College sports currently has a 12 team "Big-10" conference and a 10 team "Big-12" conference. You would think that by college people would at least learn how to count.
But that is just the beginning. Texas A&M is on its way out - or so it thinks. However, Baylor is holding things up by threatening to sue. These are the same schools that recently complained that A&M had "broken its word" by attempting to leave the conference.
They are also the same for schools whose leaders voted unanimously that the Big-12 would not use legal methods to prevent A&M from leaving. Uh huh. Complain when they try to leave, but then use dishonest doublespeak to get them to stay. Great.
Oklahoma is rumored to be on its way out also. And who would blame them? Its as if a guy couldn't stand a girl breaking up with him and tried to sue her to stay. Sure this might allow her to stay for a bit longer, but it does not bode well for the relationship.
BYU would be wise to stay clear of this sinking ship.
However, this could be the one chance to join an automatically qualifying BCS conference.
What do they do?
Perhaps they simply broker a scheduling agreement similar to what they have with the WAC. BYU plays a number of Big-12 teams to fill in the gaps in the schedule. Or they even join as a football-only member (and somehow rearrange some of their scheduled games.)
But a full member? The WCC is much more stable, and lets them stay the high ground, without creating ill-will with the WCC.
SMU and Houston? They have less to lose. A jump to the big boy conference would be nice. Should it collapse, the WAC would be more than willing to welcoming them back. Conference-USA could even swallow its pride to get some of its star teams back.
Oklahoma? They've been talking with the Pac-12, but I'm sure they'd love to be in the Big-10. The could resume the Nebraska rivalry, and should fit nicely in the geographic footprint. The SEC or Pac-12 could also be options. And the Big-12? Well, sure. But why?
Perhaps Baylor can pull this off. After all, they managed to weasel in to the Big-12 in the first place. However, if things do implode, others may think twice about inviting the school that just cannot take no for an answer.
Oh what a mess. At least there is some good football.
Showing posts with label pac-10. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pac-10. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Pac-10 bowls
The Pac-10 only has 4 bowl-eligible teams. Only the Sun Belt has fewer bowl-eligible teams.
In spite of this the Pac-10 is one of the strongest conferences this season.
With 70 available bowl spots, you would imagine the top 70 teams would be playing. So, lets take a look at the top-70 teams that did not make the cut:
Hmm... The top 4 are all from the Pac-10. This list takes in every Pac-10 team save Washington State (and they are not that far down at #82). So why are the Pac-10 teams ranked so highly, but not in bowls?
USC was declared ineligible for something somebody may have done a long time ago. (They should have hired Auburn's Cam Newton case lawyers.)
ASU had 6 wins, but played two 1AA schools due to San Jose State dropping out at the last minute. It didn't matter that one of these schools was ranked higher than SJSU (and the other was not far behind). A rule is a rule. SJSU also dropped Stanford for the season. Luckily, Stanford did not have a 1AA scheduled and was able to fill the spot with Scramento State. (And it wouldn't have mattered anyway.) Who did SJSU play instead? Wisconsin and Alabama. If you have the money, you can buy your way to a "quality" victory.
Oregon State and California both had some tough non-conference road games (TCU and Boise for the Beavers and Nevada for California) Replace one of these top 15 teams with a more manageable team (say a middle of the pack SEC team?) and both would be bowling.
Another source of blame could be the 9-game conference schedule. Had Oregon State and Cal only had an 8 game schedule, they could have schedule an "easy win" non-conference game and voila, they would both be bowl eligible.
UCLA is a more difficult case. They managed just 4 victories for the season. However, it would not be a stretch to see them bowl eligible in another conference. They had a particularly brutal non-conference tour of Big-12 country with wins against Houston and Texas and a loss to Kansas State. Replace the K-State game with a 1AA school and drop a conference game and they, too, could be bowling. Alas, they are not in the SEC. At least they can take solace in knocking three teams (Houston, Texas and Oregon State) from bowl contention.
So there you have it, the Pac-10 just needs to emulate the SEC's scheduling practices (and hire their lawyers) and they could have 9 teams bowling.
In spite of this the Pac-10 is one of the strongest conferences this season.
With 70 available bowl spots, you would imagine the top 70 teams would be playing. So, lets take a look at the top-70 teams that did not make the cut:
Top ranked nonbowl teams 22. USC (8-5) 24. ASU (6-6) 31. Oregon State (5-7) 34. California (5-7) 53. Texas (5-7) 58. Colorado (5-7) 59. UCLA (4-8) 62. Iowa State (5-7)
Hmm... The top 4 are all from the Pac-10. This list takes in every Pac-10 team save Washington State (and they are not that far down at #82). So why are the Pac-10 teams ranked so highly, but not in bowls?
USC was declared ineligible for something somebody may have done a long time ago. (They should have hired Auburn's Cam Newton case lawyers.)
ASU had 6 wins, but played two 1AA schools due to San Jose State dropping out at the last minute. It didn't matter that one of these schools was ranked higher than SJSU (and the other was not far behind). A rule is a rule. SJSU also dropped Stanford for the season. Luckily, Stanford did not have a 1AA scheduled and was able to fill the spot with Scramento State. (And it wouldn't have mattered anyway.) Who did SJSU play instead? Wisconsin and Alabama. If you have the money, you can buy your way to a "quality" victory.
Oregon State and California both had some tough non-conference road games (TCU and Boise for the Beavers and Nevada for California) Replace one of these top 15 teams with a more manageable team (say a middle of the pack SEC team?) and both would be bowling.
Another source of blame could be the 9-game conference schedule. Had Oregon State and Cal only had an 8 game schedule, they could have schedule an "easy win" non-conference game and voila, they would both be bowl eligible.
UCLA is a more difficult case. They managed just 4 victories for the season. However, it would not be a stretch to see them bowl eligible in another conference. They had a particularly brutal non-conference tour of Big-12 country with wins against Houston and Texas and a loss to Kansas State. Replace the K-State game with a 1AA school and drop a conference game and they, too, could be bowling. Alas, they are not in the SEC. At least they can take solace in knocking three teams (Houston, Texas and Oregon State) from bowl contention.
So there you have it, the Pac-10 just needs to emulate the SEC's scheduling practices (and hire their lawyers) and they could have 9 teams bowling.
Oregon State vs. Connecticut
Continuing the "using UConn to bash on the BCS" theme:
Oregon State finished 5-7. Their season is over. Revenue-wise, they should do ok. The Pac-10 has two teams in BCS bowls. However, they failed to fill the Sun Bowl spot. (The other two Pac-10 bowls would probably just cover the expenses of a team.)
Connecticut? They are 8-4, the Big East champs and are going to the BCS Fiesta bowl. A total of 6 BCS teams are going to various bowl games. With only an 8-way revenue split, Connecticut should be doing rather well.
Now, does UConn deserve a big game, while OSU stays home?
Not according to Sagarin rankings: UConn is #54, while Oregon State is #31.
Not according to similar opponents: OSU beat Louisville, while UConn was shut out.
So why is UConn bowling and not Oregon State?
You can blame the Pac-10.
Oregon and Stanford dominated the Pac-10. Even without them, you are still left with a strong conference with close parity.
Sagarin rankings of the conference teams:
Both the Big East and Pac-10 have full round robin schedules. However, the Pac-10 has two additional teams, and thus two extra non-conference games. With Stanford and Oregon dominating at the top, that means two additional losses for each team.
If each Big East team had to lose to Stanford and Oregon, only two teams would be bowl eligible. Similarly, if each Pac-10 team could replace their Stanford/Oregon loses with "easy" games, then every Pac-10 team save Washington State would be bowl eligible.
In addition to the conference schedule, the Pac-10 also tends to hurt itself with hard non-conference scheduling. Oregon State was the poster child for this. Their easy non-conference game happened to be Big East member Louisville. For their other opponent, they got two top-10 teams on the road. Talk about fun!
Here are the comparisons of Sagarin rankings of all Oregon State and UConn opponents: (bold+ denotes a win)
OSU played 7 teams ranked higher than anyone UConn played (and won 3).
UConn played 4 teams ranked lower than anyone OSU played (and lost 1).
Hand Oregon's top four opponents to UConn in exchange for their bottom four and the Huskies could easily be 4-8 instead of 8-4.
Oregon State is a little baffling. They lost to all the top-10 teams (4) they played. However, they beat everyone between 20-40. (4) Then they lost 3 of 4 to teams ranked below 40.
UConn had a similarly odd performance. The beat their highest ranked team (#30), then went won,loss,won,loss,won,loss,won,loss between 41 and 100 before beating the three remaining teams rankings above 100.
Were OSU in the Big East, they would have had a high probability of securing a BCS bowl bid. Alas, they were in the Pac 10 and had a to stay home.
Oregon State finished 5-7. Their season is over. Revenue-wise, they should do ok. The Pac-10 has two teams in BCS bowls. However, they failed to fill the Sun Bowl spot. (The other two Pac-10 bowls would probably just cover the expenses of a team.)
