(I don't know who I aimed that paragraph at. Let's say it was for the baby, Christopher David Adamczyk.)
College Football Realignment
1) Happy for the Big Ten, getting to 12 teams, especially with a quality school (both academically and athletically) in Nebraska. They'd be reaching if they expanded any further, especially because it seems like Notre Dame isn't going anywhere.
2) Pac 10: Solid addition with Utah, to bring the conference to 12 as well. Colorado doesn't add much, at least for football. The conference as a whole seems like losers in this whole thing, as they were apparently oh-so-close to adding Texas, Oklahoma, and whomever else from the Big 12.
3) The Big XII survives, and may actually be stronger. They're going to form TV networks, which will bring in more money and now they don't have to share it with as many schools. They still have Texas so they'll be fine. Big props to Dan Beebe for keeping the Big XII afloat.
4) Boise State's move to the Mountain West doesn't seem all that great anymore now that they don't have all three of the current really good mid-majors in Boise State, Utah, and TCU.
Brewers
Like what the offense is doing, especially Rickie Weeks at the top of the lineup and Corey Hart's hot stretch. Braun and Fielder are heating up too, which is nice. Could use a little more production out of Escobar, Gomez, and Kottaras/Lucroy. Pitching is a different story. Not good enough, but I like that we no longer have to watch Suppan don the Brewers uniforms.
The Bucks! The Bucks!
WE GOT RID OF MY TWO LEAST FAVORITE BUCKS!!!!! And, we acquired a 20-point scorer in Corey Maggette. Fills a role we don't have, and hopefully we can pair this trade with a solid shooting guard (resign Johnny Salmons or get someone else). I applaud John Hammond. Save about a million in salary, get rid of two terrible players, and get a very effective, versatile player. Plus we get an additional second-round pick, which I hope is going to be used to move up in the first round.
World Cup
Not going to say anything about the United States, other than they better freaking beat Algeria. I'm surprised by the likes of Chile, Switzerland, and Uruguay, and I'm happy France crashed and burned. The best teams to me right now are Argentina, Brazil, and the Dutch. I'd still pick Spain and Germany to do well, despite their losses in pool play. I don't think Italy and England are going to do much if they advance. My sleeper is Uruguay: Diego Forlan is having a hell of a tournament so far. And props to the Bufana Bufana for being classy hosts. Congrats on beating France, and I wish I could have seen you break through into the knockout stage over Mexico.
2 comments:
First things first, I'm pretty sure Christopher David isn't an option. Sorry! Now on to conference expansion-
1) My initial thought was that everyone in the Big 10 would benefit from the addition of Nebraska. Now at 12 teams, the conference can add a title game and reap the benefits that the extra exposure would bring. (National respect for a Big 10 team other than Ohio St. anyone??) The fact that the 12th team is Nebraska and not some also-ran doormat is a plus too. After reading Bielima's tweet about setting up a rivalry game between Wisco and Nebraska, I was even more excited. Although they probably weren't the conference's first choice, (that would be Notre Dame) Nebraska is an excellent second option. I wasn't quite sold on Notre Dame as a lot of people were, but that is another conversation entirely.
The more I read about it, though, the more I think that expansion could be bad for the tradition of some Big 10 schools, Wisconsin included. This is mainly due to how the divisions will be divided. Supposedly, many of the decision makers in the conference think that divisions based on geography wouldn't be "fair." The best guesses of bloggers/columnists based on so called competitive balance have Bucky in a division with the eastern-most Big 10 schools, that is without Nebraska, Minnesota, and Iowa, who happen to be their current and proposed rivalry/trophy games. This doesn't sit well with me. What concerns me the most is the loss of a regular meeting with Minnesota, oddly enough. Despite the recent dominance by Wisconsin, the rivalry is perhaps the most looked forward to game for Wisconsin students, and also one of the oldest in college football. Casting it aside would definitely be a mistake.
Because this divisional placement will no doubt be done with football's best interests in mind, I'm also concerned about the effect the new look would have on basketball scheduling and rivalries. Top tier basketball schools like Purdue and Michigan St (and maybe Illinois), who happen to suck it football, may create very lopsided divisions in basketball.
Are there any good solutions? I have no idea. Maybe have divisions for football, and different ones for basketball? It could work, but would be confusing for casual fans to keep track of.
Base divisions on geography, but set scheduling to even out the supposed differences in strength? Maybe, but that seems confusing too. It should be interesting to see how this all plays out.
(More to follow, but I have to go to lunch.)
-Derek
You can still have annual rivalry games outside of your division. I don't see that being a problem. I don't think they need to be broken up geographically either. They could have like a "Woody Hayes" and "Bo Schembechler" division with OSU and Michigan as the flagship schools and then build around these schools, taking rivalries and finances into account.
Post a Comment