Win, Lose, or Draw: Conference Realignment Analysis

The circus of conference realignment, though not as major as some prognosticators were predicting, was the talk of the summer. With BYU the last wild card (for now), I thought I'd do a conference realignment special, with analysis for each affected conference.

*BYU announced that they would become independent for the 2011 season.

The easiest way to do this is to say, "what if last year's team was in its new conference?" Of course, this does not imply future success (looking at you, Nebraska) or continued futility (can the Buffaloes rise again?). But it is a fun way of looking at how this offseason's changes affect college football.

Winners: Big Ten, PAC-10
Losers: WAC, Mountain West (w/o BYU)
Draw: Big 12


Big Ten
2009 Conference Points: 0.5668
Additions: Nebraska (2009 Point total: 0.6922)
Defections: None
2009 Points + Additions - Defections: 0.5699 (+0.0031)
Win or Lose? Win.
Why I'm right: Nebraska has been on the up-and-up during Bo Pelini's tenure, going from 5-7 under Bill Callahan in 2007 to 9-4 in 2008 to 10-4 in 2009. The Big Ten is the most established and oldest conference in the country, and has perhaps the best media deal, with its own private network. The stability (not to mention the extra $$$) provided by the Big Ten will only aid the Huskers in their quest back to the top of college football. And that is a good thing for the conference. The sextet of Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State would be the strongest "top 6" of any conference without question. The addition of a championship game won't hurt, either.
Why I might be wrong: The divisions might be confusing, turning into an ACC-like situation. But that won't happen - Big Ten fans will still flock to games and the championship. The league might not catch up to the SEC. But so what? Is second-best all that bad? There just really aren't any real worries for the conference with this move.
Where we go from here: To expand or not to expand? The Big Ten might grab Rutgers and/or Syracuse and/or Connecticut and/or [insert Big East school here]. The reality is that the Big Ten is really quite fine where it is sitting. Expansion might water-down an at-present stellar product.


Big 12
2009 Conference Points: 0.5672
Additions: None
Defections: Nebraska (0.6922); Colorado (0.2432)
2009 Points + Additions - Defections: 0.5633 (-0.0039)
Win or Lose? Draw.
Why I'm right: The conference lost two of its flagship programs (and 9 out of the 14 Big 12 championship game North division participants). However, the balance of power has shifted south over the last 5 years, and it can be argued that, from OU and UT's perspective, the flies were swatted away. This is unquestioningly the Sooners' and Longhorns' league now, and just between the two programs, the path to the championship is now easier. Win for the Big 2. Lose for everyone else.
Why I might be wrong: Maybe the new structure will allow Texas A&M or Texas Tech to come into its own. But probably not. Those schools may have to be content (or continue to be content) with eating from the little table, and occasionally throw scraps to the rest of the conference. The conference itself may not even survive another 5 years. Ironically, the teams that are most hurt by the new alignment (ISU, KU, KSU) are the ones praying for the peace to last.
Where we go from here: The Big 12 will join the Big Ten as the mathematically-challenged leagues. There is no reason for UT and OU to add a Houston or TCU or BYU and ruin their perfect new set-up. And if there is one thing we've learned from realignment, it is that what UT wants, UT gets.

Pac-10 (Pac-12)

2009 Conference Points: 0.5529

Additions: Utah (0.6788); Colorado (0.2432)

Defections: None

2009 Points + Additions - Defections: 0.5575 (+ 0.0046)

Win or Lose? Win.

Why I'm right: New Look. New championship game. New Teams. What's not to like?

Why I might be wrong: The PAC-10's fans are notorious for not showing up to games that are only marginally interesting to them. Will people show for Colorado at Washington State? What about the championship game? And how will the divisions be decided? N v. S? The "zipper" plan? The PAC-10 wants to emulate the SEC, but might end up being an ACC rehash.

Where we go from here: The PAC-10 is probably done... for now. But would they say no if Texas decided to bolt the Big 12? I didn't think so.

Mountain West

2009 Conference Points: 0.5524

Additions: Boise State (0.7751); Fresno State (0.5671); Nevada (0.5833)

Defections: Utah (0.6788); BYU[???] (0.7244)

2009 Points + Additions - Defections: With BYU: 0.5621 (+0.0097) Without BYU: 0.5486 (-0.0038)

Win or Lose? With BYU: Win. Without BYU: Lose.

Why I'm right: BYU is the key. With them, the Mountain West ranks only behind the SEC, Big Ten, and Big 12. Yes. That's right. With BYU, this is the 4th best conference. If the Mountain West wants to gain that BCS bid, they have to keep the Cougars. Without them, the Mountain West just lives to fight another day.

Why I might be wrong: The Mountain West might not get a BCS bid with BYU. But they certainly won't without them.

Where we go from here: Keep BYU. Get that BCS bid. Invite Houston. Get that BCS bid. We can kick out New Mexico and snag SMU if that will help. Get that BCS bid. Stage a championship game. Get that BCS bid.

*With BYU's announcement to become independent, the Mountain West was dealt a major blow. I will address this in the future. But for now, that BCS bid looks as illusive as ever

WAC

2009 Conference Points: 0.5429

Additions: None

Defections: Boise State (0.7751); Fresno State (0.5671); Nevada (0.5833)

2009 Points + Additions - Defections: 0.4920 (-0.0509)

Win or Lose? LOSE.

Why I'm right: Without Boise State, the WAC was severely weakened. Without Boise State, Fresno State, and Nevada, the WAC is non-existent.

Why I might be wrong: I'm not.

Where we go from here: Curl up in the fetal position and cry. It's over.