Conferences warn non aq leagues

Add this to a long line of articles that make Beebe come off like a d-bag. He only had one quote and he managed to d-bag up the whole article. That being said some type of playoff needs to be formed. It would raise more money for the schoools, the conferences, anyone else involved and best of all it would crown a true champion every year. I'm getting really tired of seeing an undefeated team at the end of each season that had no chance to play for a national title.

 
One thing we have to realize is that we have gotten into bed with the single biggest anti-playoff man in all of college football: Jim Delany. Delany has long been the most powerful figure in college athletics, and has long been a proponent of the bowl system. He's put the kibosh on playoff talk for a long time now. As much as we like to gripe about the stranglehold DeLoss Dodds and Texas have over the Big XII, Dodds a powerful figure in college athletics in his own right, has run up against a brick wall in trying to circumvent Delany and his opposition to a playoff system.

Whether you like the BCS or not (and I very much do not), this is the man who's going to be guiding the future of Husker athletics, and Big 10 athletics, for the foreseeable future. It's probably in our best interest to get comfortable with him, and with the BCS.

 
knapplc said:
One thing we have to realize is that we have gotten into bed with the single biggest anti-playoff man in all of college football: Jim Delany. Delany has long been the most powerful figure in college athletics, and has long been a proponent of the bowl system. He's put the kibosh on playoff talk for a long time now. As much as we like to gripe about the stranglehold DeLoss Dodds and Texas have over the Big XII, Dodds a powerful figure in college athletics in his own right, has run up against a brick wall in trying to circumvent Delany and his opposition to a playoff system.

Whether you like the BCS or not (and I very much do not), this is the man who's going to be guiding the future of Husker athletics, and Big 10 athletics, for the foreseeable future. It's probably in our best interest to get comfortable with him, and with the BCS.
Click to expand...
Very true, but I believe a lot of Delany's stance against a playoff comes from the fact that in the last 10 years A) the conference has been down, and B ) the conference has had a liesurely stroll into their 2 BCS games nearly every year.

With the addition of NU, and the conference championship game...those days are over. It's highly unlikely you'll see 3 11-1 teams in the Big10 ever again. It's also a 1 in a million chance you'll see 3 11-1 teams and all of them have a stregth of schedule worse the Boise State. Going undefeated in this conference will be a thing of the past. BUT - there could easily be 4 teams in the top 12-16 each year. This conference could very well be the one that benefits the most from a playoff in the future - whereas right now they would have benefited the least.

I think the addition of the championship game will drastically alter they Big10 in regards to the BSC bowls. Delaney might change his stance in the next 3-6 years as that plays out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I for one agree with them. Does a undefeated team from a not so good conference equal a undefeated team from B10,B12 or sec? So lets just say NU runs the gautlet next year, takes thier licks but wins the B10 undefeated, you are saying they should play, say Louisiana-Lafayette if they went undefeated? That would not put butts in the seats. Simply put it's about filling stadiums and TV viewers. They are not saying there is'nt any good teams in those conferences, just with a weak sos how can you compare them to our conferences. Best thing Boise could do is schedule say NU,OK,Alabama,OH St as thier non conf games AND win all them. Thats the only way they will gain any traction or respect from the "big boys".

This is not about schools, it's about conferences. Each putting thier best up against anothers best. It doesnt always work out that way, but I think what the big boys are saying is,we have invited the little guys to come and eat at our table in our house, with the food that we bought, and now they are asking to sleep with our women. With the contract set to expire, the big boys are saying, if you dont like our food and are going to be ungrateful for us inviting you to our table, then theres the door. Say what you will about Delany but he stands up for the B10 and knows how to run a conference.

 
Playoff Def needed. why cant they just take away 2 non-con games and start playoffs this week of december or even a week earlier. i understand students have finals but every other division of football and league known to man has a playoff......

 
bigg10 said:
Well I for one agree with them. Does a undefeated team from a not so good conference equal a undefeated team from B10,B12 or sec? So lets just say NU runs the gautlet next year, takes thier licks but wins the B10 undefeated, you are saying they should play, say Louisiana-Lafayette if they went undefeated? That would not put butts in the seats. Simply put it's about filling stadiums and TV viewers. They are not saying there is'nt any good teams in those conferences, just with a weak sos how can you compare them to our conferences. Best thing Boise could do is schedule say NU,OK,Alabama,OH St as thier non conf games AND win all them. Thats the only way they will gain any traction or respect from the "big boys".

This is not about schools, it's about conferences. Each putting thier best up against anothers best. It doesnt always work out that way, but I think what the big boys are saying is,we have invited the little guys to come and eat at our table in our house, with the food that we bought, and now they are asking to sleep with our women. With the contract set to expire, the big boys are saying, if you dont like our food and are going to be ungrateful for us inviting you to our table, then theres the door. Say what you will about Delany but he stands up for the B10 and knows how to run a conference.
Click to expand...
I have a great deal of respect for Delany, but his stance in this is wrong. Last year with Boise St. & TCU going undefeated was a great example, as is this year with TCU. No, their strength of schedule isn't comparable to an SEC team, a Big 12 team or a Big 10 team, but that doesn't mean they can't vie for the title. ANY team that has a solid record should have a chance - but with the BCS, only two teams have a shot at the title. With a playoff you give solid teams like Boise and TCU a chance to fight their way through tough teams into a championship game. It legitimizes a championship, and would eliminate the "Mythical" tag most people put on it today.

