Wetzel's Column suggests Big 10's Delaney opposed playoff to cash-starve the Big 12

#1
ukvols

ukvols

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
13,886
Likes
1,237
#1
Big 12 blew it by eschewing playoff - College Football - Rivals.com

Yahoo's Dan Wetzel suggests Delaney opposed the SEC's 4-team playoff idea and pushed the BCS just to prevent a new revenue stream that would've made it harder for the Big 10 to be a dominant player in expansion.

4 teams could have turned into 16, and the Big 12 would have made more money than the Big 10 in a 16-team playoff, because more of its teams would have been involved. This extra revenue would have made Nebraska and Missouri more likely to stay.

It's a great article - I think it deserves its own thread. It provides another look at how money and often greed are behind college athletics.

Please debate. :clapping:
 
#2
#2
it has to do with the rose bowl. wetzel is getting in tin foil hat territory.
 
#3
#3
I understand a playoff's impact on the Rose Bowl, but I still think the theory has merit. I did think that, even for a column, Wetzel really pushed what appears to be a theory as a fact - to the point that I was wondering if Delaney had already admitted this strategy.

Even if this was not Delaney's reason for opposing a playoff, the lack of a playoff still helped lead us here. The playoff dollars would have likely had the affect of the Big 12 staying together. I think Wetzel's logic is sound, but he really pushes it that this was Delaney's idea, and you're right, and it might have just mainly been about the Rose Bowl.
 
#4
#4
If I were the Big 10 I wouldn't want a playoff either. The less games OOC for their title contenders, the better.
 
#6
#6
tigervol9802 said:
How does the Rose Bowl have that much power?
Click to expand...

the rose bowl is the highest rated and most prestigous bowl in existance. neither the big-10 or the pac-10 have any desire to end that relationship. a plus one playoff virtually ensures that the rose bowl wont be a big-10/pac-10 matchup. for those of us in the pac-10 the rose bowl is of almost mythical purportions (particurally those of us who haven't been to it in 50 years). eliminating that relationship would be a hard pill to swallow for a lot of conference members.
 
#7
#7
droski said:
the rose bowl is the highest rated and most prestigous bowl in existance. neither the big-10 or the pac-10 have any desire to end that relationship. a plus one playoff virtually ensures that the rose bowl wont be a big-10/pac-10 matchup. for those of us in the pac-10 the rose bowl is of almost mythical purportions (particurally those of us who haven't been to it in 50 years). eliminating that relationship would be a hard pill to swallow for a lot of conference members.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
#8
#8
I'd like to know how they arrive at the estimates that a playoff would generate 4x as much revenue as the existing system.
 
#9
#9
Velo Vol said:
I'd like to know how they arrive at the estimates that a playoff would generate 4x as much revenue as the existing system.
Click to expand...

Ending the practice of allowing the bowls to take money off of the NCAA members' tables by allowing outside entities to stage the biggest games is a start.
 
#10
#10
Velo Vol said:
I'd like to know how they arrive at the estimates that a playoff would generate 4x as much revenue as the existing system.
Click to expand...

Not certain of the formula he used in writing the book, but it probably centers upon:

more games X more television coverage X increased ratings X increased ad revenue = "Y" Increase

I was actually thinking that a four-fold increase was a rather conservative estimate, but admittedly, I have nothing to base that on other than my own ignorant perceptions of what that might entail, or be worth.

However, I do think that it's safe to say that the increased revenue could accurately described as, "exponentially higher", in any regard.
 
#11
#11
Interestingly, this piece (and other chatter) portrays the Big 10 and PAC-10 as now being in the NCAA driver's seat and the SEC largely on the outside looking in.
 
#12
#12
Velo Vol said:
Interestingly, this piece (and other chatter) portrays the Big 10 and PAC-10 as now being in the NCAA driver's seat and the SEC largely on the outside looking in.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the SEC is sitting in the "We've beat schools from every conference like a red-headed step child, so why should we care what they do" seat.

The SEC has a substantial deal in place with ESPN. They already make a ridiculous amount of money.

The PAC-10 and the Big 10 look like they are scrambling to match up with the SEC.

I'm positive the SEC has a plan to expand when it wants to.
 
#13
#13
I doubt anyone will leave the SEC, and I doubt anyone would reject an invitation to join the SEC. The only team(s) the SEC might be interested in and not be able to get would be if the SEC wants Texas without taking the package of Texas and its rivals.

I suppose there are a few teams that would turn the SEC down, perhaps UNC and Duke, but the SEC is in a position where it can wait and see what the other leagues do. The SEC needs a short list of invitees, but that's it.
 
#14
#14
ukvols said:
I doubt anyone will leave the SEC, and I doubt anyone would reject an invitation to join the SEC. The only team(s) the SEC might be interested in and not be able to get would be if the SEC wants Texas without taking the package of Texas and its rivals.

I suppose there are a few teams that would turn the SEC down, perhaps UNC and Duke, but the SEC is in a position where it can wait and see what the other leagues do. The SEC needs a short list of invitees, but that's it.
Click to expand...

Academics do matter to some schools. That's the biggest mark on the SEC's record.
 
#15
#15
droski said:
the rose bowl is the highest rated and most prestigous bowl in existance. neither the big-10 or the pac-10 have any desire to end that relationship. a plus one playoff virtually ensures that the rose bowl wont be a big-10/pac-10 matchup. for those of us in the pac-10 the rose bowl is of almost mythical purportions (particurally those of us who haven't been to it in 50 years). eliminating that relationship would be a hard pill to swallow for a lot of conference members.
Click to expand...

I suppose I won't understand because I could care less about it for obvious reasons.
 
#16
#16
justingroves said:
Academics do matter to some schools. That's the biggest mark on the SEC's record.
Click to expand...

True.
When competing to recruit student-athletes, it might help to be able to say your academics are superior to your competitors, which would be a reason for a school to join (big fish in a small pond).

But, I can see where a university's academics as a whole would have a better public image in the Big 10 than the SEC.
 
#21
#21
justingroves said:
To be fair, the SEC is sitting in the "We've beat schools from every conference like a red-headed step child, so why should we care what they do" seat.

The SEC has a substantial deal in place with ESPN. They already make a ridiculous amount of money.

The PAC-10 and the Big 10 look like they are scrambling to match up with the SEC.

I'm positive the SEC has a plan to expand when it wants to.
Click to expand...

Well the Pac-10 is scrambling

The Big 10 is kind of just trying to make up the ground it lost last year (they were #1 revenue before that). Lucky for them the BTN turned out better than everyone predicted it to, so it's appearing local in some more big markets could very well make up that gap (I'm told they're not that far behind actually)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top