Jim Delaney is a buffoon.
Please shut your mouth and let a champion be crowned on the field.
“Just because somebody says they’re open-minded and interested in looking at other models doesn’t mean they’re committed to it.”
Well, the SEC's commish isn't just interested in a playoff, he has a plan and has brought brought it up to the BCS twice and is doing it again this week.
12 comments:
College football is about tradition. It's not about crowning a national champion on the field. It never has been. The Big Ten champ should play the Pac-10 champ every January 1st in the Rose Bowl. That's the way it should be. A playoff is a bad idea for many reasons and isn't logistically possible.
Matt, then we need to go back to a 9 or 10 game schedule...You're a funny guy- you defend Delaney when he gets in bed with the devil for money and think it's OK to go against tradition there...but here it's not and it's not possible.
If we went back to the way things used to be, the Big Ten would contract, many conferences would cease to exist and Purdue would be forced to play aOSU in Columbus each time...Sigh...Tradition, the good ole days...sigh.
Hell, why even keep score if there's no champion?
I just gave Purdue my national championship trophy! Yeh!
"The reality is there's unanimity [among the commissioners] that we've made a lot of progress in the past decade," said Delany. "College football has probably grown more in the past decade than any other sport."
Much of that popularity can be attributed to the drama of the sport's regular season, much of which has been enhanced by the creation of a unified national-title game (how quickly we forget that prior to 1998, No. 1 vs. 2 bowl games were hardly an annual occurrence). Protecting the sanctity of that regular season remains an overriding concern among the commissioners and was cited by several in expressing their reluctance to embrace the plus-one.
"College football has the best regular season of any sport anywhere," said Slive, "and you have to be very careful about that when you're thinking about the postseason."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/04/30/bcs.meeting/1.html
Matt, but for tradition's sake, shouldn't we go back to the good ole days of pre-1998?
I'm confused.
College basketball is pretty popular even though their champion is decided on the court. NFL football is as popular as it's ever been...in fact an NFL Monday night commercial costs nearly as much as a Super Bowl commercial ten years ago (during certain games)...they let games decide their champion.
You and Jim Delaney can go take a vacation together and talk about such things and convince eachother how right you are...I don't think you'll convince anybody else.
The logistics of putting on a college basketball playoff and a football playoff are completely different. We've debated this many times before, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I would have prefered Ohio State to have beaten USC in the Rose Bowl rather than getting embarrased in the BCS title game. I think its important to protect the tradition of the conference tie ins for the Rose, Fiesta, Sugar, Orange, etc... I just don't think having a "true national champion" is all that important. The important thing to me is winning the Big Ten and being rewarded for that with a trip to Pasadena. Maybe I just feel that way because there's no chance Purdue will compete for a national title, but that's my opinion.
Matt, you're entitled to your opinion, and I don't agree with it. But to say that it's logistically impossible to have a playoff isn't really debatable. It can be done if they choose to do it.
The recent smaller +1 scenario would be a very good start and would also help them gauge corporate/TV interest.
Perhaps Matt is only thinking a playoff can be 16 teams or larger. It doesn't have to be that way. Just have a small 4 team type playoff, that is all we ask for now. That way the regular season still matters a ton so you keep that excitment. The logistics are way easier when only two teams have to travel and play an extra bowl game. Is that soooooo hard??
Lots to comment on here, but Matt's comment that Purdue doesn't have a chance is not quite true... being in the Big Ten, if we ran off a 10-0 start or 11-1 or something, we'd be in the mix for #1 thanks to our conference. So it's not impossible by any means... just need the players, coaches and good fortune.
But a great sport having a paper champion is such a letdown.
Here's what we proposed back in December... don't tell me this is impossible, especially over holiday breaks from schools.
http://www.boiledsports.com/2007/12/boiled-sports-championship-series.html
"if we ran off a 10-0 start or 11-1 or something"
Not going to happen.
Even a "plus one" which is a 4 team playoff would be a bad idea.
Here are the reasons why..
-It would devalue the regular season
-It would foul up the traditional bowl tie-ins
-Hard to expect a fanbase to commit dollars to travel to 2 bowl games in 2 weeks at two different destinations.
I would be in favor of an unseeded plus one where the traditional bowl tie ins are honored with a championship game to follow.
Common guys,
Can't you see through Mike Slive's politicking? He knows all too well he is basically beating a dead horse. But fans everywhere are just so thrilled someone of importance has even considered their cause they can't see through his PR trick.
Check it out here:
http://nittanywhiteout.com/2008/05/01/the-rose-curtain/
Post a Comment