Zachary GirsbergerHiatus and the Essay
December 26th 2010 18:23
Category: No Category
After the two week hiatus I took unannounced, known as college finals and Christmas week, expect a few posts regularly for the next month or so, especially with playoffs coming from the NFL.
This post will likely be the longest I ever post here, as it is my ten page research paper on the moves by BYU and Utah in collegiate athletics. This paper was finished around a month ago, so the moves by TCU and the loss to Boise State in the Las Vegas bowl were not factored in, but only the latter has a direct effect on my thesis, as it would be another loss to a top team for Utah. So, without further delay, I implore you to read on as it is quite the interesting read for those of you fans of NCAA athletics--specifically football and basketball.
During this year’s college football offseason, universities became movers and shakers in the world of college athletics. Nebraska joined the Big Ten, Colorado joined the Pac-10 (soon to be the Pac-12), Boise State, Nevada, and Fresno State joined the Mountain West, but regionally, the University of Utah and Brigham Young University both left the Mountain West to join the Pac-10 and go independent, respectively. Both Utah and BYU left for one major reason: neither university’s football teams were getting the respect they felt deserved by the team’s level of play. Neither football team will be able to begin in their new roles until the 2011 season, yet the move is set in stone. Unfortunately, for both universities and their athletic departments, their intended goal will be a failure, yet the moves will ultimately be a success in finances, recruitment, and sports other than football.
Leaving the Mountain West for greater football glory was pushed by both universities due to the nature of college football’s playoff system. In 1998, the NCAA implemented the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) for the regulation of college football’s postseason bowls. The BCS is a system agreed upon by all of the conferences in college football, yet created a division between the major (or BCS) conferences, the Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC, and the minor conferences, which now are the MAC, WAC, Sunbelt, Conference USA, and Mountain West. The problem with the division is that several teams from the Mountain West, as well as the WAC, have finished undefeated, yet because the universities do not play in one of the BCS conferences, their reputation in the polls (which affect two-thirds of the equation to calculate BCS ranking) is diminished (BCS online). With the moves, Utah joins a BCS conference and BYU becomes the fourth independent, similar to Notre Dame’s situation.
As an independent, Notre Dame holds a unique position that neither Army, nor Navy, (the NCAA’s other independents) are granted. Under the BCS agreement, Notre Dame is guaranteed a BCS bowl berth if the Fighting Irish are ranked in the top-14 (Dunnavant 249). Reportedly, Brigham Young University is seeking a deal similar to the Irish’s, yet BYU does not hold the same level of clout that Notre Dame does, with Notre Dame producing seven Heisman trophy winner’s to BYU’s one, Notre Dame having 837 total wins to BYU’s 494 and Notre Dame winning eleven national titles to BYU’s one (Notre online, Brigham online). This discrepancy will likely not grant BYU the same or even a similar deal, and thus scheduling strong opponents and beating them will be the only way BYU will draw national title attention (Schwab online). The lack of playing tough opponents, as defined by the BCS selection process, is currently the problem for both BYU and Utah.
In the BCS rankings, there are three major factors in the equation to calculate a team’s position: the coaches’ poll, the Harris poll, and computer rankings. Often in the computer rankings, strength of schedule and the quality of a team’s wins factor into the position of the team (BCS online). The problem with this system, at least for teams like BYU and Utah is that in the Mountain West, several teams have historically struggled in football and often finish with losing records (like UNLV and New Mexico), thus when a team like Utah beats a struggling team by a large margin, it counts less for both the computers and human opinion than beating a team higher in the rankings by even a small margin (Sagarin online). Leaving the Mountain West Conference makes sense in theory, however, playing lesser opponents leads to a greater margin for error. In sports, there is a common theory of hot streaks and off-games, caused by the combination of luck, strategy, and momentum that contribute to the vicissitudes of play. By playing lower-rated opponents on a day where the team is not playing well is less likely to lead to a loss, when compared to playing a team high in the rankings while on an off-day. Following this thinking, both BYU and Utah have arguably been deceived into their confidences by having fewer losses, due to a bolstered record versus struggling teams.
As members of the MWC, Utah and BYU are blessed with a relatively easy schedule, due to the weaker teams within the conference. These weaker teams provide wins that bolster the records of both teams, leading to bowl-eligible status and inflated standing in the polls. Unfortunately, for Utah and BYU, the computers in the BCS system are not open to human flaw, and thus the inflated records count for less. The BCS currently uses six computers, but probably the most prominent of the computer rankings is the Sagarin rating, created by Jeff Sagarin (BCS online). Sagarin uses a combination of wins and losses by a team’s opponents, factors in the quality of the win, and compares two calculations (ELO-Chess and Predictor) to determine a team’s rank In the past three years (the only years that next year’s student-athletes were a part of) both BYU and Utah have had varied success in Sagarin’s rating. Utah’s successes under in the Sagarin rating have been fairly high, finishing fifth in 2008, twenty-fourth in 2009, and currently is ranked twenty-third; for BYU, the university has finished thirty-second in 2008, fifteenth in 2009, and is fifty-ninth currently. These finishes may seem high, however, considering the results have come with relatively easy schedules (fifty-sixth, seventy-fifth, and sixty-sixth for Utah, seventy-fourth, sixty-first, and fifty-seventh for BYU), the ranking would be higher if the universities played stronger opponents. While this fact may be true, losses versus strong opponents do not boost rankings and both BYU and Utah have struggled versus teams ranked in the top thirty by Sagarin, with Utah having an overall record of three wins and four losses over the past three years, and BYU struggling more so with two wins and seven losses (Sagarin online). Tougher opponents are ahead for both teams due to their moves, yet Utah could have a much rougher time than anticipated, with their move to the Pac-12.
In October, the athletic directors of the schools within the future Pac-12 deliberated and formed the divisions within the conference. Perhaps unfortunately, for Utah, the directors formed a division that includes Utah, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, and Colorado, which is arguably stacked far heavier in terms of competitiveness than the other division. For Utah, this provides a bevy of strong opponents annually, which if won would strengthen their position in the rankings, yet if lost would kill national title aspirations. Playing in the Pac-12 will also provide four additional games within the conference, and save the teams from Washington, the schools have put strong teams on the field for several years (Pac-12 online). Rougher competition is bittersweet, with high risks, but even higher rewards, yet without a national title, Utah’s move may not be worth the sacrifice of regular visits to high-paying bowls. Thankfully, for both schools, potential failure on the football field is not the only aspect of leaving the Mountain West Conference.
Moving out of a non-BCS conference, both BYU and Utah have the ability to make a significant increase in profits from television deals. As members of the Mountain West, games were often restricted to the Mountain West Channel, a dedicated channel that many cable and satellite providers do not support, or the Versus Channel, yet only one game a week is broadcast from the Mountain West on Versus. In the Pac-12, Utah has a significant increase in viewers on the regional Fox Sports affiliate channels, which not only increases viewers, but increases advertisement revenue that is shared between schools within the conference. As a larger conference, the Pac-12 is considering also adding their own television channel, similar to the Big Ten Network which has been largely successful (Pucin online). As for BYU, their future in television has been more-or-less secured with an eight-to-ten-year deal with ESPN that will allow ESPN or one of their affiliates to broadcast the Cougar’s home games. The deal with ESPN is a huge improvement for BYU over the Mountain West Network as not only do the Cougars have a potential national audience, but the deal also allows BYU to market their road games independently or broadcast the games on BYU’s own series of networks (Livingston online). Both teams will profit more than they do currently from television , and money goes a long way for college programs.
Money is a driving force in the universe, and college athletics are not immune to greed, especially when it comes as a bonus from what already occurs. In “The Fifty-Year Seduction,” Keith Dunnavant discusses television’s impact on the creation of the BCS and the revenue generated by television. Dunnavant shows the discrepancy between major BCS conferences and their unequal counterparts with revelations such as: “While SEC teams like Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, and Georgia averaged more than 80,000 fans per game and split more than $70 million per year from the league’s lucrative television and bowl contracts, MAC teams like Toledo, Kent, and Northern Illinois… shared less than $10 million per year from TV and bowls” (262). Dunnavant also presents a inconsistency in BCS bowl revenue, especially in years that a non-automatic-qualifying team does not make a BCS bowl. In 2004, the major BCS conferences split $450 million dollars in the four major bowls while the remaining minor conferences split $17 million dollars (262). Such a margin can only be explained by the politicking within the BCS, and so even in a losing season, Utah will make millions more in revenue sharing. What makes Dunnavant’s findings slightly skewed is that the BCS has added another BCS bowl since his book was published, so nearly another $100 million dollars has been added nearly every year in total revenue, most going to BCS conferences. The difference has since been closed with each win in a BCS bowl by the Mountain West, but still exists, and thus the move will provide wealth for Utah as part of a major BCS conference.
