Nearly two years ago, I laid out my proposal for a dramatic realignment of the FBS level of NCAA football. Today, inspired by Sports Illustrated's recent (and, frankly, awful) realignment plan, I've gone back to the drawing board and come up with something even more radical than before. After playing around with ideas for modifying the existing conference structures, I kept coming up with a group of six northeastern schools that would be difficult to fit into conferences: UConn, UMass, Army, Rutgers, Temple, and Navy. I thought it would be interesting if they had a little conference of their own, and even more interesting if they played a double-round robin conference schedule (ie two games against each conference opponent, one home and one away, for a total of ten conference games). Spurred on by this idea, I decided to try to see if I could do something similar with other groupings of schools. This is what formed the basis of the proposal laid out below.
As I've already mentioned the core concept here is the six-team conference playing a double round-robin schedule. From this, I was able to come up with 16 such conferences, for a total of 96 schools. This includes every Power Five school, all of the schools from the Mountain West and American Conferences, and some independent, CUSA and Sun Belt Conference schools to round out the list. As I see it, this plan represents a throwback to the past, a continuation of current trends, and something completely novel all at once.
In terms of being a return to college football tradition, the conferences are all heavily based on geography, and more specifically geographic rivalries. This is a far cry from the sprawling, geographically nonsensical conference alignments of the present day (why on Earth is West Virginia in the Big 12??). Travel distances would be greatly reduced in every conference, with most schools not having to go more than a state or two over to play a conference game. In the age of COVID-19, this kind of arrangement may well become necessary to begin with.
As a continuation of current trends, this proposal would see the expansion of the College Football Playoff from four to sixteen teams. Let's consider that an expansion to eight teams is almost an inevitability at this point, so sixteen isn't really all that far-fetched, and would only meaning adding one potential game to a given team's schedule if we get rid of conference championship games. I for one would love to see a "March Madness" style FBS tournament, especially if it gives smaller schools an opportunity to play Cinderella while still generally seeing the blue bloods come out on top, as this proposal likely would.
The novel element of this plan is the double round-robin conference schedule. As far as I'm aware this has not been implemented by an FBS conference before, certainly not in recent times. Usually the only time two teams would play each other twice is if they met again in a conference title game. The only example I could find of this being done intentionally in the regular season is the current series between New Mexico State and Liberty - and that one is only because both teams are independents who need to fill out their schedules. Yet I don't think this plan is as outlandish as it may seem at first. Divisional rivals in the NFL get to play each other twice despite playing only a 16-game schedule, and college basketball conferences have traditionally used a double round-robin format. I don't think anyone would argue that getting to see a Cowboys-Giants or Duke-UNC game twice a year is a bad thing. Now imagine if you could have Ohio State-Michigan or Alabama-Auburn twice a year, instead of having one of those games being Ohio State-Rutgers or Alabama-Vanderbilt instead. Having smaller conferences would make this possible, while still allowing for two non-conference games to be played every year. And even with the smaller conferences, I found that most of the major rivalries within conferences could still be maintained.
So, without any further ado, here's what these conferences would look like. Note that the conference names are just placeholders to help distinguish the conferences from one another:
Northwest Conference
Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Utah, BYU
Made up of five Pac-12 schools (four from the North division alone) and one independent, this conference would have the potential to be one of the strongest in this new alignment. The key rivalries here are the in-state ones: Washington-Washington State, Oregon-Oregon State, and Utah-BYU, the latter of which would be a conference game for the first time since 2010; Washington-Oregon would be the other key rivalry. This would be one of the few conferences where the states are not geographically contiguous.
Far West Conference
Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State
This conference would be completely composed of schools from the Pac-12, four of them from the South division. The four California schools are all reunited here with their key rivalries (Stanford-Cal, Cal-UCLA, UCLA-USC, and USC-Stanford), while Arizona and Arizona State are kept together.
Pacific West Conference
Hawaii, San Jose State, Fresno State, San Diego State, Nevada, UNLV
This is literally the West division of the Mountain West Conference. Fresno State maintains its rivalries with San Diego State, San Jose State, and Hawaii, while Nevada and UNLV are also kept together. Probably one of the weaker conferences here.
Rocky Mountain Conference
Boise State, Utah State, Wyoming, Colorado State, Air Force, New Mexico
This is likewise the Mountain division of the MWC, and also a relatively weak conference. We see a fairly low concentration of major rivalries, the biggest being Utah State-Wyoming, Wyoming-Colorado State, and Colorado State-Air Force. I would have liked to put Boise State elsewhere (as I did with my previous proposal) but can't really make that work here.
Great Plains Conference
Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, Arkansas
This conference is loaded with rivalries from the old Big Eight - Nebraska alone would have rivalry games against Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri, while we also have Kansas-Kansas State and Kansas-Missouri. Arkansas is a bit of an awkward fit, though at least they'd have the opportunity to continue building their rivalry with Missouri.
Central Conference
Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa State, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois
Five of these six schools hail from the Big Ten West, giving us a number of rivalries: Minnesota-Wisconsin, Wisconsin-Iowa, Iowa-Minnesota, and Northwestern-Illinois. Meanwhile, Iowa-Iowa State is made a conference game. Arguably one of the stronger conferences in this alignment.
Great Lakes Conference
Purdue, Indiana, Notre Dame, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State
Probably one of the two strongest conferences here (along with the Deep South). Five of the schools are from the Big Ten, and four from the East division alone. Michigan-Ohio State is one of the greatest rivalries in sports, while you also maintain the Michigan-Michigan State, Purdue-Indiana, and Indiana-Michigan State rivalries. Adding Notre Dame to the mix allows them to play existing rivals Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue, and potentially build an in-state rivalry with Indiana.
Appalachian Conference
Syracuse, Boston College, Pitt, Penn State, West Virginia, Maryland
We restore four core schools of the old Big East here. A very high concentration of rivalry games, as Syracuse, Pitt, Penn State ,and West Virginia are all rivals with each other. We also see the Boston College-Syracuse, Penn State-Maryland, and West Virginia-Maryland rivalries here.
North Atlantic Conference
UConn, UMass, Army, Rutgers, Temple, Navy
The conference that formed the basis for this whole idea, this may ironically be the weakest of all of them. This also has the fewest rivalry games, with only UConn-UMass and Army-Navy counting as such currently. However, I believe Rutgers-Temple would have obvious rivalry potential, and the geographic proximity and relatively similar strength of these programs overall makes me think this could actually work quite well.
Tidewater Conference
Virginia, Virginia Tech, UNC, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest
Another conference with a high concentration of rivalries, mainly due to all of the Tobacco Road schools being each other's rivals. We also have the Virginia-Virginia Tech and UNC-Virginia rivalries here. I think these ACC schools would benefit greatly from being out of the shadow of the Clemson Goliath.
South Atlantic Conference
Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Florida, Miami
This conference combines four ACC and two SEC schools, although South Carolina was actually a founding member of the ACC as well. The three Florida schools are all each other's rivals, and we also get Clemson's rivalries with Florida State, South Carolina and Georgia Tech. I would have loved to fit Georgia in here somehow, but I think this works nonetheless.
Deep South Conference
LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia
Not only is this the strongest conference here - consisting entirely of SEC blue bloods - but also the one with the highest concentration of rivalries. Literally every single one of Alabama's conference games would be considered a rivalry game. We also get LSU's rivalries with Mississippi State, Ole Miss, and Auburn, as well as the Ole Miss-Mississippi State rivalry. Georgia has the fewest here, counting "just" Alabama and Auburn as rivals. This would be an extremely entertaining conference schedule to watch.
Upland Conference
Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Tennessee
An interesting conference with a relatively high rivalry density, I'm sure many of these programs would be glad to have their own spotlight for once, especially the three SEC schools here. Louisville, Cincinnati, and Memphis are all rivals of each other, as are Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Tennessee. Louisville-Kentucky would be made a conference game for the first time, and Memphis would have the opportunity to build rivalries with its in-state foes as well.
Magnolia Conference
Tulsa, TCU, Baylor, Rice, SMU, Tulane
A riff off of the old "Southern Ivies" concept of the 1950s and 1960s, all of these are private schools based in the South. These schools are historically connected through their various associations in the SWC, CUSA, and the American Conference. There's already a few rivalries here, including Baylor-TCU, TCU-SMU, and SMU-Rice.
Red River Conference
Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Houston
Five of these six schools have direct ties to the Big 12, while Houston played in the SWC, the Big 12's predecessor. Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech all have rivalries with each other, while Oklahoma's rivalries with Texas and Oklahoma State are also present.
Southern Coast Conference
Appalachian State, East Carolina, Central Florida, South Florida, FAU, FIU
I feel like this conference could be called "The Leftovers", as we are forced to throw together the three remianing American Conference schools with schools from CUSA and the Sun Belt in order to round out our 96-school pool. This produces one of the only non-contiguous conferences in this proposal. However, these schools are actually decently strong, with FAU and App State dominating their respective conferences over the past few years and UCF emerging as one of the best Group of Five schools in the country. There's also a couple of rivalries here, particularly UCF-USF and FAU-FIU, as well as a burgeoning rivalry between UCF and ECU. I could see in-state rivalries forming between App State and ECU as well as between the four Florida schools as a whole.
While this proposal may have originated simply as a curiosity, I genuinely feel that this plan has legitimate merit. Think of all the advantages over the current system: a higher concentration of rivalry games, stronger overall quality of games, a fairer shot for more teams to be in contention for a championship, and far more more games that are relevant late into the season. What more could you ask for?
Tuesday, July 14, 2020
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Rethinking the Bowl Games
Yesterday, I outlined my plan for realigning the FBS level of college football. One aspect that I neglected to address is the postseason playoff and bowl game structure. Under this new alignment system, the bowl sites currently serving as the New Year's Six bowls would now serve as the quarterfinal and semifinal rounds of the playoff, on a rotating basis; however, these games would no longer be considered bowl games themselves. These sites are as follows: Pasadena, CA; New Orleans, LA; Miami Gardens, FL; Dallas, TX; Atlanta GA; and Glendale, AZ. Higher-seeded schools would get first choice in terms of site selection for these rounds. The final would also remain as a designated national championship game, to be played annually at AT&T Stadium in Arlington, TX. The quarterfinal round would be played on the first Saturday following the end of the regular season (currently conference championship week). The semifinal round would be played two weeks later, and the championship would be held two weeks after that.
Additionally, there would be 16 bowl games comprising the rest of the postseason, meaning that 40 teams in total (half of the reduced FBS) would be postseason eligible. Bowl sites are chosen based on geography (ie location south of the 36th parallel) and historical significance; corporate naming rights for bowl games would be prohibited. Bowl eligibility would still be determined by overall record, requiring 6 wins over FBS opponents. However, bowls would now be divided into regions, and each of the four regions would have a designated conference tie-in. Bowl eligible schools would be seeded 2-5 within each conference (with the playoff representatives being the #1 seed), and would play the same seed from the assigned opposing conference for that region, as follows:
Additionally, there would be 16 bowl games comprising the rest of the postseason, meaning that 40 teams in total (half of the reduced FBS) would be postseason eligible. Bowl sites are chosen based on geography (ie location south of the 36th parallel) and historical significance; corporate naming rights for bowl games would be prohibited. Bowl eligibility would still be determined by overall record, requiring 6 wins over FBS opponents. However, bowls would now be divided into regions, and each of the four regions would have a designated conference tie-in. Bowl eligible schools would be seeded 2-5 within each conference (with the playoff representatives being the #1 seed), and would play the same seed from the assigned opposing conference for that region, as follows:
East Region
Orange Bowl - Miami Gardens, FL - ACC #2 vs Big East #2
Citrus Bowl - Orlando, FL - ACC #3 vs Big East #3
Gator Bowl - Jacksonville, FL - ACC #4 vs Big East #4
Hall of Fame Bowl - Tampa, FL - ACC #5 vs Big East #5
Southeast Region
Sugar Bowl - New Orleans, LA - SEC #2 vs Big Ten #2
Peach Bowl - Atlanta, GA - SEC #3 vs Big Ten #3
Liberty Bowl - Memphis, TN - SEC #4 vs Big Ten #4
All American Bowl - Birmingham, AL - SEC #5 vs Big Ten #5
Southwest Region
Cotton Bowl - Dallas, TX - SWC #2 vs Big Eight #2
Sun Bowl - El Paso, TX - SWC #3 vs Big Eight #3
Bluebonnet Bowl - Houston, TX - SWC #4 vs Big Eight #4
Alamo Bowl - San Antonio, TX - SWC #5 vs Big Eight #5
West Region
Rose Bowl - Pasadena, CA - Pac-10 #2 vs American #2
Fiesta Bowl - Glendale, AZ - Pac-10 #3 vs American #3
Holiday Bowl - San Diego, CA - Pac-10 #4 vs American #4
Aloha Bowl - Honolulu, HI - Pac-10 #5 vs American #5
Note that if a conference does not have enough bowl-eligible schools to fill its bowl bids, a bowl-eligible school from another conference may be assigned instead.
These bowl games would take place across four consecutive days between the playoff semifinal and national championship game, with the final day being New Year's Day (if any of these days happen to fall on Sunday, that day would be skipped). Games in the East region would be held at 12:00 ET on ESPN, Southeast at 2:30 ET on CBS, Southwest at 5:00 ET on FOX, and West at 7:30 ET on ABC. A similar schedule would be used for the playoff quarterfinal games; semifinals would be held at 3:30 ET and 7:30 ET on ABC, while the national championship would be at 7:30 ET on ABC.
Overall, this vision of a new postseason would serve several purposes. First of all, it would detach the bowl games from the playoff and national championship contests, restoring them to their original purpose of being simply exhibition contests. Second, the money-driven glut of corporate sponsored bowl games would be massively curtailed, while still maintaining the most historically significant games. Third, and perhaps most interestingly, the bowl games would now serve as a greater source of interconference competition than ever before, with the explicit, consistent conference tie-ins that this proposal would employ. In a sense, bowl season would be transformed into "conference pride week".
While the likelihood of a system like this ever being implemented is as low as the realignment scheme itself - after all, why would the Rose Bowl ever willingly give up its traditional role of hosting the Pac-8/10/12 and Big Ten champions - it's still something worth considering.
Friday, November 23, 2018
The (Almost) Perfect NCAA FBS Realignment Plan
In today's college football landscape, the trend is toward increasingly consolidated superconferences. For instance, the last wave of realignment led to the expansion of the Big Ten, ACC, and SEC to 14 teams each, while the Pac-10 expanded to 12 and was renamed the Pac-12. These moves mostly came at the expense of the Big 12, which contracted to 10 teams, and the Big East, which split into a basketball conference and a football conference (the current American Athletic Conference). When the next wave of realignment comes (likely in the 2020s), it is quite possible that the ACC, Big Ten, SEC, and Pac-12 expand to 16 teams each, with the Big 12 possibly ceasing to exist altogether.
It is understandable why the so-called "power" conferences want to expand: more programs means more television markets, which in turn means greater television revenue. As just one example, how else could we explain the Big Ten's addition of Rutgers other than the desire of the Big Ten to expand into the New York City television market?
Whatever benefits the conferences and individual programs may accrue from these trends, I would argue that college football as a whole is negatively affected. Conference expansion has broken up traditional regional conference rivalries. Expansion has also necessitated the creation of divisions within conferences, leading to unbalanced conference schedules and lopsided outcomes in conference championship games. The concentration of the strongest programs in just a handful of conferences means that most games at the FBS level have little if any meaning in terms of determining a national champion.
On the other hand, one of the more positive recent trends in college football has been the creation of the four team College Football Playoff (CFP) to replace the old top-two BCS system for determining a national champion. The BCS itself replaced a system in which there was no national championship game at all and champions were determined purely through the highly subjective polls. However, the new CFP system still has glaring issues - at least one Power Five conference champion will not have a chance to play for a national championship in any given year, while it's still nearly impossible for a Group of Five school to make it in at all (as we saw happen to an undefeated UCF team last year). Even a potential expansion of the playoff to eight teams would not fully resolve the issues with the system - consider how much subjectivity would still go into determining the two at-large spots under that hypothetical scenario.
With these points in mind, I set out to completely revamp the FBS level of NCAA college football. The system I devised would be fairly simple: there would now be eight 10-team conferences, with the winner of each conference getting an automatic bid to an eight team playoff to determine the national championship. Each team would play a single round-robin against the other nine teams in its conference during the regular season, and the team with the best conference record would be named the conference champion. (Ties would be broken by head-to-head record.) No conference would be divided into divisions, and no conference championship games would be played. Subjective rankings would be used only to determine the seeds for the playoff. Even with the addition of an extra playoff round, teams would still only play a maximum of 15 games in a season due to the elimination of the conference championships. In addition to the nine conference games, teams would schedule three non-conference games, including a maximum of one game against an FCS opponent. With the contraction of the FBS from 130 to 80 programs, the other 50 programs (all of them Group of Five schools) would be dropped down to the FCS.
The conference alignment system I've created is based on historical conference affiliations, rivalries, geography, and program strength. The new conferences are summarized as follows.
Big East Conference
Rutgers, Temple, Penn State, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Virginia, South Florida, UCF
The six italicized programs played in the Big East at some point in its history. Additionally, UCF currently plays in the American, the Big East's successor. Penn State sought to join the Big East in the 1980s when it was a basketball-only conference, but was rejected. Had it joined and then became a founding football member in the 1990s, the Big East may well have survived as a football conference. Maryland and Virginia have been cited as schools that may have followed Penn State into the Big East. There are a number of great intrastate rivalries here, including UCF-USF, Virginia-Virginia Tech, and Pitt-Penn State, as well as interstate rivalries like Pitt-West Virignia.
Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC)
Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida State, Miami
The eight italicized programs currently play in the ACC. South Carolina was a founding member of the ACC; rejoining the conference would make Clemson-South Carolina a conference game again. Florida would join in-state rivals Florida State and Miami, while the four North Carolina schools are able to maintain their rivalries.
Southeastern Conference (SEC)
Kentucky, Louisville, Memphis, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia
The eight italicized programs currently play in the SEC. Louisville joins in-state rival Kentucky, while Memphis is given the opportunity to build rivalries with Tennessee and Vanderbilt and play in conference with rival Ole Miss. Great intrastate rivalries like Auburn-Alabama and Ole Miss-Mississippi State are preserved, along with interstate rivalries like Alabama-Georgia.
Big Ten Conference
Ohio State, Cincinnati, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa
The nine italicized programs currently play in the Big Ten. The only new face is Cincinnati, which would be given the chance to build an in-state rivalry with Ohio State. A number of great interstate and intrastate rivalries are preserved, including Ohio State-Michigan, Michigan-Michigan State, and Minnesota-Wisconsin.
Big Eight Conference
Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa State, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Tulsa, Arkansas
The eight italicized programs were the original members of the Big Eight Conference. Tulsa would now be in conference with in-state rival Oklahoma State, while Arkansas could continue to build its rivalry with Missouri. Rivalries like Colorado-Nebraska and Missouri-Kansas are restored as conference games, while in-state rivalries are maintained in Kansas-Kansas State and Oklahoma-Oklahoma State.
Southwest Conference (SWC)
Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Houston, Baylor, Rice, SMU, TCU, LSU, Tulane
The eight italicized programs were members of the original SWC. Bringing these eight Texas schools back together in the same conference would restore a number of in-state rivalries, including Houston-Rice, SMU-TCU, and Texas-Texas A&M. LSU-Tulane is also restored as a conference rivalry, while LSU would be able to maintain its rivalry with Texas A&M.
Pacific-10 Conference (Pac-10)
Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, California, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Boise State
The nine italicized programs are current members of the Pac-12. Boise State would finally be given the opportunity to play in a major conference. A number of in-state rivalries are preserved, including Washington-Washington State, Oregon-Oregon State, Cal-UCLA, and Arizona-Arizona State.
American Conference
USC, Stanford, BYU, Air Force, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Navy, Army, Syracuse, Boston College
This conference is no relation to the current American Athletic Conference. Instead, it is loosely based on the proposed "Airplane Conference" of 1959; the six italicized programs were part of that plan. This conference would bring the three service academies together in conference, as well as the seven private FBS schools of the west and north. Notre Dame, a long-time independent, would now have conference games against a number of its rivals, including Army, Navy, USC, Stanford, Northwestern, and Boston College. Meanwhile, Syracuse-Boston College and USC-Stanford are maintained as conference games. BYU, another large religious school and long-time independent, rounds out the conference nicely.
Overall, I believe this alignment would be a massive improvement over the current system. It would restore the geographic basis for conferences, bring back a number of historic conference rivalries, and potentially even create new rivalries. Having smaller conferences would reduce the concentration of the strongest programs in just a few conferences, bringing a degree of parity back to the college football landscape. Current Group of Five schools like Boise State and UCF would now have a legitimate chance to compete for a national title. Above all, conference championships would be given greater priority than subjective ranking systems, as winning the conference would give a program a bid in the playoff automatically - in other words, win and you're in. While it's highly unlikely that such an arrangement would ever actually come to pass, one can dream, right?
It is understandable why the so-called "power" conferences want to expand: more programs means more television markets, which in turn means greater television revenue. As just one example, how else could we explain the Big Ten's addition of Rutgers other than the desire of the Big Ten to expand into the New York City television market?
Whatever benefits the conferences and individual programs may accrue from these trends, I would argue that college football as a whole is negatively affected. Conference expansion has broken up traditional regional conference rivalries. Expansion has also necessitated the creation of divisions within conferences, leading to unbalanced conference schedules and lopsided outcomes in conference championship games. The concentration of the strongest programs in just a handful of conferences means that most games at the FBS level have little if any meaning in terms of determining a national champion.
On the other hand, one of the more positive recent trends in college football has been the creation of the four team College Football Playoff (CFP) to replace the old top-two BCS system for determining a national champion. The BCS itself replaced a system in which there was no national championship game at all and champions were determined purely through the highly subjective polls. However, the new CFP system still has glaring issues - at least one Power Five conference champion will not have a chance to play for a national championship in any given year, while it's still nearly impossible for a Group of Five school to make it in at all (as we saw happen to an undefeated UCF team last year). Even a potential expansion of the playoff to eight teams would not fully resolve the issues with the system - consider how much subjectivity would still go into determining the two at-large spots under that hypothetical scenario.
With these points in mind, I set out to completely revamp the FBS level of NCAA college football. The system I devised would be fairly simple: there would now be eight 10-team conferences, with the winner of each conference getting an automatic bid to an eight team playoff to determine the national championship. Each team would play a single round-robin against the other nine teams in its conference during the regular season, and the team with the best conference record would be named the conference champion. (Ties would be broken by head-to-head record.) No conference would be divided into divisions, and no conference championship games would be played. Subjective rankings would be used only to determine the seeds for the playoff. Even with the addition of an extra playoff round, teams would still only play a maximum of 15 games in a season due to the elimination of the conference championships. In addition to the nine conference games, teams would schedule three non-conference games, including a maximum of one game against an FCS opponent. With the contraction of the FBS from 130 to 80 programs, the other 50 programs (all of them Group of Five schools) would be dropped down to the FCS.
The conference alignment system I've created is based on historical conference affiliations, rivalries, geography, and program strength. The new conferences are summarized as follows.
Big East Conference
Rutgers, Temple, Penn State, Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia Tech, Virginia, South Florida, UCF
The six italicized programs played in the Big East at some point in its history. Additionally, UCF currently plays in the American, the Big East's successor. Penn State sought to join the Big East in the 1980s when it was a basketball-only conference, but was rejected. Had it joined and then became a founding football member in the 1990s, the Big East may well have survived as a football conference. Maryland and Virginia have been cited as schools that may have followed Penn State into the Big East. There are a number of great intrastate rivalries here, including UCF-USF, Virginia-Virginia Tech, and Pitt-Penn State, as well as interstate rivalries like Pitt-West Virignia.
Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC)
Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Clemson, South Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida, Florida State, Miami
The eight italicized programs currently play in the ACC. South Carolina was a founding member of the ACC; rejoining the conference would make Clemson-South Carolina a conference game again. Florida would join in-state rivals Florida State and Miami, while the four North Carolina schools are able to maintain their rivalries.
Southeastern Conference (SEC)
Kentucky, Louisville, Memphis, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, Georgia
The eight italicized programs currently play in the SEC. Louisville joins in-state rival Kentucky, while Memphis is given the opportunity to build rivalries with Tennessee and Vanderbilt and play in conference with rival Ole Miss. Great intrastate rivalries like Auburn-Alabama and Ole Miss-Mississippi State are preserved, along with interstate rivalries like Alabama-Georgia.
Big Ten Conference
Ohio State, Cincinnati, Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa
The nine italicized programs currently play in the Big Ten. The only new face is Cincinnati, which would be given the chance to build an in-state rivalry with Ohio State. A number of great interstate and intrastate rivalries are preserved, including Ohio State-Michigan, Michigan-Michigan State, and Minnesota-Wisconsin.
Big Eight Conference
Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa State, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Tulsa, Arkansas
The eight italicized programs were the original members of the Big Eight Conference. Tulsa would now be in conference with in-state rival Oklahoma State, while Arkansas could continue to build its rivalry with Missouri. Rivalries like Colorado-Nebraska and Missouri-Kansas are restored as conference games, while in-state rivalries are maintained in Kansas-Kansas State and Oklahoma-Oklahoma State.
Southwest Conference (SWC)
Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Houston, Baylor, Rice, SMU, TCU, LSU, Tulane
The eight italicized programs were members of the original SWC. Bringing these eight Texas schools back together in the same conference would restore a number of in-state rivalries, including Houston-Rice, SMU-TCU, and Texas-Texas A&M. LSU-Tulane is also restored as a conference rivalry, while LSU would be able to maintain its rivalry with Texas A&M.
Pacific-10 Conference (Pac-10)
Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, California, UCLA, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Boise State
The nine italicized programs are current members of the Pac-12. Boise State would finally be given the opportunity to play in a major conference. A number of in-state rivalries are preserved, including Washington-Washington State, Oregon-Oregon State, Cal-UCLA, and Arizona-Arizona State.
American Conference
USC, Stanford, BYU, Air Force, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Navy, Army, Syracuse, Boston College
This conference is no relation to the current American Athletic Conference. Instead, it is loosely based on the proposed "Airplane Conference" of 1959; the six italicized programs were part of that plan. This conference would bring the three service academies together in conference, as well as the seven private FBS schools of the west and north. Notre Dame, a long-time independent, would now have conference games against a number of its rivals, including Army, Navy, USC, Stanford, Northwestern, and Boston College. Meanwhile, Syracuse-Boston College and USC-Stanford are maintained as conference games. BYU, another large religious school and long-time independent, rounds out the conference nicely.
Overall, I believe this alignment would be a massive improvement over the current system. It would restore the geographic basis for conferences, bring back a number of historic conference rivalries, and potentially even create new rivalries. Having smaller conferences would reduce the concentration of the strongest programs in just a few conferences, bringing a degree of parity back to the college football landscape. Current Group of Five schools like Boise State and UCF would now have a legitimate chance to compete for a national title. Above all, conference championships would be given greater priority than subjective ranking systems, as winning the conference would give a program a bid in the playoff automatically - in other words, win and you're in. While it's highly unlikely that such an arrangement would ever actually come to pass, one can dream, right?
Monday, July 16, 2018
2018 First-Half MLB WAR-Stars
The following are mock MLB All Star rosters created based on Baseball-Reference.com Wins Above Replacement (WAR). Players in bold were selected to this year's roster.
