Delany: Non-division champs shouldn't have shot at title

Donate To GopherHole

This is coming from the same dumbass that came up with leaders and legends.
 

"BCS executive director Bill Hancock has said 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame's athletics director will present a "small number" of options — two to seven configurations — for a four-team playoff to their leagues at conference meetings."

What the
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
This is coming from the same dumbass that came up with leaders and legends.
Click to expand...

Yup. He's also the one who brought us the Big Ten Network and it's sweet, sweet, piles of money after telling ESPN to kiss his a**.
 

station19 said:
"BCS executive director Bill Hancock has said 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame's athletics director will present a "small number" of options — two to seven configurations — for a four-team playoff to their leagues at conference meetings."

What the
Click to expand...

Notre Dame is a special snowflake that must be protected. The BCS may be going away but Notre Dame's unusually large seat at the table is not.
 


GoAUpher said:
Notre Dame is a special snowflake that must be protected. The BCS may be going away but Notre Dame's unusually large seat at the table is not.
Click to expand...

And if you don't believe it, just ask them.
 

Yeah, I'm sure he'll be singing the same tune in a season where Michigan or Ohio St. goes 11-1 and loses their division.
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
This is coming from the same dumbass that came up with leaders and legends.
Click to expand...

I'd guess you're one of the folks who thought the BTN was a really stupid idea?

Delany's not perfect, but I sure as heck am thankful that he repesents the Big Ten. There's a reason the Big Ten brand continues to carry the most clout of any conference in the country, and Delany is a big reason why.
 

Big Jim is the Patton of the college football. creates leverage and then busts heads with it.
 



SelectionSunday said:
I'd guess you're one of the folks who thought the BTN was a really stupid idea?

Delany's not perfect, but I sure as heck am thankful that he repesents the Big Ten. There's a reason the Big Ten brand continues to carry the most clout of any conference in the country, and Delany is a big reason why.
Click to expand...

Really?!? More so than the SEC? I don't think so and I hate the SEC with the exception of Vandy and now A&M. And I'd guess you're one of the folks who thought leaders and legends was a really swell idea. And yes, dpodoll68 is probably right.
 

SelectionSunday said:
I'd guess you're one of the folks who thought the BTN was a really stupid idea?

Delany's not perfect, but I sure as heck am thankful that he repesents the Big Ten. There's a reason the Big Ten brand continues to carry the most clout of any conference in the country, and Delany is a big reason why.
Click to expand...

You're right about Delany and Delany is right about this issue. If a team doesn't win their conference title they have no business playing in the national championship game. This is college football - not basketball, hockey, or any other sport. Conference titles in football mean something.
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
Really?!? More so than the SEC? I don't think so and I hate the SEC with the exception of Vandy and now A&M. And I'd guess you're one of the folks who thought leaders and legends was a really swell idea. And yes, dpodoll68 is probably right.
Click to expand...

No argument that the SEC rules football, however, you missed my point. Big Ten's brand name & clout as a conference overall, not just on the football side of things.

And you are correct. I'm probably in the minority, but Legends and Leaders has never bothered me. Not a big deal. The Big Ten seems to be surviving just fine despite the ridicule it received for its football division names. The only thing I was surprised by was that Michigan wasn't placed in the Leaders Division (because of the line in its fight song), not that we should cater to Go Blue.
 

I agree with Delaney, why allow subjective reasoning to take precedence over objective competition. A team that doesn't win it's division doesn't qualify through head to head competition, why let rankings which by their nature allow human likes and dislikes to enter the picture.
 



And based off not winning a conference championship should automatically prevent independent teams from competing for the title. I'm absolutely in favor of that.

The only problem is what happens the year that the Legends winner is 12-1 after a loss to the Leaders winner who is 7-6, and SEC East winner at 8-5 after beating the SEC West winner at 12-1, and the Pac12 winner at...

You could easily have the top several teams in the nation not competing for the title under this scenario. The question always is, do you want the best team, or the team that won their last two games? Tough debate.

No matter what is done there will be teams upset year after year...
 

Lakeville Goldy said:
The only problem is what happens the year that the Legends winner is 12-1 after a loss to the Leaders winner who is 7-6, and SEC East winner at 8-5 after beating the SEC West winner at 12-1, and the Pac12 winner at...
Click to expand...

Delaney is talking about winning the division within a conference. In Delaney's scenario, LSU would've still gotten in the four-team playoff if they lost to Georgia in the title game, while Alabama would've been left out.
 

jovs said:
I agree with Delaney, why allow subjective reasoning to take precedence over objective competition. A team that doesn't win it's division doesn't qualify through head to head competition, why let rankings which by their nature allow human likes and dislikes to enter the picture.
Click to expand...

This; this completely. If they can't make their own Conference Championship why should they play for a National Championship? The "hey, give a second chance" shouldn't apply in a sport with only a 12 game season. No losers of a Conference Championship should get in either.
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
Really?!? More so than the SEC? I don't think so and I hate the SEC with the exception of Vandy and now A&M. And I'd guess you're one of the folks who thought leaders and legends was a really swell idea. And yes, dpodoll68 is probably right.
Click to expand...

The names are stupid as hell but they are pointless and have zero relationship to the conference's power. If that's your only example of Delaney's mistakes then you're not doing a good job of making your point.
 

Iceland12 said:
This; this completely. If they can't make their own Conference Championship why should they play for a National Championship? The "hey, give a second chance" shouldn't apply in a sport with only a 12 game season. No losers of a Conference Championship should get in either.
Click to expand...

So you're saying teams that play in an average or bad major conference should have an advantage over teams that play in a very good conference? I don't understand that. Pick the top two or four teams, plain and simple.

What if there are only two teams from a major conference with less than 2 losses? One team has one loss, the other no losses. And those two teams played a triple OT game in the regular season game. The one loss team doesn't play in the CC and would then would not have a chance at the NC if this were to happen. But two or even three loss teams potentially would. That doesn't make sense to me at all. Pick the best teams, plain and simple.
 

GophersInIowa said:
So you're saying teams that play in an average or bad major conference should have an advantage over teams that play in a very good conference? I don't understand that. Pick the top two or four teams, plain and simple.

What if there are only two teams from a major conference with less than 2 losses? One team has one loss, the other no losses. And those two teams played a triple OT game in the regular season game. The one loss team doesn't play in the CC and would then would not have a chance at the NC if this were to happen. But two or even three loss teams potentially would. That doesn't make sense to me at all. Pick the best teams, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

The argument to that is, that second place team 'had' their chance to win it on the field. Picking the teams is always subjective.
 

GophersInIowa said:
So you're saying teams that play in an average or bad major conference should have an advantage over teams that play in a very good conference? I don't understand that. Pick the top two or four teams, plain and simple.

What if there are only two teams from a major conference with less than 2 losses? One team has one loss, the other no losses. And those two teams played a triple OT game in the regular season game. The one loss team doesn't play in the CC and would then would not have a chance at the NC if this were to happen. But two or even three loss teams potentially would. That doesn't make sense to me at all. Pick the best teams, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Has that ever even happened in a 12 game season? How about five teams ending the season with the same record? Or three teams with one record and four more with the same record. Or one undefeated team, two teams with one loss and three with two?

All of those are more probable and they all f-up a four team playoff. They mess-up a plus one also. They've even messed-up the present system.

A good team in a bad conference will always have an advantage because they always have a chance for a better record. I just think that if a conference has a way to establish a Champion that a loser in that Conference shouldn't get to play for the National Championship.

It's just an opinion G.I.I.

It's a sport where team's schedules are virtually never compatible. Where some S.E.C. teams never even leave their Region or have gone years without playing each other. Where PAC !2 schools travel all over the country and Boise State plays 2 or 3 teams a years that even have a chance to beat them. Where one Division in the Big Ten has 4 or 5 teams that can win it all and the other has two.

Heck, didn't Alabama become National Champion last year by beating only 3 or 4 teams with a winning record?

No a lot of it will still be subjective not objective. To me and maybe others losing your Division should disqualify you for a National Championship.
 


Wall ST Journal has an article today about how playoffs will kill the Rose Bowl BT PAC tradition. Cripes, by the time the gophs play in the Rose Bowl the game will be just another Micron PC game.
 

Know it will never happen, but part of me wishes the Big Ten and Pac 12 would just say, "Screw the rest of you, we're sending our conference champions to the Rose Bowl no matter what kid of a playoff there is." Pasadena would still be the Granddaddy of them all. Don't underestimate the clout of the B1G and Pac 12, the two most respected & powerful conferences in all of college sports.

Would the B1G and Pac 12 miss out on a chance to win the crystal trophy awarded to the playoff champion? In some (but not all) seasons, absolutely that would be the case. But who's to say that if a B1G or Pac 12 team came out of the Rose Bowl with as good of an argument as anyone to be the national champion, that some kind of poll (like the old days, AP, UPI) wouldn't vote them the national champion?

If I'm a Rose Bowl champion and a split national championship happens to come along with it, I'd take it. There's no rule saying you can't hang a banner for an AP national championship.

Sadly, however, I suspect that most of the B1G and Pac 12 coaches wouldn't feel the same way.
 

Maximus said:
Delaney is talking about winning the division within a conference. In Delaney's scenario, LSU would've still gotten in the four-team playoff if they lost to Georgia in the title game, while Alabama would've been left out.
Click to expand...

Ah - I misread that as Conference Champ. My bad. I was still in favor either way, but this makes more sense.
 

When is he going to move Wisconsin to the West where it belongs - and Michigan to the East?
 


station19 said:
The argument to that is, that second place team 'had' their chance to win it on the field. Picking the teams is always subjective.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that argument if there are other teams with similar resumes. I'm just saying that I wouldn't like the "automatically being disqualified from the National Championship" rule. Generally, yes it would make sense. But there are situations where a team should get that chance IMO.
 

GophersInIowa said:
I don't disagree with that argument if there are other teams with similar resumes. I'm just saying that I wouldn't like the "automatically being disqualified from the National Championship" rule. Generally, yes it would make sense. But there are situations where a team should get that chance IMO.
Click to expand...

If there are only four teams in the playoff I definitely think the second place team should not be allowed, for reasons stated above. If the tournament evolves to eight or more teams, then fine-kind of like the BB tournament evolved.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom