What's even weirder is that Dennis Dodd is adding his own approval of this argument. While I can safely say I wouldn't be surprised to hear bad ideas coming from Dodd, I am a little surprised with Wetzel who is usually a much smarter writer than this. I normally don't break down writer's work but this seems to merit the Sioux City Journal treatment so let's take a look at this/
"Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe all but killed his own conference on April 30, 2008.
That’s when he decided to team up with the Big Ten and Pac-10 to reject a four-team playoff being pushed by the SEC and ACC. If the Big 12 (and/or the Big East) had supported it, the so-called “Plus One” model likely would’ve happened."
First off, Beebe killed his conference long before that point be refusing to think proactively about television deals and by continually alienating the brass up in Lincoln. His choice to oppose the playoff push was, and as a matter of fact still is, in the best interest of the majority of the schools who play in his conference (more on that later). Second, how are you sure this would have happened? I mean this is the second paragraph of your article and you have already made several outlandish unsupported statements that we are given no reason to believe. What's to stop the Big Ten and Pac 10 packing up the Rose Bowl and leaving? It's not like they haven't threatened to do it before.
"Even that modest playoff would have meant hundreds of millions of additional revenue for college athletics. It would have then allowed for easy expansion for an even more lucrative 16-team postseason. That would have solved all the monetary concerns that have left the Big 12 on the verge of collapse at the hands of its one-time allies, the Big Ten and Pac-10.
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany admitted to Congress a 16-team playoff could gross four times what the current Bowl Championship Series does – in other words about $900 million annually."
Here is my question, if there really is this great evidence that a playoff would earn more money, where is it? I mean, wouldn't that be a huge story? "BCS costing college football millions"? I mean I don't doubt there is some study out there that says just that but wouldn't it be in a legitimate news source right now if it was from a reliable source? I mean if I just havn't read it yet feel free to post it in the comments but I have looked and looked for it and cannot find it. Also, I don't doubt that Delany testified but please let me know where you found that since I again did a search and can't find a word on it anywhere.
Conference expansion is about to forever alter college athletics: destroying traditions, hammering taxpayers and increasing competition. It will leave once-major programs out of the loop, consolidate power and extend the gap between haves and have nots – even within leagues such as the Big Ten.
How does adding Nebraska hurt parity in the Big Ten? By being a more competitive league? By creating more prime matchups that will inevitably drive up already massive television deals? How exactly does this hurt parity in the league? And whose taxpayers are hurt in this? Nebraska's? The state just gained access to long term financial upgrades in addition to massive upticks in a huge swing in prestige in its' flagship university. Even if this does somehow increase their taxes, the long termbenefits are so ridiculously worth it that they would be stupid to complain about it.
"Conference expansion is about to forever alter college athletics: destroying traditions, hammering taxpayers and increasing competition. It will leave once-major programs out of the loop, consolidate power and extend the gap between haves and have nots – even within leagues such as the Big Ten."
How well did that work out?
"It’s clear now that Delany used opposition to a football playoff not to preserve some bit of 'tradition.' His expansion plans clearly indicate he cares nothing about that. It certainly wasn’t done for the sake of aiding Big Ten football, since a playoff with on-campus home games likely would’ve helped his teams."
The goal was to starve out the Big 12, Big East and even the ACC of the hundreds of millions a playoff would’ve given them and thus turn the future of college sports into a battle of television sets.
Here is the main issue with this statement; even with more funding for everybody, there is still a major discrepency between the television deals of the Big Ten and SEC versus everyone else. Assuming you are right about the playoff dolling out more money (which I want to remind you there has yet to be published evidence of) it still doesn't somehow magically change the fact that the Big Ten makes more money through media contracts than the Big 12. So even if Nebraska got moremoney from a playoff system (not a garauntee) they would still be in a conference controlled by Texas, would still have an academic advantage by joining the Big Ten, and would still stand to earn even more money with media deals.
"And let’s forget the ridiculous notion that the presidents are vehemently opposed to a playoff. The presidents will do whatever their commissioner says. It’s always been that case and the expansion chaos proves it. Ohio State’s Gee has been an anti-playoff guy in part because of “missed class time,” even if none would be missed under a playoff that takes place during semester break."
Where to begin on this one? Let's start with the outright falsehood that presidents follow the conference commisioners. Let's assume for a second that Wetzel is right in this assertion, wouldn't that be direct evidence that a playoff would earn more money? I mean conference commisioners are not accountable to people like teachers who have complained that a playoff would move into the academic year, and if Wetzel is right when he says that it is "always about the money" then it makes absolutely no sense why we wouldn't have a playoff. The idea that it was used to make the conference realignment happen obviously doesn't make sense because the discrepencies in funding would exsist regardless.
What does this really mean? Well, the truth is that Commisioners are the busy bodies who do the work that university presidents don't have time to do since they are, wait for it, running a major institution. The amount of work involved in coordinating a conference is best done by a centralized entity. Conference's, and their commisioners, exsist solely to ease the burden of athletic directors and school presidents. If you really need the heirarchy, a conference commisioner is on the same level as the athletic director. They both report to the school president (or presidents) and neither answers to the other in terms of athletics.
So if the president is in charge of everything why is it "ridiculous" to believe they are opposed to a playoff? They have to accountto the proffesor's and organizations who represent them, and none of those groups are wild about the idea of extending the college football season. The idea that a playoff should just be held "during break" is idiotic since not all universities share the same breaks oreven academic structure. Not every University operates on the semester system, and for some shcools a late playoff means that you would be scheduling right smack dab in the middle of the winter session. I mean the current BCS system already caused problems two yearsago when Florida was forced to miss class time because of the BCS title game.
But perhaps the greatest indicator of why presidents don't want a playoff then the argument brought forthby SI's Stewart Mandel in his recent mailbag.
"So ask yourself: Of the 67 schools that control the BCS, how many would actually benefit from a playoff? I.e., how many programs realistically compete on a regular basis for national championships? Ten? Maybe 15? At the very most, 20. But if you're at Michigan State, Ole Miss, Oregon State or any other rank-and-file BCS program, the current system is far preferable. You get to mooch financially off the two or three elite teams in your conference while at the same time competing for more realistic goals (an occasional conference title, decent bowl games) that keep your fans engaged and encouraged.
Reasonable minds may disagree as to whether a playoff would devalue the regular season, but the reality is, a playoff would completely alter fans' standards for success. Just like with any other sport, any season in which your team doesn't qualify for the playoffs would be deemed a failure. Which means, even with a 16-team playoff, roughly 85 percent of the country will be disappointed every season. And if you happen to be a fan of a team that perennially misses the playoff -- which, within some BCS conferences, might be eight out of 12 teams -- it stands to reason that your interest in the sport would wane."
Add the the threat of losing recruiting advantages along with threatsof loss in alumni donations, prospective student interest, and the afformentioned issues with scheduling and it is kind of a no brainer as to why administrators are opposing a playoff.
So in summary, it is good that this article only made it online, since it would have been a bigger waste of paper than the National Inquirer. Dan Wetzel, you are normally a better writer than this, please start citing sources and stop throwing out conjecture like it is fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment