Creating a 14-team SEC schedule that everyone likes

At this point, it appears that Missouri is going to be team 14 in the SEC. That isn't so much my concern (those who read this blog regularly know I have pretty much avoided this round of realignment in favor of other off-field stories and the games themselves). My concern is what this will do to the SEC schedule in the future. Right now, the SEC is split into two divisions with one protected rival in the other divisions. That means there are six permanent opponents with five schools rotating among the remaining two places. Missouri throws everything off.

The first Missouri problem: Re-alignment

Missouri and Texas A&M are both western schools. Given that NCAA rules say a full round robin must be played in each division to keep the championship game, somebody has to move to the East. At this point, there are two options: send Missouri all the way to the East, or move the Easternmost school in the West to the East (that would be Auburn). If the schedules can be figured out to keep rivalries intact, I favor shipping Auburn to the East.

Problem two: saving rivalries while still playing other league members

If we send Auburn to the East, then there is a problem: the 8-game conference schedule won't allow for rivalries to be protected. In particular, Alabama will lose its annual cross-divisional game against Tennessee (or, heaven forbid, the Iron Bowl against Auburn). Both of those games need to be saved on the schedule and it would be nice to regain some of the rivalries lost when the SEC split into divisional play. For example, Auburn will regain its former yearly games against Tennessee and Florida by switching divisions while only losing the LSU and Arkansas games and neither of those schools were traditional rivals before the divisional split in 1992.

With this in mind, the SEC needs to move to a 9-game conference schedule. That would allow for six divisional games and three cross-divisional games. Those cross-divisional games should come with two of them locked each year. It would look something like this: team – rivals

EAST

Auburn – Alabama, LSU

Florida – LSU, Mississippi St.

Georgia – Ole Miss, Texas A&M

Kentucky – Missouri, Mississippi St.

South Carolina – Arkansas, Missouri

Tennessee – Alabama, Arkansas

Vanderbilt – Ole Miss, Texas A&M

WEST

Alabama – Auburn, Tennessee

Arkansas – South Carolina, Tennessee

LSU – Florida, Auburn

Missouri – Kentucky, South Carolina

Ole Miss – Vanderbilt, Georgia

Mississippi St. - Kentucky, Florida

Texas A&M – Georgia, Vanderbilt

Admittedly, this isn't ideal in some cases, but it saves the rivalries that need saving (Alabama-Tennessee/Auburn, Auburn-LSU) and regains many former yearly games that were lost either during the 1992 expansion of when the schedules were redone taking one of the permanent games away in 2002 (Auburn-Tennessee, Auburn-Florida, Florida-Mississippi St., Georgia-Ole Miss). The flaw, of course is what to do with the new teams. Texas A&M and Missouri have little history with any of the Eastern teams. Especially in A&M's case, I can't see them being too keen on playing Vanderbilt every year. For Missouri, they likely won't want South Carolina as a permanent opponent, but Kentucky seems to be a good fit given proximity (nearly a border clash with only a small sliver of Illinois between them). As for Georgia, there is no natural fit in the West with Auburn moving East. They need to have a stronger opponent than Ole Miss for their second game, so A&M it is.

Problem 3: teams don't play each other often

There isn't much to be done here, but the SEC should move away from the current home and home approach to rotating games. What it should be is school rotates on, home game. Next time it rotates on, road game. Do this and rotate every season. With that, a player who stays four years at a school will only miss one opponent in the league. Once again it's not ideal, but what is with 14 teams (though 14 works better than 16)

So with the problems pointed out, does anyone else out there have a better solution? If so I would love to see/hear it.

Follow me on twitter

A Different World – The Mountain West in a bit longer transition

A series re-examining the leagues after the recent conference re-alignment. Today, the Mountain West. Previously in the series: Big 12 and Big Ten

No conference that is likely to still exist in two years was affected more in the shifting of college football re-alignment than the Mountain West. The league lost two of its three best teams and will lose the other in a year. At the same time, Boise St. joined adequately replacing one of the teams and Nevada and Fresno St. come aboard next year along with Hawaii in football only.

As usual, we start with economics

Economically, there are still many questions to be answered. That starts with the fate of the mtn., the Mountain West's television network. The network has had trouble picking up carriage, particularly outside of Mountain West locales where you would think part-owner Comcast would at least give it some play on its sports tiers. The big question is what becomes of Utah. With BYU and Utah no longer in the league, will providers in Utah keep the mtn. On their cable systems and at what rate. Also, though they didn't bring much in the way of local ratings, TCU brought plenty of potential eyeballs with the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. The network and what role it will play is a big question going forward.

Outside of the network, economically, this league should be doing better than it is. They made a bad bet moving away from ESPN to avoid midweek game slots, at least economically (it has benefited the league competitively). This bad bet and the subsequent limitations on rebroadcast rights imposed by the league are much of why major meal-ticket BYU is no longer in the league (other than needing to keep up with Utah). The remaining schools, because of these issues figure to be largely unaffected despite the new additions to the league. The revenue will be close to the same once the new tv contracts are worked out (whenever that is). I also expect some presence on ESPN or a better deal with other partners Versus and CBS College Sports to help with exposure and revenue.

The big winners here are, of course, the new members. Boise St. gets into a better league (and don't kid yourself, the bottom of the Mountain West is eons better than the bottom of the WAC) and gets to bring the biggest and best of their rivals with them in a year. For the others, they only spend one-year in the Boise-less WAC before getting out and heading to greener pastures, much greener pastures.

Football: Losing the three best teams in the league hurts a lot, even if there is one adequate replacement and a few second-tier teams coming in. Despite that, the league could emerge as strong as ever in a few years if Boise St. can remain strong and somebody else can make the jump to the BYU-TCU-Utah tier. Remember that when the BCS started, only BYU was strong of that group and in fact Colorado St. was a consistent top 25 program. With Utah and soon TCU in BCS league, there is room for one or two non-AQ powers. It's up to Nevada, Fresno St., Hawaii, San Diego St. and Colorado St. to make sure that those spots are taken by the Mountain West and not an up and comer in a league like Conference USA or the MAC.

The other area is the schedule. As it stands now, the league isn't adding anyone else leaving them with 10-teams. Air Force, because of its annual games with Army and Navy doesn't want a nine-game schedule because they would only have one other non-conference game. The others very well might, and some may even want two more teams for a conference championship game. As far as future expansion goes, this is the league to look at in the short term (along with the Big East).

Basketball: Here is where the league is taking a big hit. Basketball is driven by marquee teams and there is no way to get better by losing BYU and gaining anything else. More so here than anywhere else, the Mountain West is weaker. If there was a second team to pair with Utah St. for football expansion, I have no doubt that they would be a good fit in this league for basketball. Unfortunately, there are no other good candidates and 11 teams doesn't work for football. In addition, most schools have no desire to place teams in different leagues for different sports (Hawaii is an exception here because of its location) so Utah St. is not an option as long as its football team has a home (and they may not for much longer).

Ultimate winners and losers

The original Mountain West members who remain are the big losers. They watched BYU get poached out of the league that team was the meal-ticket financially and prestige wise. Boise St. can adequately replace either Utah or TCU and the combination of the other WAC refugees can replace the other over time, but BYU is irreplaceable both as a rival and in ticket sales.

The winners are all of the new members. Other than Boise St. who came looking for more of a challenge, the others were given a lift raft off of the sinking ship WAC. No matter the terms and finances, not being there makes them automatic winners.

A Different World – Nebraska joins the Big Ten and the league screws it up

Second in a series re-examining the leagues after re-alignment. Today: the Big Ten

Once again, I will take a look first at the economics and then the basketball and football implications with winners and losers in all.

Economics: The Big Ten went looking for new money to add value to the Big Ten Network and their other television contracts. What they got is one of the storied programs in college football history and maybe the best possible option other than Notre Dame without going to 16 teams or some crazy super-conference idea (more on that when I cover the Pac-12 in a couple of weeks). While Nebraska doesn't a have a huge population to add, they have a rabid national fanbase. Heck, they have a flagship radio station to cover their games in Las Vegas. In that city, they are one of five teams with that distinction along with Nevada, UNLV (the two givens), Notre Dame and USC. The Cornhuskers bring a lot of paying customers from other areas of the country that will be willing to pay to get the Big Ten Network to see their team, making both the Big Ten happy and the television partners happy. Needless to say, the current Big Ten members are quite happy. Nebraska is even happier. They are out of the Texas league (Big 12) and into a league with some equality in revenue distribution. They also will make more money off the deal than they did in the Big 12. They are big winners here, even more so than the other members of the league.

Football: The Big Ten has botched the divisional setup royally. There is no other way to put it. What is wrong with East and West. It's not like there is a Texas or California in the conference footprint that everyone needs to have access to. Sure Michigan and Ohio St. might have complained about being in the same division as Penn St. while leaving Iowa and Wisconsin with Nebraska, but the imbalance would never have been as bad as the Big 12 was. In fact, it would likely look more like the SEC does. In that league, the East is generally stronger, but the West almost always fields at least one nationally relevant team and every so often, the pendulum swings their way (like right now) for a couple of years. So it would be with the East and West in the Big Ten if that had been the case with its divisions.

Instead we get the leaders and legends and in the process, some rivalries have been harmed greatly. Michigan and Ohio St. for example are now in different divisions. Ask Tennessee how that works (the Vols do love their SEC setup though). When the SEC split, the annual matchup with Alabama, while still significant, lose some relevance and was replaced in the pecking order of Tennessee rivalries with Florida, a team that hadn't been an annual opponent before re-alignment in the early 90s. Also, Wisconsin has lost its rivalries. With desired rival Nebraska and current rivals Minnesota and Iowa all in the other division, the Badgers only get to keep one rival on an annual basis.

That said, there are some winners here despite the dumb alignment. Michigan St. in particular does well for itself. The Spartans are in a division with Nebraska and Michigan, but it could be a lot worse. A true East-West split would have left Sparty with Penn St., Michigan and Ohio St. in the division, placing them a clear fourth in the pecking order. Also, Iowa gets everything is could have possibly wanted. They get the rivalry with Nebraska, keep their rivalry with Minnesota, keep the draw of Michigan as an opponent every other year and are rid of Ohio St., Wisconsin and Penn St. as divisional foes.

Basketball: The league loses here except in the games inventory department. Nebraska is a doormat that has been bringing the Big 12 down for years. In the Cornhuskers case, they are a winner though. While The Big Ten and the Big 12 are roughly equal, Nebraska will likely find the slower pace of the league more to its liking than having to play against Kansas, Missouri and the rest of the fast-paced occasionally bordering on warp speed tempo of the Big 12.

Ultimate winners: Nebraska is a huge winner. New money, no major ill effects for football, a chance to actually compete in basketball. Rid of Texas. No complaints there. The league as a whole is also a winner with the new money Nebraska will win. Only Notre Dame would have been better and that was unrealistic from the start.

Ultimate losers: Fans are the losers here, but only because of the stupid divisional decisions made. Rivalries and history are everything, especially in football. Selling out the Ohio St.-Michigan rivalry and making it less relevant for the possibility of making a few more dollars off the conference title game is dumb as is taking Wisconsin's rivals away. Basketball bubble teams have reason to fear also as Nebraska in most years is a bad loss waiting to happen and generally isn't going to help the league. Also, in baseball, Nebraska is immediately the best team by far, no questions asked. Only Michigan has any sort of precedent of being able to compete like Nebraska on a national level and even then it is fleeting. Remember though, that the Big Ten is essentially a non-BCS league in baseball because of the weather at this time of year when the games are beginning. They play all their early season games on the road.

A Different World – Texas' newfound power structure

A series re-examining the leagues after the recent conference re-alignments. First up: the Big 12

The Big 12 lost two teams in the re-alignment shuffle. Depending on your perspective, that could be a good thing or a bad thing. I'll start with economics and then take a look at football and basketball

Economics: For Texas, this deal was the new meal ticket. It certainly appears that Texas played the entire country like fiddles in the changing landscape. They got rid of the one rival that truly opposed them and may have had some power to block some of the Texas-centric legislation. The Longhorns have total control of this league, a new network with a ton of money and with that money and the network comes competitive advantages to win and continue bringing in more money.

For Oklahoma and Texas A&M, it is business as usual. They get more money out of the deal with the same exposure. While A&M in particular seemingly lost some leverage with no super conferences being formed and therefore no reason for the SEC to expand and give the Aggies a new home away from the economic behemoth in Texas, the money will still roll in for the Sooners and Aggies.

For the other Big 12 South schools, they are huge losers. They are now second class citizens in their own league financially (even more so than they were) instead of reaping the benefits of the Pac-16 idea. No scenario other than status quo (that changed when Nebraska left) and Pac-16 would be good for Texas Tech and Oklahoma St.

