Is College Football Landscape Stronger or Weaker Post-Conference Realignment?

The historic shifts in college football over the last two seasons, and those slated in the near future, have altered the very face of the game that we love.

But the question begs to be asked, especially since more change seems inevitable, that once the dust has settled and the honeymoon is over, is the new version of college football better or worse than its predecessor?

Indeed, would college football have been better off without the conference swapping than it is moving forward with them?

The following slideshow offers up a healthy helping of 14 strengths and weaknesses that are direct products of realignment, and then serves up a final answer to gauge the impact of the historic havoc that has been wreaked on our community.

Though the list might not be complete, it offers both an excellent starting point and some compelling topics for further analysis.

Stronger: Conferences are More Difficult to Win

One of the more compelling arguments as to why conference realignment is actually a good thing for college football is the strengthening of four of the six BCS conferences (a label that is likely to be dropped in 2015).

The addition of Nebraska to the Big Ten, and Colorado and Utah to the Pac-12 represent not only expansion, but also caused the necessity to add a championship game in the two big-time conferences that never had to worry about a title tilt.

It’s fairly logical to assert that both the Big Ten and Pac-12 championships, now earned through an extra game with a divisional title holder, will be much more difficult to achieve.

An additional benefit is the impossibility of a shared championship, which means that gone also is the associated controversy of which title holder gets left behind in the split.

In the SEC, the addition of Texas A&M and Missouri ultimately make the hardest title in college football even more difficult, adding yet another divisional game against a quality opponent.

A weaker argument of strengthening by means of addition is found in the ACC, who looks to add Pitt and Syracuse as early as 2013.

Though Pitt and Syracuse aren’t necessarily Nebraska and Missouri, the addition of two solid teams to the ACC will make it more difficult to win regardless of how you slice it

Weaker: Conferences are Over Stacked, Talent is Not Spread

The flip side of strengthening conferences is that suddenly you lose a wide spread of talent, thereby actually over serving some leagues, and undeserving others, with competition.

It’s pure logic, if you strengthen certain conferences, you’ve weakened others.

The main recipients of this downgrading in terms of competition and talent are the Big East and Big 12, both leagues who have given more than they have taken.

The Big 12 first lost Nebraska and Colorado, and then said farewell to Texas A&M and Missouri.  Though TCU and West Virginia are steps in the right direction, the Big 12 won’t be whole again until they add two more big-time (or at least mid-level) teams to their ranks.

Perhaps that is precisely what is taking so long.

The Big East’s loss of West Virginia, Pitt and Syracuse may not seem catastrophic until you consider who is staying around (especially from a football perspective) and who is coming to fill the gaps.

The Big East suddenly looks like an amped up version of the C-USA. This is not necessarily a bad thing, until you realize that you’ve either lost a BCS conference or are going to give away a heap of rewards to a team that, relative to the other big-time leagues, didn’t have the same degree of difficulty on their path to a BCS bowl or a playoff spot.

Stronger: Big Ten and Pac-12 Have Conference Championships

There is no doubt that adding a conference title game to the Big Ten and Pac-12 evens the playing field, from a national perspective, with that of the SEC and ACC.

Eventually it should be a requirement that any league participating for a spot in the mini-playoff should have had to play an extra game in the form of a conference title tilt, otherwise equity and fairness is unobtainable.

Weaker: The Big 12 Has No Conference Championship

As good as it is to have the Pac-12 and Big Ten on board with a divisional format complete with conference championship games, it’s a setback that the Big 12 parted with their title contest.

In essence, what it very advantageous for the remaining and new members of the Big 12 is a bad thing for college football.

Why?

Well, teams like Texas, Oklahoma and the odd “other” team who can contend for the league crown don’t have to play an extra game to remain playoff worthy, while squads from the SEC, ACC, Pac-12 and Big Ten do.

This weakens the national landscape of our sport because it provides one more bright light of controversy on a horizon that is already blazing.

Weaker: The Big East is Thin

Perhaps four “super” conferences is where this whole messy affair is heading, and maybe the weakening of the Big East is the first step.

But, for now, the Big East morphing into a more acceptable version of the C-USA or MWC does nothing but create more inherent confusion about the state of college football.

Are they a BCS conference?  Are we even going to have BCS conferences?  And, most important, should a title holder from a paper thin Big East be held in the same high esteem as a squad that won the ACC, Big 12, SEC, Big 10 or Pac-12?

Stronger: The Big East is Thin

The flip side to the Big East’s weakening being a bad thing for college football is the fact that you could argue that it is actually a good thing.

Yes, what about an angle that asserts that the Big East really didn’t belong up top all along, from a football perspective, and that the natural process has finally played itself out?

Weaker: The ACC is Vulnerable

The ACC poaching Pitt and Syracuse from the Big East made the league look strong and ready to step up to super conference status, but the boys from the Atlantic may have been better served to seek out more football-centric dance partners.

What’s basically happened is that the reductions in the Big 12, and its subsequent survival, have made things shaky for any league that isn’t 100 percent invested from a football approach.

When you’ve got Texas and Oklahoma driving the money bus, it’s hard to “just say no” to cold hard cash, which makes conferences’ big football boys vulnerable (i.e. Florida State), especially when it looks like it’s time to play another provocative round of “do what’s best for yourself or you’ll be screwed.”

Stronger: Big Conferences Have Better TV Contracts

Really, you could argue this one is as much a weakness as a strengthening point, but the bottom line is that realignment has afforded certain teams and entire conferences more income from TV.

