College Football Playoffs: How Jim Delany Can Still Push the Big Ten Agenda

At the end of April, the news college football fans had longed for finally came out of the BCS meetings in Florida: The conference commissioners had decided that college football will move forward with a four-team playoff starting after the 2014 season.

This decision will undoubtedly bring more television money into the coffers of the universities, but a high number of critical details are left to be ironed out before a final decision expected in June. 

While the commissioners have agreed on the most important decision (that there will be a playoff), the devil will be in the details with Mike Slive of the SEC and Jim Delany of the Big Ten on opposite sides of many debates.

Although Delany has been lampooned publicly for some of the stances he has taken in April and since the meetings, it is clear that he still plans to push an agenda that permits a playoff but only on his terms. With Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott at his side, Delany is a powerful leader of the discussion on how to implement the playoff.

So let's take a look at some of the most important details left to hammer out by next month, and how Delany can and will push the Big Ten agenda forward successfully.

No. 1: Who plays in the playoff?

For a short time during the April meetings, Delany and Scott pushed a plan that would ensure the traditional Rose Bowl matchup would continue and be a part of the playoff every time at least one of the two conferences qualified a team for the playoff. This plan would have put the Pac-12 and Big Ten champions in the Rose Bowl and four other teams in two other bowls, then two of the three winners would have been selected for the championship game.

If that sounds horrible and ridiculous, you aren't alone in thinking that. Every other conference commissioner and BCS official saw right through this proposal and shot it down during the Florida meetings.

However, Delany and Scott accomplished a couple of agenda items just by proposing this ridiculous Rose Bowl protection idea. First, these conferences proved their continued allegiance to the Rose Bowl. Second, Delany and Scott gained important bargaining power for later debates by giving up on this plan without much fuss.

The next stance Delany will likely take is asking that only conference champions be eligible for the four-team playoff. This is a direct move against the SEC and Mike Slive, who was been in position to have two teams in a four-team playoff numerous times in the past few seasons.

Slive is understandably on the opposite side of the debate, coming out publicly in favor of taking the top four ranked teams, regardless of conference affiliation. If three SEC, Big 12 or even Big Ten teams are ranked in the top four, then those teams make the playoff.

However, in the current era of six straight BCS championships by the SEC, the top four teams will likely include no more than one team from any conference other than the SEC.

With the sting of an all-SEC championship game fresh in the minds of Delany and others, there is no way the Big Ten university presidents send Delany to the June meetings with instructions to back down on this decision.

And given that college football cannot do something so simple as pick the top four teams for a playoff (that would make too much sense), Delany will likely continue to propose only conference champions make the playoff. He will certainly have the support of the less successful and smaller conferences that struggle every year to rank a champion in front of the second-best SEC team.

With the five old non-automatic-qualifying conferences, the Pac-12 and the Big East on the side of Delany, he will have a lot of pull against Slive and whoever else wants the top four teams in the playoff.

What this will set up is a chance for compromise, and the answer has already been floated publicly by Delany to gain public approval.  That idea is to only allow conference champions into the four-team playoff, but only if those conference champions rank in the top six overall.

Under this system, Alabama would have still qualified last year thanks to other non-champions Stanford and Arkansas making the top six over the fourth-best conference champion Wisconsin. It may still have been controversial to have Oregon in the playoff instead of a higher-ranked Stanford, but the Ducks won that chance by beating Stanford on the field.

Considering the likely strong public support and number of commissioners willing to back Delany in his plan, the "compromise" will likely have to be agreed to by Slive and any others on his side. This will protect the interests of the Big Ten and other non-SEC conferences by making it more difficult for non-conference champions to make the playoff.

Expect Delany to win on this front. He's been pulling strings since before the meetings in April to make sure the SEC cannot dominate a four-team playoff by having half the teams or more every year.

No. 2: How are the four playoff teams determined?

The second detail left to be decided is closely related to the first, at least assuming Delany pushes his "compromise" through to success. The second question is how the four teams will be decided, most likely by a selection committee or by the current BCS formula.

On this front, it is unclear what will best serve the Big Ten interest. The hypothetical situation the Big Ten would worry most about is having a champion battling against a second-best team in the SEC or some other conference.

Smaller conferences like the Big East and the old non-AQ conferences probably have more to worry about in this scenario than the Big Ten, but it is possible a team like Wisconsin would be compared to a team like Arkansas if those teams ranked fourth and fifth in the standings.

Would a committee of humans be more likely to select the conference champion from the Big Ten or another conference over a second-place team from a better conference? Would the voters and computer polls be more likely to favor the team from the stronger conference despite the lack of a conference championship?

These questions are nearly impossible to answer. However, the BCS formula does add a layer of objectivity thanks to the computer rankings. That objectivity could favor the stronger conference, but it is not a sure bet.

The NCAA basketball tournament selection committee assures us every year that resumes are compared without regard to names on jerseys, but could the same actually ever be true when the two or three teams fighting for the last spot are so well known by the committee?

As proven by the Michigan backlash in 2006 that vaulted Florida into the championship game, and the support that almost pushed Oklahoma State beyond Alabama last year, human voters may not be perfect, but they can overrule the computers when necessary. This will not change when the debate is over team No. 4 instead of team No. 2.

Considering Delany will probably win on favoring conference champions within the top six of the rankings, he can allow the BCS rankings to continue even if the Big Ten university presidents believe the computer objectivity does not help their teams. Besides, the only reason to have a rule contingent on the rankings is to keep the rankings.

A selection committee may make more sense in view of every other NCAA sport, but the BCS is now well established within the major college football universe. The BCS is not perfect, but it comes as close to fair as anything despite all the imperfections added in to make the final formula.

By allowing the BCS formula to continue in some form, Delany will likely enable any Big Ten champion within the top six of the final rankings to have a chance to win a championship, which is far more than the current system offers the conference.

And again, it allows Delany to push forward the best interest of the Big Ten.

No. 3: Where are the games played?

This issue is the last and most interesting issue left on the table to decide. The primary contenders are auctioning the rights to host the championship and/or semifinal games to the highest bidder, using the bowls similar to the current BCS system, or hosting some of the games on campus sites.

Delany has made no bones about it: He wants to protect the Rose Bowl. However, he also clearly believes the current BCS bowl alignment with all four games in the southern end of the country (California, Arizona, Louisiana, Florida) strongly favors the southern teams located proximate to those sites.

If these positions seem a little inconsistent, considering he Rose Bowl is in the heart of Pac-12 country, then yes it is inconsistent. However, Delany will not walk away with nothing here.

If pushing for on campus semifinal games is what will eventually protect the Rose Bowl, then that is precisely what Delany will push. It is unlikely Delany will be able to convince all the other major players that risking a December game in a small stadium or in a frigid climate is worth it.

However, taking this position will again allow Delany to "compromise" by coming to the solution that he wants. More specifically, the Rose Bowl always hosts the highest-ranked Pac-12 or Big Ten champion should that team be in the playoffs.

If both conference champions qualify, they play one another regardless of ranking in the Rose Bowl.  If both conference champions fail to qualify, then the Rose Bowl takes that year out of the rotation.

This will give the Rose Bowl a guarantee the traditional matchup of Pac-12 champion and Big Ten champion will continue to happen as often as possible, only breaking when one of the champions is in the playoff and the other is not. This will not be favorable to the other major bowls, but they will have to accede considering they could be completely cut off from the playoff entirely.

If this means Pasadena is once again the most important bowl destination (or the most used site for semifinal games), then so be it. The remaining BCS bowls will need to be content with continuing to be a part of the championship pie.

The traditional Rose Bowl matchup is nearly impossible to maintain, and has been since the Rose Bowl signed onto the BCS 14 years ago. However, Delany will stick by his Pasadena mate and make a "compromise" to stay with the bowl games in southern locations only if his champion ends up in Pasadena as often as possible.

The championship game will likely be auctioned out to the highest bidder, which can give northern locations like Detroit and Indianapolis with domed stadiums just as much a chance as southern locales to host the championship. If it works in the NFL, it will work for college football.

That will give the Big Ten and other northern teams a chance to have some sort of home-field advantage in those years when the championship is hosted up north. That's the best money-making scenario and also will keep the bowls from feeling any has an unfair advantage over another by hosting a championship. This also allows Delany to keep the bowls involved, at least on the semifinal level.

Delany holds all the cards, and he will play them to craft the four-team playoff that favors the Big Ten as much as possible.  Delany will give the teams a shot on the field, but the Big Ten needs to grab that opportunity and win those games.

At least one thing is certain: A playoff is coming. No matter whether Delany is successful in pushing the Big Ten agenda—and I suspect he will be—the Big Ten will have a much better chance like all the other conferences at a national championship starting in 2014.

With that already decided as the bottom line, the details can be fixed later even if set wrong today.

-----------

Thanks for reading!

David Fitzgerald is a featured columnist for the Big Ten on B/R.  Contact him on Twitter with further questions or comments.