Who has a pimp hand? Delany has a pimp hand.

Submitted by iawolve on December 10th, 2010 at 3:45 PM

You can have all sorts of opinions about the man. However, he did get us the B10 network and Nebraska in addition to a recent slap down of the little guys in NYC. This was more "bitch where's my money" than worrying about equity outside of his base conference.

 

In a reply to WAC commissioner Benson commenting on how his teams can play on the big stage, Delany broke off a little history 

"The problem," Delany interrupted, "is your big stage takes away opportunities for my teams, to play on the stage they created in 1902."

 

When Benson asked for more top-tier bowl access, Delany sounded a bit Tony Soprano:

"We gave up the Rose Bowl, the SEC gave up access to the Sugar Bowl, others were included but they never had access to any of this before. You have to understand who brought what to the table. Who's continuing to give and who's continuing to get."

 

Where is the guy with the baseball bat for Benson? Not sure if it is because of the way the story was written or if it really sounded this mafia in person.

http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/12/09/jim-delany-warns-non-aq-leagues-dont-expect-more-than-youre/

 

Comments

Hannibal.

December 10th, 2010 at 3:49 PM ^

Finally, somebody says it.  I'm tired of the bitching and moaning from the Johnny-come-lately programs with 30,000-seat stadiums about how they don't get their share of the pie. 

jared32696

December 10th, 2010 at 3:54 PM ^

University of Louisiana at Lafayette just hired Mississippi State's Offensive Coordinator. It was announced 10 minutes ago over here in Lafayette......

I'll post an article as soon as I get it...  Go to Raginpagin.com for more information

Blue_Sox

December 10th, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^

I saw this yesterday and totally agree with Delany. When you think about it, the little programs really are parasites to the BCS conferences. Nothing makes this stand out more than the Boise State game vs. Idaho this year. Idaho plays in a glorified basketball arena with a capacity of 16,000. If Boise had gone to a BCS bowl game this year...Idaho would have profited $1 million dollars from it.

Do they really deserve that? Heck no. They make marginal investments into their football program, like most of the WAC schools, yet get that kind of payout. Compare that with even the doormat schools in the power conferences and their investments into their program and you can see why Delany is so pissed about sharing with them.

MI Expat NY

December 10th, 2010 at 4:31 PM ^

Does Indiana really deserve whatever it gets from Wisconsin's and OSU's bowl appearances?  Does Vandy deserve their SEC share?  How about Duke?  Those are your true parasites.  This year, the Big Ten's share will be more than all non-BCS conferences combined.  Indiana will get 1/11th of the big ten's share.  Idaho will get somewhere in the range of 1/36th of a smaller share.  You know how many Rose Bowls Indiana has played in?  One.  The same as non-BCS members, Navy, Tulane, SMU, and a handful of FCS schools, yet you call Idaho the parasite while ignoring Indiana.  

Here is the problem with Delaney's statements.  He claims that all this tradition established by the BCS conferences is what has made College Football what it is today.  But that's garbage.  Michigan, OSU, Alabama, Texas, Notre Dame, USC etc. made College Football what it is today.  There's a whole heaping of BCS schools that were just along for the ride.  It's those schools that the WAC schools of the world want to be able to compete with, but with the inequality inherent in the BCS, they are unlikely to ever have the resources to do it.

st barth

December 10th, 2010 at 4:57 PM ^

For all those wins by tradition building powers like Michigan and Alabama, there needs to be losses by conference doormats such as Indiana & Vanderbilt.  You can disparage those programs as parasitic if you want but it is still a symbiotic relationship.  Delaney's point is that, for example, the Big 10/Pac10 and Rose Bowl have had a very healthy ecology of relationships and that they have very little motivation to open that up to invasive species.

Besides, even the Harlem Globetrotters need the Washington Generals.

MI Expat NY

December 10th, 2010 at 5:10 PM ^

I understand that.  I do.  But it ignores the symbiotic relationship between BCS conference members and non-BCS conference members.  Even the Indianas of the world need FBS competition they can beat to become bowl eligible, or at least try to become bowl eligible.  The Big 10 needs those teams, otherwise a losing conference record becomes a losing season for half of the conference.  Throwing a little money out of bowl revenues towards the smaller conferences and giving access to the occasional non-BCS undefeated team maintains a working relationship between the haves and the have-nots.  Being uppity about it really solves nothing.  

MI Expat NY

December 11th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^

It's not an argument for them to have a seat at the table.  It's an argument that The Big Ten needs these conferences as much as Michigan and Ohio State need Indiana.  If we make it harder for those conferences to remain as relatively competitive as they are, what incentive do they have to continue playing at the FBS level?  Eventually many of these schools playing FBS football but not in the BCS are going to recognize that the diminishing revenues aren't worth the cost. 

The BCS conferences don't get rich because of the bowls, they make their money because of TV contracts.  If giving a little access and some of the BCS money keeps the system in order, it's in the Big Ten's best interest to do so.  Besides, the Big Ten already has maximum access.  Ever since the fifth game was added, the Big Ten is all but assured of fillling two slots. 

coldnjl

December 10th, 2010 at 7:58 PM ^

how are they parasites. Because they suck in football? How about BBall. Indiana is the powerhouse and Michigan is the doormat. Sure, we were good for a period, a period that doesn't really exist.  

The strength of the powerhouse schools is actually in the cohesion and togetherness of all the schools in the Big Ten. THis is why the Big TEn is stronger then the SEC. They all contribute something to the pie. On top of this, you should understand from the expansion period that most of the the money comes from the academic side anyway.

MI Expat NY

December 11th, 2010 at 10:49 AM ^

What does the BCS have to do with basketball?  Indiana basketball provides nothing to the BCS contracts.  Indiana is a valuable member of the Big Ten, just not in football. 

Speaking of Basketball, the NCAA tournament is exactly the counterpoint the non-BCS raise when arguing for a seat at the table.  Butler makes the NCAA final and they're able to develop the resources to keep their hot-shot NCAA coach.  The Big conferences in basketball will always collectively have more resources than the mid-majors, but those conferences can compete, which makes for a better NCAA basketball product.

MI Expat NY

December 10th, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^

Also sort of ironic, Delaney criticizes the WAC while implying that the Big Ten "created" the Rose Bowl in 1902.  The Big Ten didn't send a representative to the Rose Bowl again for 45 years.  Meanwhile, the WAC literally created the Fiesta Bowl in 1971.

RED DAWN

December 10th, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^

In 1978, Arizona and Arizona State both joined the Pac-10 conference and the Fiesta Bowl's tie-in with the Western Athletic Conference ended.

Boise State University began fielding a football team in 1968, playing in Division II until 1977. The Broncos moved into the Football Championship Division (FCS) of Division I in 1978 and won their first national championship two years later. In 1996, the Broncos joined the Big West Conference and formally moved into FBS.

MI Expat NY

December 10th, 2010 at 5:24 PM ^

 I know what happened.  But really, you're missing my point.  Delaney lays the history card while ignoring that many non-BCS schools also have history.  Usually it's dormant history, but no more dormant than say Minnesota.  If you're going to use history to defend a new system don't be ignorant of half of it.  

Besides, College Football isn't what it is today (in terms of the power of the BCS conferences as compared to the non-BCS conferences) because of the Bowl games, it's because of television rights deals that started to develop after the 1984 antitrust case decided by the Supreme Court.  TV money is what started the separation.  Before then, you had southern and eastern independents who could compete.  After, you had the smart schools moving to conferences (FSU, Miami, Penn St.) or forming ones (the Big East) and those left in the cold slowly moving to a lesser tier of football.  This will remain the same no matter what happens with the BCS bowls.  I see no harm in splitting a portion the BCS revenues  and access with non automatic qualifiers.

As an aside, your Boise St. reference is garbage.  So they're undeserving of a BCS share because they didn't join the FBS until 1996, but South Florida who began playing in 1997 and didn't join the FBS until 2001 is?

HAIL-YEA

December 11th, 2010 at 7:23 AM ^

When you start letting the have-nots get a share of the pie, that pie shrinks. Where exactly do you think all this BCS money comes from? You think TV stations charge as much for advertising in those Boise-TCU games as  they can for UM- Florida or Alabama-Texas? In the end that money comes from us, big conference teams with big fanbases. So no, it is absolutly not fucking fair to give the WAC an automatic bid to a 15 million dollar payday when they dont bring anything close to that  to the table,

These Bowl games are not created to hand out money to poor universities..they were created to make money. When the Rose Bowl "committee" realized theyre getting TCU.. they know they just lost millions. You even made this pont yourself, tv money caused the separation. Do you really beleive UofM should get the same money as the Idaho's of the world?

MI Expat NY

December 11th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^

My argument may be naive, but yours isn't based in reality.  The non-BCS conferences piece of the pie grew when the entire pie grew bigger by adding a fifth game.  And the BSU-TCU game last year had ratings on par with Florida-Cincy and far better ratings than Georgia Tech.-Iowa. 

The Rose Bowl is an institution.  They will not lose millions with the TCU/Wisconsin match-up.  In fact, the game is pretty damn compelling.  It's certainly no worse for the Rose Bowl from when they voluntarily selected a three loss Illinois.

Finally, your last statement is a straw-man argument.  The Big 10's BCS take will be around $22M, If Boise had made the Rose Bowl instead of TCU, the WAC would have split about $10M.  They're not the same amounts as they shouldn't be.  I never said Idaho's take should equal UofM's.  My only point has always been that a little cooperation is better for the entire system than Delaney laying the "pimp hand."

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 11th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^

A little cooperation is what we have already, and there's nothing wrong with Delany laying the pimp hand to keep it that way.  I'm sure the status quo is just fine with the commissioners.  The dissolution of the BCS will come if the commissioners perceive that that's a better alternative to something that is forced upon them thanks to pressure from the "little guys."

MI Expat NY

December 11th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^

It's going to be less money soon anyway.  With 2 of the 3 teams that make an annual push towards the BCS joining, it pretty much just leaves Boise State.  C-USA is too fractured to produce an undefeted champ these days.  The WAC, MAC and Sun Belt won't be able to produce a team with the required resume.  Finally Boise State is unlikely to produce the two year run of the last couple seasons again.  They've had a special group, one that they can't put together all that often.  Maybe once every four or five years they'll put together the required resume.

The current run of non-BCS entrants are an anomoly.  The non-BCS's share is going to shrink naturally, and the non-BCS conferences know they don't have an argument to increase its share.  No "pimp-hand" necessary.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 11th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^

the non-BCS conferences know they don't have an argument to increase its share.

Rational people will understand that, but I'm afraid that won't stop certain politicians from ignoring the lack of a good argument and trying to push the BCS over the cliff anyway.  The politicians think if they can make the "opponent" look bad, people will flock to "their side" because that's how it works in a two-party system, and popular pressure will force change.  What they don't get is that college football fans are gonna watch their team regardless of what happens - so the money will always be there - and the conferences will continue to act in their best financial interest rather than react to the pressure in order to earn votes (as they would if they were an opposing politician.)

magnus_caerulus (not verified)

December 10th, 2010 at 10:03 PM ^

Wouldn't a "plus one" serve us just the same as the BCS?  Play the traditional bowl system, then have one more game to determine the NC.  There will be controversy no matter what, but at least this arguement of who deserves to play might be better served after the bowls, and see if the BSU and TCU's of the world shake out in their bowls and pass the eye test to get into a NC game? 

In reply to by magnus_caerulus (not verified)

bluenyc

December 11th, 2010 at 9:51 AM ^

I think a plus one is a compromise.  Problem is that I don't think  the commissioners would do that.  They lose 2 teams unless they move the Cotton Bowl or another up to BCS status.

mgomistercheezle

December 10th, 2010 at 4:20 PM ^

During Summers, I worked at a golf club where he was a member...and he struck me as a dorky, goofy, old guy.  Very vanilla--he just blended in with the crowd.  Then I read stuff like this, and realize he's a STONE COLD KILLER.  Wow.   My opinion of him has completely changed.

Tater

December 10th, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^

The biggest problem I see is the naming of bowls as "BCS" bowls.  If they just chose teams pretty much the same way without the title, nobody would have any reason to bitch.  As for the NC, the little guys don't belong there. 

We know that Auburn and Oregon can go through a difficult schedule undefeated.  All we know about TCU is that they can go through an easy schedule undefeated.  They have no supporting argument for a NC berth, nor does one-loss BSU.

magnus_caerulus (not verified)

December 10th, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^

Utah bounced to the PAC 10 for a reason.  TCU has followed suit.  BSU should have made a deal with the Big 12 or PAC 10.  They are nuts if they think the big six are going to give any more ground on the BCS. 

The FannMan

December 10th, 2010 at 5:01 PM ^

Or, we could just go back to what worked for 50 years and have the Big Ten play the Pac 12 winner in the Rose, the SEC go to the Sugar, etc.  1 may not play 2, but its not like everybody loves the BCS anyway.  The old way was good enough for Bear, Bo and Woody, it should be good enough now.

Now, get off my lawn!

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

December 10th, 2010 at 5:48 PM ^

Called it.  Called. It.  Who called it?  This guy called it.  I hate to say I told you so but I told you so.  I quote myself:

The BCS isn't going to go to a playoff because of a stupid investigation.  They'll disband first.  And then the Fiesta Bowl, instead of being an open game with at-large picks from any conference in the country, will do like every other bowl and sign agreements with a particular conference.  You want "the little guy" to play in the Fiesta Bowl?  You'd better keep the BCS together or they'll just lock out all but two conferences and the WAC can enjoy the New Mexico Bowl.

Believe it.  That post was about the Utah AG and his dipshit antitrust lawsuit.  And now Delany and the other five "BCS" commissioners are saying exactly what I said they would.  The "automatic qualification" to the BCS is no different than C-USA's automatic qualification to the Liberty Bowl, except that the big six conferences have arranged it so that there's a path for everyone to play.  It's just like I said: they'll disband the BCS before they institute a playoff.

Not usually a chest-thumper, but I tend to be right about this stuff.  Why?  Because 98% of people make no attempt to see things through the eyes of those (such as Delany) who make the decisions.  Time to start doing that, and then we can have an actual discussion about the BCS and playoffs.

magnus_caerulus (not verified)

December 10th, 2010 at 10:50 PM ^

Will college football ever have a clear cut "Champion"? The debate will linger no matter the system.