One Anti-Playoff Commish Down, Jim Delany To Go
College Football June 16th. 2008, 1:30pm
In a week of NBA intrigue, international soccer and Mike Wilbon staring at Kendra’s jugs, you may have missed this: One of the two league commissioners who is against the college football playoff retired. Does this mean we’re closer to what everybody wants? Intern Parrish investigates.
There is always going to be a debate amongst college football fans and administrators on whether or not a playoff should be instituted. There are those, as there always are, that simply don’t want to change the status quo and there are those who simply cannot take another BCS mess. For those in the pro-playoff crowd, last week could be the start of something great.
Tom Hansen, the Pac 10 Commissioner for the last 26 years, announced that he will retire at the end of June. There have been rumors over the last few years that the two men standing in the way of a college football playoff were Tom Hansen and Big 10 Commissioner Jim Delany. Delany, seen in many circles as the most powerful man if college athletics, has been on the record saying that a playoff would do wonders for college football as a whole, but he works for the Big 10, not college football. The Big 10 and the Pac 10 signed a deal with ABC and the Rose Bowl that runs through 2014 that gives each conference a lion’s share of the profits, making it an economic decision to be anti-playoff. Now that Hansen is out of the way, there could be an opening for the Pac-10 to hire a pro-playoff commissioner which could be another step towards ending the farce that is the BCS.
Also written this week was a post on the Orlando Sentinel’s blog that dealt with the slowing economy and how it may affect the college football landscape. In the post, it mentions the fact that many athletic departments rely on state funding for a lot of their money and with many states suffering from the struggling economy, that money could be withdrawn. When schools begin to assess their budgets, they may come to the realization that increased revenue from the major money-making sports (football and basketball) could help their cause. The only sure-fire way to increase the revenues in football is by going to a playoff.
How best to implement a playoff? That is up for debate, and everyone seems to have their own thoughts. All I do know is that last years BCS games were fraudulent on so many levels that one or two more seasons like last year and we could be looking at a college football playoff faster than either Delany or Hansen would like.
25 Responses to “One Anti-Playoff Commish Down, Jim Delany To Go”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

June 16th, 2008 at 1:37 PM
The Division I-A football playoff is never going to occur in our lifetime. Never!
It would be healthier for all if we stopped worrying and learned to love with the Chick-fil-A Bowl.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:38 PM
“There have been rumors over the last few years that the two men standing in the way of a college football playoff were Tom Hansen and Big 10 Commissioner Jim Delany.”
That isn’t a rumor. Both men have publicly stated they are against a playoff. Them staying or leaving is moot. They work for the University presidents and they are the ones that matter.
Good post, Intern Parrish. Don’t let CRM give you any shit.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:41 PM
What everyone wants?
I guess I’m not everyone.
+1 model would be fine.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Jim Delany is a diabolical genius. He actually has most of America fooled into thinking that the Big 10 is more than a mid-major conference.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:42 PM
I was going to go with “live with”, called an audible, but forgot to delete “with”.
The fact remains we’ll all be watching dozens of bowl games with our grandchildren.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Damn. That’s hardcore, Clown.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Mike Tranghese (Big East) also retired last week…I don’t know his stance on the playoff..but he was a tremendous commissioner who saved the Big East after the ACC exodus..He also ran the NCAA Tournament committee for years…so I am sure you can blame him if you were a fan of mid majors…he didn’t support giving them many at large bids
June 16th, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Yeah, I’ve always been opposed to a playoff in College Football. It doesn’t solve anything because you can’t put together a large enough field and still have anything that resembles a meaningful regular season. You’ll see it when a 6-5 Notre Dame team gets included in a playoff. I’m fine with revamping the bowl system, in particular how they determine which teams go where, and I can get behind a +1 idea, but a playoff is just a pipe dream that will never work.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:48 PM
The BCS needs to go die. I dont see how deciding who the best team is by having them play eachother is such a radical idea.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Only sport in the NCAA that does not have the playoff system set up: Football
June 16th, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Hahahaha.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:55 PM
There is a playoff in every other division other than I-A.
It can happen in I-A, but first someone needs to find a way to make it at least as profitable as the bowls. That is the only hold-up. And, yet, that is one HUGE hold-up.
Not happening, my friends.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I am more opposed to the +1 idea than anything else. What happens if you have two clear teams for the national title game, you make the winner play a 1-loss team? You get the same problems you have now.
