by Cliston Brown | Mar 8, 2024 | Uncategorized
I was heartened to read in The Hill today that the Biden campaign is going to be sending surrogates to Florida, Texas and Ohio, among other states, in the wake of his triumphant, “Trumanesque” State of the Union speech.
Last night, after the president’s speech, I posted on Twitter (I refuse to call it anything else) that I thought President Biden should campaign in Ohio. I felt that his pro-union message, his fighting demeanor, and his status as the only sitting president to walk a picket line offered the potential to shrink his margin of defeat in the Buckeye State from the 8% rout he suffered at the hands of Donald Trump there in 2020.
I don’t have very high hopes for Biden actually contending in Ohio, but I think shrinking Trump’s margin might give Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) a puncher’s chance to survive this fall.
As I have noted, both on this site and on Twitter, ticket-splitting in presidential years between presidential and Senate candidates is at an all-time low. Voters have become highly polarized, and they have also come to understand that it makes no sense to vote for one party’s candidate for president, and then simultaneously vote for a Senate (or House) candidate who is going to block virtually everything that president wants to do.
The statistics bear this out. In 2016, every state that had a Senate race voted for the same party’s candidates for president and Senate. In 2020, there was only one exception to this trend, with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) prevailing despite Joe Biden winning her state. Even in that case, Collins had her closest race since she was first elected in 1996. That means 68 of the last 69 Senate races held during presidential election years have resulted in the same party winning both the presidential and Senate races in those states (a 1.4% split rate over the last two cycles). Statistically, the likelihood of Brown holding his seat while Biden loses Ohio is very low, and the larger Biden’s margin of defeat, the likelihood of Brown surviving gets even lower.
If Biden can shrink his margin of defeat in Ohio, Brown might be able to hold on to his Senate seat. But even then, Democrats are likely looking at losing the Senate by a seat, and that’s where Florida and Texas come into the picture.
I know that it is fashionable among Democrats these days to suggest that Democrats should forget Florida, but Florida, rich with electoral votes and House seats, remains one of the closest states in the country and one of its biggest electoral prizes. Conceding Florida is a mistake, especially with the Sunshine State having a Senate race on the ballot this year. Everyone understands that North Carolina is a better bet for the president than Florida is, but North Carolina has no Senate race on the ballot this year. It would be great for Biden to win North Carolina, but if he wins there, he almost certainly already has the election won irrespective of the results in that state. There’s really no benefit or added value to winning North Carolina in 2024. But winning Florida, or at least making it close, could help Democrats defeat Senator Rick Scott (R-Florida) and get back to 50 seats in the Senate, if Sherrod Brown also wins.
Texas is also a state which I believe is not especially promising for Biden this fall, but again, if he can cut his margin in the Lone Star State, he could help Democratic Senate candidate Colin Allred in his race against the unpopular Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas). Remember that Cruz only won his last race by about 2.5%, and while that was a midterm election in which Democrats overperformed nationally, Cruz clearly does have some electoral and political weaknesses.
None of these three states are especially good bets for Biden, but conceding them also means conceding the Senate. The likelihood of Senator Jon Tester (D-Montana) overcoming a double-digit Biden loss in his state is very, very low. Don’t kid yourselves about that. Tester has never faced a race with these kinds of headwinds. Of his three previous races, two were in midterm elections, with no presidential race on the ballot to weigh him down, and the one time he won during a presidential election, in 2012, was when Barack Obama only lost Montana by about 10%. Biden lost Montana in 2020 by 16%. Tester has never won by a large margin, and if Biden loses Montana by double digits again–especially now, in a more polarized environment that 2012, with presidential/Senate ticket-splitting all but dead now–Tester is probably doomed. With the West Virginia Senate seat being vacated by Senator Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), that seat is certain to flip Republican. Democrats have to hold Brown’s seat and, let’s be honest, find another seat to flip to guard against the likelihood that Tester will lose.
Besides Florida and Texas, there are no other Republican-held seats on the ballot this fall where Democrats have any chance to win. The other nine Republican Senate seats up in this year’s election are in Indiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and Nebraska (where both seats are on the ballot due to a special election). Unless something extremely weird happens (like a Roy Moore situation), Democrats don’t have a prayer in a single one of those nine races.
In short, if Democrats want to hold the Senate, they have to win two out of four seats in Florida, Montana, Ohio, and Texas, and despite Tester’s incumbency and unusual strength for a Democrat in his state, his prospects are by far the worst.
That is why I wrote, over a year ago, that Biden needs to devote significant resources to these four states even if it appears unlikely that he can actually win them.
So I’m heartened by the fact that the campaign is clearly targeting three of those states–the three where Democrats have the best chance to win. If Democrats don’t win two of those seats, the Senate is all but gone. That means even if a Supreme Court seat comes open, Biden likely won’t get to fill it, even if he himself is reelected.
It’s not just the right move–it’s the only move.
by Cliston Brown | Nov 28, 2023 | Sports
SCENARIO 1: All four undefeated teams win.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Florida State (13-0)
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Washington (13-0)
SCENARIO 2: Three unbeatens win, Washington loses to Oregon.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Oregon (12-1)
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Florida State (13-0)
SCENARIO 3: Three unbeatens win, Florida State loses to Louisville, Texas wins.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Texas (12-1)
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Washington (13-0)
SCENARIO 4: Three unbeatens win, Michigan loses to Iowa, Texas wins.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Texas (12-1)
- Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Florida State (13-0)
SCENARIO 5: Three unbeatens win, Georgia loses to Alabama, Texas wins.
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Texas (12-1)
- Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Florida State (13-0)
SCENARIO 6: Georgia and Michigan win, Texas wins, Washington and Florida State lose.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Texas (12-1)
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)
SCENARIO 7: Georgia and Florida State win, Texas wins, Michigan and Washington lose.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Texas (12-1)
- Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)
SCENARIO 8: Georgia and Washington win, Texas wins, Michigan and Florida State lose.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Michigan (12-1)
- Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Texas (12-1)
SCENARIO 9: Michigan and Washington win, Texas wins, Georgia and Florida State lose.
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Alabama (12-1)
- Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Texas (12-1)
SCENARIO 10: Michigan and Florida State win, Texas wins, Georgia and Washington lose.
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Alabama (12-1)
- Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Texas (12-1)
SCENARIO 11: Florida State and Washington win, Texas wins, Georgia and Michigan lose.
- Washington (13-0) vs. 4) Alabama (12-1)
- Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Texas (12-1)
SCENARIO 12: Georgia wins, Texas wins, three other unbeatens lose.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Michigan (12-1)
- Texas (12-1) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)
SCENARIO 13: Michigan wins, Texas wins, three other unbeatens lose.
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Oregon (12-1)
- Texas (12-1) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)
SCENARIO 14: Washington wins, Texas wins, three other unbeatens lose.
- Washington (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
- Texas (12-1) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)
SCENARIO 15: Florida State wins, Texas wins, three other unbeatens lose.
- Florida State (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
- Texas (12-1) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)
SCENARIO 16: All four unbeatens lose, Texas wins.
- Texas (12-1) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
- Alabama (12-1) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)
SCENARIO 17: Three unbeatens win, Florida State loses to Louisville, Texas loses.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Ohio State (11-1)
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Washington (13-0)
SCENARIO 18: Three unbeatens win, Michigan loses to Iowa, Texas loses.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Michigan (12-1)
- Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Florida State (13-0)
SCENARIO 19: Three unbeatens win, Georgia loses to Alabama, Texas loses.
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Alabama (12-1)
- Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Florida State (13-0)
SCENARIO 20: Georgia and Michigan win, Texas loses, Washington and Florida State lose.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Ohio State (11-1)
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)
SCENARIO 21: Georgia and Florida State win, Texas loses, Michigan and Washington lose.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Michigan (12-1)
- Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)
SCENARIO 22: Georgia and Washington win, Texas loses, Michigan and Florida State lose.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Ohio State (11-1)
- Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Michigan (12-1)
SCENARIO 23: Michigan and Washington win, Texas loses, Georgia and Florida State lose.
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
- Washington (13-0) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)
SCENARIO 24: Michigan and Florida State win, Texas loses, Georgia and Washington lose.
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
- Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)
SCENARIO 25: Florida State and Washington win, Texas loses, Georgia and Michigan lose.
