It's been documented here that I'm not a fan of Big Ten dictator...errrrr, commissioner, Jim Delaney. Delaney has had his foot in his mouth more in the last year than any other person in a similar post across the NCAA sports landscape. Plus, our conference's officiating (in football AND basketball), that has been among the nation's worst is still weathering a storm that Delaney allowed to happen. All that said, he may be coming up on the biggest embarrassment of his mistake-riddled tenure at the BT.
Both he and Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen have made it clear that their "grand ole conferences" are both opposed to any form of a playoff in college football. Now, the other BCS conferences might have enough weight to finally get a system approved that utilizes two of the four major bowls as a semi-final in such a tournament...and the biggest part of the story is that the other conferences are sick of hearing Delaney's rhetoric (as am I) and might just not make it mandatory for all of the conferences to participate. If there is a college football playoff and the BT and Pac-10 decide to keep the integrity of the Rose Bowl by not getting involved in such a tournament, I will completely be on board for Purdue's new coach, current AD and others petitioning to leave the oldest collegiate sports conference...or, demanding that Delaney be ousted so someone with less of a Napoleonic complex take the helm of what used to be the best conference in America.
I've said it before, Delaney is a fool...but he's really foolish if he thinks his posturing and chest-beating is going to keep D-I playoff football from ever occurring. ESPN's big bowl contract might keep any of the heads from speaking in favor of a playoff (on camera), and Delaney and Hansen might not want it, but the fans, players and majority of the coaches want it. It will eventually happen...The question becomes "Does the conference have the foresight to have a leader who is humble enough to be a part of the change?" If not, we might see the Big-10 moniker be numerically incorrect yet again...this time because of defections.
Lastly, does he really believe that Ohio State can't compete v. the SEC because of the Big Ten's academic standards (check out the link above again, if you missed it)? His statement smacks of the hubris and elitism that has propelled my hatred for UND...furthermore, it makes me more of a proponent of Delaney's departure atop the Big Ten. You'd think his wingtips would have already gagged Jim to the point that gaffes like this couldn't occur.
20 comments:
I support the tradition of the Rose Bowl and back Delany on this one. I appreciate, respect, and support the tradition of the Big Ten champ playing the Pac-10 champ in the Rose Bowl. I want it to continue. I am not in favor of a plus and especially not a playoff. I want tradition to be preserved. Everyone acts like it is such an unfathomable injustive that we don't have a national champion decided by a playoff, yet does everyone forget how college football has been for years and years. This is college football, not the NFL.
Also, Delany is the commish of the wealthiest conference in the land. He has done a helluva job, even if he is a little rough around the edges.
Preserving the tradition of the Rose Bowl is good for the Big Ten and good for tradition. I support both causes.
For why a playoff is not realistic or logistically possible, read this....
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/the_bonus/01/02/bcs.future/index.html
Also, Delany is spelled without an "e"
Delaney's lucky I mention his name at all, let alone take the time to spell it correctly.
Tradition just for the sake of tradition is ludicrous. Because something has been broken for "years and years" doesn't mean we should sit back idly and turn a blind eye to it.
Sport is played to see who is really the best, not to have people vote who is the best. I would argue that if we're going to not have a tournament, why keep score? Maybe Herbstreit and others can tell us who is the best and we can make our decisions that way...oh wait, we kind of already do that.
How stupid would it be if at the end of the NFL season, we simply had The Patriots play the Jags, the Colts play the Chargers, the Seahawks play the Packers and the Cowboys play the Giants...After the Patriots, Colts, Chargers, Packers and Cowboys win, the media simply names the Patriots NFL champs. It sounds dumb because it is.
A playoff can work and eventually will work if it is planned for, plain and simple.
I heard a radio ad for the Big Ten Network this morning. I live in Utah. The cable companies aren't going to carry it out here. Most of the people out here don't care (there are some transfers like me that might care, if the BTN didn't suck so much). I really have no idea as to what someone was thinking by running that ad here.
College Football is about a special regular season where each game means something. It's about winning your conference and being rewarded with a trip to sunny Pasadena. It is not about a massive logistical nightmare of a playoff that would devalue the regular season, strain the academic schedules of student-athletes, and drain the pockets of fans who can't afford to go to 3 bowl games in 3 weeks.
To say that a playoff will happen because "everyone wants it" (not true by the way) or because "it can work if planned for" is a very weak and uninformed argument. Read the column I linked by Stewart Mandel. A playoff will never happen, and rightfully so.
Hey, Matt, you do know that you can put HTML into comments, don't you? ;-)
For those who can't see the text of the site he provided (or are just too laze to copy and paste), please view this wonderful page.
That has been my service for the day.
--Eric
Thanks gittle.
Matt, did you see my proposal and justification for a playoff system a few weeks ago?
Spare me this "tradition" business and PLEASE skip the "academic" argument.... seriously, that's such a joke. How come the NCAA basketball tournament works? That wasn't always 65 teams... yet I don't see anyone suggesting we go back to no playoff system.
As for your "tradition" of the Rose Bowl, it's already gone, son. Remember Texas in the Rose Bowl? When did they join the Big Ten? Oh, right... they were there because of the money-grubbing BCS, not because of any sacred tradition. Yes, this year there was Pac Ten/Big Ten, but it could easily have gone another way.
If we're declaring an "official" national champ, we need a playoff. 20 years ago, when it was all voting and there was no BCS, it was at least a sorta weirdly-level playing field. A bunch of things could happen to make you the national champ. But now we have to have two teams make the final game... even when several others are better? Makes zero sense.
There's an old saying... "Tradition is a mistake done twice."
I love that Georgia is the one proposing a playoff, because htey STILL wouldn't deserve to be in it. If you can't even win your own division in your conference you have no business being a national champion. If they wanted a right to bitch they should have won their division.
The BCS title game has diluted the tradition of the Rose Bowl, I agree. That was a compromise by Delany and the Pac-10 commish. But let's not confound the mistake by diluting it alltogether.
Also, comparing the NCAA Basketball tournament to a football playoff is an apples to oranges comparison. A playoff is not possible or feasible, neither is a seeded "plus one," the only thing that MIGHT work is a general "plus one." It is the reality of the situation and you can understand it better once you know the facts.
No problem, Matt. By the way, this is EmanBoilers from GBI. Just so you know. I figured that I would use my last-name variation (that everyone calls me) as my Blogger handle.
So how's the financial advising business going? ;-)
As for the basketball argument, j money, the presidents, NCAA bigwigs, ADs, and other administrators will say that the basketball tournament, unlike a potential football tournament, does not occur at the most important part of the academic year, i.e., just before and/or during finals. Additionally, the earliest rounds generally occur when most of the participants are on spring break, so for all but 16 entrants, there is practically zero class time missed. You read Tranghese mention that when he was comparing a potential Bowl Subdivision playoff to the current D-1, D-2, and D-3 championships that the NCAA sanctions. Their seasons aren't as long and there aren't any other (read: TV) considerations for most of the time, so they are generally done in time to take finals.
Also, another thing to consider is that with the other championships, all rounds until the final are held on campus, i.e., the higher seed hosts the game. Therefore, a really good team has practically non-existent travel costs and can remain close to its academic advisers.
Therefore, the way to have a playoff for the championship while placating the concerns of others would be to hold it as soon as everyone is on winter break, so as to minimise missed class time. Of course, that's not the only concern that has to be placated. :-D
--Eric
Some other things that were traditions: Thinking the world was flat, slavery, women not voting......yeah, traditions are great.
Anyways, did you see the Rose Bowl this year?? Illinois didn't win the Big Ten. Remember when Penn State was robbed of a national title because they had to play in the Rose Bowl? Yeah, I bet the preferred preserving tradition over winning a national championship! Get real!!
We're not asking for a 64 team playoff, or even a 16 team playoff!! If we keep it small, 8 or 4 teams then every single regular season game still matters and there will only be a few logistics to plan out. And your "affordable" comment? Umm, bowl games are 150 dollar tickets now anyways. The people that can afford to go to one game can afford to go to two!
Eric, so you're saying if they scheduled or planned for it, you think a playoff would work?
That's crazy talk...it's un-possible.
What makes the bowls lucrative for everyone involved is because the bowl site and participants are known more than a month in advance. Fans and alumni can books hotels, flights, etc in advance and also spend money on dining and other local businesses while at the bowl site. If you have a situation where a team is playing 3 bowls in 3 weeks all that turns to chaos. You would have a situation where fans of a school wouldn't buy as many tickets to the Orange Bowl and wouldn't spend as much money in Miami because they are anticipating a trip to the title game in New Orleans the very next weekend. It is a logistical and financial impossibility.
Once again, just read the Mandel column. He explains it much better than I can.
That's a good question. Anything is possible, really. It just depends on the degree of possibility. Again, there are a lot of actors who are pursuing their own self-interests and they need to their livelihoods, but if everyone got together and said, "Let's do this," then it would get done.
The thing is, right now, that does not appear to be the case. The universities and the conferences want to ensure that they maintain the same windfall they get from the current setup (the NCAA gets nothing from the Bowl Subdivision championship game or the bowls themselves, and they would definitely be in a position of power if there were a playoff while retaining some of the revenue that the institutions and conferences currently get as founders of the BCS), the bowls don't want to see themselves voted out of existence, and the NCAA wants to put up its usual "academics" charade, so until these factors converge, there isn't going to be anything. However, as with anything that occurs, it is possible to satisfy all sides.
Okay, that should say "defend" or "protect" their livelihoods. Blogger somehow crapped out on me and did not restore the entire text of what I had typed. Whoops. ;-)
But Matt's right here, and that's the thing about the bowls and their existence. As it stands right now, attending bowl games is part of a vacation. It's something out of which fans can make a holiday, a nice escape from the harsh realities of winter life (for the most part, anyway). Whereas attending a game as part of a championship playoff is more of an exercise in sheer fanaticism. Bowls are more event-oriented, and that philosophy has its appeal.
So the question is whether or not those in charge come up with a plan that satisfies the participants or the attending public.
If any changes were to be made to the current system, I would agree with what Mike Huegenin of Rivals.com proposes in this column. It would preserve the current bowl tie-ins, and the excitement of those bowls, while also annointing a more legitimate national champion.
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=756304
How do I link that Eric?
Here's what you do:
[less-than sign]a href="link address" [greater-than sign]link title[less-than sign]/a[greater-than sign]
Substituting the actual characters, addresses, and titles, of course.
So, I would point out a modest proposal by Mike Huegenin of Rivals to maintain the bowls and enhance national championship integrity. Then again, I don't think the phrase "modest proposal" might be the greatest in this case. :-D
Oh, and there shouldn't be any spaces between characters. The space between the second quote and the first greater-than sign should be eliminated. Sorry.
Post a Comment