Husker Writer: Delany uses Rose Bowl as crutch

[hogeye]

The fact that Big Ten teams talk about making the Rose Bowl rather than the NC is what paints that picture

Again, I don't buy this...talking about a bowl game that has historically significant relevance to the conference is going to happen. The history of the B10/PAC/Rose isn't something you avoid.

What this writer is insinuating is that these teams just care about the Rose with not a care about a NC and that is complete bullshit. I am not buying it.

He's in a conference now that actually has history and he clearly doesn't understand what he is seeing coming from a conference built to cater to a single university. In fact he admits it...

In 30-some years of covering big-boy college football, I've never gotten my head around the Big Ten's fascination with the Rose Bowl.

 

[Xerxes]

The fact that Big Ten teams talk about making the Rose Bowl rather than the NC is what paints that picture, not this writer.

I love and appreciate the history of the Rose Bowl. But it also shouldn't be what the Big Ten places on a pedestal in this day and age. If you want to say Nebraska fans are stuck in the past (many of them are), you can't deny that the Big Ten is, as well. The Rose Bowl is no longer the pinnacle of college football. It's time the Big Ten stopped treating it like it is, or admit they would rather go to Pasadena and play second fiddle to the SEC.

I guarantee you, those teams aren't saying "We want to win the conference and go to the Sugar Bowl."

Tough to admit but this is absolutely true. Pete Carroll openly referred to the Rose Bowl as a consolation prize when he was at USC. SEC teams don't care about the Sugar Bowl. I've never heard of a B12 team talk about the Fiesta Bowl or even an ACC or Big East team talk about getting to the Orange Bowl.

The B10 is definitely the one conference that is still stuck in the past here.

Delany is pretty smart, he knows that the Rose Bowl still holds value to the traditionalists in college football. The problem for him and the B10 is that how much longer are the traditionalists going to be in power? How much longer are the traditionalists going to ignore the money train of a playoff. Even the SEC commish, who was extremely pro BCS/Bowl games a few years ago has gone to pro-playoff.

They've already opened pandora's box with this 4 team playoff. Once the cash starts rolling in from off the charts ratings of these games, its going to 8 teams the next time the powers that be have to renew the system.

Sooner or later the B10 needs to step and be relevent as a conference not because of a traditional bowl tie for a game that means less and less every passing year.

 

[ColoradoHAWKEYE]

It's interesting that no one here is even mentioning a full fledge 16 team playoff, as in past debates. Which I too am glad that the focus is primarily now on a 4 team plus 1 format, since something must change. This will happen. The door has been opened and the logistics are all that is left. The BCS is as done as the AP/UPI are in determining who is best.

The other conferences don't pine for their former bowl tie in, because those bowls never came up with the money the Rose did. The fact is, the bowl games are all about the matchups, that make them compelling or not . That part the bcs has gotten right for the most part, in getting 3 through10 ranked teams to play each other. The focus of teams should be to win your games, win your conference, win the national championship. It is not so wrong for Delaney to be in support of that Rose tie-in, cause that is where the money, for the B1G, is!

That writer surely is not the voice of the Nebby team and he is only lacking his support of playing for the conference title because he is tied in his old ways of thinking.

I too liked the old ways and traditions, but the fact is they are dying or gone. Move all the games back to NYD +/- is a good idea. Leave Jan to the NCG and the pros lest we end up like the NBA in July.

Final thought, where is it that Mishitigan is "back" and a conference title contender after winning some easy games in one year? Maybe this year with DR, but then what? Better, yes, but back, heck no. Tougher yes, but the B1G still goes through Columbus, (and wisky unfortunately as of late).

 

[dchawk75]

Maybe some of you ought to go to the Rose Bowl and then compare it to the rinky dink Orange Bowl and you would see why money is not the only reason the Big 10 wants to hold on to what they have.

This whole 4 team playoff is a joke. Alabama would not even have qualified a year ago and they made LSU, the team that would have qualified, look like a joke in the BCS title game. There is no way this 4 team playoff will decide anything other than another controversial champion. If you add that in to playing the vast majority of these games on neutral fields in the South and West, the deck will continue to be stacked even more against the teams in the North and East. Give me the current bowl system and Rose Bowl tie in any day on behalf of the Big 10 and especially Iowa.

Let Deloss Dodds and his 6-7 Longhorns pine for his beloved 4 team playoff!

 

[hogeye]

I'd go back to pre-BCS in a heartbeat. Give me the 1997 debate about Michigan and Nebraska any day over this convoluted BCS crap that isn't doing anything by adding a 4-team playoff except for shifting the controversy.

 

[GhostofBTT]

I agree that the bowl system is dead.

But Delany is anything but stupid, regardless of what he says now, you dont get to be where hes at by not being a forward thinker. I think the BTN is proof of that.

Im sure he knows a playoff eventually has to happen, but his job is to put the bigten in the best possible position not what is best for college football.

I don't think Delany is stupid. I never said it, and I don't believe it. What I am saying is that I see his play. He knows, just like everyone else, that le Big 10 is not competing for championships, and they will not any time soon. He is trying to save his piece of le pie, but he can't hold onto it forever. All he can do now is throw around his wallet, because the production of teh field isn't changing anyone's mind.

 

[MissouriHerk]

Husker Writer: Got a very poor education and doesn't understand the conference at all.

 

[ssckelley]

They're as likely to leave out a non-conference-champ ranked in the top four as they are to go back to the old awesome system. Never going to happen.

We know for fact is they will never go back to the old way of letting voters decide the champion. But you cannot rule the possibility out that they only take conference champs as they are still working on it. One of the biggest reasons this came about is because we had an all SEC championship, and many people do not want to see a repeat of that. So either they only allow conference champions or have the 2 schools from the same conference play each other in the semi. Which I think is stupid. If they are going to allow multiple teams from the same conference be in the playoff then they might as well throw out the bowl system and just go to a 16 team playoff.

 

[GhostofBTT]

Husker Writer: Got a very poor education and doesn't understand the conference at all.

Sometimes outsiders have a better perspective than people deep on the inside.

 

[Cover3]

I'd go back to pre-BCS in a heartbeat. Give me the 1997 debate about Michigan and Nebraska any day over this convoluted BCS crap that isn't doing anything by adding a 4-team playoff except for shifting the controversy.

Bingo on the phrase "shifting the controversy." The first time a 13-0 #1-ranked team gets knocked out of a playoff by an 11-2 #4 team, it should be apparent that a playoff doesn't determine "the best team."

All matchups have a range of reasonable results, and most matchups between top-4 or top-8 teams will be at least close to a toss-up (see LSU and Bama splitting last year). It's impossible for a system to objectively determine "the best team" when there objectively is not a "best team."

I'm anti-playoff, but if one comes because of money (not merit; see above), I'll learn to embrace it.

 

[GhostofBTT]

Bingo on the phrase "shifting the controversy." The first time a 13-0 #1-ranked team gets knocked out of a playoff by an 11-2 #4 team, it should be apparent that a playoff doesn't determine "the best team."

WTF? That doesn't make sense. The only way to determine "the best team" is to have the teams play.

 

[hawkfan340]

WTF? That doesn't make sense. The only way to determine "the best team" is to have the teams play.

LSU Tigers vs. Alabama Crimson Tide - Recap - November 05, 2011 - ESPN

 

[GhostofBTT]

LSU Tigers vs. Alabama Crimson Tide - Recap - November 05, 2011 - ESPN

The point you're trying to make is not very clear.

 

[hogeye]

Bingo on the phrase "shifting the controversy." The first time a 13-0 #1-ranked team gets knocked out of a playoff by an 11-2 #4 team, it should be apparent that a playoff doesn't determine "the best team."

All matchups have a range of reasonable results, and most matchups between top-4 or top-8 teams will be at least close to a toss-up (see LSU and Bama splitting last year). It's impossible for a system to objectively determine "the best team" when there objectively is not a "best team."

I'm anti-playoff, but if one comes because of money (not merit; see above), I'll learn to embrace it.

The first time you have the lower seeds in a 4-team playoff matched up in a championship game you'll see people crying for more playoff. And in CFB this could happen pretty easily. Then you have the #5 and #6 team, possibly 1 loss teams, with a valid case about being left out because they're likely #5 and #6 based on voting.

I am just more anti-playoff from the perspective that I don't personally need an undisputed NC. I liked it when you had the debates and two teams possibly undefeated at the end of the year. Back when making a bowl game actually meant something more than a .500 record.

 

[hawkfan340]

Even if they play, "the best team" is not always conclusive.

A playoff is one among many imperfect systems.

 

[GhostofBTT]

Even if they play, "the best team" is not always conclusive.

A playoff is one among many imperfect systems.

No, a playoff is far and away le best system. You take the best teams and make them play each other. How is it going to get better than that? Have the best teams play a single, random opponent based on which league they play in, and then after the season, let a bunch of people from a dead medium vote on who they think is the best?

 

[okeefe4prez]

No, a playoff is far and away le best system. You take the best teams and make them play each other. How is it going to get better than that? Have the best teams play a single, random opponent based on which league they play in, and then after the season, let a bunch of people from a dead medium vote on who they think is the best?

Ghost, there are two problems with a playoff.

First, it would completely foreclose Iowa's chances to ever win a national title. As things stand now, we would need to win 3 big games (Nebraska, Michigan and presumably OSU, possibly OSU twice) to get to a national title game. Iowa has never won more than two big games in a year (including post season). A playoff would likely require us to win all those games, PLUS multiple post season games. I don't see it happening.

Second, and more importantly, ESPN has 24 hours of time to fill across a LOT of networks and radio stations. If you back out the "who should be in the title game" talk that really heats up when baseball season ends in October, I am at a loss as to how they will fill that air time.

 

[Cover3]

The first time you have the lower seeds in a 4-team playoff matched up in a championship game you'll see people crying for more playoff. And in CFB this could happen pretty easily. Then you have the #5 and #6 team, possibly 1 loss teams, with a valid case about being left out because they're likely #5 and #6 based on voting.

I am just more anti-playoff from the perspective that I don't personally need an undisputed NC. I liked it when you had the debates and two teams possibly undefeated at the end of the year. Back when making a bowl game actually meant something more than a .500 record.

Yep. The quest to find an undisputed champion is somewhat of a farce. Other than a few teams (i.e., 1995 Nebraska, 2001 Miami, 2004 USC), most national champions could be disputed as to whether they were the "best team" that year. All my point is, Ghost, is that the same problem will be present in a playoff; if a team goes 13-0 and murders everybody they face and is a unanimous #1, but trip up in the playoff, the determination of whether the champion was also the "best team" still gets a little murky.

Alabama was better than LSU on one night, and not as good on another. As others have said, all systems are imperfect. I'm not saying the old system was better, but I (and apparently some others) feel that it's best to embrace the imperfection and not create a cluster**** trying to feign an objective search for the "best team."

Also, OK4P is right. Although, the chance of Iowa finishing in #1 or #2 in the regular season was already pretty much zero (maybe three times in the Evy era, no other time since polls; never in the modern era).

 

[hogeye]

As others have said, all systems are imperfect.

I don't know that all systems are imperfect. I think the NFL system works great. The problem is that people want to equate having 32 teams playing in 2 conference with 4 divisions on a 16 week schedule isn't analogous to bringing a 4 team, 8 team or even 16 team playoff to an NCAA division with 120 teams with 11 conferences, 4 independents playing a 12 game schedule (if that's right, going off memory).

 

[Billso]

The whole premise of the story is nonsense.

Tell me what coaches and players are doing, by vying for their conference championship, that somehow hampers their shot at an NC. Be specific - are they running different plays? Recruiting different kinds of players? Not trying as hard to win?

Delany is smart to keep the Rose Bowl tie-in strong. It's not just tradition, it's a ton of money and exposure.