Now I Hate the Rose Bowl Too- Thanks Delany!

Submitted by 93Grad on

I've been to 4 Rose Bowls and it used be a magial experience.  It is a beautiful game played in a beautiful stadium in a beuatiful part of the world.

The Rose Bowl used to stand for everything good about college football: tradition, pomp and circumstance, New Years Day, etc.  Now it stands for all that is wrong with college football:  arrogance, stupidty, greed etc

I now hate the Rose Bowl because the B1G AD's and commissioner are using it as a shield  to deflect the fact that they are too weak or too stupid to effectuate play-off games in the north. 

So in the name of preserving the tradition of the Rose Bowl they are taking that tradition and wiping their ass with it.  Thanks Delany.

.

Hank Hill

May 19th, 2012 at 11:40 AM ^

Do you use your right hand or left hand to beat dead horses? This topic has been discussed ad nauseum, as well as links to at least four different articles. Yes, the recent Rose Bowl grumblings suck, and yes, it is the offseason, but let's try to save the boards for new material that won't get you sent to Bolivia.

david from wyoming

May 19th, 2012 at 12:03 PM ^

Times change. Are you still pissed off that you can't ride your horse into town because of all these new automobile things?

Silly Goose

May 19th, 2012 at 11:47 AM ^

Well, if every other power conference said no to home games, there is not really any point in fighting for them anymore. I would much rather have the Rose Bowl with conference champions than a top 4 model after the bowls, as that gives a distinct advantage to the SEC/Big 12. Seeing as how the Big 10 is the only conference that doesn't have a major bowl game in its footprint, blocking it doesn't hurt the other conferences that much.

coldnjl

May 19th, 2012 at 11:52 AM ^

I personally don't care if you like the Rose bowl again. Since the B1G was the last major conference to truly fight for the very thing you insist on (home games for the top seeds), I find you now blaming them and the Rose bowl for the fact that no one else wanted it to be kinda misplaced. 

Jkidd49

May 19th, 2012 at 12:01 PM ^

to make some cash and hold on to a tradition, that quite frankly has lost most of, if not all its luster.  Since when is it ok to give up on a good idea, just because it won't be popular among other conferences?  What happen to standing up for what you believe in?

 Just wait till a #1 seed BIGTEN team has to head down to Orlando or NO to "host" an SEC team and we'll see how this plays out.  Fact is a couple of pretty rich people are getting even richer and the fans, teams and college towns all lose out.

I also see nothing wrong with re-hashing a problem that still exists... without that kind of debate, we'd never see the birth of a playoff (even if its not really a playoff yet).

raleighwood

May 19th, 2012 at 12:31 PM ^

"Just wait till a #1 seed BIGTEN team has to head down to Orlando or NO to "host" an SEC team." 

As I understand it, your scenario won't happen.  If a B1G team is the # 1 seed, then they'll play on their "home field" which is the Rose Bowl.  The B1G team will travel 2000-3000 miles to get there and the SEC team will travel 2000-3000 miles to get there.  The temperature will probably 75-80 degrees (not unlike Michigan in September).  Roughly the same scenario would take place if you insert ACC or Big East into the SEC slot.  I don't see where the distinct disadvantage for the B1G is.

The biggest disadvantage as I see it would be if a # 1 or # 2 B1G team ends up playing a # 3  or # 4 PAC 12 team.  Will that even happen once a decade?

Of course the B1G would be at a disadvantage going to the Sugar Bowl against an SEC team and possibly to Tempe against a Big XII team but that's a different story.  The B1G didn't "earn" home field in those cases.  And you certainly can't argue a weather disadvantage at the Sugar Bowl because the game is in a dome (much like the B1G Championship Game).

 

Brodie

May 19th, 2012 at 1:39 PM ^

I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that other than the Pac-12, the B1G has the largest following of any conference on the west coast. So as long as we're not playing Oregon or whoever, we probably would have an advantage in LA. 

GGV

May 19th, 2012 at 12:20 PM ^

 

the B1G's preferences were as follows:
 
1a)  Host some games againt southern schools in the north.
 
1b) Preserve the Rose Bowl with B1G champ VS PAC12 champ.
 
