Many NCAA sanctioned sports have over 100 teams competing at the Division 1 level. But many sports are not Men's Gymnastics. Currently, the sport only has one division. There is no Divsion II, III, or NAIA. Just Division 1, and just 18 teams competing for the National Championship. One of those teams is the University of Iowa.
Last Saturday, the Iowa men's gymnastic team traveled to Chicago to compete in the Windy City Invitational to begin their 2009 season. They placed 6th out of 6 in the final standings. Since 2000, the team has only finished in the top 3 in the Big Ten twice, and have finished last three times. The team continues to be a generally uncompetitive team in a sport that lacks competition to begin with.
Meanwhile, traditional Big Ten teams continue to fill arenas and win championships in the sport of hockey. While the Big Ten does not sponsor a hockey conference, many schools play in hockey-only conferences with sucess. Four teams have won hockey national championships. The games are televised regularly with steady ratings throughout the northern states.
The yearning of an NCAA hockey team has been mentioned in Iowa City before. Carver Hawkeye Arena is built perfectly to support a hockey team. The support for a team appears to exist. The only thing stopping it from becoming a reality seems to be the University itself. Without wanting to eliminate sports, the Athletic Department does not have room to add a hockey team to the lineup.
It is time for Gary Barta to put 2 and 2 together.
While it may be disappointing for the men's gymnastics team, eliminating them opens the door for a team that has potential to generate enough revenue to support itself. With natural rivals with teams in hockey states, an Iowa Hawkeyes hockey team could produce interest that could rival the wrestling team. Perhaps an exageration, but not by much.
Hockey is a fast paced, hard hitting sport that is relatively inexpensive to watch in person. Giving it a place in Iowa City would help the university create a stronger and more profitable athletic department.
It can even have a positive affect on the Big Ten. With Iowa being the sixth Big Ten team, it could be enough to get the conference to add the sport. With four of the past seven National Champions, the Big Ten would instantly be one of the toughest conferences in the country.
It ultimately comes down to which team would generate more fan interest: Men's Gymnastics or Hockey.
My choice is easy.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Sunday, January 11, 2009
The Curious Case of Jake
Nearly four years ago, Jake Christensen enrolled at the University of Iowa as a member of one of the highest rated recruiting classes the football team had ever had. Yesterday, he decided to transfer from the team with 15 career starts, nearly 3,000 yards passing, and a broken spirit.
When the Class of 2005 came in, Iowa had just finished ranked 8th in the nation for the third straight season. Every Hawkeye fan looked to Christensen as a sign that bigger and better things were on the horizon. The job of the prodigy quickly changed, however, after the next two seasons in Iowa City saw the Hawkeyes regress to 7-5 and 6-7. He was now in charge of leading the reincarnation.
2,269 yards, 17 touchdowns, and just six interceptions were comparable to the first season for past Hawkeye greats, including Chuck Long and Drew Tate. But the media and fans focused their attention on three different statistics: last in the Big Ten in total offense, a 6-6 record, and no bowl game.
While Jake struggled in the spotlight, the unheralded Ricky Stanzi rapidly improved throughout the Spring, and was ready to challenge for playing time. Throughout the first month of the season both quarterbacks competed for the starting role. One looked rattled while the other flourished. One was constantly booed and harassed, the other hailed as the new great thing. And at that moment, Jake Christensen became one of Iowa's best leaders.
Like many young quarterbacks, Ricky experienced growing pains in his first year at the helm of the offense. Luckily, he had a former starter to turn to for advice. Displaying the signs of a true leader, Jake remained involved on the sidelines and helped develop his successor into one of the most efficient quarterbacks in the Big Ten.
When Stanzi succeeded, Christensen was the first to congratulate. When Stanzi struggled, Christensen was the first to criticize, and then advise. He suddenly became the unofficial, much needed Quarterbacks Coach Iowa had been missing. As Stanzi continued to succeed, Christensen cheered louder, never complaining about standing on the sidelines.
Finally, during the end of the season finale, Jake got what he deserved. Cheers. No more hooting and hollering about poor pocket presence or underthrown passes. Throughout the season, fans had forgiven their once proclaimed savior. Perhaps it was because Iowa had a successful season. Perhaps it was because a new quarterback had taken his place and been more efficient. Or perhaps it was because the fans realized Jake Christensen contributed as much to this season as Andy Brodell, Seth Olsen, and Christian Ballard, but he was the only one who had yet to be congratulated on a job well done.
For four seasons, he put his heart and soul into helping Iowa be sucessful, but was rarely appreciated for it. He cracked under pressure. He always tried his best, but his best was never good enough to silence the critics. Jake Christensen was quick to embrace the Hawkeyes, but the Hawkeyes never completely embraced him.
And now, for better or worse, he is gone. Gone from the team he loved who's fans refused to love him back. Gone from the sideline where he excelled as a leader. And gone from expectations that were too high to expect him to reach in the first place.