In “The Economics of College Football,” Brian Goff discusses the implication of being a member of a larger successful conference or a popular independent, over a smaller conference. Goff highlights the comparison of test scores of entrants into the more successful athletic schools over their counterparts, noting an average SAT score being nearly fifty points higher in BCS conferences (77). Having an academically prominent student body benefits a university in a plethora of ways, but specifically it improves standing amongst the intellectual community, which provides accolades and grants to schools of higher standing. An intellectually proven student body is a positive enhancement for a university, and thus will benefit both Utah and BYU significantly. Goff does discuss a minor drop-off in improvement for private schools, limiting improvement to around thirty points, yet a significant improvement still exists, and so BYU should look at the statistic positively (80). In his chapter, Goff also presents an intriguing statistical figure that shows a 28% increase in applicants to a university in the four years after winning a championship (78). Potential scholastic improvement and prestige is but one aspect of change for BYU and Utah.
Beyond football, both universities will have changes. For Utah, their athletic department is firmly rooted in the Pac-12, and thus will be a member in all NCAA sports the university chooses to field a team in. For all sports, but basketball specifically, the improvement in the quality of the teams that Utah will play will increase, and thus the quality of wins will increase. While the NCAA may eventually expand the college basketball tournament beyond its current state, right now as a squad of sixty-four teams (really sixty-eight, but eight teams currently play play-in games that are not considered part of the bracket) the exclusivity of March Madness is still relatively intact. Due to the nature of the basketball selection committee, more losses attributed to a team that has played stronger opponents count more than more wins against lesser opponents. In the Pac-10 last season, only two teams made the cut for the NCAA tournament (California and Washington), yet both teams had fewer wins than the top teams in the MWC; playing in a league like the newly founded Pac-12 can only boost the quality of opponents that Utah will face, thus giving them a better chance at making the tournament and therefore have a shot at a title (Pac-10 online). While the argument that playing better teams will lead to a better shot at a title in basketball seems contradictory when compared to the argument to the contrary in football, the quantity of games on the basketball schedule is nearly three-times as great and the field that make the upper tier to the title is sixty-eight teams, not two. While the Pac-10 considered expansion beyond two teams, only two schools added on, and so only Utah and Colorado became new additions.
BYU chose to join the West Coast Conference in athletics other than football (the WCC does not support football) and thus their athletics will be hosted within the WCC. The WCC provides a much different experience for BYU because the school will be one of the larger members, and thus will have more sway than currently held in the MWC. Under the terms set by BYU when joining the WCC, athletics including the Cougars will not be hosted on Sundays, a condition that BYU prefers, being a religious-centric institution. While this concession from the WCC may seem strange by some, it makes sense for the conference because of its unique nature as including only private Christian-based schools (Pashelka online). Also in the WCC, BYU will get to rival Gonzaga, which has dominated in men’s basketball, as well as upstarts like St. Mary’s. The WCC also has ties to the Pac-10, which will likely be carried over when the conference becomes the Pac-12, so BYU will get a bevy of stronger opponents the school was unable to play before due to scheduling. The WCC provides a multitude of benefits for BYU in both athletics and beyond.
Obviously there are those that argue that the moves by BYU and Utah will be good for both universities’ athletic departments and with some support. Those that would argue have evidence in Utah’s 2004 and 2008 teams under the BCS, and before that the 1984 BYU team. In 2004, Utah completed the regular season undefeated and become the first ‘BCS Buster’ by defeating Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl. Four years later, in 2008, Utah went undefeated in the regular season and busted the BCS again by defeating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Both of these Utah teams finished in the top five in the overall rankings, went undefeated in the regular season, and proved to teams in major conferences that Utah teams can win on the national stage. In addition to establishing a dominant for in the Mountain West, Utah being the first BCS Buster created the controversy still faced today in the BCS, which is the question of whether or not a team outside of a BCS conference should play for the national championship. Fortunately, for the 1984 BYU team mentioned before, the question of conference was lessened and BYU won the national championship, granted before the BCS system was implemented, yet teams in major conferences keep their prior championships so BYU’s championship is just as valid. With a historical precedent, those who argue in favor of the split from the MWC do have a foundation for their beliefs.