3)  Allow the SEC to dictate terms and dominate the playoff.
 
 
 
The SEC wouldn't' go for 1a.  The B1G and PAC12 wouldn't accept 3 (why should we when we control the major media markets?).  Everyone seeems to have settled on 1b.  It's called compromise!
 
Now that we have the SEC champ playing the B1G12 champ on NYD and the BIG champ vs PAC12 champ in the Rose, we can get onto the inevitable "leage" of four 16 team conferences.  It really is the best possible outcome.
 
Now we can sit back and relax while the remaining shoes drop.  Will ND choose to become relevant or continue to hide from reality?  Who will bolt from the ACC?  Would GA Tech be a good fit in the B1G?  Which four teams will join the PAC?  In the end, it doesn't really matter because we will have our cake and eat it too.

GGV

May 19th, 2012 at 1:48 PM ^

 

They have a rather good engineering school.  The  olympics left them with some choice athletic facilities as well.  If the ACC starts to crumble, wouldnt they be on the short list?
 
Distance-wise, they are as far from Ann Arbor as is the University of Minnesota...
 
I do agree with you that GT would be a bit of a stretch, but curious to hear your reasoning.  Seems like in this brave new world of college football, a lot of the old reasons may have gone by the wayside.  

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 19th, 2012 at 12:50 PM ^

If you hate the Rose Bowl because you must have a national champion and it must be determined your way and college football is just ruined if it's not......then you never really liked the Rose Bowl that much to begin with.

Wolverine Devotee

May 19th, 2012 at 12:52 PM ^

Here is my dream-

16 team playoff

Auto-bids to conference champions of ACC, Big 12, Big East, B1G, C-USA, MAC, MWC, PAC-12, SEC.

8 at-large bids based on an RPI-style ranking.

First Rounds and Quarterfinals played at higher seeds, Semifinals and Championship played at a rotating BCS bowl site (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton).

Consolation bowls for teams who don't make the playoffs. Matchups in those bowls that aren't selected by bowl reps, but determined by their RPI ranking. (example: Fiesta Bowl: #17 v #18)

MaizeNBlueAboveALL

May 19th, 2012 at 1:01 PM ^

The fact is either way we are fighting to preserve the Rose bowl against the PAC 12 champ and people want to argue about distance travelled? I love the tradition of the Rose bowl and everything it stands for but it is stupid to argue about distance travelled against an SEC school when there is a distinct advantage for PAC12 schools against us. I am sorry but I would much rather have a game at the Big House if we are seeded to fit that. The hell with travelling to Cali to have a "home" game in someone else's stadium that is 2,000+ miles away. I am sorry but times are changing and it is ridiculous that these cry baby conferences(SEC mainly) do not want to play in the cold weather. The reason being is that they are so used to having their way and dominating everyone, not only on the field but off, they are the cry baby sibling that always gets their way. The hell with the Rose bowl and the hell with this seed bullshit. If you are a top seed and you get home field advantage, you play at YOUR stadium!!!! If you want to go to the Rose bowl then do not go undefeated and compete for NC, just compete for conference championships. I love the whole goal of being conferences champions but the real focus should be winning NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS and re-establishing our dominance in college football, not just our fairly weak conference. I am sorry but our conference has some good teams but the SEC's makeup is a powerhouse and it is that way because they for one cheat but two they want NC's not conference championships.

GGV

May 19th, 2012 at 1:43 PM ^

 

Mostly because the SEC signs 5 classes for every 4 we do.  
 
IMHO, the whole "national champtionship" thing is over-rated.  Look at the NFL.  When was the last time the best team in the NFL won the Superbowl?  It's been a while.  I wouldn't want that for College Football.

LSAClassOf2000

May 19th, 2012 at 2:34 PM ^

The problem that I see with this statement, first and foremost, 12 teams out of 32 get into the NFL playoffs.  Presumably, you would agree that one of them is the best, but when 3/8 of the league is in postseason play, the chances of the presumed "best" team being eliminated are fairly significant. That being said, I find that one of the more intriguing aspects of the NFL postseason, the potential for the "little team that could", if you will, to win it all.