Connecticut? They are 8-4, the Big East champs and are going to the BCS Fiesta bowl. A total of 6 BCS teams are going to various bowl games. With only an 8-way revenue split, Connecticut should be doing rather well.
Now, does UConn deserve a big game, while OSU stays home?
Not according to Sagarin rankings: UConn is #54, while Oregon State is #31.
Not according to similar opponents: OSU beat Louisville, while UConn was shut out.
So why is UConn bowling and not Oregon State?
You can blame the Pac-10.
Oregon and Stanford dominated the Pac-10. Even without them, you are still left with a strong conference with close parity.
Sagarin rankings of the conference teams:
Big East: 30,41,54,65,68,70,78,100 Pac10: 1,3,22,23,24,31,34,42,59,82
Both the Big East and Pac-10 have full round robin schedules. However, the Pac-10 has two additional teams, and thus two extra non-conference games. With Stanford and Oregon dominating at the top, that means two additional losses for each team.
If each Big East team had to lose to Stanford and Oregon, only two teams would be bowl eligible. Similarly, if each Pac-10 team could replace their Stanford/Oregon loses with "easy" games, then every Pac-10 team save Washington State would be bowl eligible.
In addition to the conference schedule, the Pac-10 also tends to hurt itself with hard non-conference scheduling. Oregon State was the poster child for this. Their easy non-conference game happened to be Big East member Louisville. For their other opponent, they got two top-10 teams on the road. Talk about fun!
Here are the comparisons of Sagarin rankings of all Oregon State and UConn opponents: (bold+ denotes a win)
OSU: 1,3,4,8,22+,23+,24+,34+,42 ,59 , ,68+, ,82 UConn: 30+,41+,48 ,65+,68 ,70+,73,78+,100,122+,159+,183+
OSU played 7 teams ranked higher than anyone UConn played (and won 3).
UConn played 4 teams ranked lower than anyone OSU played (and lost 1).
Hand Oregon's top four opponents to UConn in exchange for their bottom four and the Huskies could easily be 4-8 instead of 8-4.
Oregon State is a little baffling. They lost to all the top-10 teams (4) they played. However, they beat everyone between 20-40. (4) Then they lost 3 of 4 to teams ranked below 40.
UConn had a similarly odd performance. The beat their highest ranked team (#30), then went won,loss,won,loss,won,loss,won,loss between 41 and 100 before beating the three remaining teams rankings above 100.
Were OSU in the Big East, they would have had a high probability of securing a BCS bowl bid. Alas, they were in the Pac 10 and had a to stay home.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Boise State - TCU rematch?
TCU beat Boise in the Poinsettia Bowl two years ago
Boise beat TCU in the Fiesta Bowl last year
Next year, they will be in the same conference, and have a chance to play each other during the regular season.
For this year, it would only make sense to have them play in the BCS championship game this year.
How far-fetched is it?
Not likely at the present, but still possible.
Oregon looks like the best team around now. They annihilated some mediocre teams in non-conference play. Then they continued on steamrolling some really good teams during conference play. However, they play in the PAC-10. It seems every year, the "great one" suffers some inscrutable loss.
Cal could be the trap. Cal has blown away opponents at home, but been destroyed on the road. Unfortunately, Oregon makes the trip to Berkeley. Fortunately for the Ducks, Cal may have "ended" its curse by barely squeaking by Washington State on the road.
Arizona is in Eugene on a Friday night after a week's rest. Seems like a sure-fire Duck win. But that could be just the cockiness that lets them fall in an unexplained loss. Arizona is also coming in after a week off, and is a ranked program. Oregon will be paying attention.
Oregon State is the final chance for failure. The Beavers have been struggling this year. However, they are another picture of inconsistent. During the non-conference schedule they lost to two top-5 outfits, and beat a decent Big East team. That all seemed fairly normal. However, in conference play, they've beat the 3rd, 5th, and 6th(Tied) schools. Then lost to the two other schools tied for 6th. It wouldn't be too surprising to see them beat Oregon.
As for Auburn, they get the benefit of the doubt by playing in the SEC. They have won some close games over some good teams. The game against Georgia doesn't seem too difficult. The rivalry game against Alabama, however, could be very dangerous. Then the SEC championship game, possibly against a streaking Florida could be another shot for a loss. However, the best shot may be the Newton affair. If he gets declared ineligible, the wins get vacated and Auburn is out of the picture.
Would a one-loss team squeak in? LSU is loved by the computers. However, the squeaker wins make them hard to justify. (They should have had a loss to Tennessee...) The games against Louisiana-Monroe and Mississippi wont do much to help the computer rankings, while Arkansas could be a trap game. They also wont have the bump of the SEC championship game (unless Auburn loses its next two or gets disqualifies.)
Nebraska has Kansas and Colorado coming up which will hurt the computer rankings. The mediocre schedule and the loss to Texas should keep them out. The Big-12 championship game may help, but the quality of opponent would diminish the benefit. (Texas is out. Oklahoma would have two loses. Oklahoma State has only one loss, but doesn't have the street cred of the big boys.) A one-loss Oklahoma State would end with victories over Oklahoma and Nebraska. However, they would also be hard to justify over a no-loss Boise or TCU.
In the Big-10, Wisconsin, Michigan State and the Iowa-Ohio State winner could each end with one loss. However, they end the season on a whimper and wouldn't see much of a move.
Stanford has looked good this season, though the loss to Oregon probably keeps them out. Utah's loss to TCU ended their BCS dreams.
Odds are probably about 50/50 that one non-AQ makes it to the championship, and not much lower that we see two. Maybe that is just what we need to end this ugly system. (But then, what will college football fans argue over?)
Boise beat TCU in the Fiesta Bowl last year
Next year, they will be in the same conference, and have a chance to play each other during the regular season.
For this year, it would only make sense to have them play in the BCS championship game this year.
How far-fetched is it?
Not likely at the present, but still possible.
Oregon looks like the best team around now. They annihilated some mediocre teams in non-conference play. Then they continued on steamrolling some really good teams during conference play. However, they play in the PAC-10. It seems every year, the "great one" suffers some inscrutable loss.
Cal could be the trap. Cal has blown away opponents at home, but been destroyed on the road. Unfortunately, Oregon makes the trip to Berkeley. Fortunately for the Ducks, Cal may have "ended" its curse by barely squeaking by Washington State on the road.
Arizona is in Eugene on a Friday night after a week's rest. Seems like a sure-fire Duck win. But that could be just the cockiness that lets them fall in an unexplained loss. Arizona is also coming in after a week off, and is a ranked program. Oregon will be paying attention.
Oregon State is the final chance for failure. The Beavers have been struggling this year. However, they are another picture of inconsistent. During the non-conference schedule they lost to two top-5 outfits, and beat a decent Big East team. That all seemed fairly normal. However, in conference play, they've beat the 3rd, 5th, and 6th(Tied) schools. Then lost to the two other schools tied for 6th. It wouldn't be too surprising to see them beat Oregon.
As for Auburn, they get the benefit of the doubt by playing in the SEC. They have won some close games over some good teams. The game against Georgia doesn't seem too difficult. The rivalry game against Alabama, however, could be very dangerous. Then the SEC championship game, possibly against a streaking Florida could be another shot for a loss. However, the best shot may be the Newton affair. If he gets declared ineligible, the wins get vacated and Auburn is out of the picture.
Would a one-loss team squeak in? LSU is loved by the computers. However, the squeaker wins make them hard to justify. (They should have had a loss to Tennessee...) The games against Louisiana-Monroe and Mississippi wont do much to help the computer rankings, while Arkansas could be a trap game. They also wont have the bump of the SEC championship game (unless Auburn loses its next two or gets disqualifies.)
Nebraska has Kansas and Colorado coming up which will hurt the computer rankings. The mediocre schedule and the loss to Texas should keep them out. The Big-12 championship game may help, but the quality of opponent would diminish the benefit. (Texas is out. Oklahoma would have two loses. Oklahoma State has only one loss, but doesn't have the street cred of the big boys.) A one-loss Oklahoma State would end with victories over Oklahoma and Nebraska. However, they would also be hard to justify over a no-loss Boise or TCU.
In the Big-10, Wisconsin, Michigan State and the Iowa-Ohio State winner could each end with one loss. However, they end the season on a whimper and wouldn't see much of a move.
Stanford has looked good this season, though the loss to Oregon probably keeps them out. Utah's loss to TCU ended their BCS dreams.
Odds are probably about 50/50 that one non-AQ makes it to the championship, and not much lower that we see two. Maybe that is just what we need to end this ugly system. (But then, what will college football fans argue over?)
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Oh, Stanford
I should have known. Once Stanford makes it to the top 10, they're destined to lose the next game. But, I still had my hopes up. Could they even challenge for the championship? But, no. They jumped up to a big lead over Oregon in the first half, and then...
They decided not to show up for the second half. Oh well. There is still a chance for a good season.