American
League:
C: Wilson Ramos, TBR – 2.4
C: Austin
Romine, NYY – 1.4
1B: Matt
Olson, OAK – 2.5
1B: Justin
Smoak, TOR – 2.2
2B: Jose Altuve, HOU – 4.4
2B: Jed Lowrie, OAK – 3.5
SS: Francisco Lindor, CLE – 5.5
SS:
Andrelton Simmons, LAA – 4.6
3B: Jose Ramirez, CLE – 6.6
3B: Alex Bregman, HOU – 4.8
OF: Mike Trout, LAA – 6.8
OF: Mookie Betts, BOS – 6.3
OF: Aaron Judge, NYY – 5.0
OF: Eddie
Rosario, MIN – 4.3
OF: Mitch Haniger, SEA – 3.5
OF: Andrew
Benintendi, BOS – 2.9
DH: J.D. Martinez, BOS – 4.3
DH: Shin-Soo Choo, TEX – 3.3
Bench: Manny Machado, BAL – 2.9
Bench: Whit
Merrifield, KCR – 2.8
SP: Chris Sale, BOS – 5.6
SP: Luis Severino, NYY – 4.9
SP: Trevor Bauer, CLE – 4.5
SP: Corey Kluber, CLE – 4.3
SP: Blake Snell, TBR – 4.1
RP: Craig Kimbrel, BOS – 2.3
RP: Blake Treinen, OAK – 2.3
RP: Lou
Trivino, OAK – 2.2
Pitcher: Justin Verlander, HOU – 3.8
Pitcher: Gerrit Cole, HOU – 3.2
Pitcher: Mike
Fiers, DET – 2.3
Pitcher:
Reynaldo Lopez, CHW – 1.7
National
League:
C: J.T. Realmuto, MIA – 3.8
C: Wilson Contreras, CHC – 2.7
1B: Freddie Freeman, ATL – 3.9
1B: Paul Goldschmidt, ARI – 3.2
2B: Javier Baez, CHC – 3.7
2B: Ozzie Albies, ATL – 3.4
SS: Trevor Story, COL – 2.9
SS: Brandon Crawford, SFG – 2.9
3B: Nolan Arenado, COL – 3.8
3B: Eugenio Suarez, CIN – 3.6
OF: Lorenzo Cain, MIL – 4.4
OF: Nick Markakis, ATL – 3.1
OF: Brian
Anderson, MIA – 2.8
OF: Starling
Marte, PIT – 2.7
OF: Christian Yelich, MIL – 2.5
OF: Harrison
Bader, STL – 2.5
Bench: Matt
Carpenter, STL – 3.5
Bench:
Brandon Belt, SFG – 3.1
Bench: Scooter Gennett, CIN – 3.1
Bench: Max
Muncy, LAD – 3.0
SP: Jacob deGrom, NYM – 6.0
SP: Aaron Nola, PHI – 5.9
SP: Max Scherzer, WSN – 4.9
SP: Kyle
Freeland, COL – 4.6
SP: Tyler
Anderson, COL – 3.7
RP: Adam
Ottavino, COL – 2.4
RP: Jared
Hughes, CIN – 2.3
RP: Sean Doolittle, WSN – 2.1
Pitcher: Ross Stripling, LAD – 3.2
Pitcher: Jon Lester, CHC – 2.8
Pitcher: Miles Mikolas, STL – 2.8
Pitcher: Kirby
Yates, SDP – 1.5
Thursday, December 29, 2016
My Mock 2017 BBWAA Hall of Fame Ballot
Barry Bonds
Bonds is both the career (762) and single-season (73 - 2001) leader in home runs. He is also the all-time leader in walks and intentional walks. He won 7 MVPs, more than any other player. He was a 14-time All-Star, an 8-time Gold Glove winner, and a 12-time Silver Slugger recipient. During his career, he scored over 2200 runs, and came just shy of 3000 hits and 2000 RBI. He is the only player with 500+ home runs and 500+ stolen bases. Arguably the greatest player in Major League Baseball history, the only reason he has not already been inducted is his alleged PED use.
Roger Clemens
Clemens won 354 career games (9th all-time) and struck out 4672 batters (3rd all-time). He won 7 Cy Young Awards, more than any other pitcher. He was the 1986 American League MVP, and was a 2-time World Series champion with the New York Yankees (1999 and 2000). He was an 11-time All-Star, starting the game three times. Arguably one of the five greatest pitchers ever, like Bonds the sole reason he has not yet been inducted is his alleged PED use.
Ivan Rodriguez
The strongest candidate among the first-year eligibles, Pudge is one of the greatest catchers of all-time. He is the all-time leader among catchers in games played, plate appearances, at bats, runs scored, hits, and doubles. The 1999 American League MVP, he won a World Series title in 2003 with the Florida Marlins. He was a 14-time All-Star, a 13-time Gold Glover, and a 7-time Silver Slugger.
Jeff Bagwell
A lifetime Houston Astro, Bagwell was one of the greatest first basemen of all-time. He hit 449 career home runs, with over 1500 runs scored and 1500 RBI. Due to his tremendous hitting, he ranks top-25 all-time in OPS. He was the 1991 National League Rookie of the Year, and the 1994 NL MVP. He was selected to 4 All-Star games and won 3 Silver Sluggers, along with a Gold Glove in 1994.
Tim Raines
Raines was one of the greatest base stealers of all-time. He led the National League in steals in each of his first four full seasons, and ranks 5th all-time with 808 for his career. He also collected over 2600 hits and scored over 1500 runs. In 1986 he won the NL batting title, receiving a Silver Slugger award for his efforts. He was a 7-time All-Star and a 2-time World Series champion (1996 and 1998).
Curt Schilling
Schilling was one of the greatest strikeout pitchers of all-time, ranking 15th with 3116 for his career. He had three 300-strikeout seasons. He was also a tremendous postseason pitcher, going 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA in 19 career postseason starts. He won World Series titles in 2001, 2004, and 2007, and was named co-MVP of the 2001 series. He was a 6-time All-Star, starting the game twice.
Mike Mussina
Across his 18-year career, Mussina won 270 games, including 20 in his final season at age 39. He ranks in the top 20 all-time with 2813 strikeouts, and is 22nd in career strikeout-to-walk ratio. He was selected to five All-Star games, and received 7 Gold Glove awards. Although he never won the award, he did receive Cy Young votes nine times, including a runner-up finish in 1999.
Manny Ramirez
One of the game's greatest run producers, Manny slugged 555 home runs (15th all-time) and drove in 1831 RBI (18th all-time) during his career. A greatly feared hitter, he ranks 12th with 216 intentional walks. One of the greatest players in postseason history, he won the 2004 World Series MVP as he led the Red Sox to their first championship in 86 years; he won a second title in 2007. His popularity led to 12 All-Star selections and 9 Silver Sluggers. However, he was suspended for PED use toward the end of his career.
Edgar Martinez
Having spent his entire career with the Seattle Mariners, Martinez was one of the greatest designated hitters of all-time. A lifetime .312 hitter, he won American League batting titles in 1992 and 1995. He ranks 21st all-time with a .418 OBP, having led the AL in that category three times. He was selected to 7 All-Star games, and won 5 Silver Slugger awards.
Larry Walker
A lifetime .313 hitter, Walker was a 3-time batting titlist, all won while a member of the Colorado Rockies. In 1997 he led the National League with 49 home runs and 409 total bases, and was named NL MVP that year. He was selected to 5 All-Star games and won 3 Silver Sluggers for his offensive prowess. He also won 7 Gold Gloves due to his defense in right field
Bonds is both the career (762) and single-season (73 - 2001) leader in home runs. He is also the all-time leader in walks and intentional walks. He won 7 MVPs, more than any other player. He was a 14-time All-Star, an 8-time Gold Glove winner, and a 12-time Silver Slugger recipient. During his career, he scored over 2200 runs, and came just shy of 3000 hits and 2000 RBI. He is the only player with 500+ home runs and 500+ stolen bases. Arguably the greatest player in Major League Baseball history, the only reason he has not already been inducted is his alleged PED use.
Roger Clemens
Clemens won 354 career games (9th all-time) and struck out 4672 batters (3rd all-time). He won 7 Cy Young Awards, more than any other pitcher. He was the 1986 American League MVP, and was a 2-time World Series champion with the New York Yankees (1999 and 2000). He was an 11-time All-Star, starting the game three times. Arguably one of the five greatest pitchers ever, like Bonds the sole reason he has not yet been inducted is his alleged PED use.
Ivan Rodriguez
The strongest candidate among the first-year eligibles, Pudge is one of the greatest catchers of all-time. He is the all-time leader among catchers in games played, plate appearances, at bats, runs scored, hits, and doubles. The 1999 American League MVP, he won a World Series title in 2003 with the Florida Marlins. He was a 14-time All-Star, a 13-time Gold Glover, and a 7-time Silver Slugger.
Jeff Bagwell
A lifetime Houston Astro, Bagwell was one of the greatest first basemen of all-time. He hit 449 career home runs, with over 1500 runs scored and 1500 RBI. Due to his tremendous hitting, he ranks top-25 all-time in OPS. He was the 1991 National League Rookie of the Year, and the 1994 NL MVP. He was selected to 4 All-Star games and won 3 Silver Sluggers, along with a Gold Glove in 1994.
Tim Raines
Raines was one of the greatest base stealers of all-time. He led the National League in steals in each of his first four full seasons, and ranks 5th all-time with 808 for his career. He also collected over 2600 hits and scored over 1500 runs. In 1986 he won the NL batting title, receiving a Silver Slugger award for his efforts. He was a 7-time All-Star and a 2-time World Series champion (1996 and 1998).
Curt Schilling
Schilling was one of the greatest strikeout pitchers of all-time, ranking 15th with 3116 for his career. He had three 300-strikeout seasons. He was also a tremendous postseason pitcher, going 11-2 with a 2.23 ERA in 19 career postseason starts. He won World Series titles in 2001, 2004, and 2007, and was named co-MVP of the 2001 series. He was a 6-time All-Star, starting the game twice.
Mike Mussina
Across his 18-year career, Mussina won 270 games, including 20 in his final season at age 39. He ranks in the top 20 all-time with 2813 strikeouts, and is 22nd in career strikeout-to-walk ratio. He was selected to five All-Star games, and received 7 Gold Glove awards. Although he never won the award, he did receive Cy Young votes nine times, including a runner-up finish in 1999.
Manny Ramirez
One of the game's greatest run producers, Manny slugged 555 home runs (15th all-time) and drove in 1831 RBI (18th all-time) during his career. A greatly feared hitter, he ranks 12th with 216 intentional walks. One of the greatest players in postseason history, he won the 2004 World Series MVP as he led the Red Sox to their first championship in 86 years; he won a second title in 2007. His popularity led to 12 All-Star selections and 9 Silver Sluggers. However, he was suspended for PED use toward the end of his career.
Edgar Martinez
Having spent his entire career with the Seattle Mariners, Martinez was one of the greatest designated hitters of all-time. A lifetime .312 hitter, he won American League batting titles in 1992 and 1995. He ranks 21st all-time with a .418 OBP, having led the AL in that category three times. He was selected to 7 All-Star games, and won 5 Silver Slugger awards.
Larry Walker
A lifetime .313 hitter, Walker was a 3-time batting titlist, all won while a member of the Colorado Rockies. In 1997 he led the National League with 49 home runs and 409 total bases, and was named NL MVP that year. He was selected to 5 All-Star games and won 3 Silver Sluggers for his offensive prowess. He also won 7 Gold Gloves due to his defense in right field
Monday, August 29, 2016
John Fulgham: The Best Pitcher Who Never Was
It is pretty rare nowadays for me to stumble across a quality major league player who I've never heard of, especially for players from recent decades. However, that is exactly what happened last night. In continuing to review Keith Hernandez's career, I took a look at the 1979 Cardinals, a team for whom he won the National League MVP. I noticed they had a young pitcher by the name of John Fulgham who had had a very solid season, going 10-6 with a 2.53 ERA in 146 innings. I then discovered he was a rookie that season, at age 23. Despite his numbers he did not receive a single vote for National League Rookie of the Year, an award won by Rick Sutcliffe.