- Washington (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
- Florida State (13-0) vs. 3) Alabama (12-1)
SCENARIO 26: Georgia wins, Texas loses, three other unbeatens lose.
- Georgia (13-0) vs. 4) Ohio State (11-1)
- Oregon (12-1) vs. 3) Michigan (12-1)
SCENARIO 27: Michigan wins, Texas loses, three other unbeatens lose.
- Michigan (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
- Alabama (12-1) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)
SCENARIO 28: Washington wins, Texas loses, three other unbeatens lose.
- Washington (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
- Alabama (12-1) vs. 3) Michigan (12-1)
SCENARIO 29: Florida State wins, Texas loses, three other unbeatens lose.
- Florida State (13-0) vs. 4) Georgia (12-1)
- Alabama (12-1) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)
SCENARIO 30: All four unbeatens lose, Texas loses.
- Alabama (12-1) vs. 4) Michigan (12-1)
- Georgia (12-1) vs. 3) Oregon (12-1)
by Cliston Brown | Nov 6, 2023 | Election Analysis
The recent set of swing state polls by the New York Times—the world’s most overrated media company and one of the world’s most overrated institutions, period—have cued up a whole line of Democratic bedwetters to scream and cry and shout that the sky is falling. Despite the fact that the poll results are so laughably off-base (Trump +11 in Nevada and winning Las Vegas?) that anybody who takes them seriously clearly knows nothing about politics, that hasn’t stopped a cavalcade of panicky Democrats from seriously suggesting that Joe Biden ought to forego another run.
Folks, the first thing you need to do is grab a paper bag and breathe into it until you stop hyperventilating. Then you need to sit down with a stiff drink, or some weed if that’s your thing, and let Uncle Cliston tell you a bedtime story.
In a land called America a long time ago, there was a fellow named Michael Dukakis. I’m told some of his friends called him Mike. He came out of the Democratic convention less than four months before the 1988 election leading George Bush by 17 percentage points. But when November came, Mike lost 40 states to George, who then became America’s president.
George eventually took America into a war and saw his approval ratings reach 91%. The Democrats were terrified, and almost no leading Democrat chose to run against him in 1992 because he clearly could not be beaten. But a brave, if unknown, soul from Arkansas named Bill Clinton took a gamble, and a year and a half later, Bill won big and became the next president.
Things went sour for Bill quickly, and his party was crushed in the 1994 midterm elections. It was obvious that there would be no second term for Billy Boy, whose polling was in the toilet. Yet, in 1996, he won in a landslide that surpassed his 1992 election. Nobody has won by as large of a margin since!
Then, along came a man named Barack Obama, who fell behind John McCain in the polls in 2008 with less than two months to go before the election. Yet he somehow won a landslide that carried in crushing majorities for his party in Congress.
Much like Bill, Barack had a short honeymoon after becoming president. His party was creamed in the midterm elections, and his approval ratings almost never even sniffed 50%. Many polls said a man named Mitt Romney would defeat him in 2012. The leading pollster of them all had Mitt ahead all the way up to election day! And yet, Barack beat Mitt like a drum in almost every swing state and even won Florida, which it was believed was too Republican for him to win a second time.
Four years later, Bill’s wife Hillary ran for president, and her prospects were so certain that nobody believed she could lose to her opponent, an orange-haired clown named Bozo. She was so far ahead in the crucial state of Wisconsin that it clearly made no sense at all for her to waste precious time and money visiting that state. And yet, when the circus ended, Bozo had won, and the clowns were now running the circus.
Look, I get it, folks. You’re scared. Because Democrats are ALWAYS scared, and it’s annoying and completely not a good look, but it is what it is. But one of the reasons you’re scared is because you lack perspective—especially if you’re in your 20s and you haven’t seen 35 years of embarrassing polling mistakes or quick, crazy shifts in the electorate the way Uncle Cliston has.
Now, kiddos, I’m not going to promise you that Story Time with Uncle Cliston is going to have a happy ending. There’s no way in hell Joe Biden is losing all these states, and certainly not by the margins these ridiculous polls say he is, but it is absolutely possible that he could lose several of them and Bozo could become president again. We have to be honest with ourselves about that.
But freaking out and flailing around like unhinged lunatics every time a poll comes out doesn’t do any of us any good. The upcoming election is going to be close. It could go either way. What we need to do right now is to get ahold of ourselves, stay steady and courageous, and see this thing through.
