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.)

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?”:

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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?