More baffling is what happened in the rankings. Oregon turned on the quack attack for a second half pounding of Stanford. Boise State pummeled lowly New Mexico State (Boise's backups outscore NMSU on their own.) From a schedule perspective, all of Boise's previous opponents also won. Ohio State struggled with mediocre Illinois. Alabama also managed an annihilation of Florida. So it seemed obvious, Alabama, Oregon and Boise were the top three. But no, for some reason, Ohio State stays second and Oregon passes Boise for third. Oh whatever. Polls are always annoying.
They decided not to show up for the second half. Oh well. There is still a chance for a good season.
More baffling is what happened in the rankings. Oregon turned on the quack attack for a second half pounding of Stanford. Boise State pummeled lowly New Mexico State (Boise's backups outscore NMSU on their own.) From a schedule perspective, all of Boise's previous opponents also won. Ohio State struggled with mediocre Illinois. Alabama also managed an annihilation of Florida. So it seemed obvious, Alabama, Oregon and Boise were the top three. But no, for some reason, Ohio State stays second and Oregon passes Boise for third. Oh whatever. Polls are always annoying.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
College Football Conference Rankings
Conference Rankings using "similar team" methodology:
1. Big 10
2. WAC
3. Mountain West
4. Pac 10
5. ACC
6. Big East
7. SEC
8. big 12
9. Conference USA
9. MAC
11. Sun Belt
Rankings are computed by comparing the results of teams against "similar teams" from other conferences. Games against independent FBS are not included, while only loses to FCS teams are included. A good win is a victory over a team with an equal or better record in conference play. A bad loss is a loss to a team with an equal or worse record in conference play. Loses to FCS teams also count as bad loses. (Of course, comparing this seasons records would be better, but we don't know them yet.)
This helps to exclude "body bag" games where a conference champion blows out the cellar-dweller from another conference. A game such as Alabama's victory over San Jose State really tells us nothing about the quality of the two conferences. After all, the WAC teams had no trouble disposing of San Jose State, while Alabama had no trouble disposing with the rest of the SEC.
The games that are included are ones such as Michigan State's victory over Middle Tennessee. Michigan State finished in the middle of the Big-10, while MTSU was at the top of the Sun Belt. This is a better indicator of the overall strength of one conference versus others.
The MAC, Sun Belt and Conference-USA are clearly the "lower conferences". None have quality wins over non-conference foes, while many have ugly loses to teams from other conferences with worse records.
The Big East is slightly above these, with Syracuse's victory over a similar Akron team from the MAC.
The ACC does not have any directly comparable games - mainly due to a schedule full of FCS games. However, they did lose the two games to teams within a game of their teams. Similarly, the Pac-10 didn't win or lose any games against similarly ranked teams. The closest was the loss to by UCLA to Kansas State.
The Big 12 and SEC have some wins over the "lower 3" conferences. However, they both have ugly loses to FCS teams.
The only unblemished conferences are the Big-10, WAC and Mountain West. All three have quality victories over Big East teams. The Big-10 also has sunbelt and MAC victories.
Big-12
Bad Loss: FCS: Kansas lost to FCS North Dakota State
Good Wins: CUSA: Texas Tech (5-3 in conference last year) over SMU (6-2 in conference)
MAC: Iowa State (3-5) over Northern Illinois (5-3)
SEC
Bad Loss: FCS: Mississippi lost to FCS Jacksonville State
Best wins: Sun Belt: Georgia over Louisiana Lafayette (both had 4-4 conference records)
Sun Belt: Auburn over Arkansas State (both had 3-5 conference records)
CUSA: South Carolina (3-5) over Southern Miss (5-3)
Big East:
Bad Losses: WAC: Cincinnati (7-0) to Fresno (6-2)
MWC: Pittsburgh (5-2) to Utah (6-2)
B10: Michigan over Connectiut
Best Wins: MAC: Syracuse (1-6) over Akron (2-6)
Big 10:
Best Wins:
Sun Belt: Minnesota (3-5) over Middle Tennessee (7-1)
MAC: Michigan State (4-4) over Western Michigan (4-4)
Big East: Michigan (3-5) over Connecticut (3-4)
No bad loses
Pac 10:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (Kansas St over UCLA is closest)
ACC:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (LSU over North Carolina and Boise over Virginia Tech are the closest)
Mountain West
Wins: Big East: Utah (6-2) over Pittsburgh (5-2)
loses: none
WAC:
wins: Big East: Fresno State (6-2) over Cincinnati (7-0)
loses: none
Sun Belt:
Bad Loses: B10: Middle Tennessee (7-1) to Minnesota (3-5)
SEC: Louisiana Lafayette (4-4) to Georgia (4-4)
SEC: Arkansas State (3-5) to Auburn (3-5)
Good Wins : none
Conference USA:
Bad Loses: SEC: Southern Miss (5-3) to South Carolina (3-5)
B12: SMU (6-2) to Texas Tech (5-3)
Mid American
Bad Loses: B12: Northern Illinois (5-3) to Iowa State (3-5)
BE: Akron (2-6) to Syracuse (1-6)
1. Big 10
2. WAC
3. Mountain West
4. Pac 10
5. ACC
6. Big East
7. SEC
8. big 12
9. Conference USA
9. MAC
11. Sun Belt
Rankings are computed by comparing the results of teams against "similar teams" from other conferences. Games against independent FBS are not included, while only loses to FCS teams are included. A good win is a victory over a team with an equal or better record in conference play. A bad loss is a loss to a team with an equal or worse record in conference play. Loses to FCS teams also count as bad loses. (Of course, comparing this seasons records would be better, but we don't know them yet.)
This helps to exclude "body bag" games where a conference champion blows out the cellar-dweller from another conference. A game such as Alabama's victory over San Jose State really tells us nothing about the quality of the two conferences. After all, the WAC teams had no trouble disposing of San Jose State, while Alabama had no trouble disposing with the rest of the SEC.
The games that are included are ones such as Michigan State's victory over Middle Tennessee. Michigan State finished in the middle of the Big-10, while MTSU was at the top of the Sun Belt. This is a better indicator of the overall strength of one conference versus others.
The MAC, Sun Belt and Conference-USA are clearly the "lower conferences". None have quality wins over non-conference foes, while many have ugly loses to teams from other conferences with worse records.
The Big East is slightly above these, with Syracuse's victory over a similar Akron team from the MAC.
The ACC does not have any directly comparable games - mainly due to a schedule full of FCS games. However, they did lose the two games to teams within a game of their teams. Similarly, the Pac-10 didn't win or lose any games against similarly ranked teams. The closest was the loss to by UCLA to Kansas State.
The Big 12 and SEC have some wins over the "lower 3" conferences. However, they both have ugly loses to FCS teams.
The only unblemished conferences are the Big-10, WAC and Mountain West. All three have quality victories over Big East teams. The Big-10 also has sunbelt and MAC victories.
Big-12
Bad Loss: FCS: Kansas lost to FCS North Dakota State
Good Wins: CUSA: Texas Tech (5-3 in conference last year) over SMU (6-2 in conference)
MAC: Iowa State (3-5) over Northern Illinois (5-3)
SEC
Bad Loss: FCS: Mississippi lost to FCS Jacksonville State
Best wins: Sun Belt: Georgia over Louisiana Lafayette (both had 4-4 conference records)
Sun Belt: Auburn over Arkansas State (both had 3-5 conference records)
CUSA: South Carolina (3-5) over Southern Miss (5-3)
Big East:
Bad Losses: WAC: Cincinnati (7-0) to Fresno (6-2)
MWC: Pittsburgh (5-2) to Utah (6-2)
B10: Michigan over Connectiut
Best Wins: MAC: Syracuse (1-6) over Akron (2-6)
Big 10:
Best Wins:
Sun Belt: Minnesota (3-5) over Middle Tennessee (7-1)
MAC: Michigan State (4-4) over Western Michigan (4-4)
Big East: Michigan (3-5) over Connecticut (3-4)
No bad loses
Pac 10:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (Kansas St over UCLA is closest)
ACC:
No unexpected or comparable wins or losses (LSU over North Carolina and Boise over Virginia Tech are the closest)
Mountain West
Wins: Big East: Utah (6-2) over Pittsburgh (5-2)
loses: none
WAC:
wins: Big East: Fresno State (6-2) over Cincinnati (7-0)
loses: none
Sun Belt:
Bad Loses: B10: Middle Tennessee (7-1) to Minnesota (3-5)
SEC: Louisiana Lafayette (4-4) to Georgia (4-4)
SEC: Arkansas State (3-5) to Auburn (3-5)
Good Wins : none
Conference USA:
Bad Loses: SEC: Southern Miss (5-3) to South Carolina (3-5)
B12: SMU (6-2) to Texas Tech (5-3)
Mid American
Bad Loses: B12: Northern Illinois (5-3) to Iowa State (3-5)
BE: Akron (2-6) to Syracuse (1-6)
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Err, What happened out west?
Opening weekend, and the Pac-10 wasn't all that impressive. The mountain west showed they were good at top, and perhaps made a good "rushed invite".
