The Demise of the Regional Conference

If you've turned on ESPN in the last 24 hours, you've heard the big news: Colorado will be leaving the Big 12 to join the Pac-10, and Nebraska is headed off to the Big 10. Rumors suggest that Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State may also be on the way out, possibly all also over to the Pac-10 (soon to be known the "Pac-16"!?!). Making a play on Notre Dame (in addition to picking up Nebraska), the Big 10 may also soon compete as a "super-conference," the kind that used to be unheard of except for, you know, the Big 12.

While it's true that Arizona and Arizona State are located in a state that does not sit on the Pacific Coast, there was still undoubtedly a regional coherence to the Pac-10. Same can be said for the Big 10 and Big 12, the Big East and SEC. But with the departure of Colorado signed in ink, Nebraska not far behind, and the Texas schools smelling blood (a.k.a. big media market money) in the water, the Big 12 seems on its last legs. The Big 10 may still make some claims to being a regional conference, but a Pac-16 including Texas and Oklahoma can make no such assertion. Throw in there the potential that Notre Dame basketball may go along with the ride for Notre Dame football to join the Big 10, and you see the death of the Big East as well.

At the end of the day, will the only regional conference left be the SEC? Is it time to abandon this conference nonsense altogether and just create four regional super-conferences once and for all: Pac-16, Big 16, ACC, and SEC (and possibly abandon the NCAA in the process)? And even though Football is King, what does this mean for basketball powerhouses outside of the new super-conferences (especially those in the dying Big 12 and Big East, like Kansas, KState, and Gtown)?

Lots of questions, but no clear answers yet for how this will all settle at the end of the day.

Bracket Busters.....Do they really indicate parity? Update

So #12 Cornell just finished "upsetting" #4 Wisconsin.   This win comes on the heals of #9 Northern Iowa beating #1 (and #1 overall) Kansas, #10 Saint Mary's over #2 Nova, #11 Washington over #3 New Mexico, and #5 Mich St. over #4 Maryland.

As my bracket is already busted (as are many others...thanks Big East), and I went to Cornell (GO BIG RED),  I am all for the "upset." 

Here is my question.  Does this year point to incredible parity in college basketball, or is it that the Committee did a terrible job?  I have to lean towards a bad job by the Committee.  It is crazy that this year there were probably 5-10 teams who were favored (or almost even money) to win in the first two rounds as the lower seed.  I understand that (1) the Committee sees less of the "mid-majors" and (2) the Committee has to finalize these brackets in only a few hours, and they do the best that they can. This year, however, not such a great job.

And why do they have so little time to finish the bracket? Why doesn't the NCAA make all conference tournaments end on the Saturday before selection Sunday.  That would give the Committee almost 24 hours to put these brackets together (and hopefully watch more tape of mid-majors).

But hey, maybe the NCAA would rather have it this way.  Bad brackets means more upsets. Upsets mean interest and gambling.  Interest and gambling = money. And as we all know, that is the only thing the NCAA really cares about.

Thoughts?