For BYU, another problem arises that existed before the move, one that the university will undoubtedly be unwilling to change and is a contributing factor to BYU’s inability to recruit certain student-athletes. The problem is the with the honor code which was established in the 1940’s and prevents students from engaging in activities that the university does not approve of morally. The honor code forbids drinking alcohol, coffee, and tea, all of which are common practice in colleges around the nation, whether for parties or late-night cramming sessions. Additionally, the honor code requires each student to attend religious services regularly and maintain a clean-cut and wholesome appearance which includes: not having facial hair unless exempted specifically, wearing clothing that does not qualify as provocative under the guidelines, and not exceeding the amount of piercings dictated by the honor code. One of the core foundations of the honor codes prevents sexual activity between unwed students, acts popularized in pop college culture as a staple of the college experience (Church online). Tying this honor code to athletics, student-athletes must abide by the principles of the honor code, no matter their standing; this past year Harvey Unga, star halfback for BYU, left the university because of an honor code violation (Judd online). While the honor code may seem wholesome and vital to learning in the eyes of the university, the code does eliminate parts of modern culture that are accepted around the nation, and thus students who do not wish to follow the strict guidelines will not attend BYU. For college football, the impact is lessened because the honor code has been applied for years, but in terms of college basketball, the honor codes governing fist has direct implications. The NBA instituted a system that requires students now to spend one year between high school and joining the league, leaving students with two playing options: go play in college or play in Europe. The majority of students in the United States who wish to play basketball professionally do choose to play in college. History has shown that some students who normally would not attend college, whether for academic or philosophical reasons, now do attend because of the new rule (Robertson online). Connecting BYU to the NBA’s new rule, certain students who previously would not attend college who live a certain lifestyle, will not attend BYU because of the honor code; the students could not even be admitted if found to have poor standing before entrance. Many of the one-and-done students have a history of character problems, like Demarcus Cousins or Michael Beasley, both of whom contributed greatly for their respective teams in college. Unfortunately, for BYU, consistently being hindered by their own ideals in recruiting could prevent the jump from contending team to national title team.
The moves for BYU and the University of Utah obviously have both pros and cons, and the universities would not have made the move if the schools did not feel that they could push past the barriers of negative aspects. Leaving the Mountain West Conference will have ramifications beyond college football, the focal point of the move for both universities, and yet football will be the failing point of the moves. As evidence, both universities will find profit in the moves, an improvement in their student bodies, and will succeed off the football field, yet neither university will likely find the success that provoked a move from the conference.
"BCS Computer Rankings." BCS: News, Highlights and Insights into the Bowl Championship Series. 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.
Brigham Young University – Athletic Creative Services. "BYU Football
Guide." BYUCougars.com - Official Site of BYU Athletics. Web. 21 Nov. 2010.
Diane Pucin. "Pac-12 to battle to be a network star; It sees the Big Ten venture as a blueprint as it seeks TV deals to aid national exposure. " Los Angeles Times 21 Oct. 2010,Los Angeles Times, ProQuest. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.
Dunnavant, Keith. “The BCS.” The 50 Year Seduction: How Television Manipulated College Football, from the Birth of the Modern NCAA to the Creation of the BCS. New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books. 2004. 247-76. Print 262
Goff, Brain. "Effects of University Athletics on the University: A Review and Extension of Empirical Assessment." Economics of College Sports. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. 65-85. Print.
Judd, Brandon. "Unga Withdraws from Y; Return Still Debated." Universe. 16 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2010.
Livingston, Matthew. "BYU Football Makes 8-year Deal with ESPN." Universe. 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 3 Nov. 2010.
Notre Dame. "University of Notre Dame Official Athletics Archive." University of Notre Dame Official Athletic Site. Web. 21 Nov. 2010.
Pac-10. "Men's Basketball Standings." Men's Basketball Standings. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
"PAC-12 WILL RUN NORTH, SOUTH COLLEGES: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS WILL BE SPLIT, BUT UCLA, USC WILL STILL PLAY CAL, STANFORD YEARLY IN FOOTBALL. " Daily News 22 Oct. 2010, ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Palshelka, Curtis. "BYU to Be Welcomed by West Coast Conference with Open Arms." LexisNexis Academic. LexisNexis, 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.
Robertson, Oscar. "Oscar Robertson's New York Times Op-Ed about Athletes Entering the NBA."University of Cincinnati Magazine. Web. 14 Nov. 2010.
Sagarin, Jeff. "Jeff Sagarin NCAA Football Ratings." USA TODAY. 21 Nov. 2010. Web. 21 Nov. 2010.
Schwab, Frank. "MWC commissioner Craig Thompson discusses BYU departure, conference future. " McClatchy - Tribune Business News 2 September 2010 ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 20 Oct. 2010.