Now, for the sake of simplicity, let's just take the number of teams in the Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-12, SEC. ACC and Big East (the teams thay play D-1 football in the case of the Big East). That's 66 teams just there (not counting the rest of D-1), if my figuring is right (going from memory admittedly), so I would dare say that,  in a four-team format based on seeding, the best team will  make it to the NC game quite a bit, if the seeding is based on something tangible like overall record anyway. There would be less argument in this scenario, I would think. 

Now, as for the Rose Bowl itself, I would  think that it is actually the Rose Bowl's responsibility to figure out how it fits into a post-BCS world and not that of the Big Ten or Pac-12. The conferences should ideally be concerned with representing the regions in which they reside with the help of their member schools. The sentiment for the tradition of the Rose Bowl is noted, but if we're going to come by a playoff honestly, the Bowls have to be decoupled from it on some level if not altogether. It is entirely possible for the Rose Bowl to be in the discussion, of course - it could even be the host of the runner-up for either the Big Ten or Pac-12 or both depending on who is in the playoff in a given year. Several scenarios could be worked out, I imagine. 

 

GGV

May 20th, 2012 at 1:19 AM ^

that if we're going to have a post season, then the winner should be the best team or at least have a high probability of being the best team.  Most pro sports seem too post season heavy for my tastes and I have a hard time swallowing nonsensical results like the Giants over the Patriots.

Brodie

May 19th, 2012 at 1:48 PM ^

it's called compromise. it seems like way too many of you only wanted a playoff if it conformed to what you wanted it to be. It was never going to. I'd rather we not waste our time and effort on an issue like home games that we were never going to win on while letting the SEC dictate the terms on everything else. 

grumbler

May 19th, 2012 at 3:00 PM ^

False dichotomy.  The choice wasn't between "home games" while "letting the SEC dictate the terms on everything else" and compromise, it was between various compromises, none of which included "letting the SEC dictate the terms on everything" but one issue.

The real issue here was whether or not the bowl system had the clout to kill home-field playoff games the first time they were brought up.  It did, with the aid of some fair-weather teams from some of the other conferences.  You can't convince me that teams like Oklahoma and Texas didn't drool at the thought of playing at home, even with the risk they would be playingin Colombus instead.  Be that as it may, the die has been cast.

This issue isn't over, though.  When the playoff expands to three rounds (which it will), the first round will almost certainly end up being played at home fields or within-conference-footprint sites the week after the conference championship game, IMO.

The current decision has nothing to do with the Rose Bowl per se, and the money issues can be as easily worked out for home-field games as for bowls.

graybeaver

May 19th, 2012 at 3:12 PM ^

Please explain to me how a playoff game at the big house in dec or jan wouldn't make as much money. I guarantee the game would have 114,000 + fans in attendence. I guarantee the tv ratings would be just as good if not better than if the game were played in FL or CA. It would depend on the opponent. If it were a top tier SEC or PAC 12 team it would be a smashing success. Jim Delaney gave in to the SEC to preserve the Rose Bowl tradition. One would think that Dave Brandon would recognize that Michigan historically doesn't do so great in the rose bowl. Especially against Southern Cal.

DoubleB

May 19th, 2012 at 3:40 PM ^

You have 2 playoff games, one in Eugene, Oregon in front of 60,000, the other in Ann Arbor in front of 115,000. Who gets the money? Concessions? Parking? Does it all go to the NCAA and Michigan loses money hosting the game? How are the tickets priced? Are season-ticket holders given any consideration? Remember, you don't know the matchups or location until the regular season is completed and Michigan-Florida is a hell of lot more attractive than say Michigan-South Florida. 

There are legitimate logistical issues involved here that a neutral site doesn't have to concern itself with. Can they be solved? Yes, but it requires some negotiations and it's a hell of lot more complex than simply saying the SEC/Big XII doesn't want to play up north.

As an aside, there's an incredible weather bias in almost all discussions involving football. Like somehow it was meant to be played in cold weather and all the John Facenda "frozen tundra" stuff. If football was meant to be played in the cold, it would be played in winter. Secondly, as someone who grew up and played his ball in the South, football was survival in the heat and humidity. It wasn't crisp falls, but 100 degree days and sweating the minute you walked outside the house. I get that most of you either played or watched games in cold weather at some point living in the Midwest. But let's stop pretending that that is the only TRUE football. It isn't. And it's condescending to presume otherwise. 

DoubleB

May 19th, 2012 at 5:24 PM ^

never been part of the historical football season in college. It was originally an October / November sport with a movement towards September and even August as the number of games expanded.

"If football were meant to be played in the heat and humidity, August, and not November through January, would be when they play the games that matter."

That argument makes no sense. So I guess hockey is a spring/summer sport and baseball in late fall is typical.

I agree that football wasn't meant to be played in August. The conditions are brutal. But it is my experience as it is for many others, just as playing in the cold of late fall might be your experience. It doesn't make one better than the other.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 19th, 2012 at 6:10 PM ^

I don't think anyone is saying one is better than the other.  At least not in the context of this discussion.  But the first football game was in the North in November, so the idea that football is "not a winter sport" is crazy.  The truth is it's an all-weather sport, barring lightning, and only in the South do they refuse to play it in all weather.

DoubleB

May 19th, 2012 at 7:00 PM ^

November isn't winter. It can get wintry at times, but it's late fall.

"The truth is it's an all-weather sport, barring lightning, and only in the South do they refuse to play it in all weather."

What refusal? There are no bowl games in the Midwest. Is Florida supposed to sign up to play Illinois in December to prove their manhood? Out of conference games are generally over by September. When are these hypothetical games supposed to take place?

raleighwood

May 19th, 2012 at 6:21 PM ^

There's way too much emphasis placed on weather in these discussions.  Here's the breakdown December/January (taking average high for both months) weather in the BCS locations:

Miami - 77

New Orleans - 63 (but it doesn't matter because the game is played in a dome).

Tempe - 68

Pasadena - 68

Remember that all of these games are played in the late afternoon or evening so they won't be at the peak heat of the day (except the Rose Bowl which is played around 2:00 local time)

The average high in Ann Arbor in September and October is 67.  That covers 2/3 of the season and fits right in line with the temps at bowl sites. 

 

Bottom line....there is no weather advantage/disadvantage in the bowl games!  Geographic advantages certainly exist but people need to stop bitching about the weather issues.

 

 

 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

May 19th, 2012 at 6:22 PM ^

Bottom line....there is no weather advantage/disadvantage in the bowl games!

Nobody is saying there is.  The argument is that southern teams refuse to play in any kind of weather that might disadvantage them, so they force the geographical disadvantage on northern teams.  (And then brag about their superior attendance.)

DoubleB

May 19th, 2012 at 6:54 PM ^

"The argument is that southern teams refuse to play in any kind of weather that might disadvantage them, so they force the geographical disadvantage on northern teams."

Did I miss all the B1G games in the South in August and September?

What geographical disadvantage is the SEC imposing on the B1G? It wasn't their idea to keep the Rose Bowl. Let's not blame the SEC for something the B1G has decided is more important.

And the SEC isn't afraid to play games outside of the South. The SEC has won 3 of their last 6 national championships in Pac-10 territory (06, 09, 10) travelling farther than their opponent each time.

raleighwood

May 19th, 2012 at 7:04 PM ^

You're making way too much sense for this discussion.  It looks like B1G fans want to put SEC teams at a (supposed) weather disadvantage in bowl games while the B1G doesn't have to face the same kind of disadvantage in return. 

I'd love to see the B1G get some sort of true home field advantage geographically so that more fans can make it to the game. 

M-Dog

May 20th, 2012 at 11:11 PM ^

If we have to host a semi-final in the Rose Bowl, the real "enemy" is not the SEC.  It's the Pac 12.  I don't mind hosting LSU in the Rose Bowl.  I mind hosting USC.  It's the Pac 12 we have to worry about in the Rose Bowl semi-final scenario.  

As a consideration for the B1G not having a site within its footprint, it should be stipulated that the B1G would never have to host the Pac 12 in the Rose Bowl for a semi-final.  In the years when that would happen (it would not happen that often), the Pac 12 would switch to the other hosted bowl.