The Big Ten could soon be on board with a college football playoff, but only if it gets to keep the Rose Bowl and if it doesn't have to fly south for the winter. How much of an advantage would the Big Ten's plan mean?
Feb 8, 2012 - Depending on your perspective, the Big Ten has either finally made peace with the future, or it's seized all the 2012 offseason glory. Either way, the last real road block in the way of coming up with a playoff plan has been removed, and all that's left is getting thousands of suits and haircuts to agree on what the thing should look like. Sounds so easy!
The Big Ten's plan calls for semifinalists to get home field advantage and for the championship game to tour the country instead of just rotating between four Sun Belt cities -- fine ideas all around. Just getting to play against the No. 4 team instead of the No. 3 team is no real reward for being ranked No. 1, and college towns instead of tourist towns should get playoff game revenue. And of course it's the Big Ten that's recommended this, since the usual postseason destinations (I see you, Ford Field!) give warm-weather teams an advantage.
The thinking is those SEC teams that have dominated the sport wouldn't be so great if they had to play semifinal games in Michigan instead of Florida and California. The Big Ten's record in BCS title games since 2002 is 0-2, with losses to SEC teams in Louisiana (indoors!) and Arizona. Ohio State's lone bowl win over a SEC team was later redacted.
SEC teams get to play bowl games in Southern cities, and they don't travel to play the Big Ten. They don't really travel to play anybody. To the Big Ten fan, this appears to be a great shame on the SEC, while the SEC fan regards this fact with the same level of interest as Hussite War tactics in 1426.
But what happens when SEC teams do venture north? Data is slim. Alabama won at Penn State in 2011. As far as I can tell, that's it for the past four years. Still, this is about freezing championship games in January, not cool regular season games in September.
Here's a look at how the semifinals in every year of the BCS era would've gone under the Big Ten's plan:
The Big Ten would have mustered eight semifinal appearances and would have three home games, all in Columbus. Assuming we're moving the championship games back to New Year's Day-ish, as has been discussed, the low temperatures for those games would've been a clear 36 degrees, a windy 32, and a gusty 34 degrees. A low of 32 means a kickoff temperature just above freezing -- believe it or not, it often gets that cold in the south in late November anyway.
However, recall that 2006 scenario, in which Florida jumped Michigan just before the title game because nobody wanted a rematch. If the stakes were lessened, and everything would be settled on the field anyway, the polls would've had no reason to fiddle with the rankings. Michigan probably would've hosted the Gators instead of the other way around, with temperatures in the high 30s adding to the home field advantage.
But those were all warmer years, apparently. The average January lows in Columbus and Ann Arbor are 19 and 18 degrees, respectively. A 33-degree kickoff temp is no big deal, especially for a championship game, but teens and singles with snow involved? That would be a problem. I'm from Georgia. That would be a problem.
If Big Ten fans really want to see how them SEC boys can handle the cold weather, they'll probably need to start rooting for a Golden Gophers revival. Via Weather.com, here are the Big Ten's Januarys, ranked by overall manliness -- the lower, the more scholarly and honorable, of course:
The idea that the Big Ten would turn the tides via a move like this probably isn't on point -- Urban Meyer and Brady Hoke are more likely to bring about that kind of change. But it would make the Big Ten feel better, as it should.
The fun part is it would actually make for a better postseason for everybody, not just Big Ten teams. The most important games of the season should happen in college football settings, not gently used AFC East or NFC West stadiums. While seeing Florida or Auburn have to play a game in driving snow would be a thrill and a story, this is the right move whether the weather ever matters or not.
17 comments
1
May 24
3
May 24
1
May 21
23
May 19
2
May 18
12
May 18
7
May 16
Comments
There's a reason the bowl games aren't in the midwest
Once B1G fans go to a few SEC campuses (campi?) for semifinal games they’ll understand the reluctance to travel.
by TadAllagash on Feb 8, 2012 1:48 PM EST reply actions
actually
no.
Go Big Red Nebraska!
Our Cobs Are Bigger Than Yours!
Corn Nation!
Follow @cornnation Twitter
cornnation@gmail.com
by Jon Johnston on Feb 8, 2012 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Interesting
So the B1G humps fly en masse to Florida and clog the beaches during bowl week, but you don’t think they’d enjoy a semifinal in Gainesville, Tuscaloosa or Athens? I must have missed that big push for a Jan 1 bowl game in Omaha then.
by TadAllagash on Feb 8, 2012 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
It's not a question of whether they'd enjoy it.
It’s a question of fairness, especially if you’re asking teams in the Midwest to travel twice for bowl games.
Play for the love of the game. A Cornhusker through feast or famine. That's the Nebraska way.
by Salt Creek and Stadium on Feb 8, 2012 5:32 PM EST up reply actions
Fairness?
Last I saw these terrible bowl bids in the south were voluntary. I like the home semifinal plan a lot, but it’s a bit rich to blame SEC teams for not traveling when there hasn’t been anything worth traveling for. With this plan there will be, maybe.
by TadAllagash on Feb 8, 2012 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
Nobody's traveling twice on short notice for the semifinals AND the final.
It works for basketball because you have four or eight teams to fill a 20,000-seat arena (and even those aren’t always full). It won’t work for two teams trying to fill a 90,000-seat stadium.
I've got this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left-hand side.
Bradley-Terry rankings for college football and basketball: because there aren't enough computer rankings already.
by SpartanDan on Feb 8, 2012 9:38 PM EST up reply actions
Frankly it won't matter if they do not travel twice
1.) The home teams will sell most or all of the tickets
2.) The TV money will far outweigh the few million big programs make for each home game. The real money is in the eyeballs on TV, and this proposal will have many millions watching ever more expensive commercials on TV. Without multiple games on at the same time, there will be lot$ of money to be made from the tv networks and their advertisers.
by ApothecaryMark on Feb 9, 2012 10:18 AM EST up reply actions
Yeah the home playoff venue is probably the best idea.
It worked for the Pac-12 Championship Game.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Feb 9, 2012 4:14 PM EST up reply actions
Poor example: USC was the true Pac-12 south Champion...
by ApothecaryMark on Feb 9, 2012 4:24 PM EST up reply actions
Really?
You’re going to bring up a team on probation? When I was really agreeing with your point that the home team will sell most or all of the tickets.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Feb 10, 2012 3:23 PM EST up reply actions
I think that there is a lot of good in this.
I don’t know that you necessarily have to have the championship game hosted in the rust belt. The Super Bowl makes rare trips to the Midwest and has one planned to the Northeast for obvious and stated reasons. It would however give the chance for place to make bids and possibly make even more money on College Football. (PAUSE…. Isn’t that disgusting?? more money? ugh.) So, it would float around like the Final Four. The good news is that venues like Lucas Oil Stadium and Cowboys Stadium, to name a couple, would get an opportunity to host the national championship that is otherwise blocked by the BCS.
If it is going to be a 4-team, plus-one model. Then I would like for teams ranked 1 and 2 to be included regardless of conference championship. And teams 3-4 to be required to be a conference champion.
This year that would be Oregon (#5, Pac-12 Champ) @ LSU (#1, SEC Champ); and Oklahoma State (#3, Big XII Champ) at Alabama (#2). It might have been a bit hairy if UCLA had beaten Oregon in the Pac-12 Championship Game, because that would have forced us to drop down to #10 Wisconsin, Big Ten Champion. But it worked out.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Feb 8, 2012 2:25 PM EST reply actions
All 4 should have to be conference champs
It makes the regular season and conference chapionship games more important, and is more fair to those who actually win their conference.
If you can’t win your own conference you don’t deserve to play for the title.
by Persi W on Feb 8, 2012 8:06 PM EST up reply actions
That horse is already dead...quit beating it!
If we are going to allow the top four teams to play semi-finals, it makes absolutely no sense to start adding additional petty and arbitrary rules. The NCAA tourney in basketball, while it certainly includes many more teams than this proposal, does not have such a silly rule and works out just fine. If the goal is to make a playoff that matches the BEST four teams, excluding a potential non-conference champ does not accomplish that goal.
by ApothecaryMark on Feb 9, 2012 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
How is this horse dead?
The conference presidents said they are sifting over 50-60 different permutations of how a 4 team playoff could happen. Surly this is one of them, and the one that I would pick if I was in charge.
By the way, are you going to tell me that the current BCS polling and ranking system isn’t petty and arbitrary? They are only opinions, not fact. For exampe: Last year’s final BCS standings had Stanford ranked higher Oregon even though they lost to Oregon and Oregon won the conference. So Stanford should go to the playoff instead of Oregon because of an arbitrary opinion poll? That makes the conference championship games practically meaningless.
Winning your division, winning your conference championship, winning your semifinal, and winning the title game are concrete accomplishments.
Nothing arbitrary about it.
by Persi W on Feb 9, 2012 1:54 PM EST up reply actions
I don't think it's wrong to include a team like Alabama.
Or in 2006 Michigan. While Michigan lost to Southern Cal, and that might improve my hindsight, were there a four team playoff, I doubt that Florida would jump Michigan. Maybe, but doubtful. And I would like the Number 1 and Number 2 teams in the playoffs regardless. The other two teams… well, I am all for requiring them to be a conference champion. But that’s only for a 4 team playoff. If we end up with 8 teams…. I don’t know, I think I’d be open to just using the top 8 regardless of championship.
- FOW
by skandrewj62j on Feb 9, 2012 4:13 PM EST up reply actions
It's 8
You missed 2005 PSU.
"Bama Hawkeye, you know, the Iowa blogger who actually uses reason and analysis." - Patrick Vint
"I thought it was laughable when you first put it up, but you were obviously smarter than me." - PurdueMatt
http://www.offtackleempire.com
by Bama Hawkeye on Feb 8, 2012 2:35 PM EST reply actions
Thanks.
I am proud to be a Kennesaw State Fighting Owl. -- Vince Dooley
Follow @JasonKirkSBN
by Jason Kirk on Feb 8, 2012 2:42 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed