Big Ten: Gene Smith
Look, I know that you're concerned, but I'm designing T-shirts now. They're gonna be huge. Also medium and small.
- Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith says the department isn't facing any major violations right now. Former Buckeyes linebacker Andrew Sweat chooses safety over potential NFL stardom.
- Michigan State expects top quarterback Andrew Maxwell (knee) to be 100 percent by June. A look at several 2013 recruits Michigan State has offered.
- Jerry Kill says Minnesota needs a facilities upgrade soon. Minnesota's outgoing AD Joel Maturi weighs in on playoff possibilities and other Gopher-related topics.
- Penn State 2013 recruit Greg Webb talks about his recovery from a torn ACL. Lions coach Bill O'Brien reviews spring ball and looks ahead.
- Indiana coach Kevin Wilson is geared up for his second season in Bloomington. Wilson weighs in on the trickiness of non-league scheduling.
- BTN.com's Tom Dienhart looks at Week 3 in the Big Ten this season.
- Purdue offers scholarships to two teammates from Georgia (subscription required) who both play defensive end.
- Hail to the Orange writes that Illinois needs Tim Beckman to be its version of Hayden Fry.
- Great news as Iowa announcer Gary Dolphin is cancer free and ready for the 2012 season.
- Several freshmen offensive linemen could be in the mix for Michigan this year. Michigan's backup quarterbacks remain works in progress.
- A look back at Tom Rathman's 84-yard touchdown run for Nebraska in 1985.
Ohio State AD: No more major violations
May, 24, 2012
May 24
10:00
AM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith says the department isn't facing any major NCAA violations despite several more pending secondary infractions.
Smith issued a statement responding to a report in The Lantern, Ohio State's student newspaper, which quotes him as saying Ohio State has 12 pending NCAA violations that might or might not be major. These violations are separate from the 46 self-reported secondary violations across 21 sports since May 31, 2011, which were made public last week. The football program had nine secondary violations during the span.
Smith's full statement:
Smith told The Lantern that Ohio State typically has 40 violations annually across its 36 varsity sports, and that the number and nature of the violations released last week aren't unusual. He added, "Our whole thing is if we have 10 [violations], I'd have a problem. I mean, I really would, because people are going to make mistakes. And that means if I only have 10 out of 350 employees [and] 1,000 athletes -- something's not right."
Secondary NCAA violations are common throughout the Big Ten, and as the nation's largest athletic department, Ohio State can expect to have a few more issues than most schools. The key here, according to Smith, is no additional major violations, especially in football, which is facing a postseason ban for 2012 and scholarship losses for the next three years because of major violations committed by several players and former coach Jim Tressel.
Smith issued a statement responding to a report in The Lantern, Ohio State's student newspaper, which quotes him as saying Ohio State has 12 pending NCAA violations that might or might not be major. These violations are separate from the 46 self-reported secondary violations across 21 sports since May 31, 2011, which were made public last week. The football program had nine secondary violations during the span.
Smith's full statement:
"Contrary to reports attributed to me, Ohio State athletics is not facing any major NCAA violations. There are several secondary violations being processed by our compliance office. These are similar to those released last week. Again, these are secondary in nature and consistent with our culture of self-reporting even the most minor and inadvertent violations. Again, to be clear, the Ohio State football program, its coaches and staff are not facing any violations."
Smith told The Lantern that Ohio State typically has 40 violations annually across its 36 varsity sports, and that the number and nature of the violations released last week aren't unusual. He added, "Our whole thing is if we have 10 [violations], I'd have a problem. I mean, I really would, because people are going to make mistakes. And that means if I only have 10 out of 350 employees [and] 1,000 athletes -- something's not right."
Secondary NCAA violations are common throughout the Big Ten, and as the nation's largest athletic department, Ohio State can expect to have a few more issues than most schools. The key here, according to Smith, is no additional major violations, especially in football, which is facing a postseason ban for 2012 and scholarship losses for the next three years because of major violations committed by several players and former coach Jim Tressel.
Hump day linkage:
- Michigan AD Dave Brandon not only doesn't favor using campus sites for semifinal games, he doesn't think they should be played in the Midwest anywhere, not even indoors. Huh?
- Pat Harty argues that the Big Ten should go to geographical divisions to avoid some of the gaps between rivals on the schedule. Dallas Clark might be the best story of the Kirk Ferentz era.
- Bruce Feldman has an excellent story about how two dirty plays don't define Michigan State's William Gholston.
- Steven M. Sipple looks at some of the candidates to eventually replace Tom Osborne, including recent hire (and former Huskers player) Jamie Williams. Nebraska picked up its first offensive lineman in the Class of 2013.
- Joe Paterno earned a state pension of more than $13 million during his 61 years at Penn State. A look at four big recruiting targets for the Nittany Lions this summer. Rob Bolden is staying put.
- Purdue got a $2 million donation that could go toward some improvements at Ross-Ade Stadium (but not lights).
- Tom Dienhart breaks down the best of Week 2 in the 2012 Big Ten season.
- Minnesota's Jerry Kill shared some optimism at a Rotary Club event.
- A planned SEC Network could eclipse the revenues of the Big Ten's similar venture.
- Gene Smith says Ohio State's athletic department is in its "glory years."
- Stewart Mandel talks realignment and playoff possibilities in his SI.com mailbag.
Who are the Big Ten's coaching villains?
May, 22, 2012
May 22
10:30
AM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
Every good conference boasts some coaching villains, and the Big Ten has several men who fill the role. No one will confuse the Big Ten with the SEC, where all 12 coaches have voodoo dolls of one other and dart boards with their opponents' heads as the bull's-eyes. But let's not forget the Big Ten produced Woody and Bo, two men who certainly played the villain when they set foot on opposing soil. The Big Ten may never see Woody versus Bo, Part II, but you get 12 Type A personalities competing for championships in a high-stakes sport, and it's going to get heated.
Last month, we asked you to weigh in on the most disliked Big Ten coach. Not surprisingly, the three highest vote-getters also earned our nod for their villainous traits. Remember, this is all in fun, and it's important to note that it's hard to be a coaching villain if you don't win a lot of games or tick off multiple fan bases.
Let's take a look.
Bret Bielema, Wisconsin (six seasons, 60-19 overall and at Wisconsin)
Any coach who plays college ball, has his team's logo tattooed on his leg, and then ends up coaching a major rival is predisposed to be a villain. Bielema, a former Iowa defensive lineman, still sports the Tigerhawk stamp on his leg, but he's very much a Badger these days. While Bielema might not be a favorite son in Iowa, he has ticked off others around the league a little more.
In 2010, Bielema ignited a flap with Minnesota when he called for a 2-point conversion attempt with Wisconsin ahead by 25 points in the fourth quarter. Minnesota coach Tim Brewster confronted Bielema after the game and later said Bielema made "a poor decision for a head football coach." Bielema claimed he was following the coaches' card of when to go for two or not, but given tension with Brewster and the Wisconsin-Minnesota rivalry, few bought his explanation. The Wisconsin coach didn't help his rep a few weeks later when the Badgers' record-setting offense put up 83 points against Indiana, although the sportsmanship complaints seemed hollow as Indiana totally packed it in that day.
Then came national signing day in February, when Bielema at a news conference referred to "illegal" recruiting tactics by new Ohio State coach Urban Meyer. Many incorrectly interpreted Bielema's comments as sour grapes about losing a recruit (Kyle Dodson) to Meyer, but Bielema didn't publicly specify what he meant or why he contacted Meyer to discuss the situation. The allegations didn't sit well with Meyer or Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith, although the situation put to rest the ridiculous belief about a "gentleman's agreement" among Big Ten coaches.
Bielema is relatively young, highly successful and never short on confidence. He's very media savvy and knows how to get his message across. He may fill the villain role for several fan bases, but he's the one going to Pasadena every year.
Urban Meyer, Ohio State (first season, 104-23 overall in 10 seasons)
Meyer hasn't coached a single game as Ohio State's head man, but he still received the most votes as the league's most disliked coach. Unlike the others in the Big Ten villain mix, Meyer sparks ire in other parts of the country, particularly in a little place they call Gator Country.
He left Florida after the 2010 season -- after nearly stepping away the previous year -- citing health concerns and a desire to spend more time with his family. Some saw him taking the Ohio State job, undoubtedly another pressure cooker, just a year after leaving Florida, as disingenuous. More Florida fallout arrived this spring in a Sporting News story that showed Meyer as the overseer and enabler of a mess in Gainesville.
Meyer's Big Ten villainy stems mostly from his immediate success on the recruiting trail after being hired in late November. In two months he put together the Big Ten's top-rated recruiting class, which included several players who had flipped from other programs to the Buckeyes. His surge drew comments from Bielema and Michigan State defensive coordinator Pat Narduzzi, and the perception that Meyer has rocked the boat in the Big Ten remains very much alive.