Cal and Stanford engaged in a bit of Bay Area vs. Sacramento football. Alas, the Sacramento reps are all I-AA, and the Bay Area dominated. Not much to say here. But, at least they are keeping their cupcakes local. Can't say the same about ASU with their win over Portland State.
Then we move on to the 'mid-major' cupcakes. Arizona had the guts to open AT Toledo. They also managed to show why the MAC doesn't get much respect. Oregon's blowout of New Mexico shows that the Mountain West has depth problems (and the New Mexico had made a horrible coaching hire.) However, before the PAC-10 can gloat, imagine what a TCU vs. Washington State game would have been like.
USC vs. Hawaii could almost be ranked as a disappointment. Sure USC won, but they
played no defense. A Hawaii team that was not supposed to have a chance was actually in it for most of the game.
Against the top of the mountain west, Oregon State lost a close one to TCU and Washington lost a close one to BYU. Neither was totally unexpected, but the Pac-10 did lose a chance to make a statement in the two biggest games. Both were essentially home games for the Mountain West teams. (Sure, Oregon State's Jerry-dome game was technically neutral, but it was only about 2000 miles closer to Ft. Worth than Corvallis.) All 4 teams expect to go bowling this year and could reasonably earn their conference championships (though only TCU is favored.) However, it was the MWV that did the impressing.
so
Against the Big-12, the Pac-10 also laid a goose egg (not so good for a conference they nearly destroyed.) Nobody really expected Washington State to do much against Oklahoma State. But Kansas State over UCLA? I guess UCLA was on the road. Maybe hald the team showed up at the wrong Manhattan...
Overall:
3-0 vs I-AA
0-2 vs Big-12
1-2 vs Mountain West
1-0 vs WAC
1-0 vs MAC
As for the Mountain West, Colorado State lost the Colorado rivalry game and UNLV lost to Wisconsin (though they were in the game until the third quarter.) New Mexico embarrassed itself at Oregon. The top 3 teams made great showings against BCS-AQ leagues, and all the rest beat up on I-AA schools.
Overall:
2-1 vs Pac-10
1-0 vs Big East
0-1 vs Big-12
0-1 vs Big-10
3-0 vs I-AA
The WAC probably had the best opening of the western conferences. Utah State nearly pulled off the huge upset over Oklahoma. This was not supposed to be close. Hawaii was also closer than expected in the USC game. Fresno did manage to take care of business vs. Cincinnati for the best win of the opening. San Jose State managed to get its paycheck in its body bag loss, and everyone else beat up on I-AA. We still have to wait for Monday for the big game with Boise State.
1-0 vs Big East
0-1 vs Pac-10
0-1 vs Big-12
0-1 vs SEC
3-0 vs I-AA
??? vs AC
Cal and Stanford engaged in a bit of Bay Area vs. Sacramento football. Alas, the Sacramento reps are all I-AA, and the Bay Area dominated. Not much to say here. But, at least they are keeping their cupcakes local. Can't say the same about ASU with their win over Portland State.
Then we move on to the 'mid-major' cupcakes. Arizona had the guts to open AT Toledo. They also managed to show why the MAC doesn't get much respect. Oregon's blowout of New Mexico shows that the Mountain West has depth problems (and the New Mexico had made a horrible coaching hire.) However, before the PAC-10 can gloat, imagine what a TCU vs. Washington State game would have been like.
USC vs. Hawaii could almost be ranked as a disappointment. Sure USC won, but they
played no defense. A Hawaii team that was not supposed to have a chance was actually in it for most of the game.
Against the top of the mountain west, Oregon State lost a close one to TCU and Washington lost a close one to BYU. Neither was totally unexpected, but the Pac-10 did lose a chance to make a statement in the two biggest games. Both were essentially home games for the Mountain West teams. (Sure, Oregon State's Jerry-dome game was technically neutral, but it was only about 2000 miles closer to Ft. Worth than Corvallis.) All 4 teams expect to go bowling this year and could reasonably earn their conference championships (though only TCU is favored.) However, it was the MWV that did the impressing.
so
Against the Big-12, the Pac-10 also laid a goose egg (not so good for a conference they nearly destroyed.) Nobody really expected Washington State to do much against Oklahoma State. But Kansas State over UCLA? I guess UCLA was on the road. Maybe hald the team showed up at the wrong Manhattan...
Overall:
3-0 vs I-AA
0-2 vs Big-12
1-2 vs Mountain West
1-0 vs WAC
1-0 vs MAC
As for the Mountain West, Colorado State lost the Colorado rivalry game and UNLV lost to Wisconsin (though they were in the game until the third quarter.) New Mexico embarrassed itself at Oregon. The top 3 teams made great showings against BCS-AQ leagues, and all the rest beat up on I-AA schools.
Overall:
2-1 vs Pac-10
1-0 vs Big East
0-1 vs Big-12
0-1 vs Big-10
3-0 vs I-AA
The WAC probably had the best opening of the western conferences. Utah State nearly pulled off the huge upset over Oklahoma. This was not supposed to be close. Hawaii was also closer than expected in the USC game. Fresno did manage to take care of business vs. Cincinnati for the best win of the opening. San Jose State managed to get its paycheck in its body bag loss, and everyone else beat up on I-AA. We still have to wait for Monday for the big game with Boise State.
1-0 vs Big East
0-1 vs Pac-10
0-1 vs Big-12
0-1 vs SEC
3-0 vs I-AA
??? vs AC
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Jeremiah Masoli
Jeremiah Masoli decides he wants to go to Mississippi, and presto he is admitted to the Park and Recreation graduate program and ready to practice with the football team.
(Interesting: olemiss.com has a prominent like to University of Alabama... Hmmm...)
So what does it take to actually get in to that graduate program? Plenty of programs don't require a GRE and have late application deadlines. (Though perhaps he had been intending to go and had already taken any tests and applied.) Park and Rec does not exactly sound like an academically intensive program, so it is probably not a stretch that he go in.
From the website it shows an application deadline of April 1. Ok. Very likely he missed that one. However, it has "roling" in parens, so that gives them the slack to say "sure you can get in now." The Park and Recreation Management - Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management / School of Applied Sciences requirements doesn't provide anything other than requirements, while the department-wide Graduate Handbook mentions that the graduate office has a March 31 deadline and "recommends" a certain grade point average and GRE scores. It also has a mechanism for "provisional admission" for those that don't meet the requirements.
Did Masoli get special treatment in being admitted to the program? Probably. Would a non-football player in equal circumstances also have received similar treatment? Fairly likely also. Masters programs are the "bread and butter" of department revenue. An incremental student that is willing to come in and pay his tuition can help with the departments bottom line, while only causing minimal use of resources. With Masoli playing football, his use of department resources will probably be even less than the average student. From his acounts, he was a pretty smart guy who was even recruited by Harvard before his first run-in with the law. Park and Rec also does not tend to strike one as the most academically competitive of programs. It is not a stretch to think that he may rank among the "more qualified" of applicants. (However, you have to think the only reason he is in the program is because Oregon did not have a similar program.)
This brings up the NCAA rule. Is it fair that a player that graduates can immediately play at another graduate school just because his school doesn't offer a degree? Absolutely. However, it would be even more fair to allow players to go to another school that offers any degree. Just because a school offers a specific degree does not mean it is the one you are interested in. There can be a significant variation in focus, quality and instruction among programs with the same title. Athletes should be free to compete immediately (providing they have eligibility) regardless of where they go or what they study. Sure, it could be abused, but this is the type of abuse the NCAA should want to see. "Schools experience a rash of players graduating early and transferring to other schools." Isn't getting a degree supposed to be the primary focus of the programs after all? This should be rewarded. The NCAA lets players transfer freely if the football program goes under probation. Resuming athletic endeavors because the academic program no longer fits their needs is only fair.
Now on tot he curious case of Masoli. Was Oregon right in dropping him from the team? Absolutely. He may have had a couple cases of being in the "wrong place at the wrong time." Perhaps once would have been forgivable. However, lying about it was perhaps a greater crime. Once he admits to lying, the coach can no longer trust him, and has no choice but to let events speak for themselves. When he was caught with the marijuana, Oregon really had no choice to boot him. He could have claimed some Beaver fans planted it, but nobody would believe him due to his untrustworthiness. The Pac-10 is not the SEC. They actually expect their players to obey the law. If he truly was a good guy that just happened to be running with a bad crowd, then getting booted should be a benefit. It would allow him to go elsewhere and find better friends, thus helping to show his innocence.
The typical player in his situation would probably have dropped out of school and entered the NFL supplementary draft. Masoli, however, finished his degree. Sociology is a real degree, not a tough one like engineering, though not a "fake" one like PE. That he was willing to graduate shows that he is actually somewhat serious in his academic pursuits. You could probably count on one finger the number of players that are booted from a team and eligible to transfer because they graduated. Mississippi did the right thing in letting him walk on to the team. He proved he was able to get things done even in adversity. He had no more chance at Oregon, but showed enough resolution to continue elsewhere.
(Interesting: olemiss.com has a prominent like to University of Alabama... Hmmm...)
