Small Talk: Conference Mutiny

Everyone's talking about them.

The new "super conferences" that are sure to change the face of college football as we know it. For whatever reason, many major universities are jumping ship from conferences they have been in since their inception they are throwing everyone for a loop. As if the changes aren't confusing enough, the talk of the "possibilities" really has heads spinning. Nevertheless, all of the talk we are seeing is about two things: football and men's basketball.

Now I will freely admit that I am not surprised. And I shouldn't be. Football and basketball are obviously the most highly watched sports and certainly the most revenue-generating for all of these schools. But they also aren't the only revenue generators. And they certainly aren't the only revenue spenders. What I think people are greatly overlooking during this tumultuous time is that for all the other teams at these universities, everything is changed. The way you prepare for a season, the travel arrangements that are made, or the impact on families and fans. Conferences, whether we like it or not, have become an important part of how we identify with our athletic departments and our universities as a whole and I don't think that these changes should be taken lightly.

For some sports, such as lacrosse and baseball, conferences aren't even fully developed, meaning some schools don't have teams. In other cases, conferences are already drawing on teams that are typically viewed as outside the conference. So when schools who are considered vital in the conference leave, it devalues the soul-searching conference. Not to mention the hilarity that ensues when conferences have names that attempt to reflect the conference, but they are so far off that you have to question the sanity of the conference's marketing departments for not renaming the conference. (I'm talking to you Big 10 and Big 12.)

And what about the schools who join conferences filled with larger, more robust athletics departments? Does it mean that schools are quietly pledging to add additional sports? Does this pressure exist? Should it exist? (read: I still have no idea why Colorado or Utah are in the PAC-12.)

And who could forget within-conference rivalry games? If you remove some of these rivalry games and matches, you essentially suck the lifeblood out of many fans who spend 364 days a year looking forward to next year's big game. Rivalries can't be contrived or bought. They are established by history and repeated combat on the field. Does this mean that every team in the country turns into Notre Dame football, who seemingly has rivalries with everyone?

I think it's pretty clear how I feel about conference switching. It seems super hypocritical that collegiate athletics are changing their conferences simply because of financial reasons. While it may positively impact the budgets, I'm not convinced it's the best thing for the student-athlete at the end of the day. And we can't forget that the student-athlete, who is the "money maker" in this case, is the one who we is supposed to be the ultimate benefit recipient. So I leave you with this one question. Based on all of this conference swapping that's going on, why shouldn't
Hawaii join the Big East?