Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

Delany makes postseason proposal

Posted on: November 18, 2011 1:48 pm
Edited on: November 19, 2011 9:46 am
 

The source of one college football postseason idea pitched this week shouldn’t be surprising.

According to a person in the room at Monday’s BCS meeting, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany pitched a model whereby only the No. 1 and No. 2 teams would be matched in the postseason. That would basically eliminate the other BCS bowl tie-ins in the 14-year-old system.

The proposal essentially is a roll back to the old Bowl Alliance that was in effect from 1995-97. On its face, the proposal seemingly benefits the Big Ten, SEC, Big 12 and Pac-12 the most.

The Big Ten could not immediately confirm Delany as the source of the idea since the commissioner was traveling on Friday. However, another source in the room at the San Francisco meeting said the idea stood out among several that day because it was “new.” The source would not confirm the model came from Delany.

Using Delany’s idea, the relationship with the current BCS bowls – Orange, Fiesta, Sugar and Rose – would end. At the beginning of the season all schools would have an equal chance to get into the championship game. Supposedly, some kind of rating system would be used to rank teams.

Below that championship game, schools and bowls would be free to arrange their own deals. In the old Bowl Alliance, the champions of the ACC, Big East, Big Eight, SEC and Southwest conferences, along with an at-large team, were matched in the Fiesta, Sugar and Orange bowls. The Rose, Big Ten and Pac-10 did not participate at the time.  The uniqueness of the Alliance was that there were no conference tie-ins to particular bowls.

BCS commissioners began saying in December that they might go back to the old bowl system if pushed by non-BCS schools.  

There were other ideas Monday during what was termed a preliminary meeting meant for informal proposals. Mountain West commissioner Craig Thompson weighed in. Thompson was already on record with his 16-team playoff proposal. CBSSports.com reported last week there was growing support to get rid of automatic qualifiers in the BCS. One result of that could be a top 10, 12, or 14 ranking that would have to be attained to get into a BCS bowl.

Delany’s idea would reflect the elimination of automatic qualifiers. The so-called “AQs” are the champions of the Big Ten, Big 12, ACC, SEC, Pac-12 and SEC. Notre Dame and champions of lesser conferences can currently qualifier for BCS bowls if they meet a set of benchmarks.

Delany’s particular model doesn’t address an age-old BCS problem: What about No. 3 and below, the teams that get left out? The commissioners discussed legal concerns that could emerge from that situation according to a source.

Also, if automatic qualifiers are eliminated, it would seem there would have to be some kind of access for non-AQs. Teams from non-BCS leagues – MAC, WAC, Conference USA, Sun Belt, Mountain West – have enjoyed improved access to BCS bowls since 2003. During that time the success of schools such as Boise State, Utah and TCU developed into David-vs.-Goliath stories that captured the nation’s attention.

There is also the significant issue of revenue distribution. 

It’s a good bet that under Delany’s plan, the Rose Bowl would be “protected”. In other words, the bowl would have access to the champions of the Big Ten and Pac-12 each year unless one or both schools were involved in the championship game.

Because the ACC and Big East have struggled to be nationally relevant in recent years, Delany’s proposal would directly benefit the Pac-12, SEC, Big Ten and Big 12. Teams from those four conferences have played in some combination in the last eight BCS title games.

It can’t be stressed enough the preliminary nature of Monday’s meeting. After discussing various models at the 1 ½-hour meeting, commissioners were to go back to their conferences to present them with their schools.  One source called it “process and procedure.”

The commissioners meet again in person Jan. 10 in New Orleans, the day after the BCS title game. It is at that meeting and subsequent ones that a clearer view of college football’s postseason going forward will begin to emerge. The commissioners must develop a postseason model to present to ESPN during its exclusive negotiating window that begins in October. If ESPN passes during those negotiations, then the model would go out to bid.

The current BCS model is in effect through the 2014 bowls. 

Comments

Since: Sep 21, 2006
Posted on: November 20, 2011 2:07 am
 

Delany makes postseason proposal

The money is the only thing that is keeping a playoff from happening.  I would say four teams is enough, but i could see 8 working more than that and its just to watered down.  We are going to have 5 or six power conferences in the coming years.  SEC Big 10 Big 12 Pac 12 ACC Big East.  Then the next two best teams. 
AP, Coaches and Harris polls with computer deciede who the other two are and the seedings. 

LSU, Okst, Wisc, Va Tech, Oregon, Cincinatti,  and then Houston Alabams  Wow that would be something to see.  i would say right now if it iwas 4 team playoff

LSU v Okst  and Ala v VA Tech



Since: Sep 21, 2006
Posted on: November 20, 2011 1:49 am
 

Delany makes postseason proposal

Phil steele has a great proposal.  He says something like this.  top 4 BCS play in a play off.  If a teams looses its conference championship game they are eliminated if the winner of that championship goes to the playoffs.  He states this prevents the immediate rematch clause since the conference championship was played @ a neutral site.   But even with this scenario ithis season would be a mess  if lets say LSU some how looses to GA and make no mistake they wont losse.  LSU ALA Vatech and Okst would probally be in Ga probally doesnt climb high enough to make it   Whole lot of football left and it almost always shakes it self out.  



Since: Sep 9, 2006
Posted on: November 19, 2011 2:03 pm
 

Delany makes postseason proposal

the bowl allaiance was a mess, and this would benfit the bgi confernces, why becuase ti would also elimnaite the cap on teams from a confernce, and really if that cap is eleimanted, you know which teams will benfit teams still in the big 6, becuase now if the bowls wanted 3 4,5 whatever from a big 6 confernce, nothing would stop them, this model is going to further dimish the othe 5 conferences as the big power confernces would have more power not less, you know the common sense thing would to be actaully decide it on the field, and not have computer geeks determine the natinoal title, as this is going to be a year, where we have a #1, but really who is #2, the only time this system works is when there are two unbeatens from power confernces, otherwise it's a failure, see va tech fsu in 1999, even though flordia state lost to maimi that year, see miami nebraska 2002 when nebraska played there last game on a friday after thanksgiving, rivalry game against colorado and lost 63-20, and did not play in the big 12 championship, see the very next season when auburn, ou, usc all finished unbeaten and usc was #1 in both polls, yet the computers had them #3 and oh yeah that year we also got what the bcs was supposed to prevent from ever happening again a split natinoal champion, as the ap voted usc #1



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: November 19, 2011 12:57 pm
 

Delany makes postseason proposal

UhOH! The Big 10/11/12 has pigeonholed themselves by not adding new members after plucking Nebraska. In retrospect, they would have liked to wind back the calendar and add Nebraska, and two out of three being Missouri, Pitt and Syracuse. Now that the last three institutions mentioned in the prior sentence have left their respective conferences for greener pastures, the Big10/11/12 is in deep trouble. The Big 10/11/12 could now add Rutgers, Louisville, Cincinnati or Connecticut, but that makes no sense institutionally or athletically. Notre Dame will not join. West Virginia was never a fit academically.


If the Big10/11/12 had great leadership, they would have understood that adding Nebraska only would set the forces in motion and trigger other moves by their colleagues, which occurred.  I am certain that if they could go back, they would re-think their strategy and would have extended an invitation to Missouri, Pitt and Syracuse (2 out of 3). Actually, given the timing of the anticipated departures of those schools from their conferences, the Big 10/11 should quickly reconsider extending invitations to those schools. Once at 14 schools, the Big 10/11/12 would then be in position to add Notre Dame and Boston College. Notre Dame would have to join at that time because they wouldn't fit with the ACC anymore and having Pitt and BC in the Big 10/11/12 would be a huge draw to the ND alumni. Did I mention that it would make great business sense if they begin this process immediately? Exit fees aside (which are more negotiable before the moves are official), are the only roadblocks to progressing the Big 10/11/12 forward to where their future vision lies.


As things stand now, the Big 10/11/12 is stuck. As such, they need to promote ideas that make no sense to any other conference. Delany spinning anything right now should be met with a lot of opposition. The Big 10/11/12 outsmarted themselves and are now promulgating a solution that should not be acceptable to any institution. The remaining commissioners need to see through the manipulation by Delany. Given the expected regression of the PSU program over the next 4-8 years, the Big 10/11/12 will lose its luster as leaders and legends. Let's not forget that PSU may be looking to join the ACC if Pitt and Syracuse remain. With Joe Pa out (and rightfully so), the PSU Administration might start to make decisions that are right for the institution and not for Paterno. Leaders and Legends are about integrity, power and influence. Some coaches used their leader and legend status to cover up horrific crimes at State Penn.....and at OSU....and at Michigan (Rickfraud).    

     




Since: Aug 24, 2007
Posted on: November 19, 2011 10:33 am
 

Delany makes postseason proposal

Ummm, this story sounds like yet another way of people trying to solve a problem without using the easiest solutuion.  Instead of old, fat white guys deciding on how to split up money by going back to a flawed, convoluted system, why not focus on giving the people what they want?  A playoff system is the only option that the actual people that pay to see the games want.  Period.  Not pollsters, not computers, not bowl tie-ins, not new models for doing things the old way.  Just a playoff system.  Delaney is mad his conference is not getting a bigger piece of the pie.  These are the same kind of idiot that we as a society continue to elect to governmental positions.  And yet people are still suprised when they do things like not listen to what people want.  These guys would have you believe that this system is capable of being fixed by regressing to old ways.  Which is suspiciously similar to the way government is being argued right now.  The old ways didn't work, and there is a discussion about going back to them?  And these people graduated from college?  Fire them all, and figure out a playoff system.  We the people have been saying this for years. 





Since: Nov 18, 2010
Posted on: November 19, 2011 10:13 am
 

Delany makes postseason proposal

From a Big Ten fan to Delany:

Dear mister Delany you are a money gubbing a-hole.  I see you have found another way to make more money off the power void in the Big East, and ACC.  Just remember to make sure that the "sacred cow", the Rose Bowl will stay with the Big Ten only.  Way to do absolutly nothing, but to keep a playoff scenario from ever coming about.  Let's face it, if you don't have a large conference with a big media machine behind your university, then you will never see a Championship game.  Good thing the Big Ten still has some media hype, but look out if you don't expand out to the West Coast you will be wiped out by the SEC machine.  Soon it will be an all SEC top 10, and then Delany you will be screwed too.

Sincerly,
ME



Since: Mar 11, 2007
Posted on: November 19, 2011 9:50 am
 

Delany makes postseason proposal

It's different, but in the most important aspects it is the same: no playoff, polls & computers decide who plays for the "championship", and plenty of meaningless consolation games (aka bowls).

I'm not watching college football until they have a fair playoff system.



Since: Feb 24, 2009
Posted on: November 19, 2011 9:33 am
 

Delany makes postseason proposal

We all need to remember the reason why there can't be anything close to a mini-playoff using the current system; the reason is and has been Jim Delany for 15-yrs.  His constant refusal to allow any non Big-10/Pac-10 teams into the Rose Bowl as a BCS team even on a rotating basis has voided the chance of any 4-team, 8-team, or 16-team playoff using the BCS bowls since the late 90's.  The new Pac-10 Commiss. caught up to the 21st century by considering other BCS teams into "their" Rose Bowl", but Delany won't and stated he never will "as long as his heart is beating".  He is the reason college football will never have a true playoff champion, as long as he is Big-10 Commissioner, and everyone needs to realize that.  (And I am a Big-10 & Pac-10 fan)

And the mini-playoff proposal is so simple; top 4-seeded BCS teams get "seeded" among the rotating BCS bowls each year, with #1 playing #4 in one rotating BCS bowl and #2 playing #3 in another, then the winners play in a Plus-1 Championship Bowl game (similar to what we have now).  It's that simple using the current BCS Bowl system and not re-inventing the bowl wheel, but Delany will never allow, say the #2 & #3 teams, to play in HIS Rose Bowl in a given season unless they are both Big-10/Pac-10 teams. 

Look no further than that to understand why there can never be even a "mini true playoff" system in FBS... Jim Delany. 



Since: Mar 19, 2008
Posted on: November 19, 2011 9:28 am
 

Delany makes postseason proposal

Every time I hear the word "source" it makes me cringe.  If someone can't allow himself/herself to be identified, as far as I'm concerned that person isn't credible ... and neither is the story or the person(s) "reporting" it.



Since: Jun 5, 2011
Posted on: November 19, 2011 9:20 am
 

Delany makes "modest proposal..."

Long ago, I learned that whenever anyone makes a seemingly senseless decision or proposal, it is because money is involved.  In other words, if you want to figure out the true motivation for any action, just follow the money.  

On the surface, the NCAA is leaving a lot of money on the table by not having a playoff to determine a true champion.  Remember, though, that the "NCAA" is not really a collective, but a collection of presidents and commissioners.  If you simply follow the money here, the only rational conclusion to make is that presidents and commissioners are getting payoffs under the table from the bowls.  
 
Going back to the old system and disavowing conference tie-ins will force the bowls to offer better deals to the teams involved.  It is also going to provide a lot of opportunities for bowls to pay off school presidents and conference commissioners.  Maybe Delaney is tired of seeing tless-than-flexible parings now, simply because there is no opportunity for him to stick his hand out.   
 
What's really too bad here is that a playoff could co-exist with the bowls and there would still be plenty of teams, plenty of money, and a true college football champion.  Sadly, though, payoffs and bribes will always get in the way.  For the fans of any school left out of the BS Sham-pionship game this year, remember to thank your school's president and your conference commissioner.   


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com