Big 12 Expansion

The idea of Big 12 Conference expansion has been in the news a lot lately.  As the smallest - and seemingly most vulnerable - of the so-called "Power Five" conferences, the common assumption is that the Big 12 needs to add teams in order to stabilize and avoid further defections as its seen in recent years (Colorado and Nebraska, Missouri and Texas A&M).  This, of course, comes on the heels of conference realignment that has led multiple schools to change conferences all in the name of the almighty dollar.  This reshuffling has destroyed traditional rivalries and led to anachronisms like a Big 10 with 14 teams, a Big 12 with 10 teams, Missouri (which is neither southern nor eastern) in the Southeastern Conference; and Pittsburgh and Louisville (which are in states that are nowhere near the Atlantic) in the Atlantic Coast Conference.

Personally, I love the Big 12 having 10 teams.  I think 10 teams is the ideal size for a conference, as it allows for round robin play in football and double round robin play in basketball.  This helps foster and maintain rivalries, as well as provide a true test for which team is the best, since every team plays every other team every year.  In my view, this makes a lot more sense than these 14 team mega conferences where schools go several years without ever playing some of their conference brethren in football.

However, since it seems like Big 12 expansion is inevitable, I wanted to give my take on which schools will likely be considered and which schools make the most sense.  Here are my thoughts on the expansion possibilities, in alphabetical order:

Arkansas State
Pros: Expands conference footprint into Arkansas.  Adds solid mid-major football program that has won 4 of the last 5 Sun Belt Conference titles. 

Cons:  Lousy basketball.  While they would expand the conference into a new state, I'm not sure how many people in Arkansas care about Arkansas State.

Odds: Slim.  I think it's more likely that Arkansas State's football coach, Blake Anderson, is Baylor's next football coach (he's from Texas and went to Baylor) than it is that Arkansas State gets invited to join the Big 12.

Boise State
Pros: Expands conference footprint west into Idaho.  Adds good football program that has some national cachet.

Cons: Geography.  Boise is far from any other Big 12 school, which compounds the already difficult geographic challenges faced by West Virginia.  Middling academic profile.

Odds: Better than slim but less than several of the schools listed below.  Odds would be increased slightly if other western teams are added.

BYU
Pros: Expands conference footprint into the mountain west.  Strong academics.  Strong football and basketball programs. National profile and large fan base.  Clearly one of the sexiest options available.

Cons: Geography.  Similar to Boise State, having a conference that stretches from Utah to West Virginia presents travel nightmares for non-revenue sports that play their games during the week.  Some Big 12 schools may also have potential issues with BYU's honor code (rules outlawing homosexual behavior, etc.).

Odds: Likely - first tier option.  In my opinion, the geography is potentially the only deal breaker.

Cincinnati
Pros: Expands conference footprint into Ohio.  Solid football and basketball, solid academics.  Provides West Virginia with a closer opponent and eases their travel schedule.  Also, Cincinnati and West Virginia were former Big East opponents, so there is a bit of built-in rivalry as well.

Cons: There aren't really too many, especially if Cincinnati's addition is paired with the addition of a school like Memphis.

Odds:  Likely - first tier option.  I actually argued in favor of adding Cincinnati and Louisville or Pittsburgh several years ago, before the ACC scooped up the latter two.

Colorado State
Pros: Expands conference footprint into the mountain west, back into Colorado.  Solid athletics (football team has gone to a bowl game the last three years) and academics. Large school, decent sized fan base. 

Cons:  Geography is a potential issue, though that issue is minimized if Colorado State is paired with BYU.  The fan base is not as large as you would expect given the size of the school, so I'm not sure how many TV screens they add.

Odds:  Decent - second tier option.  As mentioned earlier, if BYU is added, I think that increases the odds that Colorado State receives strong consideration.

Connecticut
Pros: Expands conference footprint into the northeast.  Decent football, very strong basketball (men's and women's).  Strong academics.  Provides West Virginia with a closer opponent and eases their travel schedule a bit.

Cons: Geography.  While UConn is a closer trip for WVU than other Big 12 schools, it is a LONG way away from everybody else, which poses issues in non-revenue sports.  Selfishly, having UConn in the Big 12 might end Baylor's string of conference titles in women's basketball.

Odds: Decent - second tier option.  UConn's geographic isolation is the biggest potential issue.

Houston
Pros: Geography - easy travel for the majority of the existing Big 12 schools.  Greater access to Houston, one of the largest media markets in the country.  Strong recent football performance.

Cons: A glorified commuter school with mediocre academics.  While people in Houston may care about the Cougars when they are winning, they generally ignore them when they aren't.  As such, the value of adding a team in such a large media market is somewhat contingent upon the team's performance.  Also, UT wants to add them, which is more reason to not do so.  Texas's arrogance and greed is one of the main reasons why the Big 12 is in the predicament they are in in the first place. Finally, adding a fifth school in Texas doesn't expand the conference's footprint.  We already saw what happened to a conference that was too isolated geographically (see the all-Texas based Southwest Conference), so I don't know how much Houston really adds.  Also, if Houston gets passed over, it increases the likelihood that Baylor can nab Tom Herman as their next football coach.