Best solution, 10 team playoff, with top 2 getting a bye, reseeded after each round (like the NHL does).
June 16th, 2008 at 2:02 PM
Jibble, how does your system answer what you say is the problem? An undefeated team could be in a playoff with a 3 loss team and say the 3 loss team wins it all?
June 16th, 2008 at 2:02 PM
The plus one idea seems silly. It just adds another exhibition game that will rarely solve any debate on who is #1. It will just add more pointless noise to the conversation.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Does anyone actually care about bowl games that don’t have the #1 vs #2? I don’t. Love the regular season HATE the post season. We need a playoff
June 16th, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Wetzel’s plan is the way to go, it’s the best I’ve seen.
CFB needs a playoff, no matter how they go about doing it, 8 teams, 16, I really don’t care.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:16 PM
obviously, people (not all) do. if people didn’t, those bowls wouldn’t be able to sell tickets; they wouldn’t be able to sell tv rights; they wouldn’t be pulling ratings and more importantly, wouldn’t have sponsors.
it’s someone of a challege to sell sponsorships and tv rights to events “no one cares about.” i mean, look at major league soccer for example.
(sorry, couldn’t resist the one-liner.)
June 16th, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Whoops 10 won’t work in my format.. numbering problems, Top 12 with top 4 getting byes.
Since 2002 the highest ranking a 3-loss team has had going into the bowls has been #8. More often they are #9 or #10.
A 3-loss team would likely be a low seed (let’s say a 9-seed). The 9-seed would have to beat the #8 team in the first round, After that they would have to beat the no worse than the #4 ranked team (more likely #2 or #3). Let’s figure 2 upsets in the first round, and 2 in the second. That means the 3-loss team plays the #2 seed second. If they win that, they would either be playing the #1, 3 or 4 seed in the thrid round and then if they win the final (likely a top 4 team).
so for a 3-loss team to win the title (in a realistic scenario) they would have to beat 3 of the top 5 teams in the land, and 4 of the top 10.
The “easiest” path they could conceivably have is beating the #8, #4, #12, #11. But that’s if every game is an upset (save the #9 seed)
June 16th, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Tom Hansen was on Portland radio recently, and he stated that his biggest accomplishment as the Pac10 Commish was his role in creating the BCS. You could almost hear the hosts snickering in the background.
June 16th, 2008 at 2:39 PM
I don’t know why people either don’t think of, or are opposed to, using bye weeks like the NFL does for the top teams. This would get rid of the #1 (only?) complaint about the playoffs (it render’s the regular season useless). (this isn’t picking on Mike NYC, but it’s more the general school of thought that a bracket has to be 4, 8, or 16 teams)
Subsequently reseeding after each round of playoffs gives the regular season even more weight. (which is why my solution has both of those in it)
June 16th, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I like brackets. Ones that show me potential matchups from the beginning to the end.
I don’t reseed my lawn, my hairline — I certainly don’t want my bracket reseeded.
Heh. Seed.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Keep the traditional bowl tie ins! No playoff! Keep tradition alive!
June 16th, 2008 at 3:45 PM
so Matt, tradition > getting it right?
June 16th, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Yes TBL, tradition and the best regular season in all of sports>giving people that only pay attention in January what they want.
A playoff will not solve anything without causing even more problems…the BCS, even though it’s unwieldy and irrational, has done what it was created to do: set up a national championship game. It’s funny, for years people railed about the polls be corrupt, then when unbiased computers are added to the equation, they cry foul when the computers don’t mirror the polls. In my eyes, the BCS has done a decent job, especially last year, putting the most deserving teams in the championship. Notice I didn’t say the best, I said the most deserving. The Carson Palmer USC team that every journalist was slobbering over as a reason for a playoff was 9-2. A Miami team that got passed over by an FSU team that they beat lost out due to SoS in part by playing a 1-AA team (and in turn, Washington was also a one loss team that beat Miami, so why was Miami the aggrieved party?). Michigan wanted a rematch with OSU, even though they’d already had their shot…then got pantsed by USC in the Rose Bowl while Florida showed the world that the Big-10 was about as athletic as my left ball. There has only been 1 team that got screwed over, and that was Auburn because they did everything they could on the field, and got screwed because they started lower in the polls than Oklahoma. USC getting passed over for LSU and OU was iffy, but USC did lose a game, so the formula happened to pick 2 other one loss teams, oh well.