Although Meyer and Michigan coach Brady Hoke have been cordial to this point -- they have the same agent, Trace Armstrong -- it's only a matter of time before things get spicy. Ohio State set off a mini blaze by displaying a sign in the football complex comparing its players' academic majors with those of Michigan's.
Buckle up.
Mark Dantonio, Michigan State (five seasons, 44-22 at MSU, 62-39 in eight seasons overall)
The seemingly permanent scowl. The deep, borderline monotone voice. The willingness to stick up for players who make mistakes and fuel rivalries. In many ways, Dantonio looks and sounds more like a villain than any of his Big Ten coaching brethren. Warm and fuzzy he is not, and while he has a unique sense of humor and can be charming, he comes off serious, intense and, some would say, confrontational.
Dantonio has made some notable statements about archrival Michigan in his five seasons in East Lansing. Who can forget his "pride comes before the fall" response to Mike Hart after the 2007 Michigan State-Michigan game? After last season's personal-foul fest against Michigan, a game Michigan State won 28-14, Dantonio drew criticism for not suspending defensive end William Gholston, who had punched a Wolverines player and twisted the helmet of another (the Big Ten later suspended Gholston for a game). In January, he interrupted Michigan assistant Jeff Hecklinski during a presentation to state high school coaches. And this spring, he set off some fireworks by telling Brian Bennett, "We're laying in the weeds. We've beat Michigan the last four years. So where's the threat?"
Some Michigan fans still dismiss Michigan State as not a real rival, but Dantonio has certainly gotten under the skin of Wolverines backers, especially because he keeps beating the Maize and Blue.
Dantonio also was looped into the Meyer/Bielema flap in February, although his general comments about recruiting were misinterpreted by a reporter.
The hyper intense Dantonio has some villain in him. And if he keeps winning at Michigan State, the image will continue to grow.
Last month, we asked you to weigh in on the most disliked Big Ten coach. Not surprisingly, the three highest vote-getters also earned our nod for their villainous traits. Remember, this is all in fun, and it's important to note that it's hard to be a coaching villain if you don't win a lot of games or tick off multiple fan bases.
Let's take a look.
Bret Bielema, Wisconsin (six seasons, 60-19 overall and at Wisconsin)
Any coach who plays college ball, has his team's logo tattooed on his leg, and then ends up coaching a major rival is predisposed to be a villain. Bielema, a former Iowa defensive lineman, still sports the Tigerhawk stamp on his leg, but he's very much a Badger these days. While Bielema might not be a favorite son in Iowa, he has ticked off others around the league a little more.
In 2010, Bielema ignited a flap with Minnesota when he called for a 2-point conversion attempt with Wisconsin ahead by 25 points in the fourth quarter. Minnesota coach Tim Brewster confronted Bielema after the game and later said Bielema made "a poor decision for a head football coach." Bielema claimed he was following the coaches' card of when to go for two or not, but given tension with Brewster and the Wisconsin-Minnesota rivalry, few bought his explanation. The Wisconsin coach didn't help his rep a few weeks later when the Badgers' record-setting offense put up 83 points against Indiana, although the sportsmanship complaints seemed hollow as Indiana totally packed it in that day.
Then came national signing day in February, when Bielema at a news conference referred to "illegal" recruiting tactics by new Ohio State coach Urban Meyer. Many incorrectly interpreted Bielema's comments as sour grapes about losing a recruit (Kyle Dodson) to Meyer, but Bielema didn't publicly specify what he meant or why he contacted Meyer to discuss the situation. The allegations didn't sit well with Meyer or Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith, although the situation put to rest the ridiculous belief about a "gentleman's agreement" among Big Ten coaches.
Bielema is relatively young, highly successful and never short on confidence. He's very media savvy and knows how to get his message across. He may fill the villain role for several fan bases, but he's the one going to Pasadena every year.
Urban Meyer, Ohio State (first season, 104-23 overall in 10 seasons)
Meyer hasn't coached a single game as Ohio State's head man, but he still received the most votes as the league's most disliked coach. Unlike the others in the Big Ten villain mix, Meyer sparks ire in other parts of the country, particularly in a little place they call Gator Country.
He left Florida after the 2010 season -- after nearly stepping away the previous year -- citing health concerns and a desire to spend more time with his family. Some saw him taking the Ohio State job, undoubtedly another pressure cooker, just a year after leaving Florida, as disingenuous. More Florida fallout arrived this spring in a Sporting News story that showed Meyer as the overseer and enabler of a mess in Gainesville.
Meyer's Big Ten villainy stems mostly from his immediate success on the recruiting trail after being hired in late November. In two months he put together the Big Ten's top-rated recruiting class, which included several players who had flipped from other programs to the Buckeyes. His surge drew comments from Bielema and Michigan State defensive coordinator Pat Narduzzi, and the perception that Meyer has rocked the boat in the Big Ten remains very much alive.
Although Meyer and Michigan coach Brady Hoke have been cordial to this point -- they have the same agent, Trace Armstrong -- it's only a matter of time before things get spicy. Ohio State set off a mini blaze by displaying a sign in the football complex comparing its players' academic majors with those of Michigan's.
Buckle up.
Mark Dantonio, Michigan State (five seasons, 44-22 at MSU, 62-39 in eight seasons overall)
The seemingly permanent scowl. The deep, borderline monotone voice. The willingness to stick up for players who make mistakes and fuel rivalries. In many ways, Dantonio looks and sounds more like a villain than any of his Big Ten coaching brethren. Warm and fuzzy he is not, and while he has a unique sense of humor and can be charming, he comes off serious, intense and, some would say, confrontational.
Dantonio has made some notable statements about archrival Michigan in his five seasons in East Lansing. Who can forget his "pride comes before the fall" response to Mike Hart after the 2007 Michigan State-Michigan game? After last season's personal-foul fest against Michigan, a game Michigan State won 28-14, Dantonio drew criticism for not suspending defensive end William Gholston, who had punched a Wolverines player and twisted the helmet of another (the Big Ten later suspended Gholston for a game). In January, he interrupted Michigan assistant Jeff Hecklinski during a presentation to state high school coaches. And this spring, he set off some fireworks by telling Brian Bennett, "We're laying in the weeds. We've beat Michigan the last four years. So where's the threat?"
Some Michigan fans still dismiss Michigan State as not a real rival, but Dantonio has certainly gotten under the skin of Wolverines backers, especially because he keeps beating the Maize and Blue.
Dantonio also was looped into the Meyer/Bielema flap in February, although his general comments about recruiting were misinterpreted by a reporter.
The hyper intense Dantonio has some villain in him. And if he keeps winning at Michigan State, the image will continue to grow.
Meyer, Smith admit to secondary violations
May, 18, 2012
May 18
11:00
AM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
Secondary NCAA violations happen with every FBS program on a semi-regular basis, but at Ohio State, after the past year, every error is magnified.
The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer recently obtained a list of all Ohio State's NCAA violations since May 30, 2011, the day Jim Tressel resigned as football coach in the wake of the tattoo/memorabilia scandal. According to the Plain Dealer, Ohio State reported 46 violations in 21 sports during the span, including secondary NCAA violations committed by new football coach Urban Meyer and athletic director Gene Smith.
Meyer admits to saying "good luck" to defensive line recruit Noah Spence during a Dec. 16 game, which violates NCAA rules prohibiting direct contact with a prospect during a competition. Spence, who originally was leaning toward Penn State before the child sex abuse scandal broke, ended up committing to Ohio State days after the game while on an official visit, and he signed with the Buckeyes in February. He's the nation's No. 4 recruit according to ESPN Recruiting and the highest-rated recruit in the Big Ten this year.
From the Plain Dealer:
The violations included nothing about Meyer and recruit Kyle Dodson, who signed with Ohio State in February. The Sporting News reported that Wisconsin had accused Meyer of impermissible contact with Dodson, who originally committed to Wisconsin before switching.
Smith and Archie Griffin, the former Ohio State star running back and current CEO of the school's alumni association, admitted to recording a personalized video for recruit Ezekiel Elliott before his official visit to campus March 31. Such videos are prohibited. Elliott committed to Ohio State during his visit.
Other football secondary violations range from the truly ridiculous -- assistant coach Mike Vrabel used smokeless tobacco on the sidelines during games, which violates NCAA rules prohibiting tobacco use during games or practices -- to the extremely common (assistant Stan Drayton accidentally sending a recruit a text message rather than an email last summer).
The only major violations included are the ones involving players being overpaid for work by former booster Bobby DiGeronimo. Those violations, combined with the violations from the tattoo/merchandise scandal, resulted in Ohio State losing scholarships and receiving a one-year postseason ban from the NCAA for the 2012 season.
There are a few ways to view the report, none of which are off base.
"So many lessons learned throughout that entire challenge," Smith told ESPN.com last month. "You have to constantly look at, 'OK, what could we have done better?' What procedures do we put in place as we move forward? Be as transparent as we can. The biggest thing for us is identify, report and move on. That's what we’ve always done. There's some things we changed to make sure we don’t end up in that situation again."
The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer recently obtained a list of all Ohio State's NCAA violations since May 30, 2011, the day Jim Tressel resigned as football coach in the wake of the tattoo/memorabilia scandal. According to the Plain Dealer, Ohio State reported 46 violations in 21 sports during the span, including secondary NCAA violations committed by new football coach Urban Meyer and athletic director Gene Smith.
Meyer admits to saying "good luck" to defensive line recruit Noah Spence during a Dec. 16 game, which violates NCAA rules prohibiting direct contact with a prospect during a competition. Spence, who originally was leaning toward Penn State before the child sex abuse scandal broke, ended up committing to Ohio State days after the game while on an official visit, and he signed with the Buckeyes in February. He's the nation's No. 4 recruit according to ESPN Recruiting and the highest-rated recruit in the Big Ten this year.
From the Plain Dealer:
Ohio State learned of the matter after seeing a newspaper photo that appeared to show Meyer saying something to Spence. Meyer also told Ohio State about the incident two days after the game.
"I went to say hello and good luck to his coach and as I was walking off the field Noah said, 'Hello,' and I said 'Good luck,' before the game," Meyer wrote in a text message to The Plain Dealer on Thursday. "Nothing more. Nothing to hide. All good."
The violations included nothing about Meyer and recruit Kyle Dodson, who signed with Ohio State in February. The Sporting News reported that Wisconsin had accused Meyer of impermissible contact with Dodson, who originally committed to Wisconsin before switching.
Smith and Archie Griffin, the former Ohio State star running back and current CEO of the school's alumni association, admitted to recording a personalized video for recruit Ezekiel Elliott before his official visit to campus March 31. Such videos are prohibited. Elliott committed to Ohio State during his visit.
Other football secondary violations range from the truly ridiculous -- assistant coach Mike Vrabel used smokeless tobacco on the sidelines during games, which violates NCAA rules prohibiting tobacco use during games or practices -- to the extremely common (assistant Stan Drayton accidentally sending a recruit a text message rather than an email last summer).
The only major violations included are the ones involving players being overpaid for work by former booster Bobby DiGeronimo. Those violations, combined with the violations from the tattoo/merchandise scandal, resulted in Ohio State losing scholarships and receiving a one-year postseason ban from the NCAA for the 2012 season.
There are a few ways to view the report, none of which are off base.
- The NCAA rulebook is pretty silly.
- Meyer and Smith have to be more careful, especially after what happened. Smith's violation is a bit puzzling. You would think he would have some hesitation about recording a personalized video for a recruit.
- Ohio State's compliance department, panned during the tattoo/merchandise scandal, is improving in monitoring and reporting issues.
"So many lessons learned throughout that entire challenge," Smith told ESPN.com last month. "You have to constantly look at, 'OK, what could we have done better?' What procedures do we put in place as we move forward? Be as transparent as we can. The biggest thing for us is identify, report and move on. That's what we’ve always done. There's some things we changed to make sure we don’t end up in that situation again."
Big Ten ADs split on neutral-site games
May, 17, 2012
May 17
4:15
PM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
CHICAGO -- The first Saturday of the 2012 college football season is highlighted by a blockbuster game taking place at a cavernous NFL stadium.
On the night of Sept. 1, Michigan and Alabama will take center stage in Arlington, Texas, at a shrine to all things big and bold, nicknamed "Jerryworld" after Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. It will mark the latest in a series of national showcase games during the regular season that take place at neutral sites.
Last year, LSU and Oregon kicked off the season on the same field. Notable neutral-site games this fall include Miami-Notre Dame at Chicago's Soldier Field and Clemson-Auburn at Atlanta's Georgia Dome.
The trend is clear, and many major-conference teams see the neutral-site games as a nice alternative to the home-and-home series that take longer and give up a precious home game.
Big Ten athletic directors are split on the neutral-site issue. Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon, who helped organize the Alabama game, said last month that the school has had preliminary talks about playing a neutral-site game at Sun Life Stadium near Miami.
Iowa opens the 2012 season against Northern Illinois at Soldier Field, and Hawkeyes athletic director Gary Barta recently told the Des Moines Register that he is "wide open to the concept" of more neutral-site games.
Northwestern athletic director Jim Phillips on Wednesday expressed interest in playing a game at New York's Yankee Stadium, and, with the Big Ten/Pac-12 scheduling partnership approaching, added, "We need to get out to California some." Northwestern moved its home game against Illinois to Wrigley Field in 2010, and the teams could play again at Wrigley or Soldier Field.
Illinois AD Mike Thomas also wants a bigger presence in Chicago and could schedule a game at Soldier Field as early as 2013, the Chicago Tribune reports. The Illini used to open the season against Missouri in St. Louis, but the series is on a hiatus.
The neutral-site surge isn't for everyone, though. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told ESPN.com last month that he's extremely reluctant to give up a home game for a neutral-site contest.
"I love Dave Brandon at Michigan and I applaud them," Smith said. "They're playing Alabama in Dallas, which I think is cool and unique. But if I can get eight home games, the economic impact we have here, I just can't pull it away. Because it's a home game. Now if an away game, like Indiana or somebody says, 'Hey, let's go to Maryland,' and it’s their home game, I'd do that in a minute.
"But taking one of my home games, I just can't do it. The economic impact in this community is just huge."
Michigan State AD Mark Hollis has been very proactive in scheduling top nonconference opponents (Boise State, Oregon, Alabama, Miami). But those games will take place on campus.
Hollis acknowledges scheduling trends elsewhere impact what Big Ten teams do, but his position is firm.
"I'd rather bring big games into Spartan Stadium," Hollis said. "We talked to Boise State about playing in Chicago, but we had no interest in that. We want to play them at home. I want Miami there, I want Alabama there, I want Oregon, so our fans can see them."
On the night of Sept. 1, Michigan and Alabama will take center stage in Arlington, Texas, at a shrine to all things big and bold, nicknamed "Jerryworld" after Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones. It will mark the latest in a series of national showcase games during the regular season that take place at neutral sites.
Last year, LSU and Oregon kicked off the season on the same field. Notable neutral-site games this fall include Miami-Notre Dame at Chicago's Soldier Field and Clemson-Auburn at Atlanta's Georgia Dome.
The trend is clear, and many major-conference teams see the neutral-site games as a nice alternative to the home-and-home series that take longer and give up a precious home game.
Big Ten athletic directors are split on the neutral-site issue. Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon, who helped organize the Alabama game, said last month that the school has had preliminary talks about playing a neutral-site game at Sun Life Stadium near Miami.
Iowa opens the 2012 season against Northern Illinois at Soldier Field, and Hawkeyes athletic director Gary Barta recently told the Des Moines Register that he is "wide open to the concept" of more neutral-site games.
Northwestern athletic director Jim Phillips on Wednesday expressed interest in playing a game at New York's Yankee Stadium, and, with the Big Ten/Pac-12 scheduling partnership approaching, added, "We need to get out to California some." Northwestern moved its home game against Illinois to Wrigley Field in 2010, and the teams could play again at Wrigley or Soldier Field.
Illinois AD Mike Thomas also wants a bigger presence in Chicago and could schedule a game at Soldier Field as early as 2013, the Chicago Tribune reports. The Illini used to open the season against Missouri in St. Louis, but the series is on a hiatus.
The neutral-site surge isn't for everyone, though. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith told ESPN.com last month that he's extremely reluctant to give up a home game for a neutral-site contest.
"I love Dave Brandon at Michigan and I applaud them," Smith said. "They're playing Alabama in Dallas, which I think is cool and unique. But if I can get eight home games, the economic impact we have here, I just can't pull it away. Because it's a home game. Now if an away game, like Indiana or somebody says, 'Hey, let's go to Maryland,' and it’s their home game, I'd do that in a minute.
"But taking one of my home games, I just can't do it. The economic impact in this community is just huge."
Michigan State AD Mark Hollis has been very proactive in scheduling top nonconference opponents (Boise State, Oregon, Alabama, Miami). But those games will take place on campus.
Hollis acknowledges scheduling trends elsewhere impact what Big Ten teams do, but his position is firm.
"I'd rather bring big games into Spartan Stadium," Hollis said. "We talked to Boise State about playing in Chicago, but we had no interest in that. We want to play them at home. I want Miami there, I want Alabama there, I want Oregon, so our fans can see them."
There's a lot going on, even for May. Let's get to your emails and talk about it all.
Andrew from Brooklyn writes: I know you've been over this ad nauseum, but can you explain one more time, how [Jim] Delany and the ADs justify allowing the bowls to host semifinals? I can't think of a single advantage in such a situation for Big Ten institutions or their fans. 1. It takes tourism dollars out of the region. 2. It enriches the bowl committees, perhaps the most corrupt element in all of college sports (not only the indictment of John Junker, but also the excessive compensation of directors, the kickbacks involved in room guarantees, etc). 3. It puts Big Ten teams at a locational disadvantage. 4. It forces Big Ten fans to potentially travel long distances three weeks over the course of a month. Is this really just about a sentimental attachment to the Rose Bowl?
Brian Bennett: Well, there is one advantage: Bowls allow people to get out of the upper Midwest in the winter and enjoy some sunshine. But other than that, I agree with everything you wrote. I simply don't understand the illogical attachment to an outdated bowl system that is neither financially nor competitively advantageous for the league. Then when you see comments from Ohio State's Gene Smith saying he doesn't think teams should be playing in cold weather, well, frankly that's mind-boggling. (And even more so as the Big Ten says basically in the next breath that it would like to play a bowl game in New York City, well known for its tropical late December climate.)
I get that bowls are rewards for players, but this isn't Little League. On the plus side, improvements to the college football postseason have traditionally come at such a glacial pace that we should be happy that so much positive change is coming. Set up a good system now for selecting the four teams, and then the debate over where to play the games can be revisited in the future, especially if it becomes obvious that the bowl site situation is too much of a burden on fans.
Dan from Lincoln, Neb., writes: What are the chances that when all is said and done, the B1G will have nothing to show for all the posturing it has done during the playoff debates? We've given up helping fans not have to travel three times (twice to somewhere south) to see a team play the NC, given up on any advantage for the local team/area (financially, weather wise), and at this rate the Rose Bowl will go strictly to the four-team event. No wonder the SEC and Pac12 have just sat back and let the spoils fall in their lap...
Brian Bennett: Delany piqued interest with his comment that, "It will be demonstrably clear how flexible and how open the Rose Bowl has been in this process." I'm not sure what that means just yet, but the Big Ten had better come out with a good deal involving the Rose Bowl, given how much it has staked its future to that game. It appears as though the league's priorities have been protecting that game and securing a playoff model that rewards conference champions as much as possible. The ACC has come out in support of the same idea, which bolsters the Big Ten's case there. Ultimately, regardless of where the games are played or what the Rose Bowl's status is, the Big Ten's goal has to be getting teams into the Football Final Four (or whatever it ends up being called) as consistently as possible. The champions model no doubt benefits the conference in that regard, because it would be tough to omit a Big Ten champ most years.
Mike from Denver writes: With the upcoming Pac12/B1G series, I haven't seen anything anywhere regarding how the lineup will be set. Is there any possibility we can get a set-up similar to the B1G/ACC b-ball series where match-ups are set only a year in advance based on anticipated strength of the teams in the coming season? I know it is more difficult with football, but if they lock a date and designate home/away years in advance, why wouldn't it work?
Brian Bennett: Well, we know one matchup, as Northwestern-Stanford already have agreed to a series that will take place during the start of the agreement. (How smart do the Wildcats look, locking up one of the potentially more attractive Pac-12 opponents already?). I doubt we'll see the games be set only a year in advance, because football scheduling simply doesn't work that way. With games being held on different weekends and teams needing to fill the rest of their schedule, it becomes too impractical. Even with just a year lag time, you can't always accurately predict teams' strength. The best bet will be to create compelling matchups based on programs' name value. I'm pretty sure we'd all watch Ohio State-USC, Michigan-Washington, Penn State-Oregon (just to name some random potential examples) regardless of how good the teams in the game actually were.
Alex from Venice, Calif., writes: I was reading your Big Ten Spring Wrap piece, and I wanted to bring something up. I have to disagree with you about Michigan (or any team) being too modest when they say that their top goal is to win a Big Ten championship. You can't play in the National Championship without first taking care of business in your conference (unless, of course, you're in the SEC). The conference championship is something that is in your control. Of course schools want to play for the National Championship, but they know in order for them to do that, they must take care of business within their conference. Rich Rodriguez, shudder, was lambasted over stating that the Big Ten championship was their priority. He got the "why are you not aiming higher -- this is Michigan and we expect more!" His response was that in order to be in that discussion you better be tops in your conference. He was right, Brady Hoke is right and Bo was certainly right.
Brian Bennett: Alex, you make some good points, and I have no problem with Brady Hoke making the Big Ten title the main goal this year, especially given the Wolverines' recent Big Ten title drought. Winning a league championship is clearly the next step for the program to truly be "back." I just find it interesting that the league hasn't had a national champion since 2002 and hasn't been in the BCS title game since 2006, yet only Nebraska is really openly talking about getting to that level this year. The Big Ten needs to aim higher than just the Rose Bowl.
Peter from Seattle writes: Why is it that whenever Taylor Martinez's name is brought up, people also bring up his completion percentage and how low it is? Denard Robinson had a lower completion percentage and people don't talk about that being an issue every time his name is brought up.
Brian Bennett: Well, I don't know about "people." But we're always saying on this blog that Robinson has to improve his accuracy and cut down on the 15 interceptions he threw in 2011. Robinson's completion percentage in 2010 was actually pretty good. For comparison's sake:
Martinez 2010: 59.2 percent completions
Robinson 2010: 62.5 percent
Martinez 2011: 56.3 percent
Robinson 2011: 55 percent
Both players' percentages went down in 2011, but remember both were in the first year of new offensive systems. They should each improve upon that with an extra year in the respective systems.
Alex H. from Louisville writes: I appreciated the Spring wrap up article on the Hoosiers. Our football program is the easy target for kicking and it is nice to see fresh eyes on the product. If you didn't cover the Hoosiers much the last few years, we are to put it mildly "under construction." Last year was actually a huge year for us because we flushed 30 years of complacency out when the new staff ran everyone out. Some agree and some don't on this subject, but I do know that what we had been doing didn't work. Our coach indicated last week that there is still probably a few hanger-ons still, but he thinks he has flushed most of it. ... I really believe we have the ingredients finally to make noise in the Big Ten in the next 5 years with our best coaching staff, facilities, and Athletic Director that wants to win the right way. Perfect Storm???
Brian Bennett: I'm happy to get a Hoosiers question in the mailbag. Frankly, it doesn't happen very often. Anyway, I feel like the Indiana program was starting to turn into something under Terry Hoeppner, but his tragic death was just a terrible setback. After visiting Bloomington for the first time in several years, I was impressed by the facilities improvements and commitment the school has given to football at long last (that Big Ten Network money sure helps). The program seems like it now has the tools to compete, but it still must overcome the lack of tradition, a small fan base and the difficulty of recruiting head to head against bigger Big Ten teams. I like what Kevin Wilson is doing, and it would be a lot of fun to see Indiana become a factor. But there is much work still ahead.
Mike from Apple Valley, Minn., writes: Hey, Brian, barring major surprise, the Vikings will not be moving from the Twin Cities. Does that help or hurt the Gophers? On one hand, the Gophers would have had more attention and may attract more of a following in the area, look at any other Big Ten team not in an NFL market (about all of them). But on the other hand, it could hurt recruiting because there would have been one less amenity in the Twin Cities. Or is there something else I'm missing? Thanks!
Brian Bennett: Mike, we did an interesting series last summer looking at the challenges faced by college programs in NFL cities. I suggest you check it out. It's not always easy, but schools like USC, Miami, TCU and Washington have made it work. The Gophers are never going to get all the attention in their city or state because of the pro teams in the Twin Cities. But as you mentioned, the benefits of living in a big city with pro teams can help in recruiting as well. Ultimately, I think there are certainly enough fans who will support the program if it starts winning big under Jerry Kill and that players won't really care whether they're in a pro or college town. It all comes down to leadership and success.
Andrew from Brooklyn writes: I know you've been over this ad nauseum, but can you explain one more time, how [Jim] Delany and the ADs justify allowing the bowls to host semifinals? I can't think of a single advantage in such a situation for Big Ten institutions or their fans. 1. It takes tourism dollars out of the region. 2. It enriches the bowl committees, perhaps the most corrupt element in all of college sports (not only the indictment of John Junker, but also the excessive compensation of directors, the kickbacks involved in room guarantees, etc). 3. It puts Big Ten teams at a locational disadvantage. 4. It forces Big Ten fans to potentially travel long distances three weeks over the course of a month. Is this really just about a sentimental attachment to the Rose Bowl?
Brian Bennett: Well, there is one advantage: Bowls allow people to get out of the upper Midwest in the winter and enjoy some sunshine. But other than that, I agree with everything you wrote. I simply don't understand the illogical attachment to an outdated bowl system that is neither financially nor competitively advantageous for the league. Then when you see comments from Ohio State's Gene Smith saying he doesn't think teams should be playing in cold weather, well, frankly that's mind-boggling. (And even more so as the Big Ten says basically in the next breath that it would like to play a bowl game in New York City, well known for its tropical late December climate.)
