[NU Sports] Delaney/Delany ...

[Beamsley, Jeff]

In general a great post.  Thanks.

Just a couple of thoughts.

In an expanded playoff format, strength of schedule is somewhat less of
an issue because it will all get decided on the field.  I think the
assumption is that since most of the top conferences DO have a
championship game, those teams are the ones that would populate a 8 team
playoff.

I think the "length of season" comment may also have some flaws.  The
bowl season currently starts on December 17th and finishes on January
9th.  That's four weeks and two days.  That is more than enough time to
accommodate an eight game playoff and still keep the regular season as
it is today.  There are currently three bowl games on the 17th and three
more during the week between the 17th and the 24th.  You only need four
games in the first round and two in the second round.   You could easily
complete the first and second rounds before Christmas and still have all
of the "traditional" bowl games intact. 

That said, it does add two games to the schedule for those two teams who
end up competing for the NC (that's assuming that those teams would have
played at least one post season game without a playoff) and one
additional game for the winners of the first playoff round.  Fortunately
this comes at a time when all of those teams aren't in school and are
practicing anyway.  So for half the teams who are in the playoff, there
is no difference in terms of effort from the current system (assuming
all of them would have gone to a bowl game anyway).  For two teams, who
likely would have been playing on the New Year's weekend anyway, they
play two games, but their season is done before Christmas (assuming the
second round is finished by then), so they get back the time they would
have otherwise practiced after Christmas.  For the championship game
teams, if you assume they would have been in the BCS game in the current
system, then end up practicing the same amount of time, but they also
have to play two more games than they would have otherwise.

I do agree that a playoff is better for the smaller conferences than it
is for conferences like the BT.  That's because it gives smaller
conferences access to a potential NC championship game that they
wouldn't get in the current system.  It's bad for the BT because the BT
makes lots of money in the high profile bowls games that they have
access to today.  At most a BT team would participate in three big
playoff games, and you have to figure that a BT team that could make to
the championship game would also qualify for the current BCS NC game.
So the two additional playoff appearances that would generate money for
the BT likely would not offset the reduction in revenue that the
non-playoff bowl games would suffer if an expanded playoff system was in
place.

Bottom line is that I agree with Jonathan and Delaney.  I don't favor
any move to a playoff because at the end of the day the current system
is better for NU.

Jeff



-----Original Message-----
From: nwu-sports-bounces at tssi.com [mailto:nwu-sports-bounces at tssi.com]
On Behalf Of Jonathan Hodges
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 9:16 AM
To: SjT (Stephen J. Truog)
Cc: NUSPORTS
Subject: Re: [NU Sports] Delaney/Delany ...

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-del
any-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
>
_______________________________________________
nwu-sports site list
nwu-sports at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/nwu-sports