For the remaining schools from the Big 12 North, good luck and godspeed. You will need it. The result that occurred makes them winners because the alternative is irrelevance or increased travel to either the Mountain West or Big East. You won by staying alive, but lost financially in this deal even if you make more.

Football: Its never a good thing for football credibility to lose one of the most storied programs in the history of the sport. Nebraska is certainly that. The Cornhuskers are basically irreplaceable and not having them in the league weakens the league greatly. Colorado, while not as big a loss, is still a big loss as well. It's not a good thing to lose programs with recent national titles and the Buffs 1990 split title is more recent than such luminaries as Penn St., Georgia, the entire Big East and the whole Pac-12 other than Washington and USC. Also, while down the last five years or so, it wasn't that long ago that Colorado was finishing a stretch of four division titles in five seasons and being percentage points in the BCS computer from playing for the national title in 2001 (they never would have beaten favored Miami though).

What the league loses in perception and history, it will gain back in other areas though. The full round robin schedule with nine conference games will help cover the loss of Nebraska and the loss of the Big 12 Title game that, as least in this league, was more of a problem to national title hopes than in other leagues. A slight upgrade in non-conference scheduling should also follow and that is certainly welcomed in the court of public opinion and in perception. Also, and team from the former Big 12 North will no longer be slighted if they win the league. There is no weaker half and pull an upset any longer. Titles will be earned. Also, the Pac-10 showed that a 10 team league can, in the right circumstances produce an at-large BCS team so there is little to worry about in that vein unless Texas continues to struggle for a few years.

Basketball: Everybody wins. This just became the deepest overall league in the country with no bottom dwellers in it. Colorado and Nebraska were the bottom dwellers. While other leagues have major issues at the bottom (the Big 10 has Nebraska and never been to the NCAA Tourney Nebraska, the SEC has Auburn and the rest of its awful cohorts in the West, the Pac-12 has Colorado and Oregon St., the ACC has Miami and the Big East has DePaul, Rutgers and Providence), there are no easy games in the new Big 12. Certainly, this league has a chance to produce a number one seed every season and should get half of its 10 teams in the tournament each season. Everybody with the possible exceptions of currently rebuilding without a ton of tradition Texas Tech and Iowa St. should be excited as should the fans.

Overview: Texas is a winner in every sense with the new network. Other than them, everybody except lesser Big 12 South rivals Oklahoma St., Texas Tech and Baylor should be happy. Oklahoma and Texas A&M keep the status quo, and the Big 12 North schools continue to make money and get a few wins every so often to be the cannon fodder they pretty much always have been for the south schools while dominating in their preferred basketball.

Off-field Issues Championship Week Part 1 – TCU to the Big East Winners and Losers

Earlier this week, TCU moved to the Big East in all sports, leaving the Mountain West behind. The winners and losers in this whole deal.

Winners

TCU – Obviously, TCU now has an auto-bid into the BCS. They win just with that before you get into the money angle with the team set to make a lot more money from the Big East's better tv contract than it was ever going to make in the sparsely populated Mountain West. Also, while still likely locked out of the national title game in seasons such as this one and last year, it was as recent as 2007 that West Virginia was one win away from a shot at the national title with a loss on its resume and South Florida was ranked number two in the BCS. At the very least, TCU now wins any tiebreakers with Boise St.

Other Big East football schools – The rest of the Big East can rest easier. With TCU in the fold, the auto-bid is a lot less likely to be taken away from the league.

The BCS – Score another for the BCS. By the time everything is done shifting, it looks like all the potential threats to BCS teams winning the national title every season except Boise St. will be in the BCS leagues. Since the ACC raid on the Big East, Louisville, Cincinnati, South Florida, Utah and now TCU have been promoted.

Losers

Mountain West – This is obvious. The Mountain West has now lost its three bell-weather football programs in a very short span. Now the league is a better WAC. I still wonder if this league would have attained BCS status if it had stayed in its 16-team incarnation or expanded to just 12 instead of 16 back in the mid-90s.

Big East basketball – TCU is a drain on basketball. They drag numbers down and with only a certain number of conference games, they take some of the repeat games off the schedule that tv loves so much.

Boise St. - The Broncos left the WAC with the understanding at the time that BYU and TCU would be in the league (Utah was already on the way to the Pac-10). Now none are there and while they are eventually bringing the top of the WAC with them to form a better a league than the one they are in now, it still won't be one worthy of an automatic BCS bid.