This post will likely be the longest I ever post here, as it is my ten page research paper on the moves by BYU and Utah in collegiate athletics. This paper was finished around a month ago, so the moves by TCU and the loss to Boise State in the Las Vegas bowl were not factored in, but only the latter has a direct effect on my thesis, as it would be another loss to a top team for Utah. So, without further delay, I implore you to read on as it is quite the interesting read for those of you fans of NCAA athletics--specifically football and basketball.
Leaving the Mountain West
During this year’s college football offseason, universities became movers and shakers in the world of college athletics. Nebraska joined the Big Ten, Colorado joined the Pac-10 (soon to be the Pac-12), Boise State, Nevada, and Fresno State joined the Mountain West, but regionally, the University of Utah and Brigham Young University both left the Mountain West to join the Pac-10 and go independent, respectively. Both Utah and BYU left for one major reason: neither university’s football teams were getting the respect they felt deserved by the team’s level of play. Neither football team will be able to begin in their new roles until the 2011 season, yet the move is set in stone. Unfortunately, for both universities and their athletic departments, their intended goal will be a failure, yet the moves will ultimately be a success in finances, recruitment, and sports other than football.
Leaving the Mountain West for greater football glory was pushed by both universities due to the nature of college football’s playoff system. In 1998, the NCAA implemented the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) for the regulation of college football’s postseason bowls. The BCS is a system agreed upon by all of the conferences in college football, yet created a division between the major (or BCS) conferences, the Big East, Big Ten, Pac-10, Big 12, ACC, and SEC, and the minor conferences, which now are the MAC, WAC, Sunbelt, Conference USA, and Mountain West. The problem with the division is that several teams from the Mountain West, as well as the WAC, have finished undefeated, yet because the universities do not play in one of the BCS conferences, their reputation in the polls (which affect two-thirds of the equation to calculate BCS ranking) is diminished (BCS online). With the moves, Utah joins a BCS conference and BYU becomes the fourth independent, similar to Notre Dame’s situation.
As an independent, Notre Dame holds a unique position that neither Army, nor Navy, (the NCAA’s other independents) are granted. Under the BCS agreement, Notre Dame is guaranteed a BCS bowl berth if the Fighting Irish are ranked in the top-14 (Dunnavant 249). Reportedly, Brigham Young University is seeking a deal similar to the Irish’s, yet BYU does not hold the same level of clout that Notre Dame does, with Notre Dame producing seven Heisman trophy winner’s to BYU’s one, Notre Dame having 837 total wins to BYU’s 494 and Notre Dame winning eleven national titles to BYU’s one (Notre online, Brigham online). This discrepancy will likely not grant BYU the same or even a similar deal, and thus scheduling strong opponents and beating them will be the only way BYU will draw national title attention (Schwab online). The lack of playing tough opponents, as defined by the BCS selection process, is currently the problem for both BYU and Utah.
In the BCS rankings, there are three major factors in the equation to calculate a team’s position: the coaches’ poll, the Harris poll, and computer rankings. Often in the computer rankings, strength of schedule and the quality of a team’s wins factor into the position of the team (BCS online). The problem with this system, at least for teams like BYU and Utah is that in the Mountain West, several teams have historically struggled in football and often finish with losing records (like UNLV and New Mexico), thus when a team like Utah beats a struggling team by a large margin, it counts less for both the computers and human opinion than beating a team higher in the rankings by even a small margin (Sagarin online). Leaving the Mountain West Conference makes sense in theory, however, playing lesser opponents leads to a greater margin for error. In sports, there is a common theory of hot streaks and off-games, caused by the combination of luck, strategy, and momentum that contribute to the vicissitudes of play. By playing lower-rated opponents on a day where the team is not playing well is less likely to lead to a loss, when compared to playing a team high in the rankings while on an off-day. Following this thinking, both BYU and Utah have arguably been deceived into their confidences by having fewer losses, due to a bolstered record versus struggling teams.
