams into the BCS.

Now, I have made no secret of my disdain for the BCS. I even advocated for radical realignment at one point, but that's another column.

The question, for me, that arises outside of the on-the-field impact has to be off-the-field as well. Namely, when the Pac-10 and Big Ten expand, I think that they are going to look for schools that are in the same neighborhood academically.

Remember, the conferences are not only who you play on the field; often, they are the people you collaborate with and compete with off the field and in the classroom, too.

The Pac-10 has a reputation as being one of the stronger conferences academically, so that part of the profile is what we will examine first for these schools.

While the metrics I am about to use are by no means perfect, they can provide us with a portrait of what candidates may fit best for the Pac-10.

I am keeping the list of potential members to the five schools mentioned at the top of this piece; while other schools may get floated out there for consideration, I think that the final applicant pool for these two open positions will come down to these five.

The four things we will look at as we compare the candidates to the current Pac-10 are:

1. Is the school a member of the Association of American Universities?
2. How is the school basically classified by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (aka "Carnegie Classification", or "What kind of school are you?")
3. What is the school's US News and World Report National University Ranking?
4. What is the overall enrollment of the institution? That includes all students, undergraduate and graduate.

I added enrollment because that gives us an idea of just how big (or small) an institution is with regards to its student body. The US News Rankings are reputational. AAU membership is a badge of some prestige, and the Carnegie Classification focuses on how you teach and research.

So, for the Pac-10:

Arizona:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 102 (highest ranking number assigned—128)
Enrollment: 36,932

Arizona State:
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 121
Enrollment: 49,171

California (University of California-Berkeley):
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 21
Enrollment: 32803

Oregon:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/High Research Activity (RU/H)
US News National Ranking: 115
Enrollment: 20,296

Oregon State:
AAU member: NO
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: Tier 3
Enrollment: 19,193

Stanford:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 4
Enrollment: 18,836

UCLA (University of California-Los Angeles):
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 24
Enrollment: 35,966

USC (University of Southern California):
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 26
Enrollment: 32,160

Washington:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 42
Enrollment: 39,199

Washington State:
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 106
Enrollment: 23,241

Average ranking for the Pac-10: 62.3 (for the 9 ranked schools)
Average enrollment: 30,780

And now, the contenders:

Boise State:
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Master's Colleges and Universities: Larger Programs
US News National Ranking: n/a
Enrollment: 18,332

BYU (Brigham Young University):
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Research University/High Research Activity (RU/H)
US News National Ranking: 71
Enrollment: 34,347

Colorado:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 77
Enrollment: 32,362

Fresno State (California State University-Fresno):
AAU member: No
Carnegie Classification: Master's Colleges and Universities: Larger Programs
US News National Ranking: n/a
Enrollment: 19,781

Utah:
AAU member: Yes
Carnegie Classification: Research University/Very High Research Activity (RU/VH)
US News National Ranking: 106
Enrollment: 28,933

So while AAU membership is not a total barrier to being a member of the Pac-10, I do think that it becomes clear, from looking at some of this information, that BYU, Colorado and Utah are the top three contenders for expansion from an academic standpoint.

But fear not, for we will also look at other factors in the coming days that may influences things in other directions.