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.

NCAA sanctions USC Football

Read the entire report here.

One word:

Damning.

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.

Even with context, Ireland in the Wrong

The question du semaine as the fallout from the 2010 NFL Draft settles on the landscape deals with the scandal of why Dez Bryant, the talented wide receiver formerly of the Oklahoma State Cowboys, fell as precipitously as he did from a top-10 talent to the Dallas Cowboys late in the first round.

Bryant, who was suspended for 10 games by the NCAA this past season for lying to an investigator about his relationship with Deion Sanders, came from a troubled background, but appears to have overcome it to put up prodigious numbers while in uniform in Stillwater.

Apparently, though, his background came up during his visit with the Miami Dolphins. According to a story by Yahoo! Sports Michael Silver, Bryant was upset about being asked this question by Dolphins General Manager Jeff Ireland:

"Last Wednesday, the night before he was selected 24th overall by the Cowboys, former Oklahoma State wide receiver Dez Bryant(notes) told me that during one of his predraft visits, a high-level executive of one NFL franchise had asked him if his mother, Angela, was a prostitute.

“No, my mom is not a prostitute,” said Bryant, whose background – including his mother’s lifestyle and past legal troubles – was under great scrutiny prior to the draft. “I got mad – really mad – but I didn’t show it.”

Ireland, after being outed as the executive in question, later apologized for asking the question.

Well, naturally, a firestorm broke out and debate ensued. People were on both sides of the issue, including former players, some who thought the question was inappropriate and unnecessary and others who thought it was within bounds for the team to ask the question.

Now, here comes full context from SI.com's Jim Trotter:

"Two sources familiar with the situation contend that Ireland's question was nothing more than the logical follow-up to comments Bryant had made about his family. According to the sources, Ireland began the meeting by asking Bryant about his upbringing and his relationship with his siblings. Then he asked what Bryant's father did for a living when Bryant was growing up. The following exchange allegedly ensued:

"My dad was a pimp."

"What did your mom do [for a living]?"

"She worked for my dad."

"Your mom was a prostitute?"

"No, she wasn't a prostitute."

Dan Levy of Sporting News is also reporting that this is how the exchange went, with an assist from The Dan LeBatard's Show Twitter feed.

Trotter goes on to say that Bryant should apologize for characterizing the exchange, and believes that it was a logical follow up question to ask:

"[W]hat if Bryant took them there? I would have connected the dots in the same way that Ireland did based on what Bryant allegedly said. Bottom line: There's a major difference between asking a logical follow-up and knowingly wrapping an insensitive and incendiary accusation in the form of a question. Ireland, I believe, asked a logical follow-up question that was coated with neither malice nor prejudice."

Here is where I diverge.

It might be a logical follow up.

But you still don't have to ask it.

This idea that you have to gauge how a player is going to react to an incendiary comment or question is something that continues to baffle me.

Yes, I understand that I didn't play the game, so I can't understand what goes on in the huddle, blah, blah, blah.

But at some point, what becomes out of bounds?

I thought that the all-powerful NFL had crack security and law enforcement folks on speed dial?

Wouldn't they have already smoked this out in the background check?

So why ask?

Yes, I know: He lied to NCAA investigators because he was nervous, and he comes from a "shaky" background that was the talk of the league at the combine.

Fine. Then hook him up to a polygraph. Hell, hook all of the prospects up to polygraphs and then we'll know for sure if they're lying or not.

I also wonder, as does Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk, why Ireland or the Dolphins didn't talk to Silver before the story ran to give their side of events.

And, if their version of events is "true," why did Ireland apologize after he was identified as asking the question.

Don't tell me he apologized to save face; clearly if he wanted to save any face, he wouldn't have gone there in the first place.

Furthermore, we still actually don't know how the exchange went down. Tone means more than just viewing a written transcript of how the exchange allegedly went. Even if the interview was being transcribed by a stenographer, I would rather have a video tape to hear tone of voice, body language, etc.

Otherwise, it still remains a he said, he said where I am inclined to side with the young, nervous 22 year old than with the professional football executive who should know how to ask a question.

NCAA Tournament Expansion: 68 is a magic number (For Now)

And up with the puff of white smoke, there is expansion news in college sports.

But it's the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament expansion that is the news of the day before the NFL Draft consumes all sports news like Galactus.

The men's tournament will expand to 68 teams next year, getting to a number that is at least divisible by four unlike the awkward 65 that has been in place since 2001.

