The Big Ten commish says "No" to expansion discussion."The issue has come up with our football coaches a couple times -- with the extra week and if we did expand, would we be more competitive?
I would say in some years they might be right. But has it enhanced the competitiveness of the ACC in football? Has it enhanced the competitiveness of the WAC? I don't know.
Just because you have a championship doesn't make you more competitive. It's about coaching the players. The SEC game has been a marketing bonanza. I wouldn't discount that. But others have struggled with it."
I have one thing to say: Marketing is a verb.
It is this kind of stone aged thinking that is going to keep the conference down for years to come. Essentially the commissioner is conceding that the SEC players and coaches are better and the B10 is more like the WAC or ACC at this point. If I were a B10 Athletic Director right now I would either be looking for a new job south of the Mason Dixie line or organizing a coup.
Posts
10 comments:
Delany went on to add that he was not opposed to selling off some of the teams because he thought having a conference called the BIG FOUR would be cool.
well, if you're going to have one of those two agree w/ you and the other disagree, you certainly drew the long straw. Delany isn't as bright as he looks (and that's saying something, given his appearance).
a 12th team would create problems. change always does. the biggest shake up would come mostly w/ existing rivalries and historical match ups. however, we really already have that problem. we just don't focus on it.
it's been 30 years since the "big 2, little 8" days when the tosu-michigan game decided which of the two went to the rose bowl. while "the game" still has a major impact on the conference champion, it is very seldom that game decides the sole champion. iowa, illinois, wisco, moosu, purdue, PSU, & NU have all shared or won conference championships over the last 30 years and tosu-michigan is typically only a part of the equation.
the "luster" of the tosu-michigan game as the last & deciding bout of the season has eroded for some time, not because of either team, but because of the competition of the rest of the conference. adding a playoff game (in which assumingly the winner of the tosu-michigan game would likely face the other division champ) would simply settle the string of co-championships over the years w/ other teams.
I respectfully beg to differ,
To play off of what the Commish said, has the 12th team given the SEC a competitive edge? Has the addition of a twelfth girl in your bed at the same time made you better at sex overall, or is it proper instruction and practice that improves your abilities and your reputation? I believe the SEC has reached an indefinite ‘King of the Hill’ place on top because of their sole focus on winning in college ball and the outstanding parity of success within their conference. I do not believe that a 12th team has made them better, or given them a better reputation, though Jerry Jones might disagree.
Where there’s a will there’s a way. In the South pro football is not common. Furthermore, in SEC country their three (all expansion teams) pro teams have reached the Superbowl a combined two times winning none. Ever. SEC football however has been rather successful throughout time, and has the added bonus of being more culturally friendly to the average southerner (drinking, barbecue, tailgatin’ in redneck lawn furniture, and more drinking. Football also happens to be one of the few major social gatherings in an otherwise small town country and thus all the more important and influential). The south has a real lack of pro teams in any and every major sport with Atlanta being the only serious exception; especially any with championship success. All the energies of southerners have traditionally been vested into one single common goal that has been passed from generation to generation. College football has been built in much the similar fashion as soccer in Europe. Scandals and cheating, and questionable practices, and great success have given the conference a flavor that reminds one of Italian soccer.
Where the Big 10, arguably the largest media market conference, is ripe with pro sports teams (reliable distractions in the wake of college team failure) the SEC region generally has one shot, one love to get success right. So fans demand it of their programs and are willing to pay for it without reservation or purpose of evasion (remember that phrase Andy?). Look at the Nick Saban case. Yes he was fed up with losing recruiting battles in state to big brother, but he has proven that if the money was right staying at MSU instead of heading to LSU was possible. The money down south is headed into football, they want it there. MSU has two medical schools and prefers success in basketball. The schools in the south are some of the poorest academic institutions in D-1, yet in other places of the nation academics are still a major priority and thus draw money away from potential gifts to the football programs. Where there’s a will (there is no will stronger per conference than that of the SEC) there’s a way (more money!). The SEC pays more on average for their coaches to keep them there than anywhere else. Iowa is a notable exception along with ND while the former like the SEC doesn’t have pro teams around while having had some considerable success in the past, and the latter has an idiot for an A.D.
Another reason for the SEC’s success is their NFL like parity within the conference where it is not unreasonable to see one team go from winless in conference play to 9 wins overall and a smashing bowl victory in the next season while dishing out the only defeat to the eventual national champ (Ole Miss). Almost all the programs have the funding and desire to win (Vandy no, UK is B-ball, MSU stinks, SCAR has won a Heisman). Look at the relative parity throughout the conference; LSU, Ole Miss, UT, Alabama, and Florida have all won multiple national titles in the last 50 or so odd years while Georgia and Auburn have produced a single title each to go with some Heismans as well. Arkansas claims one title in ’64 when they were in the SWC.
