My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
and update your bookmarks.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Expansion Winners and Losers

With the news that Texas was staying put and the apocalypse had been avoided, it looks like the expansion talk has finally calmed and perhaps we can judge the winners and losers….

Winner: The SEC. Mike Slive played it cool, and in the end, he gets what he wanted. No seismic shift in the college football landscape, and his hand wasn't forced to make changes to a league that was already working quite well.

Loser: The Pac-10. "So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, 'Hey, Texas, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know.' And he says, 'Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you expand, in 2011, you will receive Colorado.' So I got that going for me, which is nice."

Winner: Traditions. OK, so we may not see the Oklahoma-Nebraska game so often anymore, but if this is essentially the end of the "super conference" talk, score one for folks who still care about football for what happens on the field rather than what ratings the games get on TV. Would A&M in the SEC have been interesting? Maybe, but I'm glad they'll still be going toe-to-toe with Texas each year in the Big 12.

Loser: New names. So the Pac-16 is gonna be the Pac-11 now? I was hoping for two Pac-10 divisions that would result in a renamed conference called 2-Pac. (No, I can't take credit for that one.) And will the Big Ten and Big 12 just switch names? Or will they have new names altogether. I suggest "Steve."

Winner: Dan Beebe. This was the rough equivalent of my buddy Tim, who would go to a bar, get hammered, look like a jackass the entire night, then still manage to leave with a hot girl after last call. Of course, he did it with an approachable charm that the ladies just loved. Beebe did it with $25 million.

Loser: The Mountain West. After spending so much time working to get into the cool clique of college football, it looked like things might just break perfectly for the MWC. They added Boise State and were poised to nab Kansas and Kansas State if the Big 12 had fallen apart. Instead, they're likely to lose Utah to the Pac-10 and they're right back where they started.

Winner: The Big East and the ACC. The doomsday scenario could have been ugly for these guys. In the end, nothing came particularly close to happening. Of course, is it a victory that your leagues stayed intact because no one really wanted any of your teams?

Loser: Bloggers and columnists. If this is all the expansion we're going to get, what are we supposed to write about for the next two months?

Winner: Internet journalism. Kudos to Chip Brown for being on point every step of the way during this process. When the news first started breaking about the Pac-10's interest in Texas et al, most folks were less than inclined to buy into rumors from a site called As it turns out, Brown beat the pants off the big names with each new wrinkle that developed.

Loser: Joe Schad. Anatomy of ESPN's coverage: Report rumor. Backpedal. Backpedal. Backpedal. Go on TV to talk about how your original report was accurate except that the people you were reporting on decided to do something else. Repeat. Seriously, was anyone else enjoying watching this happen as much as I was? You know, Joe Cox really was going to be benched in Week 2 except that it didn't actually end up happening.

Winner: Texas. Huge TV revenue -- and more than anyone else in the conference. Gets own TV network to boot. Keeps rivalries with A&M, Texas Tech and Oklahoma alive. Looks like the good guys for not ruining college football as we know it. And the Big 12 threw in a free toaster oven. It was a hell of a deal.


Ubiquitous GA Alum said...

How about a Name that Conference Game?

Big 12 = Texas Invitational Conference

I own + said...

DHale, I'm not so sure the MWC looses Utah or anyone else. With the BCS AQ review comming up in 2012 They have a strong shot at taking it from the Big East. If that occurs Utah, TCU, and Boise stand a much better shot at reaching the BCS in that conference than they would in the B12 - 2 or the PAC10 + 1.

I know, there are other factors for moving to either of the other cofnerences but Boise + Utah seem hell bent on getting into a championship game.

So if neither of those 2 teams goto the PAC then who do they target for #12? Fresno St?

Maybe its just wishfull thinking on my part but I hope the PAC stays @ 11.

I'll play that game. said...

Big 12 = Texas and the 9 Dwarfs Conf.
Pac 10 = CaliColaWashOrAz Conf. or the Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious Assosiation.
Big 10 = Acedemics & Athletics Rustbelt Programs or AARP.
MWC = Must Win a Championship Conf.

Kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Universal Remonster said...

You had me at "2-Pac."

William said...

LOser- SEC Media Days. Was shaping up to be the most epic week of pre-season football discussion evah!!!1!11!!!1!!1!!!!

David Hale said...

Yes, thankfully now the SEC Media Days can go back to being about what it was intended to be about: Tim Tebow.

Anonymous said...

The pac 10 has 11 teams , the big 12 has 10 and the big ten has 12 ?This should be fun. Nothing beats slipping "Caddyshack" in D.H.,well done

Hobnail_Boot said...

It's gonna be the 12 Pac after they add Utah tomorrow.