As members of the MWC, Utah and BYU are blessed with a relatively easy schedule, due to the weaker teams within the conference. These weaker teams provide wins that bolster the records of both teams, leading to bowl-eligible status and inflated standing in the polls. Unfortunately, for Utah and BYU, the computers in the BCS system are not open to human flaw, and thus the inflated records count for less. The BCS currently uses six computers, but probably the most prominent of the computer rankings is the Sagarin rating, created by Jeff Sagarin (BCS online). Sagarin uses a combination of wins and losses by a team’s opponents, factors in the quality of the win, and compares two calculations (ELO-Chess and Predictor) to determine a team’s rank In the past three years (the only years that next year’s student-athletes were a part of) both BYU and Utah have had varied success in Sagarin’s rating. Utah’s successes under in the Sagarin rating have been fairly high, finishing fifth in 2008, twenty-fourth in 2009, and currently is ranked twenty-third; for BYU, the university has finished thirty-second in 2008, fifteenth in 2009, and is fifty-ninth currently. These finishes may seem high, however, considering the results have come with relatively easy schedules (fifty-sixth, seventy-fifth, and sixty-sixth for Utah, seventy-fourth, sixty-first, and fifty-seventh for BYU), the ranking would be higher if the universities played stronger opponents. While this fact may be true, losses versus strong opponents do not boost rankings and both BYU and Utah have struggled versus teams ranked in the top thirty by Sagarin, with Utah having an overall record of three wins and four losses over the past three years, and BYU struggling more so with two wins and seven losses (Sagarin online). Tougher opponents are ahead for both teams due to their moves, yet Utah could have a much rougher time than anticipated, with their move to the Pac-12.
In October, the athletic directors of the schools within the future Pac-12 deliberated and formed the divisions within the conference. Perhaps unfortunately, for Utah, the directors formed a division that includes Utah, USC, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, and Colorado, which is arguably stacked far heavier in terms of competitiveness than the other division. For Utah, this provides a bevy of strong opponents annually, which if won would strengthen their position in the rankings, yet if lost would kill national title aspirations. Playing in the Pac-12 will also provide four additional games within the conference, and save the teams from Washington, the schools have put strong teams on the field for several years (Pac-12 online). Rougher competition is bittersweet, with high risks, but even higher rewards, yet without a national title, Utah’s move may not be worth the sacrifice of regular visits to high-paying bowls. Thankfully, for both schools, potential failure on the football field is not the only aspect of leaving the Mountain West Conference.
Moving out of a non-BCS conference, both BYU and Utah have the ability to make a significant increase in profits from television deals. As members of the Mountain West, games were often restricted to the Mountain West Channel, a dedicated channel that many cable and satellite providers do not support, or the Versus Channel, yet only one game a week is broadcast from the Mountain West on Versus. In the Pac-12, Utah has a significant increase in viewers on the regional Fox Sports affiliate channels, which not only increases viewers, but increases advertisement revenue that is shared between schools within the conference. As a larger conference, the Pac-12 is considering also adding their own television channel, similar to the Big Ten Network which has been largely successful (Pucin online). As for BYU, their future in television has been more-or-less secured with an eight-to-ten-year deal with ESPN that will allow ESPN or one of their affiliates to broadcast the Cougar’s home games. The deal with ESPN is a huge improvement for BYU over the Mountain West Network as not only do the Cougars have a potential national audience, but the deal also allows BYU to market their road games independently or broadcast the games on BYU’s own series of networks (Livingston online). Both teams will profit more than they do currently from television , and money goes a long way for college programs.
Money is a driving force in the universe, and college athletics are not immune to greed, especially when it comes as a bonus from what already occurs. In “The Fifty-Year Seduction,” Keith Dunnavant discusses television’s impact on the creation of the BCS and the revenue generated by television. Dunnavant shows the discrepancy between major BCS conferences and their unequal counterparts with revelations such as: “While SEC teams like Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, and Georgia averaged more than 80,000 fans per game and split more than $70 million per year from the league’s lucrative television and bowl contracts, MAC teams like Toledo, Kent, and Northern Illinois… shared less than $10 million per year from TV and bowls” (262). Dunnavant also presents a inconsistency in BCS bowl revenue, especially in years that a non-automatic-qualifying team does not make a BCS bowl. In 2004, the major BCS conferences split $450 million dollars in the four major bowls while the remaining minor conferences split $17 million dollars (262). Such a margin can only be explained by the politicking within the BCS, and so even in a losing season, Utah will make millions more in revenue sharing. What makes Dunnavant’s findings slightly skewed is that the BCS has added another BCS bowl since his book was published, so nearly another $100 million dollars has been added nearly every year in total revenue, most going to BCS conferences. The difference has since been closed with each win in a BCS bowl by the Mountain West, but still exists, and thus the move will provide wealth for Utah as part of a major BCS conference.