I get that bowls are rewards for players, but this isn't Little League. On the plus side, improvements to the college football postseason have traditionally come at such a glacial pace that we should be happy that so much positive change is coming. Set up a good system now for selecting the four teams, and then the debate over where to play the games can be revisited in the future, especially if it becomes obvious that the bowl site situation is too much of a burden on fans.
Dan from Lincoln, Neb., writes: What are the chances that when all is said and done, the B1G will have nothing to show for all the posturing it has done during the playoff debates? We've given up helping fans not have to travel three times (twice to somewhere south) to see a team play the NC, given up on any advantage for the local team/area (financially, weather wise), and at this rate the Rose Bowl will go strictly to the four-team event. No wonder the SEC and Pac12 have just sat back and let the spoils fall in their lap...
Brian Bennett: Delany piqued interest with his comment that, "It will be demonstrably clear how flexible and how open the Rose Bowl has been in this process." I'm not sure what that means just yet, but the Big Ten had better come out with a good deal involving the Rose Bowl, given how much it has staked its future to that game. It appears as though the league's priorities have been protecting that game and securing a playoff model that rewards conference champions as much as possible. The ACC has come out in support of the same idea, which bolsters the Big Ten's case there. Ultimately, regardless of where the games are played or what the Rose Bowl's status is, the Big Ten's goal has to be getting teams into the Football Final Four (or whatever it ends up being called) as consistently as possible. The champions model no doubt benefits the conference in that regard, because it would be tough to omit a Big Ten champ most years.
Mike from Denver writes: With the upcoming Pac12/B1G series, I haven't seen anything anywhere regarding how the lineup will be set. Is there any possibility we can get a set-up similar to the B1G/ACC b-ball series where match-ups are set only a year in advance based on anticipated strength of the teams in the coming season? I know it is more difficult with football, but if they lock a date and designate home/away years in advance, why wouldn't it work?
Brian Bennett: Well, we know one matchup, as Northwestern-Stanford already have agreed to a series that will take place during the start of the agreement. (How smart do the Wildcats look, locking up one of the potentially more attractive Pac-12 opponents already?). I doubt we'll see the games be set only a year in advance, because football scheduling simply doesn't work that way. With games being held on different weekends and teams needing to fill the rest of their schedule, it becomes too impractical. Even with just a year lag time, you can't always accurately predict teams' strength. The best bet will be to create compelling matchups based on programs' name value. I'm pretty sure we'd all watch Ohio State-USC, Michigan-Washington, Penn State-Oregon (just to name some random potential examples) regardless of how good the teams in the game actually were.
Alex from Venice, Calif., writes: I was reading your Big Ten Spring Wrap piece, and I wanted to bring something up. I have to disagree with you about Michigan (or any team) being too modest when they say that their top goal is to win a Big Ten championship. You can't play in the National Championship without first taking care of business in your conference (unless, of course, you're in the SEC). The conference championship is something that is in your control. Of course schools want to play for the National Championship, but they know in order for them to do that, they must take care of business within their conference. Rich Rodriguez, shudder, was lambasted over stating that the Big Ten championship was their priority. He got the "why are you not aiming higher -- this is Michigan and we expect more!" His response was that in order to be in that discussion you better be tops in your conference. He was right, Brady Hoke is right and Bo was certainly right.
Brian Bennett: Alex, you make some good points, and I have no problem with Brady Hoke making the Big Ten title the main goal this year, especially given the Wolverines' recent Big Ten title drought. Winning a league championship is clearly the next step for the program to truly be "back." I just find it interesting that the league hasn't had a national champion since 2002 and hasn't been in the BCS title game since 2006, yet only Nebraska is really openly talking about getting to that level this year. The Big Ten needs to aim higher than just the Rose Bowl.
Peter from Seattle writes: Why is it that whenever Taylor Martinez's name is brought up, people also bring up his completion percentage and how low it is? Denard Robinson had a lower completion percentage and people don't talk about that being an issue every time his name is brought up.
Brian Bennett: Well, I don't know about "people." But we're always saying on this blog that Robinson has to improve his accuracy and cut down on the 15 interceptions he threw in 2011. Robinson's completion percentage in 2010 was actually pretty good. For comparison's sake:
Martinez 2010: 59.2 percent completions
Robinson 2010: 62.5 percent
Martinez 2011: 56.3 percent
Robinson 2011: 55 percent
Both players' percentages went down in 2011, but remember both were in the first year of new offensive systems. They should each improve upon that with an extra year in the respective systems.
Alex H. from Louisville writes: I appreciated the Spring wrap up article on the Hoosiers. Our football program is the easy target for kicking and it is nice to see fresh eyes on the product. If you didn't cover the Hoosiers much the last few years, we are to put it mildly "under construction." Last year was actually a huge year for us because we flushed 30 years of complacency out when the new staff ran everyone out. Some agree and some don't on this subject, but I do know that what we had been doing didn't work. Our coach indicated last week that there is still probably a few hanger-ons still, but he thinks he has flushed most of it. ... I really believe we have the ingredients finally to make noise in the Big Ten in the next 5 years with our best coaching staff, facilities, and Athletic Director that wants to win the right way. Perfect Storm???
Brian Bennett: I'm happy to get a Hoosiers question in the mailbag. Frankly, it doesn't happen very often. Anyway, I feel like the Indiana program was starting to turn into something under Terry Hoeppner, but his tragic death was just a terrible setback. After visiting Bloomington for the first time in several years, I was impressed by the facilities improvements and commitment the school has given to football at long last (that Big Ten Network money sure helps). The program seems like it now has the tools to compete, but it still must overcome the lack of tradition, a small fan base and the difficulty of recruiting head to head against bigger Big Ten teams. I like what Kevin Wilson is doing, and it would be a lot of fun to see Indiana become a factor. But there is much work still ahead.
Mike from Apple Valley, Minn., writes: Hey, Brian, barring major surprise, the Vikings will not be moving from the Twin Cities. Does that help or hurt the Gophers? On one hand, the Gophers would have had more attention and may attract more of a following in the area, look at any other Big Ten team not in an NFL market (about all of them). But on the other hand, it could hurt recruiting because there would have been one less amenity in the Twin Cities. Or is there something else I'm missing? Thanks!
Brian Bennett: Mike, we did an interesting series last summer looking at the challenges faced by college programs in NFL cities. I suggest you check it out. It's not always easy, but schools like USC, Miami, TCU and Washington have made it work. The Gophers are never going to get all the attention in their city or state because of the pro teams in the Twin Cities. But as you mentioned, the benefits of living in a big city with pro teams can help in recruiting as well. Ultimately, I think there are certainly enough fans who will support the program if it starts winning big under Jerry Kill and that players won't really care whether they're in a pro or college town. It all comes down to leadership and success.
CHICAGO -- Despite a few speed bumps, the Big Ten/Pac-12 scheduling partnership is "a go," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany told his league's athletic directors this week.
The details are still being worked out, which isn't a surprise when you have 24 major-conference programs with unique interests, scheduling philosophies and scheduling agreements. But Delany hopes to have a more specific idea of the scheduling models in the next few months.
"We do want it all fit in," Delany said Wednesday. "Whether that means you have 12 games or 11 games or 10 games in the first cycle ... we're going to want 12 games ASAP. A lot of scheduling has been done in other nonconference areas that's reliant on this."
The original goal was to have a full round-robin schedule by 2017, but it could be wishful thinking. Ohio State, for example, has games scheduled with both Oklahoma and North Carolina, and athletic director Gene Smith told ESPN.com last month that he wouldn't add a Pac-12 opponent to the slate in 2017. Pac-12 teams have their own issues, namely a nine-game conference schedule -- as opposed to eight in the Big Ten -- and long-term agreements with teams like Notre Dame (USC, Stanford).
The partnership eventually will feature six home-and-home series, but it might not be complete until after 2017.
The scheduling process will be a "hybrid" effort between the schools and the two league offices. Big Ten and Pac-12 teams are facing one another with more frequency in the coming years -- three matchups take place this fall -- and some series are already set for 2017 and beyond. Northwestern and Stanford, for example, have a four-game series set for 2019-22.
Big Ten senior associate commissioner for television administration Mark Rudner and Pac-12 deputy commissioner Kevin Weiberg, are overseeing the scheduling elements.
"We may have to do less," Delany said, referring to the league. "In other words, if there are three or four games [set] in '17, '18, '19 and '20, maybe the conference will only have to come in and pick seven or eight other games."
Before announcing the Pac-12 partnership, the Big Ten had approved a nine-game conference schedule, supporting Delany's frequent statement that league teams should play one another more, not less. But the Big Ten decided to stay at eight league games because of the Pac-12 agreement.
"On balance, it's a close call," Delany said. "But in the nine-game conference schedule, who you don't play was one factor, but the other fact was five home games, four away. If you can create a situation where you improve your schedules, you improve the fan experience, you improve the games that are going on television without affecting the home/away segment inside of the conference, [it] was the preferred method. If we hadn't done the collaboration, we'd do nine [league games]. If we do the collaboration, we'll do eight.
"We're able to attract a higher-quality of game."
One potential concern is how the scheduling partnership will impact teams' other nonconference agreements. Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke has made it clear he wants to keep the annual Notre Dame series going as long as possible, and added that the Boilers have played Notre Dame and a Pac-12 team (Oregon, Arizona) in the same season before.
"It adds some name recognition to your schedules in September," Burke said. "Working together, we can try to get the programs in comparable stages of development, to compete against one another so we don't have an imbalance. It's not easy to do that, but that's something to work toward."
The details are still being worked out, which isn't a surprise when you have 24 major-conference programs with unique interests, scheduling philosophies and scheduling agreements. But Delany hopes to have a more specific idea of the scheduling models in the next few months.
"We do want it all fit in," Delany said Wednesday. "Whether that means you have 12 games or 11 games or 10 games in the first cycle ... we're going to want 12 games ASAP. A lot of scheduling has been done in other nonconference areas that's reliant on this."
The original goal was to have a full round-robin schedule by 2017, but it could be wishful thinking. Ohio State, for example, has games scheduled with both Oklahoma and North Carolina, and athletic director Gene Smith told ESPN.com last month that he wouldn't add a Pac-12 opponent to the slate in 2017. Pac-12 teams have their own issues, namely a nine-game conference schedule -- as opposed to eight in the Big Ten -- and long-term agreements with teams like Notre Dame (USC, Stanford).
The partnership eventually will feature six home-and-home series, but it might not be complete until after 2017.
The scheduling process will be a "hybrid" effort between the schools and the two league offices. Big Ten and Pac-12 teams are facing one another with more frequency in the coming years -- three matchups take place this fall -- and some series are already set for 2017 and beyond. Northwestern and Stanford, for example, have a four-game series set for 2019-22.
Big Ten senior associate commissioner for television administration Mark Rudner and Pac-12 deputy commissioner Kevin Weiberg, are overseeing the scheduling elements.
"We may have to do less," Delany said, referring to the league. "In other words, if there are three or four games [set] in '17, '18, '19 and '20, maybe the conference will only have to come in and pick seven or eight other games."
Before announcing the Pac-12 partnership, the Big Ten had approved a nine-game conference schedule, supporting Delany's frequent statement that league teams should play one another more, not less. But the Big Ten decided to stay at eight league games because of the Pac-12 agreement.
"On balance, it's a close call," Delany said. "But in the nine-game conference schedule, who you don't play was one factor, but the other fact was five home games, four away. If you can create a situation where you improve your schedules, you improve the fan experience, you improve the games that are going on television without affecting the home/away segment inside of the conference, [it] was the preferred method. If we hadn't done the collaboration, we'd do nine [league games]. If we do the collaboration, we'll do eight.
"We're able to attract a higher-quality of game."
One potential concern is how the scheduling partnership will impact teams' other nonconference agreements. Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke has made it clear he wants to keep the annual Notre Dame series going as long as possible, and added that the Boilers have played Notre Dame and a Pac-12 team (Oregon, Arizona) in the same season before.
"It adds some name recognition to your schedules in September," Burke said. "Working together, we can try to get the programs in comparable stages of development, to compete against one another so we don't have an imbalance. It's not easy to do that, but that's something to work toward."
CHICAGO -- The Big Ten favors having a college football playoff within the existing bowls, which essentially pushes those games to warmer climates in the south and west.
As Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said, "Let's say it is 5 degrees. Is that right for the game?"
Apparently it's OK for lower-tier bowls. League commissioner Jim Delany said Wednesday that the Big Ten will have discussions with the Pinstripe Bowl, played outside in late December at New York's Yankee Stadium, about a potential future tie-in.
The Big Ten's current bowl lineup expires after the 2013 season. The lineup is heavy on Florida and Texas games and features only one contest (Little Caesars Pizza Bowl) in the Big Ten footprint, which is played indoors at Detroit's Ford Field.
The Pinstripe Bowl, which launched in 2010 and pits the Big 12 against the Big East, would put Big Ten teams in a familiar climate in late December.
"New York City is the financial sports capital of the world," Delany said Wednesday. "It's a global city like Chicago. We'll have conversations with them."
Delany on Tuesday hinted the Big Ten will diversify its bowl lineup after 2013, which could mean less games in Florida or Texas. While many Big Ten fans would love to see the Detroit game go, I think it's more beneficial to get out of the Gator Bowl and maybe the TicketCity Bowl. Those bowls don't seem to add much for the Big Ten.
Most Big Ten schools have huge alumni/fan bases in New York, and the Pinstripe Bowl would feel less like a road game than some of the annual contests the Big Ten plays.
"We've been in 11 bowl games in the last 15 years," Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke told ESPN.com, "and every time, I feel it's a road game, except when I go to Detroit."
Adding the Pinstripe Bowl and another game in California against the Pac-12 -- Holiday or Kraft Fight Hunger -- makes a lot of sense. The Rose Bowl can't be the only potential Big Ten/Pac-12 postseason matchup, especially with the impending playoff and the possibility of the traditional Rose pairing not taking place each year.
What are your thoughts?
As Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said, "Let's say it is 5 degrees. Is that right for the game?"
Apparently it's OK for lower-tier bowls. League commissioner Jim Delany said Wednesday that the Big Ten will have discussions with the Pinstripe Bowl, played outside in late December at New York's Yankee Stadium, about a potential future tie-in.
The Big Ten's current bowl lineup expires after the 2013 season. The lineup is heavy on Florida and Texas games and features only one contest (Little Caesars Pizza Bowl) in the Big Ten footprint, which is played indoors at Detroit's Ford Field.
The Pinstripe Bowl, which launched in 2010 and pits the Big 12 against the Big East, would put Big Ten teams in a familiar climate in late December.
"New York City is the financial sports capital of the world," Delany said Wednesday. "It's a global city like Chicago. We'll have conversations with them."
Delany on Tuesday hinted the Big Ten will diversify its bowl lineup after 2013, which could mean less games in Florida or Texas. While many Big Ten fans would love to see the Detroit game go, I think it's more beneficial to get out of the Gator Bowl and maybe the TicketCity Bowl. Those bowls don't seem to add much for the Big Ten.
Most Big Ten schools have huge alumni/fan bases in New York, and the Pinstripe Bowl would feel less like a road game than some of the annual contests the Big Ten plays.
"We've been in 11 bowl games in the last 15 years," Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke told ESPN.com, "and every time, I feel it's a road game, except when I go to Detroit."
Adding the Pinstripe Bowl and another game in California against the Pac-12 -- Holiday or Kraft Fight Hunger -- makes a lot of sense. The Rose Bowl can't be the only potential Big Ten/Pac-12 postseason matchup, especially with the impending playoff and the possibility of the traditional Rose pairing not taking place each year.
What are your thoughts?
The league meetings in Chicago and playoffs (cue Jim Mora clip) dominate your hump day links:
- The Big Ten's love of the Rose Bowl is making it act irrationally and against the league's best interests, Dan Wetzel writes.
- There's no guarantee on how that Rose Bowl relationship will continue.
- The Big Ten won't be able to use geography as an excuse for bowl performance in the future, Drew Sharp says.
- The league is pushing for a seven-win minimum to make a bowl game even though that may hurt some of its own teams.
- A selection committee is the best way to go to pick playoff teams, Andy Staples writes.
- Illinois athletic director Mike Thomas envisions playing a game in Chicago every other year.
- Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis said he would welcome a night game against Michigan.
- Indiana AD Fred Glass says his athletic program is self-sustaining (subscription required).
- Brady Hoke talked about the need for leadership from his seniors during a speech to fans. Michigan missed out on Ty Isaac but has other options at running back.
- Athlon ranks Nebraska No. 14 and previews its season, while asking if Taylor Martinez is one of the league's top quarterbacks. A 92-yard romp through Yankee Stadium makes the list of most memorable Huskers touchdowns.
- Curt Warner's son hopes to follow in dad's footsteps at Penn State. Bill O'Brien will adjust his offense to fit his current players. Quarterbacks coach Charlie Fisher says Matt McGloin leads in the QB race.
- Purdue's Otis Armstrong once heard he was too small to be a running back. Now, he's headed to the College Football Hall of Fame.
- Ohio State AD Gene Smith said the tattoo scandal hurt him and his family.
- Former Wisconsin athletic director Pat Richter earned an honor. Wisconsin spent about $44,000 investigating sexual impropriety allegations against former athletics administrator John Chadima.
- Maize N Brew asks what will be good enough for Minnesota.
Campus sites: Did B1G give up too easily?
May, 16, 2012
May 16
11:00
AM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
CHICAGO -- When the college football playoff push kicked off, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith planted himself in the campus-sites camp.
Smith favored having the semifinals on the campuses of the higher-seeded teams. The setup would give Big Ten teams like Ohio State an advantage they've never enjoyed in the current BCS/bowl setup -- nationally significant games on Midwest soil in late December or early January. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany was among the first major college football figures to stump for campus sites this winter.
"We've shifted," Smith told ESPN.com on Tuesday. "I was originally for campus sites, and I still go back there mentally every now and then as discussions occur, but the bowls have a really good system set up to host."
The reasons for the Big Ten's shift are well known by now. Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne said Tuesday that a playoff outside of the existing bowls would "pretty much destroy the bowl system." Preserving and protecting the Rose Bowl is paramount to Delany and the rest of the Big Ten brass.
Smith also thinks there are operational advantages to keeping the biggest games at bowl sites.
"There are certain schools that would put it on and host it extremely well," he said. "Others might be challenged with that. Bowls have done this a long time. They have great local organizing committees. ... And it's good for the game."
The strongest counterargument is that campus sites would ease the burden on college football fans. Rather than make separate trips for a league title game, a national semifinal and a national championship game, fans of some teams could have one of those games closer to their homes.
Another apparent plus for Big Ten backers is the potential weather advantage Big Ten teams could exploit by hosting games. Unlike squads in the South and West, Big Ten teams are conditioned to play cold-weather football, but they typically face the best from the SEC, Pac-12 and Big 12 in ideal conditions at places like the Rose Bowl, the Mercedes-Benz Superdome and University of Phoenix Stadium.
The thought of a college football playoff in the snow is both novel and exciting to some Big Ten fans. But Smith actually sees it as a drawback.
Brace yourselves, Woody and Bo ...
"Let's say Ohio State is hosting and it's January or December, and let's say it is 5 degrees," Smith said. "Is that right for the game? We're not pro. We need to figure out what's best for the game, and I think a fast surface, good weather is important for the game. It's important for the kids."
Delany, Osborne and others acknowledge that campus sites could favor the Big Ten, which hasn't won a national championship since after the 2002 season. But in surveying presidents, athletic directors, coaches and even players, the overwhelming majority favored the bowl sites.
"It would be a competitive advantage to have semifinal games at home fields," Osborne said. "... but the bowls have been good to us."
The sentiment isn't sitting well with some folks. The Big Ten might have been alone in advocating for campus sites, but it's fair to ask if the Big Ten gave up on the crusade far too easily.
Yahoo! Sports' Dan Wetzel writes today:
Of the Big Ten groups advocating for playoffs at bowl sites, the coaches' position makes the least sense. These are guys who typically capitalize on every possible advantage presented to them. But they seem to value their players' bowl experience over the possibility of making Alabama or USC play them in the snow.
Why should the Big Ten care if TCU and Oregon have small stadiums and can't accommodate the media and the corporate sponsors? The Big Ten, for the most part, doesn't have those problems.
In my recent interview with Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman, I asked him why so many powerful people in the Midwest care so much about bowl games located so far away.
"It's part of the tradition of college football," Perlman said. "It is a good experience for student-athletes. It makes more sense in terms of ending the season than some kind of playoff. It helps the communities that have been supportive of intercollegiate football for a long time."
What about the local communities Big Ten schools can serve by keeping games on campus?
Wetzel writes:
That's not going to happen. The campus-sites ship has sailed. Perhaps it's a tradeoff the Big Ten made to ultimately ensure strong playoff access for league champions.
If and when the Big Ten champion qualifies for a playoff, however, it will more than likely play a virtual road game. The team will have to fight like heck to win.
A lot harder than the league did to have meaningful games on campus.
Smith favored having the semifinals on the campuses of the higher-seeded teams. The setup would give Big Ten teams like Ohio State an advantage they've never enjoyed in the current BCS/bowl setup -- nationally significant games on Midwest soil in late December or early January. Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany was among the first major college football figures to stump for campus sites this winter.
"We've shifted," Smith told ESPN.com on Tuesday. "I was originally for campus sites, and I still go back there mentally every now and then as discussions occur, but the bowls have a really good system set up to host."
The reasons for the Big Ten's shift are well known by now. Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne said Tuesday that a playoff outside of the existing bowls would "pretty much destroy the bowl system." Preserving and protecting the Rose Bowl is paramount to Delany and the rest of the Big Ten brass.
Smith also thinks there are operational advantages to keeping the biggest games at bowl sites.
"There are certain schools that would put it on and host it extremely well," he said. "Others might be challenged with that. Bowls have done this a long time. They have great local organizing committees. ... And it's good for the game."
The strongest counterargument is that campus sites would ease the burden on college football fans. Rather than make separate trips for a league title game, a national semifinal and a national championship game, fans of some teams could have one of those games closer to their homes.
Another apparent plus for Big Ten backers is the potential weather advantage Big Ten teams could exploit by hosting games. Unlike squads in the South and West, Big Ten teams are conditioned to play cold-weather football, but they typically face the best from the SEC, Pac-12 and Big 12 in ideal conditions at places like the Rose Bowl, the Mercedes-Benz Superdome and University of Phoenix Stadium.
The thought of a college football playoff in the snow is both novel and exciting to some Big Ten fans. But Smith actually sees it as a drawback.
Brace yourselves, Woody and Bo ...
"Let's say Ohio State is hosting and it's January or December, and let's say it is 5 degrees," Smith said. "Is that right for the game? We're not pro. We need to figure out what's best for the game, and I think a fast surface, good weather is important for the game. It's important for the kids."
Delany, Osborne and others acknowledge that campus sites could favor the Big Ten, which hasn't won a national championship since after the 2002 season. But in surveying presidents, athletic directors, coaches and even players, the overwhelming majority favored the bowl sites.
"It would be a competitive advantage to have semifinal games at home fields," Osborne said. "... but the bowls have been good to us."
The sentiment isn't sitting well with some folks. The Big Ten might have been alone in advocating for campus sites, but it's fair to ask if the Big Ten gave up on the crusade far too easily.
Yahoo! Sports' Dan Wetzel writes today:
Somewhere Mike Slive of the SEC and Larry Scott of the Pac-12 are kicking back with a cackle of delight. These guys are angling for every possible edge while the Big Ten and the Rose Bowl sit in adjacent bathtubs, holding hands and waiting for the moment to be right.
Wait, the rest of college football has to be asking, you're not even going to fight and try to make us look like wimps for arguing against football in the cold?
Wait, you seriously are going to ask the same fan base to travel three times in a month -- Big Ten title game, semifinals and championship game, the last two at least via airplane? And you think we won't end up with the majority of the crowd?
The Rose Bowl's power over the Big Ten is something to behold. It makes normally intelligent men say ridiculous things.
Of the Big Ten groups advocating for playoffs at bowl sites, the coaches' position makes the least sense. These are guys who typically capitalize on every possible advantage presented to them. But they seem to value their players' bowl experience over the possibility of making Alabama or USC play them in the snow.
Why should the Big Ten care if TCU and Oregon have small stadiums and can't accommodate the media and the corporate sponsors? The Big Ten, for the most part, doesn't have those problems.
In my recent interview with Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman, I asked him why so many powerful people in the Midwest care so much about bowl games located so far away.
"It's part of the tradition of college football," Perlman said. "It is a good experience for student-athletes. It makes more sense in terms of ending the season than some kind of playoff. It helps the communities that have been supportive of intercollegiate football for a long time."
What about the local communities Big Ten schools can serve by keeping games on campus?
Wetzel writes:
There's no question Big Ten fans love the Rose Bowl, although not as much as they once did. They also like to win, also would like to shut the SEC up and also really like showing off their legendary stadiums and great cities, fighting against the idea that they live in some inhospitable, rusted-out region.
Plenty of them could use the economic impact of staging these massive events in the Midwest too.
That's not going to happen. The campus-sites ship has sailed. Perhaps it's a tradeoff the Big Ten made to ultimately ensure strong playoff access for league champions.
If and when the Big Ten champion qualifies for a playoff, however, it will more than likely play a virtual road game. The team will have to fight like heck to win.
A lot harder than the league did to have meaningful games on campus.
Delany discusses changing bowl landscape
May, 15, 2012
May 15
8:20
PM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
CHICAGO -- Big Ten teams will be playing fewer bowl games in the future. And they'll likely be playing some of them in different locations.
It's all part of a shifting bowl landscape that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany discussed Tuesday at the league's spring meetings. Delany said there's a "very strong consensus" among the league's athletic directors that the bowl-eligibility requirement should increase from six wins to seven wins, a sentiment that's echoed nationally.
