Everything You Need to Know About Conference Expansion

by Matt Corder

You’ve probably heard by now the news that the college sports landscape is on the brink of huge change. The news comes on the word that the Pac 10 officially approved a measure to look into the expansion of the conference through the assimilation of six schools, likely from the Big 12. There are a lot of questions out there. Here’s everything you need to know.

Myth: Texas wants to move.

The University of Texas holds all the cards in this conference expansion. They are pushing to create a TV network of their own that will undoubtedly yield huge profits for the University. This negates any reason for them to move to a conference with their own TV network (the Big 10). It is also the most profitable university in the country based on merchandise and ticket sales. Additionally, UT currently owns the Big 12. The conference knows it needs the Longhorns, and the University takes full advantage. Why would they want to leave a conference that bends to their every whim, unless it fails to remain competitive? The only reason you will see UT move is if it is a last option.

Fact: Everything hinges on the Big 10 extending an invite to the University of Nebraska.

For all the talk about conference expansion, nothing of substance has taken place...yet. There have been flirtations (Nebraska and Missouri to the Big 10), courtships (the Big 10 to Notre Dame), talk of expansion (the Pac 10), and even ultimatums (the Big 12 to Nebraska and Missouri), and yet nothing has happened thus far. Everyone is waiting to see who will make the first move and if big time expansion is going to occur, it all hinges on the Cornhuskers.

Why is that?

The Big 10 has not been secretive in their desire to absorb Notre Dame’s football program into their conference. It’s easy to understand why, given the Irish’s huge national fan base. Don’t make the mistake that this is what everything depends on though. The addition of only one school would actually signal that huge expansion is not likely as the Big 10 would be content with a twelve team conference in the event Notre Dame signs on. The real tipping point would come with Nebraska.

Take a look at the Big 12 conference right now. All the power is in the south, most especially with the Behemoth University of Texas. The only competition that Texas faces in the Big 12 North comes from the Cornhuskers and UT made it known that their decision for the future depends on what Nebraska chooses to do. If the Huskers were to make the move to the Big 10, the north division of the Big 12 would collapse and leave the Longhorns with no choice but to bolt for greener pastures. On the flip side, let’s say Nebraska chooses to stay. This situation would leave the conference with championship caliber squads in both the North and South (yes, Nebraska is back). That gives Texas no incentive to leave because there isn’t a scenario that would leave the school better off than it was before. They already have a lucrative TV network of their own, the travel of a Pac 10 schedule would be extremely difficult on all the sports programs, and the only thing the Pac 10 could offer is academic prestige.

What’s interesting about all this is that Nebraska and Texas have a huge rivalry between the athletic departments. It all stems back to the formation of the Big 12 conference, a time when Nebraska was the preeminent program in all of college football. Tom Osborne, then the coach at Nebraska, now the athletic director, allegedly has yet to forgive UT for events that transpired during the expansion. What we know is that the Big 8 bent over backwards to a number of ridiculous demands by UT in order to get them to join the conference including: who the commissioner would be, where the offices of the conference would be located, and elimination of partial-qualifier players. Osborne feels that the partial treatment continues to this day, given that the Big 12 entered into negotiations to hold the conference championship at the new Cowboys Stadium for the next three years (there was an understanding that the venue would change from the North to the South in alternating years). Many have speculated that Osborne has long wanted to take his revenge on UT and the move to the Big 10 seems to be his best opportunity.

Pay attention to what Nebraska decides to do.

Myth: Kansas will get a raw deal if they’re left behind

I know this sounds naïve, but it’s the truth. Kansas is awesome at men’s basketball. I know this. But the Jayhawks don’t offer anything else to the conference. Nothing. If you take a look at any sport, both men’s and women’s, you’ll find that KU is among the conference’s worst in everything. The only other success they’ve ever achieved was in football during the Bill Callahan era at Nebraska. It turns out that Mangino was a horrible human being who constantly mocked and degraded his players though. It’s tough to stomach, given the incredible tradition of the basketball program, but Kansas is no different than school like Memphis or Gonzaga, only with tangible results. They’d better serve the landscape of college sports by embracing this identity.

Fact: Dan Beebe (Big 12 commissioner) has no idea what he’s doing

To get the lowdown on all this I suggest you read this article by Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports. To sum up his premise, here’s what you need to know:
-Beebe assumed the Pac 10 and Big 10 commissioners were his friends and voted against the four-team playoff. He cited “tradition” as his reason for doing it, just like the other two conferences did, but as it turns out the Pac 10 and Big 10 were actually looking to consolidate their power and earn more money for themselves (using the guise of “tradition” to trick idiots like Beebe and the mainstream media). It turns out the playoff would have made more money for everybody (nearly four times as much as the current BCS), but the Pac 10 and Big 10 wanted it all for themselves. They have successfully used pawns like Beebe to make this goal on the cusp of being attained. Savvy? Yes. Horrible for college football fans? An even bigger Yes.
-Beebe is standing idly by as the Pac 10 and Big 10 now look to poach his member schools. Beebe is not being proactive in protecting his conference’s interests by also looking to expand the conference and take in new teams. He has become extremely defensive to criticism and shown to everyone paying attention that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It’s pathetic to watch and painful for any Big 12 fans hoping the conference stays intact.
-His hope for salvation may, ironically, lie in a college football playoff. If Beebe were to endorse the college football playoff, it might end up saving the Big 12 conference. The appeal of nearly four times the money is something that all the schools not in the Pac 10/Big 10 could not resist. The Big 12 was the conference that broke the tie back when the conferences last voted on the issue, and an indication by Beebe that the Big 12 would now endorse the idea could end up salvaging everything. Cool to think about? Yes. Likely to happen? No.

Myth: The Mountain West Conference made a mistake by choosing not to add schools (see: Boise St.)to the conference

The realignment that is about to occur is going to be messy. There are going to be a lot of hurt feelings from the schools that are left out and the MWC has now put itself in a position to take full advantage of the situation. Sure, they could have invited Boise State and added a dominant college football team to its roster. But that’s only thinking in terms of short-term success. The MWC commissioner, Craig Thompson, is wise to stand pat and let the other conferences make the mistakes here with the realignment. What the MWC is doing is working to ensure long-term success. Who do you think is going to be waiting with open arms when the Kansas Jayhawks and their legendary basketball program are left out of the party? Who do you think is waiting to absorb Baylor and its excellent baseball and track programs? Who do you think is going to take in Kansas State and Dan Snyder’s football program? Who do you think is going to extend the offer to Boise State, when the time is right? That’s the MWC folks. They are going to clean up fast on the mess that is going to happen and the Mountain West is going to emerge as a powerful conference, one that the BCS will have to recognize.

--

We are about to witness something spectacular, the likes of which we’ve never seen. I’m intrigued to see what happens, most especially with Nebraska. I’m rooting for the Big 12 to stay together because I’ve grown up as a fan of the Huskers and the tradition of the old Big 8. However, I understand why Osborne would leave, the least of his reasons being that membership in the Big 10 will likely yield an extra $6+ million dollars a year for the school (because of the Big 10 network). If there’s anything to take from this, it’s that the Pac 10 and Big 10 are preventing what everyone wants (the college football playoff), unfortunately they are being run by the smartest men in the room. Don’t discount the SEC in all of this though. Although seemingly uninvolved up to this point, I doubt their commissioner will sit back and let the Pac 10 and Big 10 think they rule everything.

It’s going to break hearts, it’s going to break tradition, but in the end, it will be fascinating to watch this thing unfold.

Why Boston Will Win

by Matt Corder

Before we start, let me admit a couple of things to the readers. I received Eddie's take for LA earlier today and had a little bit more time to digest how I should respond. Additionally, I was able to take in Simmons’ finals preview as well the podcast. With that said here we go:

The Celtics will win this series in six.

I don’t need to take the time to reiterate how blessed we are as basketball fans to have the Celtics and Lakers meeting for the NBA title. It’s been said a thousand times. The great thing that is starting to become apparent, though, is that people are almost unanimous in the idea that we really have no idea who is going to win this series. One could argue that the Celtics really haven’t been healthy all year, while on the flip side it’s easy to debate whether the Lakers have really been tested in these playoffs. There’s just no way to gauge what is going to happen come Thursday night.

It’s our job to figure it out though and, in my mind, the Celtics take down Kobe…again. Here’s why:

1. Contrasting styles. On the one hand you’ve got the Los Angeles Lakers, currently averaging an astounding 105.7 (4^th best in the playoffs) points per game. It’s no secret the Lakers can score. On the other hand, you’ve got the Boston Celtics, currently allowing a mere 91.4 points per game (2^nd best in the playoffs). It’s likewise no surprise that the Celtics can lock you down. If you want to get cheesy and talk in clichés, you’d obviously say defense wins championships. I know it sounds lame, but it’s true. There is no way the Lakers are going to overwhelm the Celtics with their offensive prowess. They got away with it every round in the West, but an NBA team has never won a title because their opponents simply couldn’t keep up with an opponent’s scoring ability. I’d even be willing to throw in the fact that the Lakers might not be prepared for the defensive wall they are going to run up against. You’re kidding yourself if you think they battled a single opponent thus far in the playoffs who could match up with them. I expect the Lakers will have to overcome some initial shock as they face their first worthy opponent of the postseason. Advantage: Boston.

2. Depth. The Lakers might have the superior player, but the Celtics have the superior bench, a HUGE asset in the quest to win a title. I’m just going to throw it out there: Lamar Odom is the only player who will contribute off the bench for the Lakers in this series, and even his contribution is questionable (anyone remember 2008?). Contrast that with the Celtics, who are perfectly built to take on the Lakers.

It’s not worth it to spend much time on either team’s back courts. The Lakers have the wildly inconsistent combo of Jordan Farmar and Shannon Brown, while the Celtics have the injured Tony Allen and game six-hero Nate Robinson. It’s naïve to think any of these guys can make a big impact, in fact, it’s pretty much a wash. If you put a gun to my head, I give the edge to Boston as Allen has proven to be a reliable defender (see: James, Lebron) and Robinson is capable of getting hot at any time. This isn’t what’s important though.

What is important is the depth in the front court. The Lakers advantage in the West thus far has been their ability to pound teams inside. None of their opponents had the ability/depth to match up with their starters down low. The Celtics have Glen “Big Baby” Davis and Rasheed Wallace to back up the KG/Perkins combo. I’m not going to try to make the case that these players are going to have significant impacts on the offensive end (although Davis has proven he is more than capable of stepping up). What I am going to make the case for is the real reason they’re important. Playoff basketball is all about preventing easy buckets and making your opponent settle for shots they’re not normally comfortable taking. Playoff basketball is about fouls, and you need a lot of them to go around.

By having two capable big men who can step in and keep the starters out of trouble, the Celtics have the ability to force the Lakers to beat them from the outside (and the Lakers inability to hit jump shots has been the dirty little secret of the postseason). The fouls are important because, theoretically, Boston has 24 of them to spread around and it won’t be a liability if any two of them foul out. You won’t see Boston give up a single easy bucket in this series. Advantage: Boston.

3. Ray Allen. Although it’s still not known what player Kobe Bryant is going to defend, I think it’s a safe assumption to say Phil Jackson is going to match him against Rajon Rondo, very similar to how Kobe locked down Russell Westbrook in the OKC series. The difference this time is that the Celtics have a reliable shooting guard, in fact, maybe the best shooter of all time (all apologies to Reggie Miller fans). There is no way Derek Fisher can keep up with the constant movement and running through screens that he is about to face while tasked with guarding Allen. It’s the biggest mismatch of the series and one that I expect the Celtics will exploit in a major way. Advantage: Boston.

4. History. The Celtics and the Lakers have met 11 times in the finals before this matchup. The overall series record? 9-2 Celtics.