More money for other, non-football athletic programs is a plus, as is schools getting a bigger piece of the huge pile of cash brought in by advertising revenue, but then there is the proverbial other side of the story.

Yes, more money to specific blocs of power means that some groups have more power, while others have even less.

But still, how you can say that more money pumping into the sport is a bad thing?

Weaker: The Gap Between the Haves and Have Not’s Has Widened

The TV dollars that have strengthened the shifting teams and their conferences has had the adverse effect of further widening the gap between the “haves” and “have not’s” in college football.

The winners are the SEC, the Big Ten, the ACC (at least in the short term), the Pac-12 and even the Big 12 who continues to swing their sword because of big names like Oklahoma and Texas.

The losers are the Big East, the C-USA, the MAC, the Sun Belt, the MWC and the now almost defunct WAC.

It already made almost zero sense to say that non-BCS schools are actually competing for the same title that BCS schools are, but with the widening gap created by the movement to bigger, thicker conferences the chasm is almost unmendable.

Weaker: Traditional Rivalries are Gone

One of the enormous costs of realignment, and therefore one of the biggest weakening factors, is the loss of some of college football’s oldest rivalries.

Among the staggering losses are the Texas A&M vs. Texas series (117 years old), the Oklahoma vs. Nebraska rivalry (lasted 99 years), the Missouri vs. Kansas series (gone after 120 years) and the Backyard Brawl pitting West Virginia and Pitt (116 years old).

Though there will lots of enthusiasm for the new matchups spawned by realignment, you have to wonder, once the honeymoon is over, if we’ve given up too much in the name of money and self-preservation.

Stronger: Compelling New Matchups

Even the staunchest college football purist would be hard pressed to claim that there isn’t some level of intrigue surrounding the new match-ups that are the result of realignment.

Nebraska squaring off with the likes of Iowa, Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State is nothing short of thrilling, as is the idea of Texas A&M and Missouri trying their hands in the SEC and West Virginia meeting Texas and Oklahoma in the new Big 12.

Heck, even Utah and TCU ascending to their proper place among the big boys is thrilling.

The new combinations of dance partners are here to stay, and regardless of what they cost us, we should enjoy them because really, there is nothing else left to do.

Weaker: Nothing is Sacred

What’s most alarming from both a long-term and short-term perspective regarding college football realignment is the fact that nothing is sacred.

Yes, if you can put a team from Idaho in the Big East, transfer the Aggies football department out of the Lone Star state and sell Nebraska football to the highest bidder, anything can happen.

Cherished rivalries are suddenly as cheap as dollar store laundry detergent, while TV money rolls in the door in a feeble attempt to fill that gap where terms like “tradition” and “honor” used to hang on the wall.

If anything and everything is for sale, what is next and how much more bizarre can it get?

Honestly friend, that’s a scary, scary question.

Stronger: Notre Dame May Have to Join a Conference

Though many purists may rightly assert that Notre Dame will never drop its mantle of eternal independence, certain rumblings may prove that even the impossible is eventually inevitable.

Just this week reports surfaced that the Irish are looking to liaise with the ACC in hopes of an Orange Bowl tie-in if they can’t ascend into the new mini-playoff format.

So, does this mean that a Notre Dame team will go instead of an ACC team, or will the Irish be the new Big East candidate and attend the Orange Bowl every year they finish in the Top 15 but don’t make the playoff?

The fact is that Notre Dame doesn’t have a BCS bowl tie-in and therefore has no back-up plan in place because they aren’t a member of one of the power conferences.

One fix is for Notre Dame to join a conference for football, a move that would actually make it easier for the Irish to make a BCS bowl and possibly the play-off.

The simple truth is, if the new format becomes inhospitable to independent teams, and if Notre Dame isn’t given special treatment (BIG ifs), then a conference alliance may become a necessity.

This would be good for the game because it would represent one huge step towards leveling the playing field for all the teams that are not representing the University of Notre Dame.

Weaker: It’s Not Over Yet, It May Never Be Over

Just when it looks like the last domino has fallen in the conference realignment bonanza, another block falls and creates a knock-on effect that reverberates throughout the college football landscape.

Yes, just when it seems safe to write down the conference alignment in permanent Sharpie marker, a rumor starts up about who will be the next program to jump ship.

Really, until the Big 12 expands back to 12 teams you have to figure that we’re in a short term lull that will soon be back in full swing.

After that you’ve still got the fact that 124 programs are supposedly playing for a title that only about half the teams really have a shot at.

These facts, and a big pie full of TV money that is inequitably shared, means that we are far from being in a stable condition.

Though the excitement and media attention surrounding conference realignment could be considered good for college football, the instability, the dishonesty and lack of logical thinking is absolutely volatile and could very well continue to cost our sport dearly.

The Bottom Line

Though the presentation of a mere 14 strengths/weaknesses hardly scratches the surface in gauging the effects of conference realignment, it’s a good place to start.

In the case of this study we found only six arguments of conference swapping being positive, while eight points were negative.

This of course doesn’t mean that the recent rash of league realignment can definitively be branded a failure and a horrible thing for college football, but it does highlight some of the costs and perhaps irreversible negative aspects.

Overall, college football is not the same animal it was even five years ago, and given the rate of change, five more years may render it unrecognizable.

Is this a good thing?

The wishy-washy though honest answer is, sometimes yes, but even more often no.

Anytime that money is the overriding factor in decision making, sports or not, the result is often adverse or, at the very least, different than what was originally intended.