 
Don't forget that some guy named Harvey Pearlman is the Chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee....and has already defended the BCS all the way.

 
Actually, Perlman's term on the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee ended recently, and he has been replaced by former Nebraska Chancellor, and current Penn State President, Graham Spanier. So although it's not Perlman any longer, it's still in the Big 10 family.

Since April, 2010 Harvey has been the Chair of the NCAA Division I Board of Directors.

Any way you look at it, the Big 10 will be having a LOT of say in what happens in the NCAA in the near future.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigg10 said:
Well I for one agree with them. Does a undefeated team from a not so good conference equal a undefeated team from B10,B12 or sec? So lets just say NU runs the gautlet next year, takes thier licks but wins the B10 undefeated, you are saying they should play, say Louisiana-Lafayette if they went undefeated? That would not put butts in the seats. Simply put it's about filling stadiums and TV viewers. They are not saying there is'nt any good teams in those conferences, just with a weak sos how can you compare them to our conferences. Best thing Boise could do is schedule say NU,OK,Alabama,OH St as thier non conf games AND win all them. Thats the only way they will gain any traction or respect from the "big boys".

This is not about schools, it's about conferences. Each putting thier best up against anothers best. It doesnt always work out that way, but I think what the big boys are saying is,we have invited the little guys to come and eat at our table in our house, with the food that we bought, and now they are asking to sleep with our women. With the contract set to expire, the big boys are saying, if you dont like our food and are going to be ungrateful for us inviting you to our table, then theres the door. Say what you will about Delany but he stands up for the B10 and knows how to run a conference.
Click to expand...
Keeping in mind that no there sos is not as tough as a aq school. Boise and TCU both scheduled 2 aq teams on their schedule andin the case of Boise both of them were ranked. They did have a very tough non conferecne schedule. AS knap said if the choice comes down to only two temas than no they shouldn't get the shot over other undefeateds from major conferences, but the whole debate is why only limit it to two teams. An eight or even a six team playoff would put the debate to rest, make the arugement that one team will aloways be left out if you want but you just defending a crappy system.

 
Conceptually I like an FCS style playoff system but it's never going to happen.

First off, let's throw out all the traditions of bowls. You've got TCU playing in the Rose Bowl this year and the most ridiculous sponsorship arrangements imaginable. For example our bowl is sponsored by an online university with a 90% dropout rate that's basically stealing taxpayer money. What a great sponsor for a college athletic event.

But here's some negatives with playoffs:

1. Takes away from the prestige of conference championships. I like the two division conference setups with a CCG. It makes the whole conference schedule more interesting and reduces the chance of shared titles.

2. Big time programs count on 7 home games a year. The standard scheduling practice now in 12 team conferences is 8 conference games (4 home, 4 away) and 4 non-conference games (3 home, 1 away). Say what you want about the two rent-a-teams that are used to get those 3 home non-con games, but it's good for the fans. In a playoff system with presumably 1 or 2 fewer season games, it would impossible for teams to get to 7 home games. They would have a chance for more playoff games at home but you can't count on that year to year for revenue.

3. Revenue sharing in a playoff system. How is this going to work? The TV contract for a playoff would be worth god knows how much money. The current system tends to distribute the most money to the programs with the most fans. That's the main defense for the BCS system.

Playoffs work for for FCS / DII / DIII because the teams are not fighting over huge sums of potential revenue. That's what it boils down to and like it or not we're part of that system that always wants more money for our program.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
krill said:
Conceptually I like an FCS style playoff system but it's never going to happen.

First off, let's throw out all the traditions of bowls. You've got TCU playing in the Rose Bowl this year and the most ridiculous sponsorship arrangements imaginable. For example our bowl is sponsored by an online university with a 90% dropout rate that's basically stealing taxpayer money. What a great sponsor for a college athletic event.

But here's some negatives with playoffs:

1. Takes away from the prestige of conference championships. I like the two division conference setups with a CCG. It makes the whole conference schedule more interesting and reduces the chance of shared titles.

2. Big time programs count on 7 home games a year. The standard scheduling practice now in 12 team conferences is 8 conference games (4 home, 4 away) and 4 non-conference games (3 home, 1 away). Say what you want about the two rent-a-teams that are used to get those 3 home non-con games, but it's good for the fans. In a playoff system with presumably 1 or 2 fewer season games, it would impossible for teams to get to 7 home games. They would have a chance for more playoff games at home but you can't count on that year to year for revenue.

3. Revenue sharing in a playoff system. How is this going to work? The TV contract for a playoff would be worth god knows how much money. The current system tends to distribute the most money to the programs with the most fans. That's the main defense for the BCS system.

Playoffs work for for FCS / DII / DIII because the teams are not fighting over huge sums of potential revenue. That's what it boils down to and like it or not we're part of that system that always wants more money for our program.
Click to expand...
All good points. I honestly hadn't thought about how revenue sharing would be such a sticking point. I would like to add the ability of the fans to travel. Sure the first round could be home games, but if NU got to a situation of playing 2 saturdays in a row in New Orleans how many fans would be able to make that trip and stay in New Orleans for 9 or 10 days to see 2 games? Many fans can make a long weekend trip, 4 days maybe 5. I think it would take something away from the bowl game trip. This reason alone is why I dislike a playoff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
I have a great deal of respect for Delany, but his stance in this is wrong. Last year with Boise St. & TCU going undefeated was a great example, as is this year with TCU. No, their strength of schedule isn't comparable to an SEC team, a Big 12 team or a Big 10 team, but that doesn't mean they can't vie for the title. ANY team that has a solid record should have a chance - but with the BCS, only two teams have a shot at the title. With a playoff you give solid teams like Boise and TCU a chance to fight their way through tough teams into a championship game. It legitimizes a championship, and would eliminate the "Mythical" tag most people put on it today.
Click to expand...

So what your saying is that with Boise's schedule this year (which had maybe 1 hard game) should be ranked with the conferences that plays atleast 3 to 4 hard teams within their own conference let alone outside of theirs? Lets look at Boise, yes they beat VT, but that was it and then when they get to Nevada, they blow it (which Nevada isn't all that great, but there really the best they had in the match-up this year). No way should they be looked at IMO.

Not only this, but when big names do try to play them, they coward out or ask for a ton of money that they don't deserve. Nebraska tried to play them and they said only if NU gives them $1 million and I believe if they play in Boise. They should be begging for the heavy hitters if they want to be considered instead of being comfortable at playing the nobodies.

kansas husker said:
AS knap said if the choice comes down to only two temas than no they shouldn't get the shot over other undefeateds from major conferences, but the whole debate is why only limit it to two teams. An eight or even a six team playoff would put the debate to rest, make the arugement that one team will aloways be left out if you want but you just defending a crappy system.
Click to expand...
I can see why they aren't doing a play off system. IMO conferences would lose a ton of money. If they only went with an 8 team play-off, which 8 teams would you pick out of all the conferences? Hell you would have more arguments then you have now. The NFL does 10 and that is with just to conferences. As of now, you have a ton of teams playing in bowls and they all receive money. How would they distribute the money if say just the SEC and Big 10 (or however they would separate it) teams made it to the semis and bowl?

Edit: didn't think I took 30 mins to type this and krill beat me to the money part.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
krill said:
Conceptually I like an FCS style playoff system but it's never going to happen.

First off, let's throw out all the traditions of bowls. You've got TCU playing in the Rose Bowl this year and the most ridiculous sponsorship arrangements imaginable. For example our bowl is sponsored by an online university with a 90% dropout rate that's basically stealing taxpayer money. What a great sponsor for a college athletic event.

But here's some negatives with playoffs:

1. Takes away from the prestige of conference championships. I like the two division conference setups with a CCG. It makes the whole conference schedule more interesting and reduces the chance of shared titles.

2. Big time programs count on 7 home games a year. The standard scheduling practice now in 12 team conferences is 8 conference games (4 home, 4 away) and 4 non-conference games (3 home, 1 away). Say what you want about the two rent-a-teams that are used to get those 3 home non-con games, but it's good for the fans. In a playoff system with presumably 1 or 2 fewer season games, it would impossible for teams to get to 7 home games. They would have a chance for more playoff games at home but you can't count on that year to year for revenue.

3. Revenue sharing in a playoff system. How is this going to work? The TV contract for a playoff would be worth god knows how much money. The current system tends to distribute the most money to the programs with the most fans. That's the main defense for the BCS system.

Playoffs work for for FCS / DII / DIII because the teams are not fighting over huge sums of potential revenue. That's what it boils down to and like it or not we're part of that system that always wants more money for our program.
Click to expand...
Some decent points here, but how is playing SDSU good for the fans? I'm not a season ticket holder since I'm 1000 miles away, but if I was I'd gladly pass up paying for that ticket and instead staying home to watch a good road game on TV. Those rent-a-game opponents are good for the athletic dept budget, and that's pretty much it. That's totally a revenue thing, just like your other points, and have nothing to do with what fans want.

Conference champions? Meh. I'm more concerned about having a good way to determine a national champion. Some conferences have a CCG, some don't. Get some consistency here.

As far as revenue sharing, I'd like to see what the total payout would be for a playoff. I have a feeling it would be a humongous pie that would yield big slices for everyone. Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe some schools don't want just a bigger slice, they want to make sure the lesser schools don't get a bigger slice too. Screw that.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top