Conference Realignment

Well that was interesting.

Things got weird for a while there, when everyone even remotely associated with college football decided that it was time to discuss disaster scenarios involving the demolition of the Big East and Big XII, the conglomeration of 16-team superconferences, possibly two rounds of conference playoffs for these new superpowers, and questions of how these new superconferences would bring about the end of the BCS.

Rumor mongers were active and unnamed sources familiar with the situation turned out to be not very familiar with anything except where to find reporters. Meanwhile, the people who were responsible for figuring out expansion were actually trying to make intelligent decisions that would help both their conferences and the individual teams within those conferences. A novel idea, I know, but one that was surprisingly effective.

As it turned out, the scenarios turned into a lot of small changes that altered the landscape, but did not essentially alter the fundamental structure of college football. The shifts were, however, worth examining.

Biggest Winner: Colorado

When everyone was coming up with Armageddon scenarios for conference realignment, I tried to write an article describing scenarios and possible destinations for various teams. However, things were moving so fast at the time that I realized the article would be entirely moot by the time anyone read it. Anyway, in that article, the one move I said really made sense to me was Colorado to the Pac-10. And they were the ones to really get the ball rolling when they accepted that invite.

Of all the moves made in this entire mess, this is still the one that I think was absolutely, positively, 100% right for both parties. Allow me to explain why.

The hippies and ski bums of Boulder have a lot more in common with the California hippies and surfers than they do with Nebraska farmers and Texas roughnecks. And Californians are big fans of Colorado, if people in Denver are to be believed when they complain about all those Californians moving there, crowding the highways, driving like morons, and sending home prices through the roof. Plus, Colorado always seemed like an odd fit in the Big 8 and then the Big XII. Colorado looks west a lot more than it looks south or east.

With the vast distances of the West (L.A. to Seattle ain't a short trip), they are a pretty good fit geographically; Boulder is much more accessible than places like Corvallis and Pullman, so the travel times really won't be that bad. And, like California, football isn't really a culture in Colorado—it's something to do when there's nothing better to do. People love you when you win and don't really care that much when you lose.

As for the Pac-10, they get more exposure farther east, especially in the Denver television market. The Pac-10 teams and fans perceive an east coast bias, and this helps them get off of sole reliance on the coast and the Pacific Time Zone. That means exposure for the West Coasters east of the Rockies. Not that far east of the Rockies, but it's something. And Colorado is good, but not a powerhouse, so the West Coast teams should be able to get some good wins on their resume.

Big Winner: The State of Texas

The University of Texas, the flagship university of the state of Texas, was being heavily courted by several different conferences, and they managed to get exactly what they and the entire state wanted: a conference that the state of Texas dominates.

The state of Texas likes being insular, and it likes to imagine that it is the center of the universe. Any association with any conference in which that view would be refuted would not please the Texans. Instead, they get a conference in which they have 4 out of ten schools, along with the state of Oklahoma (which has always been in Texas's orbit), and some other northern schools that need conference affiliation to stay relevant.

The Pac-10 would have been a terrible destination for the Texas schools. The teetotaling, pious Baptists of Baylor would not get along with the pot-smoking, freethinking treehuggers of Berkeley. And the irreverent folks at Stanford would not get along well with the regimented Texas A&M folks. If the Texas schools had gone to the Pac-10, these would not have just been athletic rivalries... these fans and even the academic administrations would have actually hated each other personally.

Texas has much more in common with the SEC schools, but they are also much more Southwestern than Southern. I think Texas would have much rather brought back the old Southwest conference with Oklahoma involved than join a conference where it would have had to share the spotlight. Essentially, that is what they got. And they ditched a couple of disgruntled associations in the process.

As for the Big Ten? No. There is no way UT would have associated themselves with a conference so geographically distant. Besides, any demographer will tell you that the Midwest is shrinking, while Texas is booming. Texas does not want to associate themselves with a bunch of people who they consider behind the times.

However, the only thing that would have held together any such conference would have been everyone's mutual appreciation of the University of Texas. However, it seems that even UT could not sway some schools to go wherever they went. Texas A&M would have been much happier in the SEC than the Pac-10, Texas A&M knew it, and UT would have essentially lost control of its big in-state rival. Texas A&M needs UT to grind its gears against, but UT also needs Texas A&M to help them feel superior.

This Will Be Interesting: The Big Ten and Nebraska

Perhaps I'm too close to the situation, but I can't call this either a win or a loss. I can only say that it will have interesting consequences for all involved. Nebraska is the fourth team in the conference with a top-10 winning percentage, as well as a whole truckload of national titles. This makes things interesting.

