TGS 2008 BOWL PREVIEW: BEWARE THE THORNY ROSE!
by Bruce Marshall, TGS Website Editor
We have always thought a litmus test for a college football playoff argument is what sports fans might think if the wildly-popular “March Madness” in college hoops was replaced with a series of football-like basketball “bowl” games. Over several decades, we’ve yet to run into anyone who thought that was a good idea. And we’re not holding our breath until we find someone who does. But we’re also not holding our breath that anything is about to change with the current BCS arrangement in college football, which again has provided a wholly unsatisfying scenario to determine this year’s college football’s kingpin.
We’ll save further pro-playoff arguments for another time. In the meantime, however, we thought we’d bypass our normal BCS-bashing and instead focus our vitriol on what we believe is the real impediment to college football ever implementing a much overdue playoff system.
Folks, it’s the Rose Bowl.
We know all of the supposed virtues about the “Granddaddy of them all” and its special place on the New Year’s football schedule. We also know what sort of clout the Big Ten and Pac-10 are wielding over the rest of college football in order to keep their Pasadena gravy train afloat. And it is within this “special arrangement” that the selfish interests of the Big Ten and Pac-10 override the rest of the college football world. Thus, a quick refresher on the Rose Bowl, Big Ten, pac-10, and their reluctant involvement in the current BCS arrangement is probably in order.
Simply, until market forces change, the respective businesses of the Big Ten and Pac-10 don’t include anything to do with a playoff, whether its fans and coaches (including this year’s Rose Bowl mentors, Joe Paterno and Pete Carroll) want one or not. And it’s this market strength of the Rose Bowl, and thus the Big Ten and Pac-10, that is an escape hatch to back out of any proposed playoff plan and return to the old days when the Rose Bowl was the undisputed bowl money king, thanks to the favorable business deals that commissioners Jim Delany (Big Ten) and Tom Hansen (Pac-10) have worked with Pasadena. Both conference are on record as saying they would use this “escape hatch” to bow out of the BCS completely if there was ever any movement (including the much-discussed “plus one” format) toward a national playoff.
And if you don’t believe the Rose Bowl has this much clout, consider the following concessions that Delany and his friends negotiated for the Rose Bowl in the current BCS arrangement, including:
1) The waving of a $6 million BCS entry fee;
2) A separate TV deal for the Rose Bowl;
3) Favored status in the team selection process which encourages traditional Big Ten vs. Pac-10 matchups (which is why we served a wholly unsatisfying Illinois vs. USC matchup last season);
4) Never having to invite a non-BCS team, which is why Utah, Boise State, or TCU will never be welcomed in Pasadena;
5) Exclusivity to the coveted late-afternoon New Year’s Day time slot.
As for a playoff, even Delany and Hansen are aware of the bigger financial pie that would be available to their conferences in a full-blown playoff. Then, however, they would lose the sort of control and influence they have over the proceedings with their beloved Rose Bowl as it is right now. Which is why the Big Ten and Pac-10 are unlikely to ever agree on getting involved in a playoff.
In the meantime, the rest of the BCS conferences allow the Big Ten and Pac-10 to dictate terms in order to get the Rose Bowl conferences somewhat involved in the BCS process. What’s sad is that the administrators in the Big Ten and Pac-10 could care less about the BCS and the rest of college football, and that it escapes the Rose Bowl conferences that they are part of a collective puzzle much bigger than their own selfish interests.
The solution? We’re afraid nothing short of an organized fan protest, with nobody attending or tuning into the Rose Bowl, could change the status quo. But we’re not going to be holding our breath for that to happen, either.
by Bruce Marshall, TGS Website Editor
We have always thought a litmus test for a college football playoff argument is what sports fans might think if the wildly-popular “March Madness” in college hoops was replaced with a series of football-like basketball “bowl” games. Over several decades, we’ve yet to run into anyone who thought that was a good idea. And we’re not holding our breath until we find someone who does. But we’re also not holding our breath that anything is about to change with the current BCS arrangement in college football, which again has provided a wholly unsatisfying scenario to determine this year’s college football’s kingpin.
We’ll save further pro-playoff arguments for another time. In the meantime, however, we thought we’d bypass our normal BCS-bashing and instead focus our vitriol on what we believe is the real impediment to college football ever implementing a much overdue playoff system.
Folks, it’s the Rose Bowl.
We know all of the supposed virtues about the “Granddaddy of them all” and its special place on the New Year’s football schedule. We also know what sort of clout the Big Ten and Pac-10 are wielding over the rest of college football in order to keep their Pasadena gravy train afloat. And it is within this “special arrangement” that the selfish interests of the Big Ten and Pac-10 override the rest of the college football world. Thus, a quick refresher on the Rose Bowl, Big Ten, pac-10, and their reluctant involvement in the current BCS arrangement is probably in order.
Simply, until market forces change, the respective businesses of the Big Ten and Pac-10 don’t include anything to do with a playoff, whether its fans and coaches (including this year’s Rose Bowl mentors, Joe Paterno and Pete Carroll) want one or not. And it’s this market strength of the Rose Bowl, and thus the Big Ten and Pac-10, that is an escape hatch to back out of any proposed playoff plan and return to the old days when the Rose Bowl was the undisputed bowl money king, thanks to the favorable business deals that commissioners Jim Delany (Big Ten) and Tom Hansen (Pac-10) have worked with Pasadena. Both conference are on record as saying they would use this “escape hatch” to bow out of the BCS completely if there was ever any movement (including the much-discussed “plus one” format) toward a national playoff.
And if you don’t believe the Rose Bowl has this much clout, consider the following concessions that Delany and his friends negotiated for the Rose Bowl in the current BCS arrangement, including:
1) The waving of a $6 million BCS entry fee;
2) A separate TV deal for the Rose Bowl;
3) Favored status in the team selection process which encourages traditional Big Ten vs. Pac-10 matchups (which is why we served a wholly unsatisfying Illinois vs. USC matchup last season);
4) Never having to invite a non-BCS team, which is why Utah, Boise State, or TCU will never be welcomed in Pasadena;
5) Exclusivity to the coveted late-afternoon New Year’s Day time slot.
As for a playoff, even Delany and Hansen are aware of the bigger financial pie that would be available to their conferences in a full-blown playoff. Then, however, they would lose the sort of control and influence they have over the proceedings with their beloved Rose Bowl as it is right now. Which is why the Big Ten and Pac-10 are unlikely to ever agree on getting involved in a playoff.
In the meantime, the rest of the BCS conferences allow the Big Ten and Pac-10 to dictate terms in order to get the Rose Bowl conferences somewhat involved in the BCS process. What’s sad is that the administrators in the Big Ten and Pac-10 could care less about the BCS and the rest of college football, and that it escapes the Rose Bowl conferences that they are part of a collective puzzle much bigger than their own selfish interests.
The solution? We’re afraid nothing short of an organized fan protest, with nobody attending or tuning into the Rose Bowl, could change the status quo. But we’re not going to be holding our breath for that to happen, either.