And with any luck, we’ll all live happily ever after.
The End.
by Cliston Brown | Sep 26, 2023 | Sports
Since my earlier post on this topic, there have been several more moves, and the long and the short of it is that the Power 4 conferences now have 67 teams. If you add the last remaining vestiges of the Pacific-12 (Oregon State and Washington State) and Notre Dame, that would be 70 schools.
So, taking my “Premier League” concept, with a 70-team superconference structure, it is plainly obvious what needs to happen here: seven conferences of 10 teams each, geographically based, in which every conference member plays each other, and the seven conference champions, plus one at-large team, go to the playoffs.
Here’s how this idea would shake out:
ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, South Carolina, Virginia, Wake Forest.
This alignment would restore the original ACC, plus Virginia, Florida State and Georgia Tech. Rivalries restored would include North Carolina-South Carolina and Maryland-Virginia.
BIG TEN CONFERENCE: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin.
This would get us back to the Big Ten that existed from 1953-1991, after Michigan State took the spot vacated by the University of Chicago and before the addition of Penn State started all the realignment dominoes.
BIG TWELVE CONFERENCE: Brigham Young, Cincinnati, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Louisville, Missouri, Nebraska, Utah.
This would restore six members of the original Big Eight and add western rivals BYU and Utah, along with eastern rivals Cincinnati and Louisville, none of whom have any other sensible place to land. Despite being widespread, it would still be more or less geographically contiguous, as Utah borders on Colorado and Kentucky borders on Missouri. I’d like to see it change its name (maybe something like the Heartland Conference). This alignment would restore the Kansas-Missouri rivalry and the Colorado-Nebraska rivalry.
EASTERN CONFERENCE: Boston College, Central Florida, Miami, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
This would be the conference that the original Big East football conference always should have been. It would restore the tradition of eastern football and bring Notre Dame into its natural footprint as well. Despite its Midwestern location, Notre Dame’s fan following in the northeast, and its traditional rivalries with Boston College and Miami, makes it a natural to round out this eastern league. On a 12-game schedule, it could keep its rivalries with USC and Stanford. (Unless the Irish and their fans just can’t get enough of playing Marshall and East Tennessee State.) Should Notre Dame balk and decide to stay independent, the league could plug in another former Big East member (Connecticut, South Florida or Temple) or stay at nine schools. Rivalries restored would include West Virginia vs. Pittsburgh, Penn State, Syracuse and Virginia Tech; Penn State vs. Pittsburgh and Syracuse; Miami vs. Notre Dame.
PACIFIC TEN CONFERENCE: Arizona, Arizona State, California, UCLA, Oregon, Oregon State, Southern California, Stanford, Washington, Washington State.
Another conference that would be restored to its moorings (and senses), the Pac-10 would return to what it was from the 1970s to the addition of Colorado and Utah.
SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
The SEC would be restored to what it was from 1966 until the addition of Arkansas and South Carolina, both of whom would also return to their traditional homes (see SWC, ACC).
SOUTHWEST CONFERENCE: Arkansas, Baylor, Houston, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Southern Methodist, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Christian, Texas Tech.
This alignment would restore the traditional SWC (minus Rice) and add in the Oklahoma schools–the best of the old SWC and Big XII. Rivalries restored would include Oklahoma-Oklahoma State; SMU-TCU; and everybody vs. Texas.
Four bowls would become “playoff bowls,” with the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions once again squaring off in the Rose Bowl, as it should be. The SEC champion would once again go to the Sugar Bowl. The Big XII or Heartland champion would take the Big Eight’s traditional spot in the Orange Bowl, and the Southwest Conference champion would take that league’s traditional spot in the Cotton Bowl. The ACC and Eastern Conference champions, as well as one at-large team (the highest-ranked team that failed to win a conference title), would fill out the other three spots, possibly on a rotating basis or based on rankings. The four playoff bowl champions would be seeded 1-4, with #1 playing #4 and #2 playing #3.
But what about TV revenue? Simple. Put the Big Ten Network in charge of the whole thing, since it is clearly the most successful conference network in history, and dole out equal revenues to all 70 teams. Schools can make additional dollars marketing their merchandise independently, so Notre Dame and other leading programs would be able to pull down their outsized shares of money that way.