Ouch.

If you travel back in time to learn anything about this rivalry, you find that the Celtics have dominated because of their commitment to all the dirty aspects of basketball: tough rebounds, hard fouls, and gritty play. Jerry West is one of the greatest guards of all time and even when he teamed up with Wilt Chamberlin, one of the finest offensive talents of all time, he still couldn’t take down the Bill Russell-led Celtics. What do we have this year? Kobe Bryant, one of the best guards ever, teaming up with Pau Gasol, one of the two best offensive big men in the NBA, combining forces to do battle with the Kevin Garnett-led defense of the Boston Celtics. Sound familiar? That’s because it is. Advantage: Boston.

The finals are going to kick off in Hollywood, so let’s draw a movie-themed metaphor for the teams. If you have to choose one actor to represent the Boston Celtics, I think it’s no contest that you go for Mickey Rourke. The parallels are all there. Rourke showed incredible promise early on in his career, with excellent portrayals in “Body Heat,” “Diner,” and “Rumble Fish,” much like the current incarnation of the Boston Celtics showed incredible promise in 2008 by winning the title with the newly formed “Big Three” of KG, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce. It seemed that both the actor and the team were going to dominate their respective fields for the near future. Alas, Rourke’s career eventually disintegrated in a cloud of destructive behavior, finger pointing, and terrible movie roles that led many critics to question his desire and abilities. Sound familiar? The Celtics experienced the same downfall as the 2009 team saw their season collapse due to Kevin Garnett's injury, and the 2010 team seemingly went through the motions en route to a 27-27 finish down the stretch. Even the most die-hard Boston fans wondered whether the team even wanted to be there. All was not lost though! Rourke eventually re-tuned his acting ability, culminating in his incredible portrayal of Randy “The Ram” Robinson in “The Wrestler.” There is no doubt that he is back and will continue to amaze us in the years to come. As we’ve found out in the 2010 NBA playoffs, the Boston Celtics are likewise back to their original form and looking to cement their status as all-time greats. Although Mickey Rourke no longer carries the good looks and charm that brought attention to him early in his career, his rugged brand of acting is universally respected and the talent is still there. Similarly, the Boston Celtics are not going to win pretty, in fact their play is downright ugly, but there’s no question that team knows how to play basketball at a championship level.

Contrast all that with The Los Angeles Lakers. If you’re going to compare the current version of the team to anyone, it has to be Brad Pitt. Both The Lakers and Pitt have had consistent runs at their respective trades. They’ve never really experienced the peaks and valleys that plague so many others. I also believe this metaphor holds true because both LA and Pitt are incredibly attractive (I swear I’m straight), so much so that it has possibly hurt their overall reputations. Their beauty has almost been a curse. Allow me to explain. It’s a well-known fact that throughout his entire career, Brad Pitt has sought out obscure roles in order to prove that there’s more behind the pretty face. He’s certainly delivered with his awesome roles in “Fight Club” and “Snatch” and yet, he still hasn’t won an Oscar. Everyone loves Brad Pitt, but are we really going to consider him one of the all-time greats? Compare that with Kobe Bryant and the Los Angeles Lakers. The Lakers have always been consistent during the Black Mamba’s career. They’ve now made the finals three straight years and Kobe is always among the top three in MVP voting, and yet, the verdict is still out on Kobe’s legacy. Much like Pitt being unable to shake the shadow of his good looks, Kobe Bryant is still trying to escape the Shaq era in LA. It’s true that Kobe has won the title without the Big Diesel, but it wasn’t a legendary performance by any means. I’d compare it to Pitt’s performance in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” Sure it was Oscar worthy, and he deservedly got a nomination, but did that performance transcend acting? You see my point.

If you keep going with the metaphor, I think the choice becomes clear. You take Boston (and Rourke) every time. They do so many things so much better than their opponents, and even though it may not be appealing to the eye, it produces when it matters most.

Boston in six, Rourke to win an Oscar before Pitt.