Generally speaking, Fulgham is not a well-remembered major leaguer; a quick Google search did not turn up very much. Most of what has been written about him on the Internet regarded his supposed 39-pitch complete game on August 17, 1979, which if true would have been a major league record (it was not). Otherwise, these articles mostly just mention that Fulgham was a promising young starter whose career was cut short by a torn rotator cuff (an injury whose onset apparently produced a scuffle with Keith Hernandez).
In doing some more digging, however, I believe that no starting pitcher who was as good as Fulgham ever had so brief of a career. First, let's look at Wins Above Replacement. According to Baseball-Reference, Fulgham had 3.5 WAR in his rookie season, and 1.4 in 1980, for a total of about 5.0. As the table below shows, of all starting pitchers since 1901 with 5+ WAR in their first two seasons combined, only George Kaiserling, who pitched exclusively in the short-lived Federal League, also failed to pitch a third season:
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Keith Hernandez: A Hall of Fame Case
At first glance, Keith Hernandez seems like a pretty solid candidate for the Hall of Fame. He was both a good contact hitter (career .296 BA, 2182 H) and a decent on-base guy (.384 OBP, 1070 BB). He could both score runs and drive them in (1124 R, 1071 RBI). He was a batting titlist and MVP (both in 1979) and the starting first baseman for two World Series winning clubs (the ‘82 Cardinals and ‘86 Mets). He was recognized as one of the best players of his era, having been selected to five all-star games, winning two Silver Slugger awards, and receiving MVP votes in eight straight seasons. Sabermetrically speaking, he posted a 60.0 career WAR and a 128 OPS+, both of which are right at the borderline for a career first baseman. Above all, he is arguably the greatest defensive first baseman of all time, standing as that position's all-time leader in Total Zone Runs and backed up by his 11 consecutive Gold Gloves.
However, there’s seemingly one big problem: he wasn’t a power-hitter, despite playing a position largely defined by power. He hit less than 200 career home runs (162 to be exact), and his career ISO was only .140. He doesn't exactly look like your typical Hall of Fame first baseman. In fact, he looks more like a Mark Grace, or a John Olerud, or even a Will Clark, and those other non-power-hitting first basemen don’t exactly have a great track record of getting into the Hall. Accordingly, although Hernandez's name appeared on nine Hall of Fame ballots, he never received more than 10.8% of vote, nowhere near the 75% he needed for induction.
With that being said, one must consider the era in which Hernandez played. The 1970s and 1980s were not exactly the heyday of big-time slugging first basemen; in fact, it is pretty clear that there was a significant power drought at the position during this period. Taking a closer look, there were only three 40-home run seasons by a first baseman between 1969 (when Harmon Killebrew and Willie McCovey both won the MVP) and 1987 (Mark McGwire's rookie season). None of those seasons were by a career first baseman; the three players to do so were Hank Aaron and Carl Yastrzemski (traditionally outfielders) and Darrell Evans (who played much of his career at third base).
It wasn't as if there were no other players hitting home runs then. Overall, there were 27 40-home run seasons from 1970 to 1986. That means that only about 11% of those were by a first baseman. By contrast, the rate was about 28% (30 of 108) from 1920 to 1969 and a little under 32% (59 of 128) since 1987. Looking at the overall percentage of home runs hit by first basemen, that rate was at about 18-20% from 1969-1971, peaking at 22% in 1972. From there the percentage declined precipitously, falling to below 14% in 1983-84, before rebounding to over 17% by the end of the decade.
Looking at ISO numbers instead, we see a similar pattern. The ISO of the average first baseman was about 40-50% higher than the league average from 1969-1971, also peaking in 1972 at 57%. This number then also declined, to below 15% by 1984, then rebounding to over 30% within a few years. These trends are graphed on the chart below, with the red line representing the home run percentage and the blue line representing the relative ISO.
Additionally, we can see that this period was low on individual players with high ISO seasons, especially compared with other periods. The percentage of qualified players who had an ISO greater than .200 who were first basemen between 1973 and 1986 was only 17.5%. This was far lower than it was from 1920 to 1972 (24.7%) or than it would be from 1987 to 2015 (22.6%). As the next graph shows, this period saw more qualified first basemen with ISOs less than .200 than any other; indeed, Hernandez's MVP season of 1979 was the peak year.
In other words, Hernandez played in an era with few, if any, elite power-hitting first basemen. And among the group of primarily contact hitters, he was right toward the top. In terms of batting runs from 1970 to 1994, Hernandez was behind only Rod Carew and Eddie Murray, both of whom are already Hall of Famers (it should also be noted that Carew played second base through 1975). Over the span of his career, 1974 to 1990, Hernandez was just behind Murray (63.2) and ahead of Carew (54.0) in total WAR. Of all first basemen who played entirely in the second half of the twentieth century, Hernandez ranks behind only Murray and McCovey, and ahead of Hall of Famers Tony Perez and Orlando Cepeda.
Hernandez will never be placed among the ranks of Gehrig, Foxx, Mize, Greenberg, and McCovey who came before him, or McGwire, Bagwell, Thomas, Palmeiro, and Pujols who came after, but he doesn’t have to be to be a Hall of Famer. He did exactly what an elite first baseman of his era would be expected to do offensively, and that, combined with his all-time great defense, should be enough to put him into Cooperstown.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)