I look at the SEC like Europe in the 16-1800’s. The balance of power throughout the conference has been essential and acted like miracle grow, spurning the rapid growth and the development of new means to enhance the chances of winning, thus improving the quality of life and the status quo as schools attempt to resist the will of others to conquer their nation every fall by conquering in return.
I want you to ask yourself a question, has the addition of Arkansas in ’92ish really enhanced the competitive edge of the SEC (that was the 12th team)? I say emphatically, NO! Since joining the SEC the Razorbacks have made it to the SEC title game twice, losing to UF both times and have played in no BCS bowls. Adding Arkansas in my book is like adding Poland to Europe. OK, respectable, so what? Would we really miss Poland? Germany (Tennessee) and Russia (Georgia) sure didn’t seem to think so. Florida is like France in the early 1800’s right now, swept up in the fervor of victory by Napoleon (Meyer) and his Superman. But France will fall and order will be restored shortly. Superman only has one year of eligibility left. The argument for SEC success and this ‘competitive edge’ is also attributed to recent SEC success. This did not happen with the addition of Arkansas about 17 years ago.
I know what you’re thinking, what about the revenue from a conference title game? I don’t want to hear any argument for the revenue generated by the conference title game. I guarantee you even with having less revenue draining sports, almost every SEC school’s athletic department operates deep in the red year in and year out (like OSU). This is why boosters have an infamous level of power and influence over the programs in the south. This is why we know exactly how Tuberville got canned at Auburn. The programs need the money from the boosters to compete, to survive.
The revenue split up for Big 10 schools would not increase the athletic departments’ budgets, just decrease the donations at the mid-level Big 10 teams after the departments revised their total still required to account for the new funds brought in, and continued recruiting their annual fiscal donations to meet their needs for the same overall budget. The programs wouldn’t be forced to cater to as many mid-level money donors who would not be so quick to hand out money when they see their program able to meet the operating budget more readily. The money would be the same, parity would still suffer. More revenue from a game is not going to increase donations for mid-level Big 10 schools, only victories in big games and other sources bolstering fan fervor will induce boosters to open their checkbooks.
I also ask you to look at the ACC like the Commish said and ask yourself, “Has the addition of BC, VTech, and ‘that Miami’ boosted their prestige? Is their conference game anything to look at? NO! The ACC is steeped in basketball tradition and that is where the boosters want their money going. Football is a secondary sport throughout most of the conference. Why have football power schools in the ACC struggled to capitalize on this newfound competitive edge (2-9 in BCS games only winning 1 in the last eight years against a team that was recently a C-USA team)? FSU, Miami, and Clemson have failed to capitalize because their coaching sucks (Bowdens both went over the hill around ’02 and Shannon has yet to prove he can coach). Did the increased competitive edge and ‘additional revenue’ from the conference title game enable Duke to progress to a level it hasn’t seen in many years? NO! Coach Cutcliffe did that; good coaching and player development did that. He was hired after the SEC didn't want him. The Dukies even had a player drafted in the middle rounds this year and are expected to have the same next year. Same thing at WF, and at UNC where the hiring of the already proven Butch Davis created much fan fervor. Both are reaping the success of good coaching. On the other end of the spectrum a proven, successful program in Clemson tanked; not because of a new competitive upswing (superpowers FSU and Miami tanked leaving the conference wide open) but because of a failure to capitalize to be blamed on bad coaching. All the SEC level support is there in Clemson; they just underwent a massive stadium expansion project. Tradition also helps teams acquire the support they need to win big for their conference, but coaching ultimately decides the fates and reputations.
Look at the Big East, a conference whose reputation was in shambles with the departure of Miami and BC and VTech. They recently recruited Louisville, USF, UC and UConn, all lower level teams to replace the losses, and enjoyed a spurn in reputation. This of course was thanks to big victories in big games over every major conference. The victories were the product of good coaching by Bobby Petrino, Greg Schiano, Brian Kelly, Jim Leavitt, UConn’s coach, and our own Rich Rodriguez who beat Georgia in the Sugar Bowl and would’ve beaten OKie in the Fiesta Bowl had he not taken the challenge to bail us out. The Big East saw a significant dip in funds and it is down to 8 teams, yet still boosted it’s credibility to a level unseen without the Miamis and VTechs of the old Big East. Quality programs (Big East) over quantity (ACC) has me respecting the Big East's abilities more when 1 or 2 combined ancient national titles says I have no business doing so when up against the ACC. A plethora of good young coaches changed the fate of a conference that was in dire need of a boost.
