Georgia Boss to Big Ten and Pac-12: Get Real

Quote:

---

University of Georgia president Michael Adams criticized the Big Ten and Pac-12 conferences for seeking special treatment in ongoing negotiations about the next Bowl Championship Series format.

"This is not 1950, or 1960," Adams said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, adding, "I don't think that they have the right to dictate policy to all the rest of us."

Adams's comments come amid reports of an unusual postseason plan that calls for three semifinal-round games in order to preserve a traditional Big Ten-Pac-12 matchup in the Rose Bowl.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said he is "glad that Michael Adams and others are fully participating in the conversation," and that "the Rose Bowl has, and will continue to have, a very important relationship with the Big Ten." Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott could not immediately be reached for comment.

---

Georgia president says the Big Ten-Pac-12 Rose Bowl matchup is outdated

Quote:

---

University of Georgia president Michael Adams is in favor of a playoff, but not if it gives the Pac-12 and Big Ten special treatment.

USA Today reported last week that the 11 BCS commissioners and Notre Dame were considering a "Four Teams Plus" model that would allow the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions to continue to meet in the Rose Bowl even if one of those teams isn't among the top four teams in whatever poll they decide to use to determine a four-team playoff.

This didn't exactly sit will with Adams, who thinks the top four teams should just be the top four teams regardless of conference affiliation, and that the historic Rose Bowl rivalry between the Big Ten and the Pac-12 is dated.

"This is not 1950, or 1960," Adams told The Wall Street Journal. "There are great schools in the [Atlantic Coast Conference] and the Southeastern Conference and the Big 12. I think it's time to put everybody on an equal footing. I just reject the notion that the Big Ten and the Pac-12 ought to be treated differently in this process.

"If they can be accommodated without changing the entire process, then I think everyone is open to that. I have great respect for the Big Ten and the Pac-12, and have two Big Ten degrees [from Ohio State]. But I don't think that they have the right to dictate policy to all the rest of us."

Cheers to that.

I think any college football fan can appreciate the historical significance of the Rose Bowl, but I agree that changing the rules to accommodate the Pac-12 and Big Ten is ludicrous and unfair to teams that worked hard to get into the top four spots and actually deserve to be in the playoff.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany didn't have the expected reaction to Adams comments (at least not publicly) and told the Wall Street Journal he was "glad that Michael Adams and others are fully participating in the conversation," and that "the Rose Bowl has, and will continue to have, a very important relationship with the Big Ten."

Of course, Adams isn't exactly championing the sanctity of fair college football, rather trying to protect the SEC from getting aced out of a national championship or an extra playoff berth.

"The predominant view seems to be for a four-team playoff of some sort," Adams said. "I think that's an improvement, but I think it diminishes the importance of the nation's strongest athletic conference, the Southeastern Conference."

While a four-team playoff might not be the perfect solution, at least it's step in the right direction and a step toward a fair way of picking a national champion. Adding in a special provision for the Rose Bowl and the Pac-12 and Big Ten would diminish any progress toward a fair system.

---

Alabama vs LSU in Nat Champ game. :bigpuke:
Enough said.
A few more of those games and no one will be watching BCS, period!

SchadenBear;734866 said:

---

Georgia Boss to Big Ten and Pac-12: Get Real

---

Adams is only a shill for Mike Slive and other SEC honchos.

Scott and Delany will do what's best for the Pac-12 and the Big Ten. The SEC can pound sand, for all I care. When this past year's BCS NCG was two SEC teams from the same division, it just shows the world how arrogant the SEC really is. Adam is merely confirming that arrogance and hubris.

its interesting that the comment doesn't come directly from someone with the SEC. Once you get past the rhetoric, the reality is, the Pac-12 and Big 10 carry an awful lot of strength thanks in large part to the markets of the conferences...

I wish I went to the University of Southeastern Conference. How many national titles does that school have? A million?

mbBear;734965 said:

---

its interesting that the comment doesn't come directly from someone with the SEC. Once you get past the rhetoric, the reality is, the Pac-12 and Big 10 carry an awful lot of strength thanks in large part to the markets of the conferences...

