No playoff? Ridiculous

Tony Barnhart of the AJC had an interesting piece on the BCS meetings this morning.  Most of it was the stuff we have heard over and over again and it is pretty obvious to me that the College Presidents don't want it.  Our "illustrious" President, Michael Adams has made zero headway with his proposal for an 8 team playoff.  I could have told anyone that based on his "charming" personality alone.

Anyway, there appears to be a growing irritation among the other BCS Bowls about the special treatment the Rose Bowl gets.   No one was mentioned and they wanted to remain anonymous, but it is starting to rub them the wrong way that they must take the NON-BCS qualifier in the Sugar, Fiesta and Orange but the Rose is exempt.  The special priviledges for the Rose Bowl make Notre Dame's special favors pale in comparison.  This year, the Orange Bowl will wind up with the Non-BCS qualifier if there is one.  It is not an issue of fairness in allowing those teams in.  It is an issue that every one of the BCS bowls should share that.  Seriously, if the Sugar Bowl did not have an SEC team to draw on this year, how would ticket sales have gone?  Anyway, there appears to be a growing anger at the Grandaddy.  I guess we will have to wait and see if anything happens.

It also appears that ABC will be fully into bidding on the next BCS contract.  They admit they made a horrible mistake in not taking FOX seriously and want those games back.  I have some problems with some of the ABC crews, particularly Brent Mussberger.  But lordy, I have never heard such incompetent college football announcers as the ones we have seen the past two years for the BCS bowls.  Clueless is much too kind.  We would be better off with the Kentucky Derby announcer.

buckifan70,

I agree to a point. But the NFL has NO VISITING fans at all...couple of celebs and the owners, but no out of town contingent.  And the last thing I would ever want is to have CFB start to take on the corporate atmosphere of the NFL. 

We normally have about 8-9K visiting fans in our stadium.   Many times the teams come from a reasonable distance.  But with Oklahoma State last year and Arizona State next year, we have to find room.  No problem because we know the schedule years in advance. 

I see these home field advantages that are hard to deal with.....USC or UCLA in the Rose; Arizona or ASU in the Fiesta; LSU in the Sugar; Miami in the Orange.  Maybe something could be done to ensure they did not get to play in their home stadium.  Lets use last year and look at the top 8 teams.  I don't recall exactly where they were ranked before the bowls, but try this:

OSU vs  Kansas in the Rose

LSU vs  Mizzou in the Fiesta

OU vs USC in the Sugar

UGA vs Va. Tech in the Orange

I may be a bit off in the rankings, but you get my point.  No one has a home field advantage.  There is ZERO problem with selling tickets primarily due to local folks. 

Having said that, I still have a problem with 8 teams.  And the presidents do too.  And 4 of the six commissioners did not even want to discuss a plus one.  So we are where we are.

Congrats to all on a pretty objective thread here.  I have a few bones to pick with some of the previous posts.  Before I get started, keep in mind that I do favor a combination playoff / bowls scenario, but I will discuss that in a separate post.  I want to vent now.

Tradition and Greed

A number of posters are castigating the Pac-10 and especially the Big Ten for "being greedy" or getting in the way of "giving college football fans" what they want.  Excuse me?  It is completely hypocritical to claim that only those two BCS conferences are greedy.  By nature, all conferences are greedy.  As for not giving cfb fans what they want...well let's just say that they are not in the business of setting things up to please fans from other conferences or fans of cfb in general.  No offense, but Jim Delany's first and only priority is to do what is best for the Big Ten schools and their fans.  This makes him no different than any other conference commissioner. 

Also, don't blame the Big Ten and Pac-10 for placing more value on tradition than other conference leaders do.  The Rose Bowl is not the Granddaddy of them all and the wealthiest of all bowls for no reason.  No, it is because the Pac-10 and Big Ten built it into the biggest and best of the bowls.  What gives fans from other conferences the right to think they deserve a piece of that pie?  What possible motivation could the Big Ten - Pac-10 - Rose Committee have to simply hand over the fruits of their labor to some school from another conference?

A number of fans on this board seem to be pretty young and naive to the value of college traditions.  It seems their entire concept of college football history began with the creation of the BCS.  In their view, all tradition is meaningless and should be scrapped in favor of finding a clear-cut national champion.  My guess is they are too young to understand that tradition is what makes FBS college football special.  When it comes to pageantry and tradition, all other levels of football (be it high school, other NCAA levels, or even the NFL) are pale by comparison.

These neophyte fans need to realize that it is the major conferences that made the bowls what they are today.  The SEC built the Sugar Bowl.  The old SWC made the Cotton Bowl (although it went on to lose it's major bowl status to the Fiesta after the SWC folded).  The old Big-8 built the Orange Bowl.  And the Big Ten and Pac-10 made the Rose Bowl into the biggest, richest and best because it was the only major bowl that was guaranteed to have two major conference champions playing each year.  College football fans need to realize that the Rose is being asked to give up more than any of the other major bowls.

All of this brings me back to one question.  Who is being greedier here?  The Big Ten / Pac-10 / Rose, who built the wealthiest, most tradition laden bowl, for wanting to keep the fruits of several decades of their labor?  Or those that look to take away their Rose tradition for their own financial gain?

NitroBuck,

First of all great post.  I sense the passion and frankly we probably agree more than we disagree.  I had no problem with the way the bowls were set up prior to the BCS.  I think we are way out of wack with this obsession with the National Champion.  I never had a problem when the polls allowed a split.  I think one of the greatest things about College Football has been that lots of teams end the season happy because they played in a good bowl and beat a quality opponent.  I don't think there are ANY fans at UCLA, Memphis or North Carolina that have that feeling right now.  One winner and 64 losers....ugh.  And yeah Kansas is the champ....but next week it could have been UCLA or Memphis or whatever.  I also love the tradition of all the big bowls that used to be played on New Years Day and I feel much of that has been hijacked for the greed you are talking about.

But if we are going down this line, then at least we should remain consistent.  The outrage of Penn State in 1994 because Nebraska won the title.  Well Nebraska went to the Orange Bowl and beat a 10-1 Miami team that wound up ranked 6th.  Penn State beat a 3 loss Oregon team that wound up being ranked 11th.  Ok, Penn State was unbeaten but Nebraska played and beat a higher ranked opponent.

In 1997 we all had to hear the wailing and moaning out of Ann Arbor when Nebraska had the audacity to get a share of the title.  A share mind you a share.  Michigan went to the Rose Bowl, had fits with a very good Washington State team. Nebraska went to the Orange Bowl to play the SEC Champ Tennessee Vols and blasted them.  Where is the outrage?

Was it a coincidence that everyone agreed to a change in the system the very next year?  But if we are all going to be equal then we need to be equal.  The Rose Bowl is awesome, but why should it be exclusive....except for this and except for that?  Why shouldn't the Rose Bowl have to take Hawaii or any other mid-major non BCS champ?  Just asking.

In my mind we either go back to the way it was, which was perfectly ok by me, OR we all play by the same rules.  Is the Rose the Granddaddy....sure it is.  But until 1946 lots of schools had the opportunity....Alabama, Georgia, Georgia Tech to name a few.  Then it changed which is perfectly fine. 

And yeah, Jim Delaney's job is to protect the interests of the Big Ten.  No problem with that at all...that is what he gets paid to do.  But his holier than thou attitude about the whole Rose Bowl and BCS thing gets others pissed.  And I have no problem with them or me or anyone else gripinig about his attitude.

I agre 100% with you on this.. The one thing i love about college football is the pagentry and the passion the fans have for the game. and that I wold never want to take away, there for you do need visiting fans.