Gone from the Iowa Hawkeyes, a year early, is one of the team's most valuable players from this season. And I'm not talking about Shonn Greene.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Time for Buckeyes to Exit Stage Left
The Big Ten completed their bowl lineup last night when Ohio State fell to Texas 24-21 on a last minute touchdown. This capped off what was perhaps the worst bowl season in the conference's storied history. A 1-6 record did nothing to quiet the critics. To make matters worse, four of the six losses were blowouts. Now the Big Ten has a long road back to respectability in a sport it used to dominate in.
Just a short three years ago there were talks of an Ohio State-Michigan rematch in the National Championship Game. Now, many wonder which is stronger: the Big Ten or the Mountain West Conference.
The best thing the conference can do is get Ohio State out of the spotlight. The past three seasons, the Buckeyes have faced a top out of conference opponent four times, and last all four of them. Three times they have been blown out. When Ohio State suffers, many outsiders assume that is best the Big Ten has to offer.
The time has come for a new identity to emerge as the team to beat in the Big Ten. Penn State didn't quite accomplish it this season because Ohio State still found a way into a BCS bowl, and the Nittany Lions were blown away by the same USC team that dismantled the Buckeyes in September. Ohio State out of the BCS would give the Big Ten new life. Columns would discuss the surprise of the new champion instead of waiting for the same old story to unfold.
Unfortunately, the next big test for the conference is next September, when USC travels to Columbus. Every Big Ten fan should pray for a miracle. The early showdown will set the tone for the conference for the rest of the season.
In a perfect world, Ohio State finds a way to defeat the Trojans, and then loses at least 2 Big Ten games. The victory would give the conference credibility and the losses would give it depth. Right now, the conference desperately needs both.
Just a short three years ago there were talks of an Ohio State-Michigan rematch in the National Championship Game. Now, many wonder which is stronger: the Big Ten or the Mountain West Conference.
The best thing the conference can do is get Ohio State out of the spotlight. The past three seasons, the Buckeyes have faced a top out of conference opponent four times, and last all four of them. Three times they have been blown out. When Ohio State suffers, many outsiders assume that is best the Big Ten has to offer.
The time has come for a new identity to emerge as the team to beat in the Big Ten. Penn State didn't quite accomplish it this season because Ohio State still found a way into a BCS bowl, and the Nittany Lions were blown away by the same USC team that dismantled the Buckeyes in September. Ohio State out of the BCS would give the Big Ten new life. Columns would discuss the surprise of the new champion instead of waiting for the same old story to unfold.
Unfortunately, the next big test for the conference is next September, when USC travels to Columbus. Every Big Ten fan should pray for a miracle. The early showdown will set the tone for the conference for the rest of the season.
In a perfect world, Ohio State finds a way to defeat the Trojans, and then loses at least 2 Big Ten games. The victory would give the conference credibility and the losses would give it depth. Right now, the conference desperately needs both.
Friday, January 2, 2009
If I ran the NCAA for a day
With the bowl season in full swing, many arguments for a playoff are again in full steam. These discussions reminded me how great college sports are. Millions of people being passionate about amateur athletics is hard to find in any other country across the globe. College athletics are quite possibly the closest to purity in sports. Here are four ways to make them even better:
1) Do away with the BCS - I am not a full proponent of a playoff, but am completely against the Bowl Championship Series. The old way of doing things had tradition. Sure, there were rarely match ups between the #1 and #2 ranked teams in the country, but the National Champion was debated no less then it is today. The BCS was created to solve the problems of split champions and arguing through the polls, but this season proved none of that has changed. The polls ultimately decided who played in the Big 12 Championship, and the polls decided Penn State and USC were out of the running despite having an identical record to both Florida and Oklahoma. I would be in favor of returning to the old school bowl season.
The Pac-10 champ always plays the Big 10 champ in the Rose Bowl, and the bowl tie-ins still exist. While the National Champion may still be debated periodically, most years one team would be clearly better then all the others, and would be voted the National Champion in both major polls.
The thing I disagree with most about the BCS is it puts too much emphasis on winning the National Championship. Before Penn State played in the Rose Bowl, it was considered a disappointing season because they missed out on the National Championship game with their loss at Iowa. Winning the Big Ten Championship and receiving a bid to play in the Rose Bowl should never be considered a down season.
If a playoff is created, what happens to the other bowl games? With the bowl lineup, teams have an opportunity to finish a successful season with a spot in the national spotlight and carry momentum into next year.
However, with so many bowls, teams no longer need to have a truly successful season to participate in a bowl, so...
2) Make the bowls mean something again - There are 119 football teams in Division 1-FBS (1-A), and this season 68 teams were selected to participate in bowl games. That means 57% of teams had "successful" seasons. Bowl games are supposed to generate interest among fans and potential recruits to watch the game. By having 34 bowl games, the interest is lost, and the match ups suffer. An easy solution would be to cut the number of bowls down to 25 and require a winning record to participate. 7-5 is a winning record. 6-6 is not. With just 25 bowls, 8-4 would most likely be required to participate in the bowls, along with a select number of 7-5 teams.