---

That is REALLY smart. I hadn't thought about the fact that the Pac-12/Big-10 cover (and this isn't inclusive)

Seattle, Portland, the interwest, Denver, SLC, Bay Area, LA, Phoenix, Tuscon, Twin Cities, Chicagoland,Wisconsin, Iowa, Detroit, Indie and probably all the Ohio media markets. I would guess that you also are dominant in the Pitt and Philly markets....and have inroads with Penn State into the granddaddy of them all, the greater Tri-State market. That is a HUGE number of American eyeballs. Too lazy to add up but I am guessing that you could argue that over HALF (and perhaps higher) TVs are covered by the media markets where the Pac-12/Big10 dominant

You could really make an argument that the Pac-12/Big10 could go it alone. No "national championship" but properly positioned (and with both leagues expanded to 16) you really COULD have a "play off" and championship game (at the Rosebowl) that got pretty darn close.

FiatSlug;734880 said:

---

Adams is only a shill for Mike Slive and other SEC honchos.

Scott and Delany will do what's best for the Pac-12 and the Big Ten. The SEC can pound sand, for all I care. When this past year's BCS NCG was two SEC teams from the same division, it just shows the world how arrogant the SEC really is. Adam is merely confirming that arrogance and hubris.

---

BCS hasn't done the Pac-12 any favors. If they don't want the Rose Bowl and the history behind it, they can continue the BCS without the Big 10 and the Pac 12. Let's see how well that goes for the SEC or how well a rigged BCS system that favors the SEC does without the Pac-12 and the Big 10.

socaltownie;735067 said:

---

That is REALLY smart. I hadn't thought about the fact that the Pac-12/Big-10 cover (and this isn't inclusive)

Seattle, Portland, the interwest, Denver, SLC, Bay Area, LA, Phoenix, Tuscon, Twin Cities, Chicagoland,Wisconsin, Iowa, Detroit, Indie and probably all the Ohio media markets. I would guess that you also are dominant in the Pitt and Philly markets....and have inroads with Penn State into the granddaddy of them all, the greater Tri-State market. That is a HUGE number of American eyeballs. Too lazy to add up but I am guessing that you could argue that over HALF (and perhaps higher) TVs are covered by the media markets where the Pac-12/Big10 dominant

You could really make an argument that the Pac-12/Big10 could go it alone. No "national championship" but properly positioned (and with both leagues expanded to 16) you really COULD have a "play off" and championship game (at the Rosebowl) that got pretty darn close.

---

There is no championship game without the Big 10 and the Pac 12. The BCS needs our conferences a lot more than we need the BCS. I wouldn't mind a system that never again allowed a team from Texas to play in the Rose Bowl game.

maybe I'm confused - but if BCS went to a "plus one", where top 4 teams matchup, and then winner of each game matches up to determine the national champion, why should the Big10 and Pac12 ALWAYS match up in the Rose Bowl (presuming the Rose Bowl is one of the semifinal games)? Wouldn't that defeat the whole point of a 4 team playoff?

SouthBayPhenom;735085 said:

---

maybe I'm confused - but if BCS went to a "plus one", where top 4 teams matchup, and then winner of each game matches up to determine the national champion, why should the Big10 and Pac12 ALWAYS match up in the Rose Bowl (presuming the Rose Bowl is one of the semifinal games)? Wouldn't that defeat the whole point of a 4 team playoff?

---

Well, it's not really a 4 team playoff under the model. If only one of the Pac 12 champ and the Big 10 champ were in the top 4, the teams for the championship game would have to be chosen from winners of three bowl games. I think this is coming from the fact that the Pac-12 and the Big 10 rightfully believe in retrospect that giving up the Rose Bowl and its history for the BCS was too high of a price to pay.

Why can't they just make it so that we have a 4 team playoff, and the Rose Bowl remains a matchup of the top two teams from the B10 and P12 who are NOT playing in the playoff?

