WSJ Says B1G and PAC12 Should skip playoff to Save Rose Bowl
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203604577396102303663334.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Basically it states the best thing about college football is the rose bowl, and a playoff system would make it less special
I agree
Why not just play for the B1G championship then go play against the Pac-12 in the Rose Bowl? What does UofM really lose?
but how are we going to be voted national champions when a highly rated team beats two more highly rated teams and we just beat a PAC 12 team that under these rules might not even be in the top 5?
The Rose Bowl is one of the best properties on sports television and they should be strengthening it, not weakening it. In Brandon-speak, it's a premium brand -- a far superior brand to "The College Football Semifinals."
It's also a cash cow for the B1G and Pac-12 -- one that the other leagues don't have. The Sugar Bowl is a joke compared to the Rose Bowl.
We should be using the Rose Bowl's cache to squeeze Slive and the others, who must know about the Rose Bowl's superiority. My reading of the tea leaves is that Delaney sees things essentially this way, and I hope he holds firm. Scott isn't as strong, but he's pro-Rose Bowl, too.
http://www.prideofdetroit.com/2012/5/11/3014651/detroit-lions-rookie-mi…
The "national championship" has been no less mythical in the BCS era than it was before. It's actually worse now, because people now believe it isn't mythical.
And in exchange for those delusions, we've had to get in bed with the SEC and people like Nick Saban -- an amoral cheater, whose mission has exactly zero to do with education or developing men. Why would the University of Michigan ever join up with an institutional framework driven by the ideas and values of institutions like the University of Alabama and people like Nick Saban?
We all know our way is superior to that and we should be driving this conversation. We don't need those people.
This is like rooting to win the NIT title because UNC and Duke are too strong for Michigan to compete against. Compete against the best and if we lose to SEc teams then so be it.
"Oh hey high school kids, come to *Insert big ten school here*. You cant really play for a national championship or anything, but you know, we have the rosebowl. You know that bowl game where if you win, nothing happens, and if you lose, nothing happens? But hey, its tradition!"
Winner of the Rose Bowl vs Winner of the NCAA Playoff = everyone happy.
To me, removing two of the most storied conferences from the national championship discussion under a new playoff system for the sake of a bowl game which has already been set in the background to a certain extent seems like a strange stand on principle. If there is a playoff system in which my team can participate and possibly win, then I must say that I would rather be involved in that.
The quibble, of course, is what the playoff system should look like, but if I can be #1 period, then that beats the Rose Bowl, in my opinion. I want the Big Ten to participate in the discussion regarding what such a system looks like. Of course, if we end up in the Rose Bowl as the Big Ten champions even in a playoff system, that is awesome as well. I personally would like to have the tradition of the Rose Bowl and the possibility of the NC year-to-year.
Under such a proposal, even if you are the best in one of those conferences, your image, relevance and recruiting in a system where there is a Rose Bowl and then the national championship hunt are lessened if you send the message that you are merely satisfied with the former when you could achieve the latter. They are both great achievements, of course, but if you are eligible for the playoffs, then why not play in them?
The Big Ten and Pac 12 standing firm and dropping out of any playoffs to keep the Rose Bowl is simply commiting football suicide.
Nobody arguing for the Rose Bowl has addressed the various posters that have mentioned that ZERO top-shelf recruits will come to a school that can't even play in a NC playoff game. Hoke could espouse the virtues of our system till he was blue in the face and recruits would only look over his shoulder to get a better glimpse of the NC playoff promos running constantly on ESPN. Once we lose the ability to realistically recruit top players, the quality of football will drop, less fans will be interested in our teams, which leads to even weaker teams, etc.
The last 100 years the only way to win the national championship for a Big Ten team was to go to the Rose Bowl. Now, if we told a student athlete that if they came to our school they wouldn't have a shot at a NC game, but they could play in the Rose Bowl they would laugh in our faces.
But probably we'd just cripple ourselves.
Again: There will not be such a thing as a "national championship game" without the B1G and Pac-12 conferences involved in the system. It will not exist. There will be nothing to miss out on, nothing that recruits would "prefer" more.
Under the old system, the SEC champion went to the Sugar Bowl -- an inferior bowl. All the BCS has done is set up a system that the SEC can propagandize and rig and pretend they've won "national championships." It was a mistake for the B1G and Pac-12 to let that happen. The SEC needs the B1G and Pac-12 to keep doing that and the B1G and Pac-12 should either (i) not participate, and keep the Rose Bowl and its money to themselves: or (ii) extract a very high price for participating, including insisting on methods of selection and location of games.
...if we hang onto the Rose Bowl. Any tourney will be less valid than the AP vote if the Big 10 and Pac 12 are excluded form it.
I don't believe that's what will happen, but that's what would happen if we stuck to our guns. I just don't think there's enough money in maintaining the Rose Bowl.
to people who need to have life spelled out in a-b-c, 1-2-3 fashion. No technique or system can accurately capture any worldly thing, and no perfect, crystalline result is possible. We're deluded to think we can put that fine a point on it, and why should we want to? All we get is contentious hand-wringing every year. The BCS was a hilarious example of this techno "who's number one?" obsession. The old bowls-plus-voting was perfectly adequate for the nature of the activity, i.e. a game. Who exactly is number one given the infinite factors involved (schedule, conference, recruiting rules, academic standards, campus env't, etc.) is impossible to determine.
Michigan has this great stadium and a bunch of great opponents and the game against the Pac 10. It's never been better. Why rely on some NC to give your program legitimacy? People should enjoy the subtler aspects of it, rather than worry over abstractions like the NC. Go undefeated, and then worry about the NC. It shows a lack of confidence in Michigan to forget its unique qualities and history in favor of this compulsion to nationalize at all costs. The NC, as an actual system rather than just a vote, minimizes the importance of each school's character and tradition. Tradition matters. Using a ball, white lines on the field, four downs, are also traditions. Throw out tradition and the activity disappears altogether.
