Big Ten's Loyalty to Rose Bowl Could Prove Costly Under New Playoff System

College Football's decision to move ahead with a four-team playoff is great news for the sport and its fans. However, the Big Ten's continued love affair with the Rose Bowl could cost the conference when it comes to national championships.

While most of the conferences were pushing for semifinal games to be played at campus sites, the Big Ten and Pac-12 were opposed—choosing instead to continue their relationship with the Rose Bowl and maintain the west coast bowl's relevancy.

When you consider the advantage of playing in front of rabid home fans—as opposed to a neutral site—the Big Ten's commitment to the Rose Bowl makes little sense.

When you consider that the Big Ten—with potential national title contenders like Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska and Wisconsin—has a home field advantage that teams from other conferences don't have, choosing the Rose Bowl instead of campus sites becomes indefensible.

Let me explain. Virtually all college football championship contenders are located in warm weather locales. The exceptions to this are Big Ten teams. The ability to host games in January in the Midwest against teams from the SEC or BIG 12—teams who exclusively practice and play in warm weather—would have been a major advantage for the Big Ten.

In the NFL, playoff story lines invariably involve reports on the weather when a warm weather or dome team travels to a cold weather city. There are numerous examples of warm weather teams regularly losing in cold weather cities.

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers were once notorious for never having won a game when the temperature was below freezing. Dan Marino's Miami Dolphins regularly struggled when playing late season road games against their divisional foes in New York, Buffalo and New England. Peyton Manning could never beat New England at Foxborough in January. And the list goes on and on.

It's not that cold weather all of a sudden makes teams bad. The Pittsburgh Steelers, New England Patriots, New York Giants and Green Bay Packers all play cold weather games and regularly compete for championships. But these teams are used to practicing and playing in cold weather. They are not shocked when the temperature dips, and their games don't suffer because of it.

On the other hand, when you have never practiced or played in brutal winter weather, it will inevitably impact how you perform. Instead of focusing on football, players will be thinking about how cold they are and how the pain of each hit stings a little longer than usual.

Most players on Big Ten rosters are familiar with the elements. They have grown up in cold weather areas and have regularly practiced and played games in inclement conditions. They know how it feels to get hit and land on frozen turf. They are used to walking around with cold wind blowing in their face.

Florida, Texas and California might produce the best players in the country, but those players would inevitably find their first game in non-ideal conditions problematic.

Cold winter weather is typically not an issue in college since games are played in the fall, and most bowl games are either indoors or in warm weather cities.

But the Big Ten had the opportunity to play football outdoors in January. And in the Midwest, it's not just that it is cold in January. There is the potential for snow and the ever-present lake effect winds blowing at 20 miles per hour or more—making a 20-degree day feel like it's below zero.

Consider that most people who have spent their entire lives experiencing brutally cold Midwest winters still dread and complain about it. Now consider how someone who has never experienced this type of weather would react. Then ask that person to go outside and play a physical contact sport for three hours. The end result will not be very good.

The SEC has produced more talented teams in recent years and may very well continue to do so. But the conference dodged a bullet by not having to play a January game in Big Ten country.

The psychological edge from the weather would likely have been enough to nullify the SEC's edge in talent. Ultimately, there was no way an SEC team was coming into the Big House or the Horseshoe in January and leaving with a win.

The Big Ten should have held on to their home-field advantage.