Earlier in the summer, the big news concerned Texas A&M and a potential move to the SEC. A&M eventually denied a move was in the works, but did not rule out the possibility of one in the future. This week, we learn that Syracuse and Pitt will be admitted into the ACC, the date of which is yet to be determined. We may not be done, though. Now UConn and Rutgers are on the ACC wish list. When is this madness going to stop? Nobody would have imagined the ACC being the first team to get to the 16 team football "superconference." I would like to emphasize the word "football" in that last line. What's the first thing you think of when you hear ACC? Duke and North Carolina, right? Yeah, me too. Now, adding Syracuse and Pitt certainly contributes to an already strong basketball profile, but let's be real, this was purely a football driven move. Lest we forget, it was the ACC that initiated this decade of constant realignment starting in 2004 with the additions of Miami and Virginia Tech (and eventually Boston College). If UConn and Pitt end up joining the ACC, and West Virginia joins the SEC with A&M (as has been reported is under consideration), the Big East is finished, which is a shame because the Big East (next to the ACC in my opinion) is the best basketball conference in the country.
What is the motivation in all of this realignment? The easy answer is dollars associated with big time football and championship games. The era of the BCS (and the lack of a playoff in Division I-A) has forced football factory schools to constantly reposition themselves in conferences that will give them A) the most possible exposure and B) more of a chance to win enough games through scheduling to reach BCS bowls and potentially a national championship. College presidents love the BCS bowl system because it rakes in the dough. Now, somebody try to explain to me why a 4 or even 8 team Division I-A tournament would not achieve the same money-making goals. In any event, at the very heart of this realingment is unfortunately money.
One of my favorite columnists is Gregg Easterbrook, AKA the Tuesday Morning Quarterback. I love reading his column on Tuesdays (duh). He provides insightful commentary into not only football, but a variety of other subjects that interest me, specifically science and astronomy. I don't necessarily agree with him on politics, but that's another issue entirely. Why do I mention this? TMQ for years has railed against the notion that so-called football factory schools A) do not use the money from football for purely educational purposes or B) exploit the players as essentially "wards of the state:" making money for the schools yet not seeing any of the benefits themselves lest the school feel the wrath of the NCAA. Now, as an educator, I am firmly against paying student athletes anything more than the quarter of a million dollar scholarship they already receive. However, I understand the hypocrisy in what is going on. Colleges' first (and really only) priority should be in the education and future of all of their students. Athletics play an important role, and I love college football as much as the next guy, but more and more and more we are seeing the degradation of college football into nothing more than a minor league of the NFL. This is the biggest shame of all.
College football makes money. Everybody knows that. However, if schools (especially the football factory ones) place as much of an emphasis on the education of their student athletes as they do winning football championships, what you will see are healthier young men and women better prepared for a society beyond the field or the court. During the NCAA Tournament in March, the NCAA runs ads emphasizing that their student athletes mostly go pro in things other than sports. While that may be true, nobody really cares about field hockey or water polo (apologies to all the field hockey and water polo players who may be reading this blog). The emphasis is on football and basketball. These are the big money makers, and unfortunately, the two sports with the worst graduation rates. Players in these sports place more of an emphasis on becoming pro athletes than they do on graduating, and coaches don't help. TMQ proposed an excellent (although I must admit far-fetched) idea on how to rectify this. As part of the BCS formula, add in an element counting either GPA or graduation rates. That would force coaches to make sure their players not only go to class, but stay there and study hard. Coaches need to emphasize to players that there is life beyond football. Millions of dollars can be earned and lost in a very short period of time.
Stay in school
I'm only going to take issue with your opening stanza on this. Bringing in Syracuse and Pittsburgh is a FOOTBALL move, Nick? If the ACC were making a football move, they'd bring in schools with good football teams. This move is done in the guise of a football move (and football is the sport driving the conference realignments), but this is about (once again) poaching the Big East, this time of its elite basketball teams. For the last ten years or so, the ACC has had the two most dominant basketball programs, but the milieu in which they play has been PAC-10-football-esque (by which I mean one or two elite teams playing against I-AAish competition). Conversely, over the same period of time the Big East is short on championships but has had 8 or 10 teams in the tournament, four of five of which having a decent chance of making a run. In the '90s, the best conference tournament was the ACC. In the 00's, it's been far-and-away the Big East. The ACC saw that the Big East was likely going to be cannibalized in the football realignment, and wanted to shore up its hoops depth.
ReplyDeleteThe REAL football move committed by the ACC this past week or so was raising their exit fee to some $20 million. That ensures that their respectable football teams (VaTech, Florida State, and even Miami and Clemson) don't dart to the SEC. If it was up to me, I'd have VT and NC State move, with A&M and Mizzou, to the SEC, and let the ACC take UConn and Rutgers or whoever else to get 16. Then the Big Ten can take Notre Dame and the remaining scraps of the Big East/Big XII North, while Texas, Oklahoma, and OK State go lend some credibility to the PAC-10. The ACC's real football move, however, makes it unlikely that VT and NC State will leave.