This season, nine 6 win and eighteen 7 win teams played in bowl games. If only 25 bowls existed, zero 6 win teams would qualify for a bowl, while nine 7 win teams would be selected. The reduction in games would instill new meaning in "bowl eligible" and more meaning into every bowl game.
3) Eliminate the play-in game - Since 2001, the Men's Basketball NCAA Tournament has selected 65 teams to play for the Division 1 National Championship. The extra team was added to give the power conferences an additional at-large bid and eliminate a lower conference before the tournament began. The play-in game takes away from the experience for the losing team. For many small schools, the NCAA Tournament is their one shot at glory against a major opponent. While both teams would most certainly lose to a #1 seed anyways, they still deserve the opportunity to compete. The NCAA claims every Division 1 basketball conference receives an automatic bid into the tournament every season, but for the past eight tournaments, one conference has been absent each season.
4) Televise baseball and softball during the regular season - The College World Series for both baseball and softball always receive high ratings when televised by ESPN each summer. The championship games, however, do create the same aura as the marquee games in football or basketball. This is partly due to the popularity of football and basketball, although it is also due to baseball and softball's lack of exposure the rest of the season. The casual sports fan who sits down to watch the College World Series is not familiar with teams or players prior to the championship round. Televising more regular season games in April and May would create fan interest in June and July. Fans would have a better understanding of which teams are the underdogs and which are favored.
1) Do away with the BCS - I am not a full proponent of a playoff, but am completely against the Bowl Championship Series. The old way of doing things had tradition. Sure, there were rarely match ups between the #1 and #2 ranked teams in the country, but the National Champion was debated no less then it is today. The BCS was created to solve the problems of split champions and arguing through the polls, but this season proved none of that has changed. The polls ultimately decided who played in the Big 12 Championship, and the polls decided Penn State and USC were out of the running despite having an identical record to both Florida and Oklahoma. I would be in favor of returning to the old school bowl season.
The Pac-10 champ always plays the Big 10 champ in the Rose Bowl, and the bowl tie-ins still exist. While the National Champion may still be debated periodically, most years one team would be clearly better then all the others, and would be voted the National Champion in both major polls.
The thing I disagree with most about the BCS is it puts too much emphasis on winning the National Championship. Before Penn State played in the Rose Bowl, it was considered a disappointing season because they missed out on the National Championship game with their loss at Iowa. Winning the Big Ten Championship and receiving a bid to play in the Rose Bowl should never be considered a down season.
If a playoff is created, what happens to the other bowl games? With the bowl lineup, teams have an opportunity to finish a successful season with a spot in the national spotlight and carry momentum into next year.
However, with so many bowls, teams no longer need to have a truly successful season to participate in a bowl, so...
2) Make the bowls mean something again - There are 119 football teams in Division 1-FBS (1-A), and this season 68 teams were selected to participate in bowl games. That means 57% of teams had "successful" seasons. Bowl games are supposed to generate interest among fans and potential recruits to watch the game. By having 34 bowl games, the interest is lost, and the match ups suffer. An easy solution would be to cut the number of bowls down to 25 and require a winning record to participate. 7-5 is a winning record. 6-6 is not. With just 25 bowls, 8-4 would most likely be required to participate in the bowls, along with a select number of 7-5 teams.
This season, nine 6 win and eighteen 7 win teams played in bowl games. If only 25 bowls existed, zero 6 win teams would qualify for a bowl, while nine 7 win teams would be selected. The reduction in games would instill new meaning in "bowl eligible" and more meaning into every bowl game.
3) Eliminate the play-in game - Since 2001, the Men's Basketball NCAA Tournament has selected 65 teams to play for the Division 1 National Championship. The extra team was added to give the power conferences an additional at-large bid and eliminate a lower conference before the tournament began. The play-in game takes away from the experience for the losing team. For many small schools, the NCAA Tournament is their one shot at glory against a major opponent. While both teams would most certainly lose to a #1 seed anyways, they still deserve the opportunity to compete. The NCAA claims every Division 1 basketball conference receives an automatic bid into the tournament every season, but for the past eight tournaments, one conference has been absent each season.
4) Televise baseball and softball during the regular season - The College World Series for both baseball and softball always receive high ratings when televised by ESPN each summer. The championship games, however, do create the same aura as the marquee games in football or basketball. This is partly due to the popularity of football and basketball, although it is also due to baseball and softball's lack of exposure the rest of the season. The casual sports fan who sits down to watch the College World Series is not familiar with teams or players prior to the championship round. Televising more regular season games in April and May would create fan interest in June and July. Fans would have a better understanding of which teams are the underdogs and which are favored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)