Odds: Unfortunately, thanks to the meddling of UT and Texas's governor, I think this is a more likely, first tier option.

Memphis
Pros: Expands conference footprint into Tennessee, adds a decent-sized media market. Potentially adds FedEx financial largesse.  Makes WVU's travel schedule easier.  Solid football and basketball programs.  If paired with a school like Cincinnati, it significantly pulls conference's footprint eastward, which helps West Virginia and could be a big plus if the conference ever pushes for a TV network.

Cons: Middling academics.  I'm not sure how closely people in Memphis follow the Tigers and I'm not sure how many people outside of Memphis care about them.

Odds:  Likely - first tier option.  Likelihood increases if conference decides to add Cincinnati.

Nebraska
Pros:  Previous Big 12 member, so there are built-in rivalries that can easily be renewed.  It makes sense geographically and brings back another good academic school.  There has been some buyer's remorse among Nebraska fans over their decision to flee to the Big 10 and this fixes that.

Cons: None, besides it's not likely to happen.  Of all of the schools on this list, this is probably the least likely option.

Odds:  Doubtful.

Tulane
Pros: Expands geographic footprint into Louisiana while still offering fairly easy travel for most Big 12 schools.  Strong academics.  Awesome mascot - Green Wave.

Cons: Relatively small, private school in a conference that already has two of them. Mediocre athletics and I'm not sure how much people in New Orleans actually care.

Odds:  Slim.  Probably only an option if the Big 12 adds 4 to 6 teams, and even then, probably less likely than most of the other schools on this list.

There you have it - my thoughts on Big 12 expansion.  It will be interesting to see how it unfolds in the coming months.

Thanks for reading!

My Favorite Authors/Books

I love to read.  I’m always reading a book.  I can’t imagine going to bed without reading before I turn out the lights, at to which my wife and kids can attest.  Some people find the thought of reading a 400 or 500 page book daunting.  But if you find the right book, it can grab you and pull you in just like a good movie or TV show.

Reading is a great way to unwind, relax and free your imagination. 

In an effort to help spread the joy of reading, here is a list (in no particular order) of my favorite authors/books:

Authors:

 John Sandford – Sanford writes thrillers and he has two different series of novels, as well as a few standalone novels.  The Prey series revolves around Lucas Davenport, a cop in the Twin Cities.  There are currently 26 novels in the series.  You absolutely don’t have to read them in order (I haven’t), but if you do, you can see how Lucas’s character develops over the course of the novels.  Sandford’s other series revolves around Virgil Flowers, a cop in rural Minnesota.  There are currently 8 novels in the Flowers series, with a 9^th due out this fall.  I’ve read all of them and while I liked some better than others, there isn’t a bad book in the bunch.

Michael Connelly – Like Sandford, Connelly writes thrillers and he has two different series of novels, as well as a few standalone novels.  The main series revolves around LAPD detective Harry Bosch.  The 19^th book in that series comes out this fall.  His other series revolves around The Lincoln Lawyer, Mickey Haller.  Some of you may have seen the film based on that first novel, starring Matthew McConaughey.  There are currently 5 novels in that series, though Mickey shows up as a minor character in the Bosch books, while the opposite is also true.

Jo Nesbo – Another thriller writer (do you see a trend here?)  The majority of his novels revolve around Harry Hole, a police detective based in Oslo, Norway.  Hole is an alcoholic, so the novels often delve into some of his personal demons while he at the same time tries to deal with solving murders and catching bad guys.  It’s Nordic crime fiction, similar to Steig Larsson’s Millennium trilogy – only better.

Dennis Lehane – He writes mysteries.  He writes thrillers.  He writes historical fiction.  He’s the author of the books upon which several movies were made – Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone and Shutter Island.  Most of his novels are set in and around Boston, though there are some exceptions.  Six of them feature two Boston-based private eyes (Patrick Kenzie and Angie Gennaro, as featured in Gone Baby Gone), while others are standalone novels.  His opus is probably The Given Day, a sprawling, 700+ page historical fiction novel set amidst the 1919 Boston Police Strike and a flu epidemic.  He’s yet to write a bad book.  If you’re reading the Kenzie-Gennaro novels, I recommend reading them in order because the relationship between the two main characters evolves over the course of the novels.

Lee Child – He’s the author of the Jack Reacher novels.  Reacher is a retired MP/current drifter who seemingly always gets involved in “one guy against the world” situations and comes out on top due to his superior intellect and brute force.  Some of these novels are a smidge far-fetched, but they are always an entertaining read.

Scott Smith – He’s only written two novels (13 years apart) but they were both excellent.  The first was A Simple Plan, which was made into a 1998 movie starring Bill Paxton and Bill Bob Thornton, though (as always) the book was better.  Three men find a crashed plane in a rural area that has millions of dollars in it.  They decide to keep the money, which leads to a number of moral dilemmas, lies and murders.  The Ruins, which was also made into a film, is a story of some young couples who stumble across something terrifying while visiting ancient ruins on a trip to Mexico.  Stephen King called it “the best horror novel of the new century” when it was published in 2006.

Michael Sears – He has written four novels that revolve around a convicted white collar felon and his autistic son.  There are thriller elements in each of the novels, but each also has a personal story between father and son as they learn to navigate a difficult relationship.  Black Fridays was the first in the series and you need to start there to get the background of the two main characters before reading the subsequent novels.

Books By Other Authors:

The Book Thief by Markus Zusak – A story about books, friendship, and a makeshift family in Nazi Germany during World War II.  This one of those books that I probably would have never read if it hadn’t been recommended to me.  The plot description on the book jacket seemed boring, but it’s an excellent read.  You get attached to the characters and, I’m not ashamed to admit, this is the first book that ever made me cry.  You may have seen the movie and, while it was a solid adaptation, the book is better.

City of Thieves by David Benioff – While Benioff is most known for his screenplays, City of Thieves is a historical fiction/coming of age story/black comedy set in Leningrad during the German siege of the city in World War II.  The two main characters are sent on a wild goose chase for a carton of eggs and a number of adventures occur from there.  This is another book that I probably wouldn’t have read without a specific recommendation, but it was a great read.

The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini – A sprawling book set over a couple of decades and primarily occurring in Afghanistan, it’s the story of friendship, guilt, betrayal and redemption.  Hosseini has written some other good novels since, but this one is still my favorite of his.

That’s probably enough for now.  Hopefully, those of you who aren’t readers or who haven’t read these authors or novels will check these out.  If you do, you won’t be disappointed.  I’d also love to hear about your favorite authors and books – maybe you can help me discover some new things to read.

As always, thanks for reading.

Ways to Make America Better: Term Limits

[This is the second in a series of related blog posts regarding simple things we can do to make our country better.]

It goes without saying that Americans hold Congress in low esteem.  It seems like every month there’s a new survey released that talks about the ridiculously low approval ratings folks have for our elected officials in Washington.  There are certainly many reasons for this – partisan bickering, obstruction and a general lack of accomplishing anything.  However, I believe there is an underlying reason that many of those things occur: a lack of term limits for our Senators and Representatives.

Because there are no term limits for those in Congress, we essentially have a political ruling class that, on average, serves longer than the lifetime appointments of those on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Such a situation is ripe for corruption, with Senators and Representatives doing whatever they can to stay in office.  Think about it: a Representative in the House only serves a 2 year term.  How much of that term do they actually spend representing their constituents vs. campaigning and raising money to get re-elected?  There are currently 14 senators who have been in the Senate for more than 20 years – and many of them were representatives for a number of years prior to that.  There are currently 27 representatives in the House who have been representatives for more than 20 years, include one who has been in office for more than 50 years and 3 who have been in office more for than 40 years!

You can certainly make the case that some of this is our own fault.  Why do we keep re-electing people who accomplish little beyond perpetuating the quagmire that is Washington, D.C.?  Part of it, however, is that the political ruling class is laser focused on remaining the political ruling class.  They raise money and start PACs to raise money to quash any outsiders and to keep themselves in power.  Also, our representatives and senators are supposed to represent us, We the People.  However, did you know that more than half of the people in the 113^th Congress are millionaires?  That’s not very representative, do you think?  When a bunch of millionaires solicit support from other millionaires and then work together to protect one another, it can be very difficult for new blood to break through and win an election.  It happens occasionally (see the defeats of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004 and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2014), but incumbents are re-elected approximately 90% of the time.

What if that 90% re-election rate was impossible?  What if, due to term limits, a portion of Congress (say, 25%) was term-limited out of office every 2 years?  By definition, we would have new blood in Washington.  The House would completely turn over within an 8 year span.  New blood equals new ideas and new possibilities.  Maybe it will turn out that this new blood is no better at accomplishing things than the current established ruling class.  But, with the latter, we absolutely know what we get: political stalemates, bickering, corruption and not much of anything else.  With new blood, at least there is a chance of some change occurring.  In addition, who knows how differently the established ruling class may act and vote if they WEREN’T always worried about the next election?  If they knew that there was no next election to worry about, they may potentially feel free to vote according to their conscience and what is best for America rather than how they think the donors want them to vote.  Perhaps they would be more open to working with others across the aisle if they knew there were no potential electoral consequences six months or a year down the road.

While term limits are a foreign concept in Congress, they are quite common in other areas of U.S. government.  Besides the President being limited to two terms, 36 states have instituted term limits for their governors and 15 states have done so for their state legislatures.  Having term limits for those individuals hasn’t led to complete chaos yet, so there’s no reason it couldn’t work for Congress.

Because those in Congress are unlikely to take up a cause that may wind up costing themselves their own jobs, instituting term limits would likely require an Article V constitutional convention, something that hasn’t been done in, oh, a couple hundred years.  However, it is something worth discussing and working toward.

There are myriad places where you can learn more about the arguments in favor of term limits, many written by people much smarter than me.  For starters, I recommend visiting one of the following websites to learn more and even sign a petition for the aforementioned constitutional convention to be held:

http://termlimitsforuscongress.com/

https://www.termlimits.org/

 As always, thanks for reading!