[NU Sports] Delaney/Delany ...

Fri Dec 9 08:16:07 CST 2011

I know the BCS haters love to hate Delany, but the fact is that he's made
the Big Ten the most prosperous conference in the nation where it counts
the most for the administrators: the bank.  If you analyze the financial
position of the athletic departments within the conference, the Big Ten is
clearly ahead of everyone nationally and he continues thinking ahead and
making decisions that will continue to bring in significant revenues for
the conference's members.  Examples include bringing in Nebraska (a school
that can certainly hold its own weight in terms of bringing in revenue in
the form of fans and viewers), starting the conference championship game
(which was by all accounts a big success), and, in the future, announcing
plans for a 9 game conference schedule (which will bring in plenty more TV
revenue when the next deals come around), and avoiding a playoff at all
costs (let me explain).

>From a financial standpoint, there is a good reason to avoid the "slippery
slope" that could lead to an 8+ team playoff.  A plus-one would be fine
(which I have personally supported for some time) as it would not impact
the regular season.  But when you start to bring in playoff formats that
will consist of 3+ games for a given team, you will eventually have to cut
back the regular season games.  Everyone references the other divisions of
college football, but the fact is that they play fewer regular season games
in order to accommodate the playoffs (e.g. FCS/I-AA, which plays 11 regular
season games).  And in order to also fit in the conference championships,
that likely means even fewer regular season games.  That could mean leagues
with 9 conference games play only one non-conference game in a given
season, and we all know that will be a cupcake game, so say goodbye to
interesting inter-conference play during the regular season (thereby making
debates on strength of schedule comparisons even more difficult).

But, the key point here is that fewer regular season games equals far less
revenue for everyone.  Sure, a select few teams will make the playoffs and
those playoff games will get attention and money that will be divided to
some extent, but will it be enough to make up for the 100+ teams sitting at
home not bringing in any revenue from the stadium or putting more games on
all of those TV channels?  No, otherwise we'd have playoffs right now.
Unless college football moves to a season with a length close to that of
the NFL, this wouldn't work, and I just don't see college administrators
extending the season that long (since they're already getting flak for the
current length and are proposing cutting down on the bowl window so that it
closes just after New Years).

In addition to that, there is the problem of approving an NCAA rule to
allow additional games in the season; currently the provision only allows
one bowl game per team.  In order to get that passed, the big
teams/conferences are going to have to give up power/money to the smaller
schools (even more than the token amount the toss down to them now in the
BCS), and I also don't see that happening.

Instead, what we'll likely see is an elimination of "BCS AQ" status with
the BCS just staging the 1 vs. 2 game and allowing the remaining bowls to
negotiate deals with conferences/teams as they wish, e.g. essentially a
return to the late 90's' Bowl Alliance.  This will certainly work out well
for the big conferences (including the Big Ten, of course), but the smaller
schools will essentially be shut out for good; at least they had a path to
a BCS game in the current system.

Circling back to Delany, he is acting in the financial interests of his
constituents by avoiding adding a playoff and going down the path to a
larger playoff system and smaller regular season.  There seems to be
further support for a plus-one, but I am sure Delany will insist on access
to the Rose Bowl (moreso than in the current system) and specific clauses
preventing an expansion to a larger playoff system.  But, then there's the
hurdle of the NCAA rule, and I'm not sure if that will go through.

So, all we can do is be thankful that we're in the top conference in terms
of revenues and that it is continually insistent on equity amongst all
members.  We'll see where the national landscape goes, but in a time where
even big state schools like Cal and Maryland are resorting to cutting
programs, at least NU is on sound financial footing and I believe that will
eventually lead to on-field results down the line.

Jonathan

--
Jonathan Hodges
Contributor, HailToPurple
Web: http://www.hailtopurple.com/jhodges/
Twitter: @hailtopurple
Email: j-hodges at alumni.northwestern.edu

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 12:36 AM, SjT (Stephen J. Truog)
<sjtruog at yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/andy_staples/12/08/jim-delany-bcs-change/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a2
>
>
> Interesting article on everyone's favorite (except for me) commish ... it
> allows me to link my embarassment joke-hatred of Delaney for the silly
> division names with legitimate real-anger at him for being the bedrock to
> prop up this B(C)S sham. Although if he sticks to his word and pulls the
> league out if the rest go with the plus-one model, then maybe I will gain
> some respect for Delany again.
>
> Look, I respect being the lone man fighting against the tide ... heck, I
> relish doing it every year here as everyone tells me that the B(C)S is not
> so bad and to just accept the current mess ... that's fine. My problem is
> that he's doing so with BS reasons about the extra game toll and the Rose
> Bowl tradition. If he really cared about the bowl tradition, he'd pull out
> now and sign a deal with the Pac 12 to have the league champs meet in
> Pasadena every year. But the last decade of Rose Bowls have seen teams like
> Texas, TCU, Miami, UNL (pre-Big Ten) and Oklahoma playing in it. The number
> of times it has matched up the true Pac 10 and Big Ten champ has dwindled
> to three in the last decade. So it's a load of hooey. He's stubbornly
> supporting this B(C)S sham that regularly screws the Big Ten (someone needs
> to investigate those computer systems) on a foundation of delusions.
>
> But anyway, it's an interesting look at Delaney's (now) solo crusade ...
> maybe if instead of "plus one" we came up with some different name for it
> like the "Montgomery Burns Awards for Excellence in the Category of
> Excellence Bowl Series for Legendary Leaders and Leaders who follow
> Legends" he would like it??? :)
>
> GO CATS!!!
> -SjT
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> STEPHEN J. TRUOG
> sjtruog at yahoo.com
> GO CATS!!! GEAUX SAINTS!!!
> Super Bowl XLIV Champions!
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> nwu-sports site list
> nwu-sports at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports
>