While schools could naturally schedule whichever three nonconference opponents they like, some nonconference rivalries really should be played every year:
Arkansas-LSU
Arkansas-Missouri
Florida-Florida State
Georgia-Georgia Tech
Illinois-Missouri
Indiana-Kentucky
Iowa-Iowa State
Iowa-Nebraska
Kentucky-Louisville
LSU-Texas A&M
Maryland-West Virginia
Miami-Florida
Nebraska-Oklahoma
Notre Dame-USC
Notre Dame-Stanford
Virginia-Virginia Tech
Nobody can tell me that this wouldn’t be a superior solution compared to the mess we’ve got now.
by Cliston Brown | Aug 12, 2023 | Sports
It has become clear that the realignment of the major collegiate athletic conferences has become a complete farce, with ridiculous, coast-to-coast conferences creating crazy travel schedules for supposed “student-athletes” and destroying the traditions and traditional regional rivalries that make college sports great.
The latest round of restructuring, as it happens, has resulted in exactly 64 schools spread among the “Power 4” conferences. As suggested by UCLA head coach Chip Kelly, an obvious solution here is to create a “super league” (which I first suggested years ago), and realigning those 64 schools into four conferences of 16 schools each, divided into eight-team divisions, which would essentially create an eight-team playoff: four conference championship games, two semifinals and a national championship game. Conference members would play all seven division rivals and two teams from the other division on a rotating basis, for a total of nine conference games. As such, every member of every conference plays every other member at least once in a four-year period. (Conferences would also be permitted to dispense with divisions if they choose and instead designate three permanent rivals for each school, rotating the other 12 conference members at six a year, so that everyone plays everyone home and away at least once in a four-year period.)
My proposed realignment would emphasize traditional rivalries and geographic realities to the degree possible (although three schools east of the Mississippi River would still end up in the Big XII). The traditional major bowl alliances would also be restored, with the Big Ten champion meeting the champion from the Big XII (which would absorb most of the former Pac-12) in the Rose Bowl, and the SEC champion going to the Sugar Bowl to face the ACC champion.
This new “Premier League” of college football would also allow for Notre Dame and the four Pac-12 members left out in the latest round of musical chairs to join as independents, and for one independent to potentially qualify for a playoff spot, in lieu of the lowest-ranked conference champion, if any of the independents meets three specific criteria.
ACC
Add: Maryland, Rutgers from Big Ten; West Virginia from Big XII
Lose: Louisville to Big XII
Bringing Maryland back to its traditional home and adding Rutgers and West Virginia gives the ACC the entire Atlantic coast footprint, and it also restores eastern football in a meaningful way. The ACC North would be what the Big East should have been (minus Penn State). More than half of the traditional ACC, plus the Florida and Georgia additions, would be together in the ACC South.
The only downside to the plan is that Virginia and North Carolina would be in different divisions and, under a nine-game conference schedule with two foes rotating every year, the UVA-UNC rivalry would only be played as a conference game once every four years. However, if both schools wish to continue playing every year, they could schedule each other for a nonconference game in the other three years (as North Carolina and Wake Forest do now). If the ACC wants to preserve the rivalry as a conference game every year, Florida State and Miami could be shifted to be with the eastern football schools, with Virginia and Virginia Tech shifting into the division with the North Carolina schools, Clemson and Georgia Tech. Given Miami’s history with the other eastern schools, including as a founding member of the Big East football conference, this would make some sense from a traditional standpoint.
ACC North
Boston College
Maryland
Pittsburgh
Rutgers
Syracuse
Virginia*
Virginia Tech*
West Virginia
ACC South
Clemson
Duke
Florida State*
Georgia Tech
Miami*
North Carolina
North Carolina State
Wake Forest
*—Virginia and Virginia Tech could swap places with Florida State and Miami if needed to preserve the Virginia-North Carolina rivalry.