In “The Economics of College Football,” Brian Goff discusses the implication of being a member of a larger successful conference or a popular independent, over a smaller conference. Goff highlights the comparison of test scores of entrants into the more successful athletic schools over their counterparts, noting an average SAT score being nearly fifty points higher in BCS conferences (77). Having an academically prominent student body benefits a university in a plethora of ways, but specifically it improves standing amongst the intellectual community, which provides accolades and grants to schools of higher standing. An intellectually proven student body is a positive enhancement for a university, and thus will benefit both Utah and BYU significantly. Goff does discuss a minor drop-off in improvement for private schools, limiting improvement to around thirty points, yet a significant improvement still exists, and so BYU should look at the statistic positively (80). In his chapter, Goff also presents an intriguing statistical figure that shows a 28% increase in applicants to a university in the four years after winning a championship (78). Potential scholastic improvement and prestige is but one aspect of change for BYU and Utah.
Beyond football, both universities will have changes. For Utah, their athletic department is firmly rooted in the Pac-12, and thus will be a member in all NCAA sports the university chooses to field a team in. For all sports, but basketball specifically, the improvement in the quality of the teams that Utah will play will increase, and thus the quality of wins will increase. While the NCAA may eventually expand the college basketball tournament beyond its current state, right now as a squad of sixty-four teams (really sixty-eight, but eight teams currently play play-in games that are not considered part of the bracket) the exclusivity of March Madness is still relatively intact. Due to the nature of the basketball selection committee, more losses attributed to a team that has played stronger opponents count more than more wins against lesser opponents. In the Pac-10 last season, only two teams made the cut for the NCAA tournament (California and Washington), yet both teams had fewer wins than the top teams in the MWC; playing in a league like the newly founded Pac-12 can only boost the quality of opponents that Utah will face, thus giving them a better chance at making the tournament and therefore have a shot at a title (Pac-10 online). While the argument that playing better teams will lead to a better shot at a title in basketball seems contradictory when compared to the argument to the contrary in football, the quantity of games on the basketball schedule is nearly three-times as great and the field that make the upper tier to the title is sixty-eight teams, not two. While the Pac-10 considered expansion beyond two teams, only two schools added on, and so only Utah and Colorado became new additions.
BYU chose to join the West Coast Conference in athletics other than football (the WCC does not support football) and thus their athletics will be hosted within the WCC. The WCC provides a much different experience for BYU because the school will be one of the larger members, and thus will have more sway than currently held in the MWC. Under the terms set by BYU when joining the WCC, athletics including the Cougars will not be hosted on Sundays, a condition that BYU prefers, being a religious-centric institution. While this concession from the WCC may seem strange by some, it makes sense for the conference because of its unique nature as including only private Christian-based schools (Pashelka online). Also in the WCC, BYU will get to rival Gonzaga, which has dominated in men’s basketball, as well as upstarts like St. Mary’s. The WCC also has ties to the Pac-10, which will likely be carried over when the conference becomes the Pac-12, so BYU will get a bevy of stronger opponents the school was unable to play before due to scheduling. The WCC provides a multitude of benefits for BYU in both athletics and beyond.
Obviously there are those that argue that the moves by BYU and Utah will be good for both universities’ athletic departments and with some support. Those that would argue have evidence in Utah’s 2004 and 2008 teams under the BCS, and before that the 1984 BYU team. In 2004, Utah completed the regular season undefeated and become the first ‘BCS Buster’ by defeating Pittsburgh in the Fiesta Bowl. Four years later, in 2008, Utah went undefeated in the regular season and busted the BCS again by defeating Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. Both of these Utah teams finished in the top five in the overall rankings, went undefeated in the regular season, and proved to teams in major conferences that Utah teams can win on the national stage. In addition to establishing a dominant for in the Mountain West, Utah being the first BCS Buster created the controversy still faced today in the BCS, which is the question of whether or not a team outside of a BCS conference should play for the national championship. Fortunately, for the 1984 BYU team mentioned before, the question of conference was lessened and BYU won the national championship, granted before the BCS system was implemented, yet teams in major conferences keep their prior championships so BYU’s championship is just as valid. With a historical precedent, those who argue in favor of the split from the MWC do have a foundation for their beliefs.