The rumor mill in the '90's said that Nebraska wanted a piece of Ohio State in particular, but the Buckeyes were dodging their overtures for some non-conference games. Not sure how much truth there is to that, but I think the Nebraska-Ohio State game will be an interesting rivalry to watch. Those are two football-mad states that could get along fine in a spirit of mutual appreciation and brotherly trash-talking... or they could hate each others' guts to the point where every time they play, it turns into World War III.

However, things do get interesting here when you consider that the Big Ten now has four teams that are used to winning a whole lot. With the addition of Nebraska, that makes it that much harder for these teams to get all the victories they would like. This puts the conference in a position where it can add teams without them having to be absolute slam-dunks. That puts teams like Missouri or Pittsburgh on the map as possible candidates later.

By the way, I read an online article in which the writer called the Nebraska-Iowa game "Farmageddon". If I had my druthers, that is the name by which I will refer to it for the rest of my life.

Lost, But It Could Have Been Worse: Missouri

Again, the rumor mill in the '90's said that Missouri desperately wanted to join the Big Ten, because they like the academic reputations of the schools and feel like they would be more at home there. See "Conference Realignment 2010" for how seriously one should take rumors.

It should be noted that there is an academic alliance in the Big Ten where all the member institutions and the University of Chicago (a former member) share research. Considering the mondo dollars of top-notch research going on at these schools, that makes a pretty compelling reason for any school to want to join the Big Ten.

Unfortunately, Missouri is still stuck in the Big XII, which is now even more dominated by Texas and the Oklahoma schools that orbit that state. I think they want to break free of that, but they can't seem to do it because their overtures keep being ignored. There's no covering for the fact that it really stinks for them.

However, if the Texas and Oklahoma schools found some other dance partners, then Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State would have been screwed. These are not schools with the clout to play independent. They need conference affiliations to keep them in the game.

No Idea: Utah

You know what's going to happen once Utah joins the Pac-10? Because I have no idea. Neither does anyone else. Except that everyone will pretend that the eventual results should have been perfectly obvious to everyone at the time; I can absolutely guarantee that that is exactly what will happen.

As traditional powers go, Utah is not one of them. They have made a big splash as of late with two big wins in BCS bowls. They seem to be a program on the rise. But now they are taking their show on the road to the Pac-10, and I'm not sure how this is going to go. Right now, Utah has a couple of big challenges every year, and a lot of easy wins. In the Pac-10, every week will be much tougher, and they will need to deal with top-notch teams roughly two or three times every year.

While Utah aren't as thoroughly Mormon as BYU, one might expect that they could still be pretty Mormon, just by the fact that they are in Utah. Hard to tell if a secular university in a fairly religious state is going to fit in with the Pac-10. Honestly, they may have been better off staying in the Mountain West. Or they may flourish in their new surroundings and find that they can up their talent level with exposure to more California recruits. It's certainly great timing for them, what with the sanctions and scholarship reductions USC is going to be fighting for the next few years.

The most likely scenario is that Utah will level off into a program about the level of the non-USC portions of the Pac-10: it won't be surprising when they're good, but nobody will bat an eyelash when they aren't. However, this is very uncharted territory for the Utes, and the eventual results are going to be unpredictable from the point they start play in their new conference.

Pretty Good: Boise State

Overshadowed, but not really lost in the shuffle is the fact that Boise State took a reasonable step toward the big(ger) time by moving up from the WAC to the MWC. Not exactly earth-shaking, but it was a move forward for the small school in Idaho. It definitely ups their level of competition every year, so it may make it a bit tougher to get all the wins they want. They needed to get better games to take a step forward, the Pac-10 was not going to call, and the MWC was the next, obvious step up.

Utah's move to the Pac-10 took some wind out of everyone's sails here, but games against the always-good BYU and rising TCU will improve their profile and strength of schedule. This was a sensible move by both parties and it should pay solid dividends for both sides.

Big Winners: ACC and Big East

Both of these conferences should be thanking their lucky stars that conference realignment did not reach cataclysmic proportions. Both conferences are very tenuous in their associations, and the Big East has always been a hack job. Had either conference been raided for teams, these two conferences might have come out much the worse for the wear. In all the scenarios I read, I don't remember any hypothetical result of conference Armageddon in which the Big East survived, and few in which the ACC was anything other than a fringe player... like the Big East is right now.

I'll be the first to admit that these conferences are not good... at least not right now. But these are conferences filled with teams that all need each other and need to be in a conference... at least right now. The collapse of either of these conferences would leave a lot of teams out in the cold. College football does not need a lot of teams feeling lost and disillusioned. These conferences are far from perfect, but they fill the void for a lot of teams that need associations with other teams right now.