So what does it take to actually get in to that graduate program? Plenty of programs don't require a GRE and have late application deadlines. (Though perhaps he had been intending to go and had already taken any tests and applied.) Park and Rec does not exactly sound like an academically intensive program, so it is probably not a stretch that he go in.
From the website it shows an application deadline of April 1. Ok. Very likely he missed that one. However, it has "roling" in parens, so that gives them the slack to say "sure you can get in now." The Park and Recreation Management - Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management / School of Applied Sciences requirements doesn't provide anything other than requirements, while the department-wide Graduate Handbook mentions that the graduate office has a March 31 deadline and "recommends" a certain grade point average and GRE scores. It also has a mechanism for "provisional admission" for those that don't meet the requirements.
Did Masoli get special treatment in being admitted to the program? Probably. Would a non-football player in equal circumstances also have received similar treatment? Fairly likely also. Masters programs are the "bread and butter" of department revenue. An incremental student that is willing to come in and pay his tuition can help with the departments bottom line, while only causing minimal use of resources. With Masoli playing football, his use of department resources will probably be even less than the average student. From his acounts, he was a pretty smart guy who was even recruited by Harvard before his first run-in with the law. Park and Rec also does not tend to strike one as the most academically competitive of programs. It is not a stretch to think that he may rank among the "more qualified" of applicants. (However, you have to think the only reason he is in the program is because Oregon did not have a similar program.)
This brings up the NCAA rule. Is it fair that a player that graduates can immediately play at another graduate school just because his school doesn't offer a degree? Absolutely. However, it would be even more fair to allow players to go to another school that offers any degree. Just because a school offers a specific degree does not mean it is the one you are interested in. There can be a significant variation in focus, quality and instruction among programs with the same title. Athletes should be free to compete immediately (providing they have eligibility) regardless of where they go or what they study. Sure, it could be abused, but this is the type of abuse the NCAA should want to see. "Schools experience a rash of players graduating early and transferring to other schools." Isn't getting a degree supposed to be the primary focus of the programs after all? This should be rewarded. The NCAA lets players transfer freely if the football program goes under probation. Resuming athletic endeavors because the academic program no longer fits their needs is only fair.
Now on tot he curious case of Masoli. Was Oregon right in dropping him from the team? Absolutely. He may have had a couple cases of being in the "wrong place at the wrong time." Perhaps once would have been forgivable. However, lying about it was perhaps a greater crime. Once he admits to lying, the coach can no longer trust him, and has no choice but to let events speak for themselves. When he was caught with the marijuana, Oregon really had no choice to boot him. He could have claimed some Beaver fans planted it, but nobody would believe him due to his untrustworthiness. The Pac-10 is not the SEC. They actually expect their players to obey the law. If he truly was a good guy that just happened to be running with a bad crowd, then getting booted should be a benefit. It would allow him to go elsewhere and find better friends, thus helping to show his innocence.
The typical player in his situation would probably have dropped out of school and entered the NFL supplementary draft. Masoli, however, finished his degree. Sociology is a real degree, not a tough one like engineering, though not a "fake" one like PE. That he was willing to graduate shows that he is actually somewhat serious in his academic pursuits. You could probably count on one finger the number of players that are booted from a team and eligible to transfer because they graduated. Mississippi did the right thing in letting him walk on to the team. He proved he was able to get things done even in adversity. He had no more chance at Oregon, but showed enough resolution to continue elsewhere.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Can the Big 12 be saved?
Nebraska is rumored to be ready to bolt to the Big 10. Colorado is rumored to be ready to bolt to the Pac-10. (Hmmm. Big-12 with 10 schools and Big-10 with 12 schools. Perhaps they can engineer a name swap.) The remainder of the Big-12 south (minus Baylor) has a rumored invite to the Pac-10.
Can the Big-12 save itself?
One option would be to just continue the conference with 10 teams. This would create some issues with staging a Big-12 championship game in Dallas in 2013, though that could probably be worked out. The conference would lose one national power in Nebraska and one potentially large media market in Denver. However, most of the strength would be intact. They may lose the ability to fill one of the lower tier bowls. However, they would likely be able to continue placing two teams in the BCS bowls. The loss of revenue from the championship game would hurt. However, the breakup fees and the fewer teams could leave each team about even financially for the short term.
They could also go aggressive. Invite BYU and Air Force. Both fit nicely in north division and have strong local followings as well as national followings. (If Colorado goes to the Pac-10 without the Big-12 south, it will likely go with Utah.) But why stop there when they can go to the first mega conference. TCU and Houston or New Mexico could be added to the south division. Boise State and Colorado State (or Wyoming) be picks for the north division. (Boise would give the most immediate credibility in football, though it is more of a geographic outlier.)
The new Big-16 could probably argue that the north division deserves the automatic bid that the Mountain West was on the cusp of receiving. Thus, the 2 BCS bids would be locked up. The conference would add to its stranglehold on the Texas market. Utah would be a significant market addition. Colorado would remain fairly strong. Idaho, Wyoming or New Mexico would add somewhat smaller markets.
On the football field, the north would probably remain the weaker part of the conference. However, it will likely be highly competitive, with plenty quality programs.
A Big-12 expansion would leave the mountain west out of existence. San Diego State, UNLV and any other remainders could join the WAC. This is probably nearer to their current level of competition as well as being closer to geographic rivals.
Could the Big 12 pull it off and survive? It seems unlikely now, but we will see how it all fleshes out.
Can the Big-12 save itself?
One option would be to just continue the conference with 10 teams. This would create some issues with staging a Big-12 championship game in Dallas in 2013, though that could probably be worked out. The conference would lose one national power in Nebraska and one potentially large media market in Denver. However, most of the strength would be intact. They may lose the ability to fill one of the lower tier bowls. However, they would likely be able to continue placing two teams in the BCS bowls. The loss of revenue from the championship game would hurt. However, the breakup fees and the fewer teams could leave each team about even financially for the short term.
They could also go aggressive. Invite BYU and Air Force. Both fit nicely in north division and have strong local followings as well as national followings. (If Colorado goes to the Pac-10 without the Big-12 south, it will likely go with Utah.) But why stop there when they can go to the first mega conference. TCU and Houston or New Mexico could be added to the south division. Boise State and Colorado State (or Wyoming) be picks for the north division. (Boise would give the most immediate credibility in football, though it is more of a geographic outlier.)
The new Big-16 could probably argue that the north division deserves the automatic bid that the Mountain West was on the cusp of receiving. Thus, the 2 BCS bids would be locked up. The conference would add to its stranglehold on the Texas market. Utah would be a significant market addition. Colorado would remain fairly strong. Idaho, Wyoming or New Mexico would add somewhat smaller markets.
On the football field, the north would probably remain the weaker part of the conference. However, it will likely be highly competitive, with plenty quality programs.
A Big-12 expansion would leave the mountain west out of existence. San Diego State, UNLV and any other remainders could join the WAC. This is probably nearer to their current level of competition as well as being closer to geographic rivals.
Could the Big 12 pull it off and survive? It seems unlikely now, but we will see how it all fleshes out.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Pac-10 Expansion Rumors
Some new Pac-10 Expansion Rumors have the Pac-10 inviting Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Colorado. Basically, they take the Big-12 south, but exchange Colorado for Baylor. (Will some politicians come to rescue Baylor this time?)
If this comes to fruition, Baylor and Iowa State will probably be in the most trouble. The other four teams could probably fend for themselves. One possibility would be a merger of the remaining teams with the Mountain West. If the 6 remaining teams could claim to be the "Big-12", they could invite Utah, BYU, TCU, Colorado State, Air Force and one other team (Boise State?) and maintain their BCS qualification.
If the Pac-10 forms a mega-conference, a more likely scenario would see the Big-10 doing so also. Nebraska and Missouri would be logical choices. Pittsburgh and Rutgers from the Big East would also be likely. Who would the final school be? Syracuse? Notre Dame? This would leave the Big East all put dead as a football conference. If the ACC is willing to jump in the mega-conference game, it could add a few of the remaining teams. South Florida could even hope that the SEC goes the mega-conference route.
As for the remaining Big-12 teams, the Mountain West conference seems like a good fit for Kansas and Kansas State. If they add Boise State, that will give them 12 members. Baylor could probably find a home in Conference USA, with Iowa State struggling to find a fit. (Perhaps the MAC will work for geographical expediency.)
However, there are a number of big why's. Why would the Pac-10 stoop so far below themselves? Texas is a good fit in everything but geography. The athletics, academics and culture all mesh well with the Pac-10. Colorado is another great fit with the Pac-10. It doesn't have a TV market as large as Texas, but Colorado is growing nicely. Texas A&M is decent, with similar academic and athletic performance, though it is culturally more conservative. The TV market would significantly overlap with Texas, but would help to lock in the state of Texas.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are a little more dicey. They both have strong athletic records. However, they are a step below the Pac-10 academically. Oklahoma is not a big TV market. However, they do have somewhat of a national following.
