Pac-12, Big Ten Commissioners Discuss Autonomy
Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney spoke about the major conference autonomy movement during a press conference for the new bowl game to be held at the 49ers new stadium in Santa Clara, another opportunity for the Big Ten to lose a postseason game in California:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/05/21/sports/ncaafootball/ap-fbc-p…
I hadn't realized the Pac-12 university presidents sent a letter on Tuesday to the presidents of the other major conference universities. The movement to sidestep the NCAA is gaining traction.
We need more bowl games in the midwest. I realize that SEC and Pac 12 teams aren't going to want to go to Minneapolis, Detroit, and Indianapolis but I would actaully go to a mid level bowl game if it was easy to get to.
It's vs. the MAC. I was talking about getting a Capital One Bowl/Outback Bowl type game.
That said, I did go to the Motor City Bowl a few years ago when Central had a few good teams with Butch Jones and Dan LeFevour. The best part of it was how easy it was to just drive down for the evening, rather than planning an entire vacation around a football game in a city I'm not even interested in (Tampa, Jacksonville, Orlando, Phoenix, etc.)
To each their own. A 1 hour drive to Detroit or a 3 hour drive to Indy would make going to a Michigan bowl game a whole lot easier and cheaper than an expensive flight to see the BWW Bowl.
Because Michigan's not going to want to play in those bowls. They're going to want to travel so their donors can tag along and they go reach/network with alums that aren't within a 3 hour drive.
So you may want the game, and that's fine...but you can't assume Michigan will ever be there. I can say with 100% certainty that as long as Dave Brandon is AD, he's going to want to travel for bowl games. Really any AD would because again, your donors and your biggest donors want to travel for vacation and whatnot.
The game is much more likely to have a B1G team that doesn't travel well playing someone like Kentucky. Northwestern or somebody...battle of the Wildcats. Maybe IU, this year, they should be pretty good. IU/UK, it'll be like basketball, but a football game.
You're not getting a Michigan/Florida Cap One Bowl type game...you can take that to the bank.
"We need more bowl games..." this is not a correct way to begin a sentence. It doesn't matter what words follow unless it's "to be eliminated."
Oh the weather outside is weather...
Attractive bowl games are scheduled in warm-weather climates. The midwest is not a warm-weather climate in December and/or January. That's just how it is.
One of the more intriguing "sidesteps" when all this first came up was the notion of having the major conferences be able to legislate and in addition give the choice to the mid-majors and beyond whether or not they wanted to follow suit, but then also have so-called "actionable legislation" that would have to pass through normal NCAA channels.
It seems like it would basically allow conferences like the Big Ten and Pac-12 to say, for instance, "We're going to provide full-cost scholarships" and conference like the MAC or Sun Belt, in turn, could say, "Have fun with that" and move on. It will be interesting to see how Emmert or his successor (if this drags out for that long) can still sell something like the NCAA under those conditions.
I'm sorry, but a 4-team playoff is a joke and isn't going to solve anything.
Don't tell me you can't have a larger one in FBS.
Division 3 has a 32-team playoff.
has 235 schools playing football with no bowls.. FBS half that plus bowl games.
also only plays 10 regular season games and I don't believe they have conference championship games.
How do you work the scheduling and logistics, realizing that once you get into December, the NFL is also playing Saturday games, to say nothing about moving about 500 people, give or take, if you include bands, cheerleaders, etc.. Then there are final exams thrown into the mix.
Also think that the value of winning coference championships will become diluted if playoffs get too large.
If there are four teams, the fifth team complains, eight teams, number nine starts bitching.
Right now I am delighted there are playoffs next fall.
You really don't need more than that. In how many years does the #7 or #8 team have a legitimate case for being the national champion. Not too often. I love march madness, but going to 16 or 32 in FBS is pointless. Even the 2011 Michigan team that won the Sugar Bowl had no reason to go to the playoff. Adding in teams at #16-#32 is pointless and risks accidentally eliminating teams who earned a legitimate spot
I'm not greedy. Eight will work.
Gives enough room for all the five power conference champs plus three at-larges for non-power conferences and/or power conference non-champs. Good enough.
Here is the link
But still they don't want to stop stealing money from the players. Let the players take whatever anyone except gamblers (or others who could undermine the integrity of game outcomes) wants to give them on the free market.
I am still disgusted that a multi-billion dollar business insists on their players being "amateurs."
IMO, there are two options...
Greatly reduce the salaries of everyone who makes money off of student-athletes, particularly the high level admin that have had inflaited salaries for years.
Then figure out something to do with all this left over money (personally, I think they should pump it back into public schools across the country.
.......OR.
The more likely scenario. Pay the players.
I'd much prefer D1 coaches and AD made in the 100,000s and all of the additional revenue and TV money and everything else went to something like public school eduation, but this is America and that's never happening. So, pay the players and be done with it.
The "players" are free to sell their services to the highest bidder, they're free to start their own league for that matter. You say the NFL won't allow them to compete for a postion until three years removed from highschool, let them sue the NFL.
If you want to make the argument that universities are stealing from walk on players you almost have a good argument. But either way, scholarship or walk on, it is all voluntary, nobody is forcing anybody to play any amount of sports for anybody.
The thing is, no one (aside from Mike Williams and Maurice Clarett) is arguing the NFL's three-year rule is misguided. It's pretty much universally acknowledged an 18 year old kid straight out of high school is nowhere near the physical development required to play in the NFL. Even the most 5-star of 5-star recruits would get eaten alive before training camp was over. The NBA and MLB? Probably. But not in football.
The question is whether or not the NFL should be able to use the NCAA as a transparent minor league for those three years. As it is, there isn't another option. So college ball it is.
I think eight teams is sufficient for a legitmate playoff. Four is still a bit small and leaves out to many good teams. 16 would be best. As state 4 is at least a step in the right direction.