For BYU, another problem arises that existed before the move, one that the university will undoubtedly be unwilling to change and is a contributing factor to BYU’s inability to recruit certain student-athletes. The problem is the with the honor code which was established in the 1940’s and prevents students from engaging in activities that the university does not approve of morally. The honor code forbids drinking alcohol, coffee, and tea, all of which are common practice in colleges around the nation, whether for parties or late-night cramming sessions. Additionally, the honor code requires each student to attend religious services regularly and maintain a clean-cut and wholesome appearance which includes: not having facial hair unless exempted specifically, wearing clothing that does not qualify as provocative under the guidelines, and not exceeding the amount of piercings dictated by the honor code. One of the core foundations of the honor codes prevents sexual activity between unwed students, acts popularized in pop college culture as a staple of the college experience (Church online). Tying this honor code to athletics, student-athletes must abide by the principles of the honor code, no matter their standing; this past year Harvey Unga, star halfback for BYU, left the university because of an honor code violation (Judd online). While the honor code may seem wholesome and vital to learning in the eyes of the university, the code does eliminate parts of modern culture that are accepted around the nation, and thus students who do not wish to follow the strict guidelines will not attend BYU. For college football, the impact is lessened because the honor code has been applied for years, but in terms of college basketball, the honor codes governing fist has direct implications. The NBA instituted a system that requires students now to spend one year between high school and joining the league, leaving students with two playing options: go play in college or play in Europe. The majority of students in the United States who wish to play basketball professionally do choose to play in college. History has shown that some students who normally would not attend college, whether for academic or philosophical reasons, now do attend because of the new rule (Robertson online). Connecting BYU to the NBA’s new rule, certain students who previously would not attend college who live a certain lifestyle, will not attend BYU because of the honor code; the students could not even be admitted if found to have poor standing before entrance. Many of the one-and-done students have a history of character problems, like Demarcus Cousins or Michael Beasley, both of whom contributed greatly for their respective teams in college. Unfortunately, for BYU, consistently being hindered by their own ideals in recruiting could prevent the jump from contending team to national title team.
The moves for BYU and the University of Utah obviously have both pros and cons, and the universities would not have made the move if the schools did not feel that they could push past the barriers of negative aspects. Leaving the Mountain West Conference will have ramifications beyond college football, the focal point of the move for both universities, and yet football will be the failing point of the moves. As evidence, both universities will find profit in the moves, an improvement in their student bodies, and will succeed off the football field, yet neither university will likely find the success that provoked a move from the conference.
"BCS Computer Rankings." BCS: News, Highlights and Insights into the Bowl Championship Series. 21 Jan. 2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.
Brigham Young University – Athletic Creative Services. "BYU Football
Guide." BYUCougars.com - Official Site of BYU Athletics. Web. 21 Nov. 2010.
Diane Pucin. "Pac-12 to battle to be a network star; It sees the Big Ten venture as a blueprint as it seeks TV deals to aid national exposure. " Los Angeles Times 21 Oct. 2010,Los Angeles Times, ProQuest. Web. 1 Nov. 2010.
Dunnavant, Keith. “The BCS.” The 50 Year Seduction: How Television Manipulated College Football, from the Birth of the Modern NCAA to the Creation of the BCS. New York, NY: Thomas Dunne Books. 2004. 247-76. Print 262
Goff, Brain. "Effects of University Athletics on the University: A Review and Extension of Empirical Assessment." Economics of College Sports. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004. 65-85. Print.
Judd, Brandon. "Unga Withdraws from Y; Return Still Debated." Universe. 16 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Oct. 2010.
Livingston, Matthew. "BYU Football Makes 8-year Deal with ESPN." Universe. 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 3 Nov. 2010.
Notre Dame. "University of Notre Dame Official Athletics Archive." University of Notre Dame Official Athletic Site. Web. 21 Nov. 2010.
Pac-10. "Men's Basketball Standings." Men's Basketball Standings. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
"PAC-12 WILL RUN NORTH, SOUTH COLLEGES: CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS WILL BE SPLIT, BUT UCLA, USC WILL STILL PLAY CAL, STANFORD YEARLY IN FOOTBALL. " Daily News 22 Oct. 2010, ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 11 Nov. 2010.
Palshelka, Curtis. "BYU to Be Welcomed by West Coast Conference with Open Arms." LexisNexis Academic. LexisNexis, 1 Sept. 2010. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.
Robertson, Oscar. "Oscar Robertson's New York Times Op-Ed about Athletes Entering the NBA."University of Cincinnati Magazine. Web. 14 Nov. 2010.
Sagarin, Jeff. "Jeff Sagarin NCAA Football Ratings." USA TODAY. 21 Nov. 2010. Web. 21 Nov. 2010.
Schwab, Frank. "MWC commissioner Craig Thompson discusses BYU departure, conference future. " McClatchy - Tribune Business News 2 September 2010 ProQuest Newsstand, ProQuest. Web. 20 Oct. 2010.
| 6 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