Texas Tech is the big question mark. Their teams are ok. The academics are so, so. And the TV market? Well, Lubbock does rank in the top 150 TV markets. You will find some Tech fans throughout the state, but not much to worry about. Tech also breaks with the nice two-symmetry in the conference. Why not add Utah instead and get a better institutional match, along with a Colorado/Utah mountain pair. Or perhaps Air Force and get a Colorado pair.
Perhaps it is simply a plot to reduce travel. Send the Arizona schools off with the others, and you have a nice West coast mini conference that only has to head over the mountains for a championship game. Or perhaps it is an attempt to totally break the Big-12 in order to make it easier to get the prize (Texas). We will see.
If this comes to fruition, Baylor and Iowa State will probably be in the most trouble. The other four teams could probably fend for themselves. One possibility would be a merger of the remaining teams with the Mountain West. If the 6 remaining teams could claim to be the "Big-12", they could invite Utah, BYU, TCU, Colorado State, Air Force and one other team (Boise State?) and maintain their BCS qualification.
If the Pac-10 forms a mega-conference, a more likely scenario would see the Big-10 doing so also. Nebraska and Missouri would be logical choices. Pittsburgh and Rutgers from the Big East would also be likely. Who would the final school be? Syracuse? Notre Dame? This would leave the Big East all put dead as a football conference. If the ACC is willing to jump in the mega-conference game, it could add a few of the remaining teams. South Florida could even hope that the SEC goes the mega-conference route.
As for the remaining Big-12 teams, the Mountain West conference seems like a good fit for Kansas and Kansas State. If they add Boise State, that will give them 12 members. Baylor could probably find a home in Conference USA, with Iowa State struggling to find a fit. (Perhaps the MAC will work for geographical expediency.)
However, there are a number of big why's. Why would the Pac-10 stoop so far below themselves? Texas is a good fit in everything but geography. The athletics, academics and culture all mesh well with the Pac-10. Colorado is another great fit with the Pac-10. It doesn't have a TV market as large as Texas, but Colorado is growing nicely. Texas A&M is decent, with similar academic and athletic performance, though it is culturally more conservative. The TV market would significantly overlap with Texas, but would help to lock in the state of Texas.
Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are a little more dicey. They both have strong athletic records. However, they are a step below the Pac-10 academically. Oklahoma is not a big TV market. However, they do have somewhat of a national following.
Texas Tech is the big question mark. Their teams are ok. The academics are so, so. And the TV market? Well, Lubbock does rank in the top 150 TV markets. You will find some Tech fans throughout the state, but not much to worry about. Tech also breaks with the nice two-symmetry in the conference. Why not add Utah instead and get a better institutional match, along with a Colorado/Utah mountain pair. Or perhaps Air Force and get a Colorado pair.
Perhaps it is simply a plot to reduce travel. Send the Arizona schools off with the others, and you have a nice West coast mini conference that only has to head over the mountains for a championship game. Or perhaps it is an attempt to totally break the Big-12 in order to make it easier to get the prize (Texas). We will see.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Winners and losers in NCAA conference expansion
The Big-10 is exploring adding an additional team. The Pac-10 is looking at expanding. The Mountain West would like a BCS bid. Who will be the winners and losers?
Most Likely Winner: Utah. In almost all scenarios they would end up ahead. If the Big-10 poaches a Big-East school, that will improve the position of the Mountain West vs. Big East. A team like Pitt would be almost impossible to replace. If the Mountain West added Boise State it would make them shoulders above the Big East and just about guarantee an automatic bid (perhaps even replacing the Big East's bid.)
If the Pac-10 expanded, Utah is one of the most likely candidates, geographically, economically and culturally. The only Pac-10 expansion scenario that wouldn't include Utah would be an unlikely Texas bid - which could leave Utah in prime position to take a spot in the Big-12.
The worst-case scenario for Utah would be for Notre Dame to join the Big 10. This would free up a "basketball only" spot in the Big East, and let the Big East grab another basketball/football team. While replacing Pitt with East Carolina would hurt the conference, adding East Carolina would help the conference in football.
Most Likely Loser: Big-12. The Big-12 could very well be on life-support if the expansion scenarios play out. The top candidates for expansion are schools on the periphery of the Big-12: Missouri and Colorado. If either of these leave, they take a whole state with them, with little opportunity to get it back without stretching way beyond the current 'footprint'. There is pretty much no other big program in Missouri. In Colorado, the conference could attempt to hold its position by seeking Colorado State or Air Force. However, they have much less sway on the Denver TVs than Colorado. And if the Mountain West gets an automatic bid, they would have little incentive to switch conferences.
TCU, Houston, Rice and SMU would be good candidates to join the conference, bringing it closer to the old Southwest Conference. They all have shown signs of life, playing competitive football in at least one of the last two seasons. TCU is the powerhouse of them, and could probably compete for the Big-12 championship right off the bat.
The big problem is that they don't add any new markets to the conference. With Texas and Texas A&M, the Dallas and Houston markets are well covered. While TCU adds the Ft. Worth market to the Mountain West, they add pretty much nothing to the Big-12. A move to the conference would be a media loss for both.
Assuming Colorado and Utah go to the Pac-10, BYU would probably be the best possible replacement. They travel well and have a significant following, without being two far out of the conference footprint. They would also fit nicely in the northern division.
If Missouri and Colorado leave, things get dicier. Perhaps the conference says goodbye to markets and goes for TCU and another Texas team (or even all 4 to expand to a 14 team conference) Or perhaps the conference becomes west oriented with Air Force and BYU. At least that gives them a presence in those markets.
The timing matters: If the Big-10 said today that Pitt really is going to join the conference, the Big East would have to start moving quickly. With the eight non-football teams, the conference really can't easily expand to a 12 team football conference. Perhaps they "combine" with the Mountain West to create an east-west championship game for a BCS bid. This could forestall a Utah/BYU jump. Or maybe the Big-12 jumps the gun and invites TCU in as an insurance policy. Or maybe there is a total left-field move with unexpected teams jumping conferences.
Most Likely Winner: Utah. In almost all scenarios they would end up ahead. If the Big-10 poaches a Big-East school, that will improve the position of the Mountain West vs. Big East. A team like Pitt would be almost impossible to replace. If the Mountain West added Boise State it would make them shoulders above the Big East and just about guarantee an automatic bid (perhaps even replacing the Big East's bid.)
If the Pac-10 expanded, Utah is one of the most likely candidates, geographically, economically and culturally. The only Pac-10 expansion scenario that wouldn't include Utah would be an unlikely Texas bid - which could leave Utah in prime position to take a spot in the Big-12.
The worst-case scenario for Utah would be for Notre Dame to join the Big 10. This would free up a "basketball only" spot in the Big East, and let the Big East grab another basketball/football team. While replacing Pitt with East Carolina would hurt the conference, adding East Carolina would help the conference in football.
Most Likely Loser: Big-12. The Big-12 could very well be on life-support if the expansion scenarios play out. The top candidates for expansion are schools on the periphery of the Big-12: Missouri and Colorado. If either of these leave, they take a whole state with them, with little opportunity to get it back without stretching way beyond the current 'footprint'. There is pretty much no other big program in Missouri. In Colorado, the conference could attempt to hold its position by seeking Colorado State or Air Force. However, they have much less sway on the Denver TVs than Colorado. And if the Mountain West gets an automatic bid, they would have little incentive to switch conferences.
TCU, Houston, Rice and SMU would be good candidates to join the conference, bringing it closer to the old Southwest Conference. They all have shown signs of life, playing competitive football in at least one of the last two seasons. TCU is the powerhouse of them, and could probably compete for the Big-12 championship right off the bat.
The big problem is that they don't add any new markets to the conference. With Texas and Texas A&M, the Dallas and Houston markets are well covered. While TCU adds the Ft. Worth market to the Mountain West, they add pretty much nothing to the Big-12. A move to the conference would be a media loss for both.
Assuming Colorado and Utah go to the Pac-10, BYU would probably be the best possible replacement. They travel well and have a significant following, without being two far out of the conference footprint. They would also fit nicely in the northern division.
If Missouri and Colorado leave, things get dicier. Perhaps the conference says goodbye to markets and goes for TCU and another Texas team (or even all 4 to expand to a 14 team conference) Or perhaps the conference becomes west oriented with Air Force and BYU. At least that gives them a presence in those markets.
The timing matters: If the Big-10 said today that Pitt really is going to join the conference, the Big East would have to start moving quickly. With the eight non-football teams, the conference really can't easily expand to a 12 team football conference. Perhaps they "combine" with the Mountain West to create an east-west championship game for a BCS bid. This could forestall a Utah/BYU jump. Or maybe the Big-12 jumps the gun and invites TCU in as an insurance policy. Or maybe there is a total left-field move with unexpected teams jumping conferences.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Pac-10 Expansion Scenarios
The Pac-10 has mentioned that it is joining the Big-10 in being 'open' to conference expansion. The decisions made could lead to a spiral effect in all the conferences.
Big 10: Add Pitt (They have a good market, so they'll go for another big Pennsylvania school to balance with Penn State.)
