Friday, June 11, 2010

Conference Chaos


No other sports development in recent memory has captivated me like the conference chaos we are currently seeing in college athletics. Maybe it is the twitter-verse because it seems that every 15 minutes something new and earth-shattering is breaking there. In our rush to know the latest, however, we sometimes get too far out ahead of the story and have to reel ourselves back in. Here are some thoughts on the things that we do know:

1) Colorado is gone from the Big 12. The Buffs accepted the Pac-10's invite and are not looking back. This alone does not spell the end of the Big 12 but it certainly does not look good for the conference considering all of the other rumors that are circulating at a tornado like pace. Colorado was a weak sister in the Big 12 and they improve their standing in the college sports landscape if, big IF, they are the only defection from the Big 12 into the academic pantheon of the Pac-10. (By the way Pac-10 eggheads with your tweed jackets and elbow pads, Colorado just lost 6 scholarships for having one of the worst performing groups of "scholar athletes" in the country. Good luck with that.)

2) Nebraska aiming for Big 10. Unlike the Colorado move, this does have the potential to destroy the conference, at least that is what we are lead to believe. The Cornhuskers are easily the most dominant program in the North Division and their departure at the very least knocks the Big 12 off their feet. Can they get back up? Yes. Do they want to? That is the bigger question. It seems to me that Nebraska is the Dr. Kevorkian in this drama, the Huskers are not killing the Conference, they are assisting a suicide. Texas, A&M, OU, Okie State and the rest (except Baylor) all see greener pastures to the east (SEC) and the west (Pac-10), but nobody wants to be the bad guy...Nebraska going to the Big 10 would provide UT and the rest with a patsy on whom to pin the blame.

3) The love of TV Money is the root of all evil. I am a realist, an optimistic realist, but a realist none the less. I know that money, especially tv money, is what is driving the bus on conference realignment. I can accept that as a harsh reality of college athletics but that does not mean I have to like it. As much as I love college sports, and I really love college sports, thinking about the things that college coaches and administrators do to win at all costs, or bring in their obscenely large amounts of cash, makes me want to take a shower.

Some quick thoughts: Texas and A&M need to stick together...Conferences can come and go but regional, traditional rivalries still need to have a place in college sports. Bottom Line. What does this mean for those left behind? For some like Baylor and....well mainly Baylor, it is a loss of epic proportions. The Bears go from being in one of the most highly regarded conferences in the country to hoping that someone like the Mountain West will take them in....could be a blessing in disguise though as Baylor can compete with anyone outside of football and in a lesser conference Art Briles might be able to get the Bears to a bowl game.
As for other schools...Houston, UTEP, SMU, Rice, UNT...all of them could stand to benefit by the conference shake-up by moving to a higher profile league or by simply re-structuring current conferences to make travel easier and to include more attractive regional matchups.....finally...read Dan McCarney online yesterday, he covers UTSA athletics. He was commenting on how the Roadrunners were going to respond to the Southland Conference's decision to allow full sponsorship only to those schools that play all sports (including football) as SLC members. This is a little bit of a blow to UTSA who was hoping to keep all other sports in the SLC while their fledgling football program (which has yet to even strap on a jock, much less hit anybody) pursues a FBS Independent schedule until a major conference invite comes along. McCarney calls the SLC villians in his piece. Baloney. Was the Big 12the villian for putting Nebraska on the clock, saying "either you are with us, or against us"? No. So why shouldn't the SLC do the same thing. The Southland has member schools who are proud to have ALL their sports in the league. They don't need a school enjoying the benefits of conference membership on one hand, while presenting the image of being too good for the conference on the other. I don't begrudge a school trying to ramp up their athletic program to true FBS status, but don't tell me the conference is wrong for trying to protect their interests and the interests of their Universities.