Delaney: National Championship to be bid on

[Excel]

Big Ten Commissioner, Jim Delaney, when asked about the National Championship Game:

''I think the championship game in any scenario is going to be independently bid, not part of the bowl situation,''

"League officials said they could see the title game being played in cities other than the usual suspects in California, Florida and Louisiana, though they did not offer any specific suggestions."

Wisconsin Athletic Director, Barry Alvarez, on selecting teams for the playoff:

''I personally think there should be a committee, and it should be transparent so all the coaches and the public know the criteria, where the most weight is put and why decisions are made,''

Michigan Athletic Director, David Brandon, on the same subject:

"We have a system that's been pretty good at determining the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams...our ability to know who truly deserves to be No. 3 and No. 4 and No. 5 and No. 6 is far less accurate.''

So playoffs and a National Championship game independent of the established bowls are looking much more likely and will, of course, diminish the importance of the Rose Bowl.

Link from Fox Sports

So I have two questions for you:

1. How will the Big Ten fair given the seemingly inevitable changes coming in College Football; postseason playoffs, conference realignment and partnerships?

2. As a Big Ten fan, how important is the Rose Bowl?

 

[huKSer]

Here is the proposed bracket:

 

[huskereddie]

Good one huKSer

 

[Comish]

Here is the proposed bracket:

Unfortunately, that is how the Sabanites will probably view it.......

 

[Blackshirts007]

Here is the proposed bracket:

 

[Mavric]

Michigan Athletic Director, David Brandon, on the same subject:

"We have a system that's been pretty good at determining the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams...our ability to know who truly deserves to be No. 3 and No. 4 and No. 5 and No. 6 is far less accurate.''

Apparently this guy has a hard time paying attention. There's only been an argument about #2 vs. #3 a couple times, like 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2001 ...

 

[huskereddie]

Marvic,

You beat me to it. There will be the same arguments about #4 v.s. #5 BUT not as severe as the #2 v.s. #3. When most of the bowls go away, and I think many will, I see an 8 team playoff lurking which will take into account conference champs and a few 'wild cards'.

 

[irafreak]

Michigan Athletic Director, David Brandon, on the same subject:

"We have a system that's been pretty good at determining the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams...our ability to know who truly deserves to be No. 3 and No. 4 and No. 5 and No. 6 is far less accurate.''

Apparently this guy has a hard time paying attention. There's only been an argument about #2 vs. #3 a couple times, like 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2001 ...

Actually I think he's spot on. No 1 and 2 has a small argument almost every year. So who does everyone think was 3,4,5 and 6 last season?

 

[BOJ]

Michigan Athletic Director, David Brandon, on the same subject:

"We have a system that's been pretty good at determining the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams...our ability to know who truly deserves to be No. 3 and No. 4 and No. 5 and No. 6 is far less accurate.''

Apparently this guy has a hard time paying attention. There's only been an argument about #2 vs. #3 a couple times, like 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2001 ...

Actually I think he's spot on. No 1 and 2 has a small argument almost every year. So who does everyone think was 3,4,5 and 6 last season?

The thing is, who knows. We have never had to worry about it, so I think his (Michigan AD) statement about our inability to figure it out is a bit premature, we haven't tried to yet (where it mattered). Up to this point it did not matter if you finished 3d or 12th, all the same.

 

[Mavric]

Michigan Athletic Director, David Brandon, on the same subject:

"We have a system that's been pretty good at determining the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams...our ability to know who truly deserves to be No. 3 and No. 4 and No. 5 and No. 6 is far less accurate.''

Apparently this guy has a hard time paying attention. There's only been an argument about #2 vs. #3 a couple times, like 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2003, 2001 ...

Actually I think he's spot on. No 1 and 2 has a small argument almost every year. So who does everyone think was 3,4,5 and 6 last season?

Some years more than others but I think there are very few years when #2 is clear-cut.

2011 - Alabama obviously wasn't a bad choice but there was definitely an argument about whether they should have been selected over OK St. or Stanford, all with the same records and Alabama not being a conference champion and having already lost to LSU.

2010 - Again, not a lot of argument that undefeated TCU should have been included but they did win the Rose Bowl over an automatic qualifying conference champion. Great counter-point to Mike Terico (and others) who claim that college football doesn't need a playoff because the regular season is a playoff. If it already is a playoff, how can you go undefeated and not even get a chance to play for the title?

2009 - This time there were FIVE undefeated teams. Again, Cincinnati, Boise and TCU didn't really have a shot but that is crazy.

2008 - The greatest argument about the regular season NOT being a playoff. Undefeated Utah (who pummeled Alabama in the Sugar Bowl) left out in favor of one-loss Florida and Oklahoma, who themselves were picked over one-loss Penn St., USC, and Texas.

2007 - One-loss Ohio St. and two-loss LSU picked over one-loss Kansas (Orange Bowl champion) and two-loss Virginia Tech, West Virginia (pounded OU in Fiesta), Oklahoma, USC (pounded Illinois in Rose) and Georgia. Hawai'i was undefeated.

2006 - Undefeated Ohio St. was an easy pick but one-loss Florida was chosen over undefeated Boise (beat OU in the Fiesta Bowl), and one-loss Michigan and Louisville.

2005 - Only two undefeateds - Texas and USC - at least one was easy. Although everyone had handed the title and "greatest team ever" to USC before the game. Oops.

2004 - Three undefeateds - USC, Auburn, and OU. Back when the SEC didn't have an automatic entry into the title game.

2003 - Oklahoma lost the Big XII title game but still got in. That didn't cause any controversy.

2002 - Two undefeateds. That's twice in the last 10 years it's be easy.

2001 - Well, let's just say there was controversy.

How many more do you want?

 

['SkersRule]

"We have a system that's been pretty good at determining the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams...

LOL...I wouldn't call espn's producers and on-air people constantly calling for the top two teams in the $EC to play in the BCS title game a system.