Pac-10: Add Utah and Colorado. (They'll go for entering new TV markets with major research schools.)
In this secenario, the Big East, Big-12 and Mountain West would have to scramble for new teams. The Big East may go for Memphis to replace Pitt. They may not have many choices. With a large basketball-only portion of the conference, the Big East would have a tough time adding any additional schools.
The Mountain West would quickly add Boise State. Teams like Fresno and Nevada may be next on the list. With the loss of Utah, the Mountain West may have a tougher sell for a BCS inclusion. However, the formation of 5 'mega-conferences' may be beneficial. The Big East and Mountain West could form their own lose 'mega-conference', with the winner of each conference playing for an automatic BCS birth. (This would also provide a nice little bit of additional revenue, and help forestall demotion of the Big East.)
The Big-12 would have bigger conundrum. TCU would be an easy choice. However, with Texas Tech, Texas, and Texas A&M, the Dallas/Ft. Worth market is already covered. Thus TCU would not add any new markets. It would also create a mess with the south division. Another alternative would be to add TCU, SMU and Houston. This would revive the old Southwest Conference (minus Rice). This would allow for an all-Texas south division. Or alternatively, they could try to get Memphis (or even BYU.)
What should be the criteria for picking schools for a conference?
Some useful stats could be:
1) Home football and basketball stadium size and attendance. These are the big money earners for a conference. It would be best to have a team that could hold their own here.
2) Director's Cup Standings. This is an indication of the breadth of the overall athletic program. The Pac-10, always ranks high here. Having a team that fields teams in a large number of sports helps to keep all things viable.
3) Football and basketball rankings. A team that has good postseason runs to add the the conference coffers would be ideal.
4) Us News Ranking. Though there are a million gripes about these rankings, it does put an easy number on the quality of academics at a school. Most of the Pac-10 schools rank high here, so a similar academic heavyweight would be desired.
5) Non-overlapping TV Market size. This is a little more tricky. You can look at the local area and assume that a lot of the locals would be fans of the team. However, you also have to look at where the aluni and other fans are. For example, there are probably more Texas grads in Ft. Worth than TCU grads, thus there is little new market added with Texas and TCU in the same conference.
6) Culture, Synergies, rivalries and other intangibles. TCU could probably sell a lot more tickets to games vs. A&M and Texas than New Mexico and UNLV. BYU's conservative culture may clash with the liberal Pac-10 culture. The Pac-10 has schools in twos, thus adding BYU and Utah may be a logical fit.
Big 10: Add Pitt (They have a good market, so they'll go for another big Pennsylvania school to balance with Penn State.)
Pac-10: Add Utah and Colorado. (They'll go for entering new TV markets with major research schools.)
In this secenario, the Big East, Big-12 and Mountain West would have to scramble for new teams. The Big East may go for Memphis to replace Pitt. They may not have many choices. With a large basketball-only portion of the conference, the Big East would have a tough time adding any additional schools.
The Mountain West would quickly add Boise State. Teams like Fresno and Nevada may be next on the list. With the loss of Utah, the Mountain West may have a tougher sell for a BCS inclusion. However, the formation of 5 'mega-conferences' may be beneficial. The Big East and Mountain West could form their own lose 'mega-conference', with the winner of each conference playing for an automatic BCS birth. (This would also provide a nice little bit of additional revenue, and help forestall demotion of the Big East.)
The Big-12 would have bigger conundrum. TCU would be an easy choice. However, with Texas Tech, Texas, and Texas A&M, the Dallas/Ft. Worth market is already covered. Thus TCU would not add any new markets. It would also create a mess with the south division. Another alternative would be to add TCU, SMU and Houston. This would revive the old Southwest Conference (minus Rice). This would allow for an all-Texas south division. Or alternatively, they could try to get Memphis (or even BYU.)
What should be the criteria for picking schools for a conference?
Some useful stats could be:
1) Home football and basketball stadium size and attendance. These are the big money earners for a conference. It would be best to have a team that could hold their own here.
2) Director's Cup Standings. This is an indication of the breadth of the overall athletic program. The Pac-10, always ranks high here. Having a team that fields teams in a large number of sports helps to keep all things viable.
3) Football and basketball rankings. A team that has good postseason runs to add the the conference coffers would be ideal.
4) Us News Ranking. Though there are a million gripes about these rankings, it does put an easy number on the quality of academics at a school. Most of the Pac-10 schools rank high here, so a similar academic heavyweight would be desired.
5) Non-overlapping TV Market size. This is a little more tricky. You can look at the local area and assume that a lot of the locals would be fans of the team. However, you also have to look at where the aluni and other fans are. For example, there are probably more Texas grads in Ft. Worth than TCU grads, thus there is little new market added with Texas and TCU in the same conference.
6) Culture, Synergies, rivalries and other intangibles. TCU could probably sell a lot more tickets to games vs. A&M and Texas than New Mexico and UNLV. BYU's conservative culture may clash with the liberal Pac-10 culture. The Pac-10 has schools in twos, thus adding BYU and Utah may be a logical fit.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Grading the Pac-10 bowl performances.
The Pac-10 had a great regular season, but then managed to stink it up during the bowl season. This is not the type of grade to be repeated.
UCLA: A. (30-21 vs. Temple) The Pac-10 was arguable one of the top two BCS conferences during the regular season. Temple finished second in their division in the non-BCS Conference USA and hasn't been to a bowl in 30 years. How can this be the best win of the PAC-10? Well, UCLA hasn't been to a bowl in a few years. And they were playing in a cold east coast stadium, just down the road from Temple. But most important of all, UCLA won.
USC: B. (24-13 vs. Boston College) USC won a bowl game. Yep, they did. They played in California, and beat some team that traveled a few thousand miles to get there. The difference was that they played an ACC team in San Francisco instead of a Big-10 in Pasadena. They didn't look great, but a win is a win.
Stanford: C (27-31 vs. Oklahoma) Stanford kept it close. Unfortunately, Stanford hasn't exactly been good in close games. Other than Notre Dame, all games decided by less than a touchdown ended up loses for the Cardinal. Oklahoma and Stanford were both missing their star quarterbacks. However, Oklahoma had at least had a season to deal with it. Stanford has just had the past few weeks to adapt to the replacement. Would Luck have allowed them to score an extra touchdown? Probably.
California: C- (27-37 vs. Utah) Cal has been hit or miss all season. (And as pretty during the entire Tedford era.) Utah was ranked higher, but they have beaten pretty much nobody. Both teams lost to Oregon. Both are coming of nasty loses to end the season. (Though Cal did manage to win the rivalry Big Game in the penultimate game.) It looked like the 'good Cal' was there during the first quarter. Unfortunately, the Bad Cal showed up for the rest of the game.
Oregon State: D (20-44 vs. BYU) Both teams were in the top-20. BYU was one spot ahead of OSU. However, OSU was, for some reason, favored to win. Perhaps oddsmakers did not realize that BYU has played in the Las Vegas bowl for the last five seasons, and thus has a little experience dealing with the horrid late December weather in Las Vegas. Perhaps they didn't realize that OSU would be coming off a downer after missing out on the Rose bowl by less than a touchdown. Regardless, Oregon State looked bad in the loss.
Arizona: F (0-33 vs. Nebraska). Nebraska was ranked a couple of spots higher. That should imply a close game, not a blowout. Unfortunately, it seemed as if Arizona simply forgot to show up. The Nebraska offense only scored more points against the likes of Arkansas State, Louisiana -Lafayette and Florida Atlantic. Even three-win Colorado managed a much closer game. Maybe San Diego was a little too exciting for the Wildcats.
Oregon: F (17-26 vs. Ohio State). The Big 10 always loses the Rose Bowl. Ohio State always loses its bowl games. Oregon and Ohio State had two common opponents. Oregon beat Purdue by two and USC by 27. Ohio State lost to Purdue by eight and USC by three. Both teams had not been to the Rose Bowl in a while, but playing in BSC bowls is routine for Ohio State, while Oregon is much more hungry for a big bowl. All signs should point to an easy Oregon win. They deserve in F for the faceplant on the big stage.
UCLA: A. (30-21 vs. Temple) The Pac-10 was arguable one of the top two BCS conferences during the regular season. Temple finished second in their division in the non-BCS Conference USA and hasn't been to a bowl in 30 years. How can this be the best win of the PAC-10? Well, UCLA hasn't been to a bowl in a few years. And they were playing in a cold east coast stadium, just down the road from Temple. But most important of all, UCLA won.
USC: B. (24-13 vs. Boston College) USC won a bowl game. Yep, they did. They played in California, and beat some team that traveled a few thousand miles to get there. The difference was that they played an ACC team in San Francisco instead of a Big-10 in Pasadena. They didn't look great, but a win is a win.
Stanford: C (27-31 vs. Oklahoma) Stanford kept it close. Unfortunately, Stanford hasn't exactly been good in close games. Other than Notre Dame, all games decided by less than a touchdown ended up loses for the Cardinal. Oklahoma and Stanford were both missing their star quarterbacks. However, Oklahoma had at least had a season to deal with it. Stanford has just had the past few weeks to adapt to the replacement. Would Luck have allowed them to score an extra touchdown? Probably.