...UM goes undefeated, wins the B1G, is ranked #1, plays a playoff game and wins, goes to a NC game in Florida and wins, ends the season 14-0 and #1. Does not play in the Rose Bowl. You'd be disappointed? Tradition be damned, I'll take it.
That's not the issue at all. You are not getting it.
The question is what the "playoffs" do to the rest of the season, and the nature of the game for years to come. What happens in the other 2 or 12 or 22 years when Michigan is not in a national championship game?
The author of your signature line didn't want a college football playoff. It might be time for you to change it.
of the regular season was an issue when Major League Baseball went to divisions back in 1969. The addition of another round of playoffs didn't seem to hurt baseball in the subsequent decades (although strikes sure did).
Born 1930 something, died in the seventies.
For some of the guys that waited for the Chicago All Star College football classics. The college all stars would play the last year's NFL champ. Some good stuff sometimes goes away. "That game" some would say is an old man's game but who in hell wouldn't want to see a 5* team play against last year's Super Bowl champ? Keep tradition and fuck the networks. The way the B1G and the Pac12 are getting top ranked teams maybe the consensus would have the champ of the Rose Bowl be the team to play for the NC. The BCS can drum up another bowl and their winner would play the next round. Rose Bowl winner plays the BCS bowl winner. Keep the Rose and let everyone else chase the Grandaddy. This plays out inseveral ways. It gives credit to the Rose, ups the leverage to 50% to play for the NC. Never give up your postition of power in any negotiations. You got a legit 2 power conferences to play for the NC.
I was young, but even I could tell the pros were phoning it in. I'm not a big fan of all-star games in general other than baseball, so that may be part of it, but I'm not sure we're missing that much. That said, thank you for the bit of nostalgia.
How can anyone think that playing in the Rose Bowl would be more important than playing for the NC. There is no logic in that at all. The goal every year is to go undefeated and win it ALL.
The goal is the win the Big Ten Championship. Weren't you paying attention? ;)
The schools of the Big Ten and Pac-12... need to renew their vows and pledge themselves to serve the greater glory of the best thing about college football: the Rose Bowl... The Granddaddy of Them All would remain what it is now: one of the greatest spectacles in sports.The best thing in college football is The Rose Bowl? It is good to know that I have been deluded all of this time into thinking that it might be Michigan-Ohio State, tailgating, The Victors, The Big House, Michigan-Notre Dame, Little Brother etc, etc. I am sure that the fans of Tennessee, Texas, USC, Army and Navy, etc. would also all put the Rose Bowl on top of their list as well.
What they don't mention is that a playoff would diminish the value of the Rose Bowl, which has long been college football's most prized asset. Since it was launched in 1902 to promote tourism, the game has enjoyed a golden history. It was the first college-football game aired on national TV in 1952 and, 10 years later, the first broadcast in color. It consistently draws more than 90,000 fansAs far as the popularity of the game, is that more due to the popularity of the teams from the conferences (Big Ten has led in attendance and TV audience for almost forever) and the quality of the competition (and the quality of the competition would only be better in a playoff format) than whatever it is that the Rose Bowl delivers?
Since 1947, when what are now the Big Ten and Pac-12 began playing each other there annually, it has hosted classic matchups: the winged helmets of Michigan against golden-armed Southern California; UCLA's sun-and-sky uniforms against Ohio State's icy helmets; Oregon's speed and innovation against Wisconsin's massive linemen.So the Rose Bowl is great because of the traditions of the institutions affiliated with the Rose Bowl. These match-ups can occur anywhere and have, Oregon-Michigan and Ohio State-USC have just recently been home and homes. Michigan used to play Washington, Stanford and UCLA on occasion as well. And as I recall, the players wore the same helmets they would wear if playing in the Rose Bowl.
"It's not only the Rose Bowl," Delany said during BCS meetings last month, "it's the Midwest, it's the West Coast. It's one of the top 10 single-day television properties in the world, and it performs."So does the Super Bowl, March Madness, and the World Cup. All playoffs, they deliver each and every year (or when the World Cup is played).
The Big Ten has some of the nation's most massive stadiums and largest alumni bases. The Pac-12 has won more national titles across all sports than any other conference. Both have TV-rights deals worth about $250 million annually. Beyond sports, both have a majority of members in the prestigious 61-member Association of American Universities. No other major athletic conference can say that.Again, the Rose Bowl is great because of the schools in the conferences affiliated with it. But what the hell does the Rose Bowl deliver? The article concludes:
The Big Ten and Pac-12 should pack up, move on and stick with the game that helped make them great.The Rose Bowl helped to make the Big Ten great? Yeah, Michigan versus Ohio State, The Victors, The Little Brown Jug, Hopalong Cassidy, Tom Harmon, Woody Hayes, Nile Kinnick, Fielding Yost, the Big House, the 'shoe, "Little Brother" (I had to throw that one in) and a whole host of other's much too numerous to mention didn't make the Big Ten great. The Rose Bowl made the Big Ten great. Oh, now I get it. Same could be said for the Pac 10 as well. What exactly is it that the Rose Bowl delivers that is independent of the two conferences and their affiliated schools? The best that I can come up with is that they seem to have the nicest field in January, a parade that nobody watches on TV, and a nice place for Section 1 to play golf at. Am I missing anything else? The prettiest logo? I contend that it is not the Rose Bowl that makes the conferences great, it is the institutions, with their traditions, that make the Rose Bowl great. The two conferences, prior to the 1947 exclusive agreement, did just fine (Michigan won most of its national championships prior to 1947), and they will do equally well post-Rose Bowl.