Jim Delany looks back on what he and his colleagues hath wrought and pronounces it all good.
“It will actually energize the regular season even more than it has in the past,” Delany said of a plan for a four-team playoff in the Football Bowl Subdivision that was approved by Bowl Championship Series presidential oversight committee in June. Delany said he believes the playoff will benefit everyone, including players and fans.
“Our student-athletes will benefit because there will be double the opportunity to compete for the brass ring,” Delany said. “Our fans will benefit because I think that there’s going to be real emphasis on winning championships as well as strength of schedule. So I think that will encourage us to have stronger nonconference schedules. I think that’s a good thing.”
Question for Delany: if that’s all true – and I’m taking the talk about stronger nonconference schedules with a huge grain of salt – then why wouldn’t an eight-team playoff be even better?
Get The Picture 
“I think that’s a good thing…[I just never thought it was before, until two SEC teams faced off in the national championship game].”
LikeLike
Re: stronger non conference schedules – why did they cancel their deal with the PAC10?
LikeLike
The Pac-12 cancelled the deal. Their coaches thought a nine-game conference schedule plus the Big Ten games were a bit too much.
LikeLike
Exactly. If the SEC went to a 9 game conference schedule UGA would have to give up the what has been just about every year OOC game against a national power/major conference team, too. Remember Boise, Okie State (twice), Arizona State(twice), Colorado(twice), etc. in the last 7-8 years.Everybody keeps harping on having a 9 game conference schedule and also playing quality OOC games. You really can’t have both.
LikeLike
Because you can end up with meaningless games at the end where Nos. 1-3 or 4 could lose on the last weekend and still make the playoff. It opens the door to resting starters during end-of-the-year rivalry games, something less than no one wants to see.
That could still happen with a four-team deal, but the chances are far higher with a four-team playoff that losing late will be penalized by missing the playoff for losing late. It practically happened with the BCS in 2007, when LSU picked up its second loss to Arkansas in the penultimate week and still played for the title. That was an extreme case and LSU wasn’t sandbagging in that game, but it showed that a late loss didn’t necessarily eliminate a team even in the two-team playoff.
What’s more, the temptation to weaken schedules again (if they ever stiffen up with the four-team playoff, which I’ll believe when I see) will be there. Going 12-0 on a crap schedule will get any major school in the top eight. It may or may not get one in the top four, but it definitely will get it in an eight-team playoff.
LikeLike
It was a rhetorical question. 😉
Honestly, I’m amazed at how much Kool-Aid Delany’s digested. Which tells me that if in a few years these guys think they need more money and believe they can enlarge the postseason again without affecting regular season revenue, Delany will manage to make the same kind of happy noises about the next round of expansion.
And so it goes.
LikeLike
Ah, ok. That’s what I get for commenting less than 30 minutes after waking up.
But yeah, it is incredible how Delany spouts whatever his party line is right now without a single indication that he’s ever thought anything different. We’ve always been at war with Eurasia.
LikeLike
But of course, mon ami…I would have assumed this was obvious.
LikeLike
With an eight team playoff, it’s much more likely that teams without legitimate claims at being the best in the country get a title shot. That’s when you could end up with 4th place Arkansas or South Carolina in the tournament. That’s fine if they’re one of the best eight teams, but if the purpose of a playoff is to resolve a dispute over the very best team then they obviously wouldn’t be deserving.
The commissioners know this, and a four team playoff is a fine balance. Unless they decide to go to eight or sixteen or 72 teams, which wouldn’t be that bad.
LikeLike
The point to a playoff, if you’re a commissioner, isn’t to resolve a dispute over the very best team. It’s to squeeze as much money from the sports-paying public as you can. That’s postseason expansion’s reason for being, no matter the sport.
LikeLike
Pardon the optimism, but the conference commissioners act at least a little in the best interests of college football. They take care of themselves first but they’re stewards of the game and the student-athletes. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be part of the NCAA’s rules & regulations.
LikeLike
You’re adorable.
LikeLike
Bless your heart.
LikeLike
Senator, you don’t do sockpuppetry do you?
LikeLike
🙂 !
LikeLike
I honestly can’t tell if you’re using good snark or you’re serious.
LikeLike
Well, they SAY they are and believe in that. Whether they actually do it is in dispute.
LikeLike
What do they say about college basketball? 😉
LikeLike
“Our fans will benefit because I think that there’s going to be real emphasis on winning championships as well as strength of schedule.”
Worked for JoePa…wait…..
LikeLike