If the powers that be want one of the playoff games to be played IN the Rose Bowl stadium, fine, it just won't be called THE Rose Bowl game. We can have two games there every bowl season. The playoff game can be called, the "Nokia Final Four at the Rose Bowl presented by Citi"...or some crap like that.

calbear93;735092 said:

---

Well, it's not really a 4 team playoff under the model. If only one of the Pac 12 champ and the Big 10 champ were in the top 4, the teams for the championship game would have to be chosen from winners of three bowl games. I think this is coming from the fact that the Pac-12 and the Big 10 rightfully believe in retrospect that giving up the Rose Bowl and its history for the BCS was too high of a price to pay.

---

That ship sailed for the (then) Pac-10 and Big-10 over a decade ago. Pandora's box is opened. We've had conference runners-up in the Rose Bowl numerous times now, along with non-Big-10/Pac-10/12 teams. The proposition that the Pac-12/Big-10 are asking for is ludicrous. Either go to a plus-one (aka 4-team playoff) all the way, or don't at all. It will be complete insanity if we have a plus-one where we have to choose between 3 teams. We are right back where we started.

grandmastapoop;735101 said:

---

That ship sailed for the (then) Pac-10 and Big-10 over a decade ago. Pandora's box is opened. We've had conference runners-up in the Rose Bowl numerous times now, along with non-Big-10/Pac-10/12 teams. The proposition that the Pac-12/Big-10 are asking for is ludicrous. Either go to a plus-one (aka 4-team playoff) all the way, or don't at all. It will be complete insanity if we have a plus-one where we have to choose between 3 teams. We are right back where we started.

---

I don't disagree with you. It would perpetuate the insanity. Assuming that there is some fairness in how the top four teams are ranked, there would be some more purity in the 4-team playoff. However, the ranking is extremely flawed whether the system is ranking the top two teams or the top four teams. As such, I don't really care about the BCS or the playoff system. I would rather the Big 10 and the Pac 12 keep the Rose Bowl.

calbear93;735092 said:

---

Well, it's not really a 4 team playoff under the model. If only one of the Pac 12 champ and the Big 10 champ were in the top 4, the teams for the championship game would have to be chosen from winners of three bowl games. I think this is coming from the fact that the Pac-12 and the Big 10 rightfully believe in retrospect that giving up the Rose Bowl and its history for the BCS was too high of a price to pay.

---

The real question is whether the BCS is going to remain in any form like it is now... which impacts the whole bowl system in the end.

Pac and Big want to maintain the Rose Bowl as an exclusive game. I don't think that's unfair. The other BCS bowls are generally garbage games anyway, so the other conferences aren't going to care about maintaining them as much.

I believe the Pac/Big were pushing for the scenarios to protect the Rose:

1) +1 with a BCS system similar to the current system, with a +1 title afterwards between the two 'best' winners, and P12 v Big Champs every year in the Rose.

2) a playoff with the Rose always getting a team from the Big/Pac, even if it's a #2 team, other BCS bowls do some strange rotation with the separate semis

3) complete blow up of the BCS where there's a real 4 team playoff, and the Rose continues with the first selection of the non-playoff teams from Big/Pac

----

1) is clearly good for the Pac/Big - the winner of that game will get a ranking and stature boost almost every year. It might not be good for the SEC, Big 12 or ACC if their champs are locked into a BCS bowl as the 'host', but play a floating team that may or may not be any good (ie no HIGH quality win) means they can get jumped. 1) seems good for the non BCS conferences in that slots are still open for them based on whatever criteria are established. Could be good for the SEC if there is no conference champ clause.

2) is not as good for the Pac/Big IMO, but is definitely fair. Not sure how you fill other BCS games, but who cares, often people don't go to them. Rose is a Pac/Big creation, so why let others in? If the Rose has a private contract with a TV network... (just like any other bowl), what's the problem? I'm sure the SEC can sell some tickets for their bowl game too.

3) Seems fair and similar to #2. ND and the non-BCS conference aren't going to like it, and they do have a seat at the BCS table... which might slant things to #1 or #2. BCS conferences would have to go behind their backs to blow up things. There will be unhappy people, but it may be for the best.

I think the SEC is actually pissed about the conference champion restriction, because the Big/Pac met and it was leaked that #2 was something they woudl be OK with.

We all come together as a conference and let the two highest preseason ranked teams from the same division go undefeated (schedule it so they both play early in season).

The money lost through bad revenue because we arent good is peanuts compared to what we make off the PAC 12's 2 BCS games and TV deal.

Unless of course this is already the SEC's plan

Quote:

---

"This is not 1950, or 1960," Adams told The Wall Street Journal. "There are great schools in the [Atlantic Coast Conference] and the Southeastern Conference and the Big 12. I think it's time to put everybody on an equal footing.

---

That is rich, considering the source.

The only real solution is a +3 format...

FIRST, leave current bowl system as is. All the little fishies get to feed at the bowl frenzie in the various Fight Hunger, Sun, Liberty, Holiday, etc.

SECOND, some system similar to the current BCS system, with more attention paid to traditional affiliations, "seeds" the Fiesta, Orange, Sugar and Rose as the four "Quarterfinals" in a bracketed playoff.

LAST, +3: on a rotating basis, two of the four sites of the quarters host the semis a week later, with ticket packages offered to fans to encourage longer vacations by fans of both schools. Championship awarded to NFL sites and big collage venues in a bid process similar to Super Bowl.

HUGE traval/tourism and TV money in this system.

Honestly, if the Pac12 and Big10 stick to their guns, the BCS and NCAA are playing for seconds.


You cant have a deal if TWO major conferences with that large of markets decide to say F-it-all and go it alone... They will have the money, and the BCS would fall apart.

If the SEC or any other conference wants to leave, they would likely do it alone. That does not bring much power to the table.



The issue is that the Pac and Big have history and tradition. Everyone else is an also-ran in the history of the sport. As long as we work together, and the Rose Bowl works with us, no one else has a REAL say.


As much as people claim they want a playoff, the reason College football is so big and rich is because of history and tradition written over the last century plus. Most of that history that is not a single school IS the Rose, the Pac and the Big10.




That is why we have the power to make the rules. The SEC can win all the games it wants, but it is still a handful of teams with individual histories, or a handful of big games between rivals...break up the conference, and keep the rivalry games, and you dont lose anything. That is why they have no power.

Calcoholic;735099 said:

---

Why can't they just make it so that we have a 4 team playoff, and the Rose Bowl remains a matchup of the top two teams from the B10 and P12 who are NOT playing in the playoff?

---

Simply put, that absolutely makes the most sense. Some conferences might be afraid that their non-playoff BCS bowls will suck. They do now and would probably suck more after. Whatever. Their problem.

The other issue is how to rotate the semis and championship game and do so between what bowls. 1 in 4 seems good for the Rose as icing on the cake.

One thing that is not on the table is the Rose Bowl going away. They are spending $160 mil to upgrade that stadium... and it (and pasadena) isn't going to agree to anything that cuts off revenue to repay that.

LafayetteBear;735104 said:

---

But if EITHER the Pac 12 champion or the Big 10 champion WAS a top four team in teh final BCS Poll and the other was NOT, then the proposal is apparently to make the Rose Bowl a third "semifinal" game. But the term "semifinal" necessarily implies a total of four participants (and thus two, rather than three games). I don't understand how three semifinal games can produce the requisite number of finalists (i.e., NCG poarticipants). I doubt that drawing straws is a viable option...

---

The "3 semifinal" format that has been floated would go something like this:

- The Rose Bowl gets the Pac-12 and Big Ten champs, always.
- The top 4 teams in the rankings, not including the Rose Bowl teams, would play in two other "semifinal" bowls, 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3.
- From the 3 winners of those games, the 2 highest-ranked teams play in a national championship game.
- If neither Rose Bowl team is in the top 4 of the pre-bowl rankings, then the Rose Bowl is not part of the national championship picture and the other 2 games are real semifinals.

I doubt this is going to be the chosen format, as it could create lots of weird situations, though I guess weird situations are kind of the norm for college football.

QuakeFan;735279 said:

---

The "3 semifinal" format that has been floated would go something like this:

- The Rose Bowl gets the Pac-12 and Big Ten champs, always.
- The top 4 teams in the rankings, not including the Rose Bowl teams, would play in two other "semifinal" bowls, 1 vs. 4 and 2 vs. 3.
- From the 3 winners of those games, the 2 highest-ranked teams play in a national championship game.
- If neither Rose Bowl team is in the top 4 of the pre-bowl rankings, then the Rose Bowl is not part of the national championship picture and the other 2 games are real semifinals.

I doubt this is going to be the chosen format, as it could create lots of weird situations, though I guess weird situations are kind of the norm for college football.

---

In other words, it would be a 4-5 team playoff with three teams having a claim for the two spots. Sounds like more BCS fun.

Fairness has never been included in the equation because BCS voting is and has always been conference favoritism. For example: If two BCS caliber teams in the same conference are going to play a game, all the coaches from that conference who have a vote rank them a little higher for that week. Also, the AP poll is affiliated with the media and ranks teams that are going to be televised a little higher for that week to help promote the game on their networks. You will see this week after week and year after year. Polls are not impartial as long as their are interested parties voting which is the case.
SEC folks know how to work the system and cry foul when it doesn't benefit them. But to claim something isn't fair is like the super wealthy banks asking for a bailout. Oh wait..

Phantomfan;735160 said:

---

Honestly, if the Pac12 and Big10 stick to their guns, the BCS and NCAA are playing for seconds.


You cant have a deal if TWO major conferences with that large of markets decide to say F-it-all and go it alone... They will have the money, and the BCS would fall apart.

If the SEC or any other conference wants to leave, they would likely do it alone. That does not bring much power to the table.



The issue is that the Pac and Big have history and tradition. Everyone else is an also-ran in the history of the sport. As long as we work together, and the Rose Bowl works with us, no one else has a REAL say.


As much as people claim they want a playoff, the reason College football is so big and rich is because of history and tradition written over the last century plus. Most of that history that is not a single school IS the Rose, the Pac and the Big10.




That is why we have the power to make the rules. The SEC can win all the games it wants, but it is still a handful of teams with individual histories, or a handful of big games between rivals...break up the conference, and keep the rivalry games, and you dont lose anything. That is why they have no power.

---

Don't often agree with you, but you're spot on this time!

Phantomfan;735160 said:

---

Honestly, if the Pac12 and Big10 stick to their guns, the BCS and NCAA are playing for seconds.


You cant have a deal if TWO major conferences with that large of markets decide to say F-it-all and go it alone... They will have the money, and the BCS would fall apart.

If the SEC or any other conference wants to leave, they would likely do it alone. That does not bring much power to the table.



The issue is that the Pac and Big have history and tradition. Everyone else is an also-ran in the history of the sport. As long as we work together, and the Rose Bowl works with us, no one else has a REAL say.


As much as people claim they want a playoff, the reason College football is so big and rich is because of history and tradition written over the last century plus. Most of that history that is not a single school IS the Rose, the Pac and the Big10.




That is why we have the power to make the rules. The SEC can win all the games it wants, but it is still a handful of teams with individual histories, or a handful of big games between rivals...break up the conference, and keep the rivalry games, and you dont lose anything. That is why they have no power.

---

You could easily argue the other side of this issue. That the Pac-12 and Big-10 are holding up progress on a playoff for their own/selfish motives. You can cite history and the desire to preserve "tradition", but the reality is that the BCS system destroyed that tradition. Since the inception of the BCS, how often has the Pac-10/12 champ played the Big-10 champ in the Rose Bowl? Without looking it up, I am guessing somewhere slightly above 50% of the time? That is hardly tradition.

Let's assume the Pac-12 and Big-10 stick to their guns and refuse to go along with the rest of the major conferences. I think the other conferences would have more leverage if they proceeded without Pac-12/Big-10.

If there was an open invitation to all the major conferences to join a 4-team playoff and the Pac-12/Big-10 opted out, can you imagine how their fan base would react? I would be pissed if Cal was the #1 ranked team and had to play #14 ranked Ohio State in the Rose Bowl instead of competing in a National Playoff system. And what for? To guarantee a Pac-12/Big-10 post season?

And what happens to the conference if choose to sit out a national playoff? Talent will go elsewhere...elite players and coaches will picks schools that have a chance to win a national title. Before long, the Pac-12 will become a glorified version of the WAC.

The Pac-12 has leverage, but probably not as much as we think we do. The best solution for all parties involved is to go to an 8-team playoff and make the traditional Rose Bowl match-up a first round game. That would preserve the tradition of the Rose Bowl and allow college football to progress to a playoff.

UCBerkGrad;735445 said:

---

You could easily argue the other side of this issue. That the Pac-12 and Big-10 are holding up progress on a playoff for their own/selfish motives. You can cite history and the desire to preserve "tradition", but the reality is that the BCS system destroyed that tradition. Since the inception of the BCS, how often has the Pac-10/12 champ played the Big-10 champ in the Rose Bowl? Without looking it up, I am guessing somewhere slightly above 50% of the time? That is hardly tradition.

Let's assume the Pac-12 and Big-10 stick to their guns and refuse to go along with the rest of the major conferences. I think the other conferences would have more leverage if they proceeded without Pac-12/Big-10.

If there was an open invitation to all the major conferences to join a 4-team playoff and the Pac-12/Big-10 opted out, can you imagine how their fan base would react? I would be pissed if Cal was the #1 ranked team and had to play #14 ranked Ohio State in the Rose Bowl instead of competing in a National Playoff system. And what for? To guarantee a Pac-12/Big-10 post season?

And what happens to the conference if choose to sit out a national playoff? Talent will go elsewhere...elite players and coaches will picks schools that have a chance to win a national title. Before long, the Pac-12 will become a glorified version of the WAC.

The Pac-12 has leverage, but probably not as much as we think we do. The best solution for all parties involved is to go to an 8-team playoff and make the traditional Rose Bowl match-up a first round game. That would preserve the tradition of the Rose Bowl and allow college football to progress to a playoff.

---

How would you have a "National Champion" without 20% of the teams participating, and in those about a quarter of the so-called Elite teams. It would be more of a joke than the current BCS, and you would have split 'titles' almost every year.


NO ONE would go for that. It would not even be an issue. That is why the Pac12, Big12 and Rose Bowl together have the power. Alone they would be forced to do business, but together they have WAY too much stake for anyone else to challange.

Phantomfan;735526 said:

---

How would you have a "National Champion" without 20% of the teams participating, and in those about a quarter of the so-called Elite teams. It would be more of a joke than the current BCS, and you would have split 'titles' almost every year.


NO ONE would go for that. It would not even be an issue. That is why the Pac12, Big12 and Rose Bowl together have the power. Alone they would be forced to do business, but together they have WAY too much stake for anyone else to challange.

---

This would be true, at first. But you ignored, to me, the most important part of his argument - the Pac-10 and Big-10 would see a talent drain. After 10-15 years, all of the top talent would want to go where they can play in a playoff and win a National Championship. You'd get guys who would stay home - but we already have a ton of talent leaving the west coast in football, and even moreso in basketball. It would only get worse in football.

grandmastapoop;735537 said:

---

This would be true, at first. But you ignored, to me, the most important part of his argument - the Pac-10 and Big-10 would see a talent drain. After 10-15 years, all of the top talent would want to go where they can play in a playoff and win a National Championship. You'd get guys who would stay home - but we already have a ton of talent leaving the west coast in football, and even moreso in basketball. It would only get worse in football.

---

The only way I see that happening is if the NCAA pushed all 24 teams out of D1A/FBS.

Otherwise there is no such thing as not being able to play for the championship. You are either eligable by being in the league, or not because you are not in the league.

For example, an FBS #1 Cal plays an FBS #14 OSU for the Rose Bowl, while 4 teams ranked 2, 3, 4, and 5 play in a two round tourny.

At the end of the day, Cal claims National Champion, and whoever wins the "playoff" is a National Champion. You have the situation the system was built to prevent. THERE IS NO WAY THIS SYSTEM WOULD BE CREATED, let alone left in place long enough to cause a talent drain. The BCS could not have existed without ONE team (ND) agreeing to be a part of it for a HUGE share. Why? Tradition and History.

Multiply that by TWO conferences with a handful of truely elite programs and the system would fail in the planning stage, negating any future issues.



Lets not forget why we are talking about this... the AP and Coaches. No one gives a hoot about any other poll... The BCS was created to get them on the same page, and failed when USC split. The real issue with the BCS is it STILL does not prevent a split AP/Coaches champion.

The new system will be designed to get the AP and coaches (the only polls that matter) to have a way to agree on a "true" champion with as few games as possible. If it is POSSIBLE for a #1 ranked team to bypass their "playoff" it is useless before it starts and no one would sign on...What is the upside? More games? More chance of a fluke loss costing you millions? All while the Big10 and Pac12 sit over in LA and collect money while keeping tradition, AND possibly getting a piece of a title?



As for players being upset they are not champions; I honestly dont think that the players on the 2003 USC team think they are not National Champions, and they were held out the same way. Same with Washington's 1991 team (as two Pac10 split championship team examples). Players dont care if they are "split" champions. They care that they can be called Champions.




I think if the Pac, Rose or Big10 all went it alone, they would not have as MUCH power because of what you are saying, but TOGETHER (my point) there is no way the system gets off the ground without their demands being met. Together they can demand whatever crazy thing they want and get it, not unlike ND alone does all the time, but on a much larger scale.

Wait...

How does anyone figure this system would even get started without the Rose Bowl, Big10 and Pac12?

How do you sell that to sponcers? An "almost inclusive, but missing 20% of the teams from 75% of the TV's" playoff?



Once the deal is done, I cant see how the three could leave and survive, but I also cant see how the system would get off the ground without them...

Phantomfan;735566 said:

---

Wait...

How does anyone figure this system would even get started without the Rose Bowl, Big10 and Pac12?

How do you sell that to sponcers? An "almost inclusive, but missing 20% of the teams from 75% of the TV's" playoff?



Once the deal is done, I cant see how the three could leave and survive, but I also cant see how the system would get off the ground without them...

---

The point being any conference could hold up a playoff for their own self-interest. The question is why? Preserving the farce of a "tradition" of a Pac-12/Big-10 Rose Bowl is, in my opinion, not a legitimate reason to prevent coming up with a viable playoff format. It is selfish and petty.

LafayetteBear;735880 said:

---

The Pac, the Big 10, and the Rose Bowl can flat out dictate if they are willing to ultimately say no and go back to the way things were before. That is starting to look more and more attractive to me....

---

Any conference could hold it up, but there is no way we go back to the way it was prior to the BCS.

There will be a playoff. The question is what will it look like and what role will the Pac-12 play?

Phantomfan;735566 said:

---

Wait...

---

I really find your random paragraph formatting to be disturbing.

It's like you are being a Bully.

Maybe you should think of the effect you are having upon other readers by not maintaining uniform paragraph formation.

Feelings get hurt by such actions.

I hope you know people notice these things.

UCBerkGrad;735445 said:

---

Since the inception of the BCS, how often has the Pac-10/12 champ played the Big-10 champ in the Rose Bowl? Without looking it up, I am guessing somewhere slightly above 50% of the time?

---

Turns out I was right. I looked it up and over the past 14 years the Pac-12 champ played the Big Ten champ 7 of the past 14 Rose Bowls.

Preserving the "tradition" of the Pac-12 vs Big Ten champs playing in the Rose Bowl every other year doesn't seem like a reasonable reason to hold out on a 4-team national playoff game.

when it hasn't happen, it because one of the teams was elevated to a bigger game. I think its simply a case of having "your cake and eating it too"-when they weren't in the Championship, then the fallback was still the "Granddaddy of them all," including all the hype in the most important recruiting market in the conference,...

Rose Bowl pays big bucks, right? SEC wants those bucks while big10 and pac10 want tradition (and bucks).

Suggestion: go earn your own money, SEC, in your own bowl games. F off. We don't want you invading and ruining our little Jan 1 matchup.

I'll take less payout from the rose to make the invaders go away.