That gigantic whooshing noise you heard was from many college basketball fans who were petrified that the tournament was going to swell to 96 teams for 2011 and ruin the perfect balance of an 8 1/2" by 11" sheet of paper that has lines for 64 teams.

If you are one of those people, I've got news for you:

68 is just the starting point.

Look back in history to when the tournament first started to evolve to the allegedly perfect 64/65 and you will see an interesting metamorphosis:

1978 - 32 teams
1979 - 40 teams
1980 - 48 teams
1983 - 52 teams
1984 - 53 teams
1985 - 64 teams
2001 - 65 teams

Let's disregard 1984 and 2001, since those expansions led to only one extra bid.

Between 1978 and 1985, in a span of 7 years, the tournament doubled in size.

Now, going from 65 to 96 would not be a doubling in size, but adding 33 percent more teams.

Can't you see that happening by 2017? I know I can. And, quite frankly, it probably will — especially because we could see some radical realigning of conferences on the horizon that will reshape the college athletics landscape.

If the shuffling of deck chairs happens on the football side, it will definitely affect the NCAA tournament. If the Big Six BCS leagues consolidate as some of us think they will, the men's tournament will have no choice but to expand because of the imbalance of power and the almighty dollar.

So sleep well tonight, those of you who are against tourney expansion.

Your nightmare may not begin for another 12-18 months.

NCAA Tempting Fate With New Taunting Rule

The good thing about writing a weekly column is that I have time to review the news of the week and reflect on it before commenting.

The worst feeling, though, is when you’ve written what you think is a solid piece, and then news happens after you’ve hit “send.”

Because the NCAA decided last week that college football players weren’t being good enough sports and that starting in 2011, if a team taunts the opposition on the way to the end zone, the taunting team will lose the touchdown and be penalized from the spot of the foul.

Yep. It doesn’t even have to be the player that is about to score; it could be a teammate up field who taunts.

No touchdown.

Seems a bit extreme, doesn’t it?

Considering some of the recent instances of overzealous officiating (especially last season in the SEC), are we really sure that we want to give the officials even more latitude in exercising subjective judgment?

Do we really want to give these guys that kind of control?

I know I don’t.

Hell, at this point I barely want to give most college football officials the power to call holding.

While I am a believer in instant replay because it can help make sure that the right calls are made most of the time, I think on some level it has contributed to the declining nature of officiating. Calls are not made with confidence anymore, and I think that some officials are either relying on replay to bail them out or trying not to make an embarrassing call.

But I don’t solely want to rag on officials. I think the NCAA itself shouldn’t even have considered this rule.

To me, it’s too subjective as far as what can be considered taunting in some circumstances. ESPN’s Bruce Feldman drew attention to a play by Notre Dame wide receiver Golden Tate last season. To most eyes, it looks like a tame touchdown catch.

But to Dave Parry, the coordinator of officials, it would have been taunting. No TD.

Again, are you kidding me with this?

I can understand wanting to encourage sportsmanship; the academic in me can see that.

But this is sports we’re talking about. And some of these acts are really celebrations. Sure, they might cross the line a little bit, but the penalty on the ensuing kickoff was enough.

Taking points off the board because of an emotional outburst by young men with adrenaline pumping through their systems is borderline ridiculous.

And if it costs someone a BCS bid in 2011, you can bet that this rule will go away just like that.

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?

Rich Rodriguez Is A Marked Man

I would hazard a guess that as far as coaching positions go, no job in sports has as hot a seat as the college football coach at a traditional power program.

No one today, though, probably has a hotter seat right now than Rich Rodriguez up at Michigan.

Coming in on the heels of Lloyd Carr’s retirement and after a catastrophic collapse against Pittsburgh in December 2007 (costing West Virginia the chance to play for the mythical national championship), Rich Rodriguez was brought in to bring his spread option style offense to Michigan, pulling the staid (and some would say stale) program into the modern era of college football.

Because Rodriguez was not from the coaching tree of the legendary Bo Schembechler (a “Michigan Man”), Rodriguez was viewed with suspicion by some Michigan fans and backers.

But he was hired by former athletic director Bill Martin to shake up the program.

And shake it he did, forcing some players to transfer. One such player, center Justin Boren, transferred to Ohio State and said that under Rodriguez, “family values [of the program] had eroded.”

Rodriguez has also been criticized by some former players now in the NFL such as New York Jets wide receiver Braylon Edwards and Cincinnati Bengals linebacker Dhani Jones.

The 8-16 record over two seasons hasn’t helped things for Rodriguez.