California: C- (27-37 vs. Utah) Cal has been hit or miss all season. (And as pretty during the entire Tedford era.) Utah was ranked higher, but they have beaten pretty much nobody. Both teams lost to Oregon. Both are coming of nasty loses to end the season. (Though Cal did manage to win the rivalry Big Game in the penultimate game.) It looked like the 'good Cal' was there during the first quarter. Unfortunately, the Bad Cal showed up for the rest of the game.
Oregon State: D (20-44 vs. BYU) Both teams were in the top-20. BYU was one spot ahead of OSU. However, OSU was, for some reason, favored to win. Perhaps oddsmakers did not realize that BYU has played in the Las Vegas bowl for the last five seasons, and thus has a little experience dealing with the horrid late December weather in Las Vegas. Perhaps they didn't realize that OSU would be coming off a downer after missing out on the Rose bowl by less than a touchdown. Regardless, Oregon State looked bad in the loss.
Arizona: F (0-33 vs. Nebraska). Nebraska was ranked a couple of spots higher. That should imply a close game, not a blowout. Unfortunately, it seemed as if Arizona simply forgot to show up. The Nebraska offense only scored more points against the likes of Arkansas State, Louisiana -Lafayette and Florida Atlantic. Even three-win Colorado managed a much closer game. Maybe San Diego was a little too exciting for the Wildcats.
Oregon: F (17-26 vs. Ohio State). The Big 10 always loses the Rose Bowl. Ohio State always loses its bowl games. Oregon and Ohio State had two common opponents. Oregon beat Purdue by two and USC by 27. Ohio State lost to Purdue by eight and USC by three. Both teams had not been to the Rose Bowl in a while, but playing in BSC bowls is routine for Ohio State, while Oregon is much more hungry for a big bowl. All signs should point to an easy Oregon win. They deserve in F for the faceplant on the big stage.
Friday, September 26, 2008
USC's loss - good for the PAC-10
The Pac-10 has completed most of their non-conference football schedule intact. A .500 winning percentage is not all that bad - especially when you consider they were playing real competition, as opposed to the I-AA home fluff the certain southern conferences like to play.
With only USC currently ranked, there is not a lot of chance that another team would make it to a BCS bowl, so the best shot at a big money postseason would be for a lot of teams to play in bowls. Six wins are needed for bowls. With an even nonconference won-loss mark, all it would take is a balanced conference schedule and everyone could end up 6-6 and play in bowls.
There are also a few nonconference games remaining:
Oregon State at Utah
Washington at Notre Dame
Washington State at Hawaii
UCLA at Fresno State
Notre Dame at USC
Stanford at Notre Dame
Colorado State at Cal
None of the games look like a sure thing in either direction. However, Utah will probably beat Oregon State (The Beavers have done great at home, but miserable on the road.) USC will probably beat Note Dame. Cal should beat Colorado State. Stanford and Washington at Notre Dame could be difficult to predict. We'll give it a split. UCLA is on a miserable streak, and will probably continue that against Fresno. Hawaii is nothing like they were last year, and will probably lose to Washington State. That would leave the pac-10 up a game for nonconference (with Washington state playing an extra game.) So, there still is a possibility that everyone qualifies for a bowl.
However, a more likely scenario would see the Washington schools continue to stink it up, with UCLA still feeding at the bottom. Cal and Oregon are really not in that bad a position. Oregon's lone loss is to Boise State. That Boise State team that has one of the best records over the past 5 years... Oh, and Oregon was playing with the 5th-string quarterback. Boise will likely increase in the rankings, increasing Oregon's BCS rank (and Purdue may have some surprises) If the QBs can stay healthy, Oregon could win 8 or 9 more games, and be in a position for a BCS bowl. Cal also has some could excuses - after all, there lone loss was after a cross country trip to play an early game in Maryland. If they run the table, they should qualify. However, since Oregon, USC and Cal have yet to play each other, one will end up with two loses. (And Cal still has to play a Mountain West team!)
Another scenario has Oregon State winning the remainder of its conference games, and USC winning the rest of its games. USC would probably still rank high enough and have the cachet to be taken as an at-large BCS pick. Oregon State, by virtue of their head-to-head victory over USC would be the conference champ (even if they lose to Utah, they would still be 9-3). Seeing two Pac-10 teams in the big bowls would really irk some of those southern conferences, but so be it.
On to more realistic conditions, the Pac-10 has arrangements with 7 bowls. Can 7 teams make it? USC, Oregon, and Cal should easily qualify. Arizona needs just three more wins. Unfortunately, the competition will be a little tougher than Idaho. If they can beat the 2 Washington schools, and eak out one other win (perhaps Oregon State, or in-state rival ASU), they would be in. ASU has the tough part of its schedule coming up with Cal, Oregon and USC. They would probably need to win at least one of those to keep from getting too demoralized. But even if they lose, they have the Washingtons, UCLA and Arizona.
That would leave Stanford and Oregon State. Stanford can be totally unpredictable. Perhaps a win at USC and loss at Washington? 4 more wins is a possibility. However, that would require winning something on the road. Oregon State may have a tougher time. However, if they continue their string of winning at home, they can do it. (Though it would entail beating Cal, ASU, and Oregon.) They also have a 13 game schedule. (Would that require 7 wins to be eligible?) UCLA? Well, if they find their Tennessee form, they could be back in the picture. Washington? Their schedule is often ranked the toughest in IA football. They could turn things around when they start playing unranked teams. Washinton State? Well they lost to Baylor. I'd give the conference about 70% odds of filling all the spots.
With only USC currently ranked, there is not a lot of chance that another team would make it to a BCS bowl, so the best shot at a big money postseason would be for a lot of teams to play in bowls. Six wins are needed for bowls. With an even nonconference won-loss mark, all it would take is a balanced conference schedule and everyone could end up 6-6 and play in bowls.
There are also a few nonconference games remaining:
Oregon State at Utah
Washington at Notre Dame
Washington State at Hawaii
UCLA at Fresno State
Notre Dame at USC
Stanford at Notre Dame
Colorado State at Cal
None of the games look like a sure thing in either direction. However, Utah will probably beat Oregon State (The Beavers have done great at home, but miserable on the road.) USC will probably beat Note Dame. Cal should beat Colorado State. Stanford and Washington at Notre Dame could be difficult to predict. We'll give it a split. UCLA is on a miserable streak, and will probably continue that against Fresno. Hawaii is nothing like they were last year, and will probably lose to Washington State. That would leave the pac-10 up a game for nonconference (with Washington state playing an extra game.) So, there still is a possibility that everyone qualifies for a bowl.
However, a more likely scenario would see the Washington schools continue to stink it up, with UCLA still feeding at the bottom. Cal and Oregon are really not in that bad a position. Oregon's lone loss is to Boise State. That Boise State team that has one of the best records over the past 5 years... Oh, and Oregon was playing with the 5th-string quarterback. Boise will likely increase in the rankings, increasing Oregon's BCS rank (and Purdue may have some surprises) If the QBs can stay healthy, Oregon could win 8 or 9 more games, and be in a position for a BCS bowl. Cal also has some could excuses - after all, there lone loss was after a cross country trip to play an early game in Maryland. If they run the table, they should qualify. However, since Oregon, USC and Cal have yet to play each other, one will end up with two loses. (And Cal still has to play a Mountain West team!)
Another scenario has Oregon State winning the remainder of its conference games, and USC winning the rest of its games. USC would probably still rank high enough and have the cachet to be taken as an at-large BCS pick. Oregon State, by virtue of their head-to-head victory over USC would be the conference champ (even if they lose to Utah, they would still be 9-3). Seeing two Pac-10 teams in the big bowls would really irk some of those southern conferences, but so be it.
On to more realistic conditions, the Pac-10 has arrangements with 7 bowls. Can 7 teams make it? USC, Oregon, and Cal should easily qualify. Arizona needs just three more wins. Unfortunately, the competition will be a little tougher than Idaho. If they can beat the 2 Washington schools, and eak out one other win (perhaps Oregon State, or in-state rival ASU), they would be in. ASU has the tough part of its schedule coming up with Cal, Oregon and USC. They would probably need to win at least one of those to keep from getting too demoralized. But even if they lose, they have the Washingtons, UCLA and Arizona.
That would leave Stanford and Oregon State. Stanford can be totally unpredictable. Perhaps a win at USC and loss at Washington? 4 more wins is a possibility. However, that would require winning something on the road. Oregon State may have a tougher time. However, if they continue their string of winning at home, they can do it. (Though it would entail beating Cal, ASU, and Oregon.) They also have a 13 game schedule. (Would that require 7 wins to be eligible?) UCLA? Well, if they find their Tennessee form, they could be back in the picture. Washington? Their schedule is often ranked the toughest in IA football. They could turn things around when they start playing unranked teams. Washinton State? Well they lost to Baylor. I'd give the conference about 70% odds of filling all the spots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)