A New Type of College Football Power Ranking
Andy Staples, of Sports Illustrated, highlighted that college football is ultimately ruled by the “golden rule,” but not the one that your parents taught you as a child. According to Staples, “… conference realignments have always been governed by the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.”
Hopefully, we can put rest to all this talk of conference expansion shortly and focus on the upcoming football season, but I gotta tell ya, this soap opera has been so entertaining that it’s hard not to write about it. It’s the worst kind of politics played out in the college arena, complete with shady backroom deals, intimidation, strong arms, arrogant administrators, “the little guys” standing up to “big brother,” lying, backstabing, and everything else usually reserved for sleazy politicos and bad daytime television. At the same time, it puts a whole new spin on the term “power rankings” when it comes to college football. In other words, this type of power ranking has nothing to do with on the field play.
In a sense, being ranked in the top 25 of a preseason poll has little bearing on who really is in the top 25 of a true “power ranking.” Think about it… as we head into the 2010 college football season, some teams that will be nowhere near the top of the preseason polls undoubtedly rank near the top of this power ranking system. This isn’t about sportsmanship, but about which programs wield the most power to force the men in charge into swift action. Jeff Jacobs (of the Hartford Courant) shares a similar viewpoint as I do, stating that, “Armageddon is avoided and Texas bullets to No. 1 in the real college power ratings.”
It’s likely for the best that this came to a standstill with minimal disturbance for the time being (Nebraska’s move not withstanding). From the LA Times:
The Pac-10’s failure to execute, in a fallout twist, may have been the best thing that could have happened.
Not for the Pac-10, maybe, but for college football.
Imagine if Scott had succeeded. The creation of the Pac-16 would have triggered a chain reaction that probably would have caused conferences to crumble.
The Southeastern Conference was not going to idly watch a super conference rise in the West. The SEC made that clear by making a late play for Texas A&M, a move that may have spike-stripped Texas’ package deal plans to join the Pac-10.
To get even with the Pac-16, the SEC might have raided the Atlantic Coast, possibly of Florida State and Miami, Georgia Tech and Clemson. And the ACC might have countered by raiding the Big East.
The Big Ten might not have stopped not at Nebraska and moved to pick off three or four Big East schools.
The result could have been four 16-team conferences and tombstones for the Big 12 and the Big East. The gap between the haves and have-nots would have been greater than it is today.
But it didn’t happen.
Incredibly, though, once it was safe to uncover your eyes, there was remarkably little blood spilled.
Dan Wetzel, who last week wrote what may be the definitive piece regarding college football expansion, has published a follow up that sheds more light on why the Pac 10 ultimately failed in its quest to expand to 16 teams.
With Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe in charge, a furious weekend of phone calls, planning sessions and analysis reports allowed the league to secure a potential television deal, a revenue sharing plan and new sales pitch that proved tempting enough to stop lynchpin Texas from jumping to the Pac-10.
The TV contract, which like some other details hasn’t been formalized, promises Texas and Oklahoma an oversized share of revenue that could reach over $20 million per year, on pace with the industry-best Big Ten. League schools are also free to start their own cable networks which could prove worth up to another $5 million annually for UT and OU, the league’s two most popular teams.
Armed with a strong position in the Big 12, Texas returned to the Pac-10 and asked for a similar deal – the right to its own network (not just part of a Pac-16 channel) and an oversized revenue share, according to a source familiar with the negotiations. Larry Scott turned it down.
In the end, Pac 10 czar Larry Scott actually comes out looking better than I thought he would because of his refusal to cave in to the University of Texas’ demands of special treatment. Texas, on the other hand, will be seen as saviors of a dying league by their fans, but will likely have a rather large target on their backs for the rest of the country. They are now likely to be viewed in similar fashion to USC and Notre Dame- loved by their fans, but reviled by the rest of the nation.
Hopefully in the next few days, the media will be able to put this topic to bed, for the time being, and shift its focus to what really matters, the upcoming season that will be played on the field.