Nor has the fact that Michigan was stuck footing some of the bill for Rodriguez’s West Virginia buyout.

Did I mention that Rodriguez is being sued for being in default for a loan to build condominiums near Alabama’s football stadium?

And lest we forget the NCAA violations of practice time at Michigan.

Or the fact that it was announced earlier this week that the NCAA visited with West Virginia officials about possible rules violations for the football program. According to an ESPN.com report, a source close to the program said the allegations are related to Rodriguez.

Michigan recently hired a new athletic director. The new AD, Dave Brandon, is a former player under Bo Schembechler.

In other words, he is a “Michigan Man.”

And while Brandon has stated in interviews that he would be proud to play for Rich Rodriguez and has stated that Rodriguez will be the coach for the 2010 season, let’s say that Rodriguez’s tenure is tenuous at best.

If the NCAA sanctions are damning (which they probably won’t be) and the team continues to be a train wreck on the field, I would thoroughly expect Michigan to cut ties as soon as possible.

Sometimes, when things are a bad fit, you need to move on as soon as possible.

No one would fault Michigan if that’s what they did.

(A version of this piece appeared on Southern Pigskin.)

Mini Blog-cation

We will be taking a short break here for the next month or so because of the day job and an actual vacation in May.

We will be back in late May starting our run-up to the regular season with conference look aheads and some other previews.

I will still be writing on Thursdays over at Southern Pigskin, but that's all that you'll hear from me.

What Expansion Could Mean to the Big Ten, Notre Dame and the SEC

Although I wonder who is who in this scenario:

I think it's obvious that Starscream = SEC
But is Megatron/Galvatron the Big Ten and Unicron is Notre Dame?

My thought is that Unicron is the Big Ten, and Notre Dame is Megatron/Galvatron.

Either way, I needed to justify the clip:

I Doubt An Eagle Would Ever Do It With A Lion, But...

Located in Williamsburg, Virginia, the College of William & Mary is the second oldest institution of higher education in this country (after Harvard). Its undergraduate program is consistently ranked in the top ten nationally.

Until 1977, the athletics teams were known as the Indians. In 1978, the school changed the name to the less offensive Tribe, although they retained two feathers in the logo, harkening back to the school’s former nickname.

Then the NCAA stepped in and said that the feathers in the logo could be considered offensive to Native Americans, and the school’s appeal was denied. So the feathers went away and a new logo was revealed in December 2007.

In 2009, the current William & Mary president, Taylor Reveley convened a committee of current students, alumni, faculty and staff to spearhead the efforts to create a mascot for the campus. It was supposed to be a “unifying, fun figure on campus.”

The selection, which was unveiled on Tuesday: Griffin, a griffin.

A griffin, for those who don’t know their mythology, is a beast with the head of an eagle and the body of a lion.

According to Reveley, “With its arrival, we now have a mascot that unites strength with intelligence, recalls our royal origins, and speaks to our deep roots in American history.”

That sounds nice.

But it looks like a cartoony mess.

Personally, I don’t know if I would have gone in this direction, although I guess it beats the other finalists: A pug (!), a phoenix, a wren, and a king and queen.

I understand wanting to keep the nickname Tribe. It’s unique to William & Mary and fosters a sense of community for the campus.

But the mascot and accompanying logo are a serious fail.

As usual, the decision comes down to money. Just having the W&M on t-shirts was not moving enough product for the school, so they went ahead a created a mascot.

(Yes, I am aware that there was a costumed figure for W&M prior to Griffin called Colonel Ebirt that was running around campus during the early 2000s. He has been retired and he was unofficial anyway.)

Not every school is meant to have a logo and mascot. I think a school can survive without one.

But at the very least, if you’re going to go with a griffin, then I think you should go all in and change the nickname as well.

And the nickname I’m thinking of, while not wholly original, is fitting for a team in Williamsburg, Virginia:

The Colonials.

96 Team Tournament? Eh. I'm not bothered...

As we march inevitably closer to a 96 team field in the NCAA tournament, more and more bloggers, sports writers and fans are coming out against the expanded field.

I'm not as bothered by the expansion of the tourney. I'll have more thoughts on it later.

But what I wanted to share right now is how some of these folks are feeling right now. Based on how Twitter blew up this afternoon after the NCAA press conference at the Final Four, you would have thought R. Kelly was in the house:

Chappelle's Show
R. Kelly's "Piss on You" Music Videos
www.comedycentral.com
Buy Chappelle's Show DVDs Black Comedy True Hollywood Story

Of course, I can't share the first video without sharing this: