Jim Delany and intended consequences

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany doesn’t want a D-1 football playoff. I mean, he really doesn’t want a playoff.

It’s not just Michael Adams’ recent playoff pitch that hasn’t gone over too well with Delany. He’s less than thrilled with Mike Slive’s playoff-lite pitch for a “plus one”.

In opposing the seeded “plus one”, Delany does make the argument that bothers me about playoffs the most.

“We’ve never seen a four-team playoff stay as a four-team playoff,” Delany said. “So if you are concerned, and we are, about an eight-team, 12-team, or 16-team playoff and what it would do to college football, we don’t believe that you allow the camel’s nose (into) the tent with a four-team playoff…”

But then he goes on to… I don’t want to say threaten, exactly… ah, what the heck, threaten the non-BCS conferences with a little downside from a seeded tourney:

“It may well be that people are open-minded. It would be disingenuous for me to say I’m open-minded about it if I’m not. I wonder how open-minded the five conferences that have just been given access to the BCS would be, because there’s no need for a fifth bowl if you pick four teams and seed them and then play. Why would we need a fifth bowl?”

Yeah, it’s crappy and it sounds ominous. But the man has a point, unfortunately. (In fact, you could question why we need a fourth BCS game with a seeded “plus one”, but let’s not give Delany any more ideas right now.)

Does anybody get the feeling this is gonna be one ugly fight coming up?

(h/t Dawgbone)

About these ads

2 Comments

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

2 responses to “Jim Delany and intended consequences

  1. The Big Ten and Pac-10′s stance on this whole thing is pretty frustrating, to say the least.

    They were the last ones to get with the conference hoops tournament, will be the last two to come around to a conference championship game in football and there’s this.

    What really gets me is that so many are quick to trash ideas, but that type of environment gets us nowhere. We know we need a playoff, and we know one is coming, so efforts should be focused on brainstorming a good starting point for a system. No doubt it will evolve, but no first idea is going to be perfect in the first iteration.

  2. We know we need a playoff, and we know one is coming, so efforts should be focused on brainstorming a good starting point for a system. No doubt it will evolve, but no first idea is going to be perfect in the first iteration.

    I agree with you that a playoff is inevitable.

    But I hope the powers that be don’t settle for a good starting point. I want the opposite – something that lasts and doesn’t lead to calls for expansion. If it takes a bloody war to scare everyone into the position that they don’t ever want to go through that again, so be it.