For argument’s sake let’s add that dream 12th team to the Big 10, ND. That brings more media interest and thus money to the conference, while it now has to be split 12 ways instead of 11. Some mid-level schools may now enjoy one or two slightly better recruiting classes as kids like what’s ‘new’ and ‘in’ and adding ND to the conference slate is just that. Does adding ND ultimately make NW, ILL, UW, UP better football schools? NO! They still have to be better on the field and that comes from the demand of higher expectations from the fans, with more money (and influence used as collateral) and the programs obliging and giving the teams what they need to compete on as level a field as possible when facing the big boys, including hiring good coaches.
I make the argument that the real effects of the Big 10’s slight gradual decline in prestige this decade and in the near fantasy future is more affected (for good and bad both) by: Pat Fitzy taking over at NW, Ferentz failing to live up to expectations in recent years, Tressel being unable to win big games out of conference, Carr getting soft and not winning at a BCS level at a program worthy of championship level ball and leaving the cupboard bare, OSU scheduling big non conference games, Michigan saying “Fuck it, we want ND for the next 25 fuckin’ years”, the Zooker recruiting at Illinois, D’Andouchio picking up the scraps at little brother, and the countless renovations (and a new stadium in Minny) to all the athletic facilities and stadiums throughout the conference, and fat Charlie still being at ND. Think about it. If Meyer would’ve gone there ND might have a ring or two right now and the SEC wouldn’t be reaping the benefits of this media made up ‘competitive edge’. That shit is as real as the massive killer epidemic known as swine flu. What a bunch of bullshit. Thank God Meyer went to Florida.
If you’re asking me, I don’t care how the rest of the conference is viewed as long as Michigan beats the rest of the conference. I like seeing OSU drag the conference’s reputation through the mud when they suffer ass whoopins and become a national joke, as long as it is OSU doing it. I’m loyal to Michigan, not some conference. I don’t wear conference apparel, or participate on a Big 10 blog. Just UofM for me. Sully away OSU!
In the end I’m not arguing against expansion, just that doing so to achieve parity with that ‘competitive edge’ bullshit is a stupid ass reason. If you really want to play the blame game for the lack of said ‘edge’, blame the A.D.s who constantly hired crappy coaches and made crappy moves in the Big 10 this past decade, don’t blame the Commish. I don’t feel that adding a 12th team makes the Big 10 a better conference on its own. The future of the conference is already bright with Minny getting a program saving stadium, Penn State’s near future coach already proven, Fitzy at NW, Ferentz getting a little bit of ‘it’ back, Bielema maintaining Wisky, D’Anstrawberrydouchio reviving little brother, and R2 restoring the all time winningest program. Give me substance; give me coaching and the money and improvements to keep those coaches in the Big 10 rather than running them off to the SEC for bigger money and better facilities. Where there’s a will there’s a way.
*Note: I would like to confess my initial misjudgment of one situation, which I have now reversed my opinion about. I think Pat Fitzgerald is a great fit at NW and will do good things there.
Andy,
A present from Websters:
Main Entry: mar·ket·ing
Pronunciation: \ˈmär-kə-tiŋ\
Function: noun
To market is a verb.
I like this quote from the commish:
"I don't think we've shied away from change, whether it's expansion or the Big Ten Network or instant replay or exploring Notre Dame," he said. "We could be accused of a lot of things, but being fearful of change is probably not one of them."
I think he seems intelligent.
Quite a night with the keyboard Shorty ?
holy crap shorty...do you plan on publishing that book? :-)
What? I was bored on post!
University of Washington by the way (another school of great interest to me along with WAZZU as I'm a Washingtonian by birth) is on the uptick (not that getting any worse is possible). Jake Locker, a great player who's a lot of fun to watch in a Tim Tebow but he's not Tim Tebow and fuck Florida and Tim Tebow way, was almost perfect going 16-18 in Sark's new pocket passing guidance with the only misses being drops by wideouts.
Fuck Willingham. He threw two years of massive talent and potential down the shitter with Locker, luckily Sark arrived, hopefully in time to rescue Locker.
Sark was hired by Udub's new A.D. Bob Woodward. I feel that he and UW's coming success will be no coincidence. He hired Sark, just like he Hired Miles to his native LSU, and I believe he also hired Saban before Miles. This A.D. is SEC bred (so he cares about football in the most passionate of ways like you'd want your A.D. to) and apparently is pretty fuckin' proven at finding good coaches. I predict great things in Washington's future.
It however is a coincidence that UW's first game this fall is against Woodward's Alma Mater, L.S.U.
Post a Comment