If the ACC chose not to have divisions, the slate of permanent rivals might look like this:
Boston College: Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Rutgers
Clemson: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami
Duke: North Carolina, Wake Forest, North Carolina State
Florida State: Miami, Clemson, Georgia Tech
Georgia Tech: Clemson, Florida State, Miami
Maryland: Virginia, West Virginia, Rutgers
Miami: Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson
North Carolina: Duke, North Carolina State, Virginia
North Carolina State: North Carolina, Duke, Wake Forest
Pittsburgh: West Virginia, Syracuse, Boston College
Rutgers: Maryland, Syracuse, Boston College
Syracuse: Boston College, Pittsburgh, Rutgers
Virginia: Virginia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina
Virginia Tech: Virginia, West Virginia, Wake Forest
Wake Forest: Duke, North Carolina State, Virginia Tech
West Virginia: Pittsburgh, Maryland, Virginia Tech
SEC
Add: Oklahoma State from Big XII
Lose: Missouri to Big Ten
More than any of the other Power 4, the SEC has done a good job of expanding in a way that makes sense. Only Missouri, which is more in the Big Ten’s footprint (and really wanted to join the Big Ten) is an odd fit in the SEC. Swapping Missouri for Oklahoma State would restore two of college football’s great traditional rivalries: Missouri-Kansas (see Big Ten) and Oklahoma-Oklahoma State. It would also be a better fit for both the Big Ten and SEC’s geographical footprints.
SEC East
Alabama
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt
SEC West
Arkansas
LSU
Mississippi
Mississippi State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas A&M
Should the SEC elect not to have divisions, it would be very, very easy to designate three permanent rivals for each school. The only games that would not be considered traditional rivalries would be South Carolina-Kentucky, Alabama-Mississippi State, Arkansas-Oklahoma State, and Mississippi State-Oklahoma State. However, Alabama and Mississippi State are neighbors, as are Arkansas and Oklahoma State, and Mississippi State and Oklahoma State both have similar positions in their states: as the “ag” school, looked down upon by the “flagship” school, and in that way would make very natural rivals.
Alabama: Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State
Arkansas: LSU, Texas, Oklahoma State
Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Florida
Florida: Georgia, Auburn, South Carolina
Georgia: Florida, Auburn, South Carolina
Kentucky: Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina
LSU: Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas A&M
Mississippi: Mississippi State, LSU, Vanderbilt
Mississippi State: Mississippi, Alabama, Oklahoma State
Oklahoma: Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M
Oklahoma State: Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi State
South Carolina: Georgia, Florida, Kentucky
Tennessee: Vanderbilt, Alabama, Kentucky
Texas: Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Arkansas
Texas A&M: Texas, LSU, Oklahoma
Vanderbilt: Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi
Big Ten
Add: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State from Big XII; Missouri from SEC
Lose: Oregon, Southern California, UCLA, Washington to Big XII; Maryland and Rutgers to ACC.
This new alignment would stop the madness and get the Big Ten back to what it used to be and always should be: a Midwestern-based league, with most traditional rivals playing each other every year. The Big Ten West would essentially be the core of the old Big Eight, minus the Oklahoma schools and Colorado.
Big Ten East
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Northwestern
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Big Ten West
Iowa
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Should the Big Ten decide not to have divisions, it would be relatively easy to designate three permanent rivals for each conference member. The most difficult one to figure out would be Iowa, but its longstanding rivalries with Iowa State, Minnesota and Wisconsin would mean having to scrap Iowa vs. Nebraska on a yearly basis, and replacing it with Iowa State vs. Nebraska (a former Big Eight/Big XII rivalry). A non-divisional lineup could restore most of the Big Ten’s traditional trophy games (such as Illinois/Ohio State and Michigan/Minnesota) to yearly contests.
Illinois: Northwestern, Purdue, Ohio State
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State, Northwestern
Iowa: Iowa State, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Iowa State: Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska
Kansas: Missouri, Kansas State, Nebraska
Kansas State: Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska
Michigan: Ohio State, Michigan State, Minnesota
Michigan State: Michigan, Indiana, Penn State
Minnesota: Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan
Missouri: Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State
Nebraska: Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State
Northwestern: Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
Ohio State: Michigan, Penn State, Illinois
Penn State: Ohio State, Michigan State, Wisconsin
Purdue: Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Wisconsin: Minnesota, Iowa, Penn State
Big XII
Add: Louisville from ACC; Oregon, Southern California, UCLA and Washington from Big Ten
Lose: Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State to Big Ten; Oklahoma State to SEC; West Virginia to ACC
With footholds in California, Texas and Florida under this new alignment, the Big XII shouldn’t miss Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and West Virginia very much. It would basically become a Sunbelt/Pacific coast league. Adding Louisville from the ACC would restore a traditional rivalry between UL and Cincinnati. The only odd fit would be Colorado in the East Division, but the Buffaloes are not likely to complain about annual matchups with four Texas schools and Central Florida. Seven of the old Pac-12 would be reunited in the West Division, plus BYU, thus preserving its “Holy War” rivalry with Utah.
Big XII East
Baylor
Central Florida
Cincinnati
Colorado
Houston
Louisville
Texas Christian
Texas Tech
Big XII West
Arizona
Arizona State
Brigham Young
Oregon
Southern California
UCLA
Utah
Washington
A non-divisional lineup with three permanent rivals per school might look like this, with emphasis on keeping together longstanding traditional rivalries (such as the Texas schools and the west coast schools). Unfortunately, there would be a handful of odd pairings (Arizona State-Louisville, BYU-UCF and BYU-Cincinnati), but because BYU traditionally has liked to travel due to its desire to be a messenger for the Mormon faith, this actually might work out all right.
Arizona: Arizona State, Colorado, Utah
Arizona State: Arizona, Colorado, Louisville
Baylor: TCU, Texas Tech, Houston
Brigham Young: Utah, Cincinnati, UCF
Central Florida: Cincinnati, Louisville, BYU
Cincinnati: Louisville, UCF, BYU
Colorado: Utah, Arizona, Arizona State
Houston: TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech
Louisville: Cincinnati, UCF, Arizona State
Oregon: Washington, USC, UCLA
Southern California: UCLA, Washington, Oregon
Texas Christian: Baylor, Houston, Texas Tech
Texas Tech: Baylor, TCU, Houston
UCLA: USC, Oregon, Washington
Utah: BYU, Colorado, Arizona
Washington: Oregon, UCLA, USC
Independents
The four Pac-12 schools left standing when the latest round of musical chairs stopped (California, Oregon State, Stanford and Washington State), as well as Notre Dame, would be invited to join the new league as independents. It’s obvious that Notre Dame would have to be included. And clearly, the flagship school from the nation’s biggest state can’t be left out, nor can its chief rival, which is considered one of the world’s leading schools. Inviting Oregon State and Washington State is a call which is less clear-cut, but their football programs are arguably no worse than California’s or Stanford’s. The top-ranked independent each year would be eligible to make the playoffs (replacing the lowest-ranked conference champion) if it meets three criteria:
- Plays at least nine Premier League opponents. Because the members of the four conferences all would play nine conference games, this is only fair. (If all the independents play each other, they will have satisfied almost half this requirement and would only need to find five more opponents from the four conferences. If Notre Dame continues its deal with the ACC, in which it plays five ACC schools a year, the Irish would have a full slate, without even considering its annual rivalry game with USC.)
- Loses no more than one game.
- Outranks at least one conference champion.
Playoffs
Two bowls would be designated as the semifinals, with the Big Ten and Big XII champions playing in the Rose Bowl, and the ACC and SEC champions playing in the Sugar Bowl, both games being restored to New Year’s Day, in accordance with tradition, and the championship game to follow a week later. While the site could rotate, the best solution would be to have the game in Dallas every year (thereby throwing a nod to the old Cotton Bowl, which used to be considered one of the primary bowls, and also having it in a top-flight stadium close to the middle of the country). The lowest-ranked conference champion could be replaced by an independent if the top-ranked independent meets the three criteria listed earlier.
While the Orange Bowl would be left out of the rotation for the playoffs, it could also be a New Year’s Day bowl, with the top independent, or the conference champion replaced by the top independent, getting an automatic bid and facing the highest-ranked Premier League team that did not win its conference. No other bowls would be played on New Year’s Day.
A potential scenario for New Year’s Day would be as follows:
Orange Bowl: Notre Dame/USC vs. Alabama/Georgia
Rose Bowl (semifinal): Ohio State/Michigan vs. USC/Notre Dame
Sugar Bowl (semifinal): Georgia/Alabama vs. Clemson/Florida State
Recent Comments