"We think it's better for our programs, better for our fans and better for the bowl system for us to have a winning season in order to qualify," Delany said. "... For us, it means redefining a successful year at 7-5 from the standpoint of a bowl season. We argued for 6-6. We've experienced 6-6. Now we're suggesting that it's in our best interest, the bowls' best interest as well as the other conferences that might benefit by these open slots to look at a 7-5 standard."
Teams that finished the regular season at 6-6 have been eligible for bowls the past six seasons. In 2006, the Big Ten sent two 6-6 teams (Minnesota and Iowa) to bowl games, and both lost. The Big Ten has had a total of seven 6-6 teams in bowls, including four last season (Illinois, Purdue, Ohio State and Northwestern). Only two Big Ten teams that finished 6-6 since 2006 -- Northwestern and Iowa in 2007 -- didn't make bowls.
Coaches like Northwestern's Pat Fitzgerald and Purdue's Danny Hope oppose the increase from six to seven wins, but they're in the minority. Delany admits the increase "probably doesn't favor us," but he said it will help the health of the sport.
"We had one team in a bowl game last year at 6-7 [UCLA] that ended up at 6-8," he said. "... You got too much of a good thing, too much ice cream, too many bowl games, too many 6-6 seasons."
The Big Ten also could tweak its bowl lineup, which expires after the 2013 season. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said he "would imagine it will change a little bit," and Delany suggested as much during his session with reporters. Although the bowl lineup has taken a backseat to playoff discussions and where the Rose Bowl fits in, it will garner more attention in the coming months.
Five of the Big Ten's seven non-BCS bowl partners -- Capital One, Outback, Gator, Meineke Car Care, TicketCity -- are located in two states (Florida and Texas). The three Florida bowls take place against SEC foes, while the Meineke Car Care and, in some years, the TicketCity, pit Big Ten teams against Big 12 opponents.
Translation: there's not much variety. Wisconsin played bowls in Orlando or Tampa in six consecutive years (2004-09); Michigan State has played in Orlando or Tampa in four of the past five seasons.
"When you have three bowls in Florida and you're a school that is constantly in that range for selection, your fan base could end up, in a five-year period, four times in the state of Florida," Delany said. "So does that depress the interest? Again, sometimes less is more. Is there a way to give them a taste of Florida and Phoenix and Texas and other places in California? We want to have the fan base excited about going, about who they're playing and about where they're playing.
"After 20 years of experience with bowls, how do we make the next round of bowls stimulating, interesting and responsive, not only to our coaches and our players but also our fan base."
It's all part of a shifting bowl landscape that Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany discussed Tuesday at the league's spring meetings. Delany said there's a "very strong consensus" among the league's athletic directors that the bowl-eligibility requirement should increase from six wins to seven wins, a sentiment that's echoed nationally.
"We think it's better for our programs, better for our fans and better for the bowl system for us to have a winning season in order to qualify," Delany said. "... For us, it means redefining a successful year at 7-5 from the standpoint of a bowl season. We argued for 6-6. We've experienced 6-6. Now we're suggesting that it's in our best interest, the bowls' best interest as well as the other conferences that might benefit by these open slots to look at a 7-5 standard."
[+] Enlarge
AP Photo/Margaret BowlesMichigan State's 2011 season ended in the familiar surroundings of the Outback Bowl.
AP Photo/Margaret BowlesMichigan State's 2011 season ended in the familiar surroundings of the Outback Bowl.Coaches like Northwestern's Pat Fitzgerald and Purdue's Danny Hope oppose the increase from six to seven wins, but they're in the minority. Delany admits the increase "probably doesn't favor us," but he said it will help the health of the sport.
"We had one team in a bowl game last year at 6-7 [UCLA] that ended up at 6-8," he said. "... You got too much of a good thing, too much ice cream, too many bowl games, too many 6-6 seasons."
The Big Ten also could tweak its bowl lineup, which expires after the 2013 season. Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith said he "would imagine it will change a little bit," and Delany suggested as much during his session with reporters. Although the bowl lineup has taken a backseat to playoff discussions and where the Rose Bowl fits in, it will garner more attention in the coming months.
Five of the Big Ten's seven non-BCS bowl partners -- Capital One, Outback, Gator, Meineke Car Care, TicketCity -- are located in two states (Florida and Texas). The three Florida bowls take place against SEC foes, while the Meineke Car Care and, in some years, the TicketCity, pit Big Ten teams against Big 12 opponents.
Translation: there's not much variety. Wisconsin played bowls in Orlando or Tampa in six consecutive years (2004-09); Michigan State has played in Orlando or Tampa in four of the past five seasons.
"When you have three bowls in Florida and you're a school that is constantly in that range for selection, your fan base could end up, in a five-year period, four times in the state of Florida," Delany said. "So does that depress the interest? Again, sometimes less is more. Is there a way to give them a taste of Florida and Phoenix and Texas and other places in California? We want to have the fan base excited about going, about who they're playing and about where they're playing.
"After 20 years of experience with bowls, how do we make the next round of bowls stimulating, interesting and responsive, not only to our coaches and our players but also our fan base."
B1G ADs talk schedule strength for playoff
May, 15, 2012
May 15
5:05
PM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
CHICAGO -- It has taken some time, but Big Ten nonconference schedules are finally beefing up.
Michigan opens the 2012 season against Alabama and Michigan State kicks off against Boise State. The Spartans also have contracts to face Oregon, Alabama and Miami. Ohio State has Virginia Tech and Oklahoma on its future schedules. Northwestern, which used to shy away from tough non-league foes, has series set with Stanford, California and Notre Dame. Traditional series with teams like Notre Dame (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue) and Iowa State (Iowa) aren't going anywhere.
Add in the Big Ten's upcoming scheduling partnership with the Pac-12, set to begin in 2017, and things are looking up with non-league slates.
But will the trend continue in the post-playoff era?
Schedule strength is one of many components that college football's brass must weigh as they try to decide the selection criteria for a four-team playoff. The current BCS system rarely rewards teams -- or in the Pac-12's case, an entire league -- for challenging themselves during non-league play.
"It would be my desire to have strength of schedule play a much more significant role than it does now, which is there's no role for strength of schedule," Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis said. "It's how many wins you get, not who you play. I think we need to come up with a system that motivates schools to want to play tougher non-conference games during the season."
Hollis feels so strongly about schedule strength that he wants it to be factored in selecting bowl teams, even for minor bowls.
Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith, who advocates a scheduling model that includes one marquee non-league game a year, is concerned about where schedule strength fits into the playoff selections.
"Will this make some teams play nobody in the nonconference schedule?" Smith said. "The strength of schedule in the polls changed. It's not as heavily weighted. So now, do I just not play Cal and Texas and all these schools? I don't know. That's going to be interesting to see. We cannot do anything that affects the greatness of the regular season."
The Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't going to rescind their scheduling partnership, which is designed to have 12 intra-league games per year. But if SEC teams can schedule patsies every year and reach a playoff based on the strength of their conference, where's the incentive to beef up?
"One of the reasons we're looking at the Pac-12 coalition is to instill that in our schedule rather than force it in," Hollis said. "But nationally, we need to have that in play, both for bowl eligibility and for championship qualification.
Michigan opens the 2012 season against Alabama and Michigan State kicks off against Boise State. The Spartans also have contracts to face Oregon, Alabama and Miami. Ohio State has Virginia Tech and Oklahoma on its future schedules. Northwestern, which used to shy away from tough non-league foes, has series set with Stanford, California and Notre Dame. Traditional series with teams like Notre Dame (Michigan, Michigan State, Purdue) and Iowa State (Iowa) aren't going anywhere.
Add in the Big Ten's upcoming scheduling partnership with the Pac-12, set to begin in 2017, and things are looking up with non-league slates.
But will the trend continue in the post-playoff era?
Schedule strength is one of many components that college football's brass must weigh as they try to decide the selection criteria for a four-team playoff. The current BCS system rarely rewards teams -- or in the Pac-12's case, an entire league -- for challenging themselves during non-league play.
"It would be my desire to have strength of schedule play a much more significant role than it does now, which is there's no role for strength of schedule," Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis said. "It's how many wins you get, not who you play. I think we need to come up with a system that motivates schools to want to play tougher non-conference games during the season."
Hollis feels so strongly about schedule strength that he wants it to be factored in selecting bowl teams, even for minor bowls.
Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith, who advocates a scheduling model that includes one marquee non-league game a year, is concerned about where schedule strength fits into the playoff selections.
"Will this make some teams play nobody in the nonconference schedule?" Smith said. "The strength of schedule in the polls changed. It's not as heavily weighted. So now, do I just not play Cal and Texas and all these schools? I don't know. That's going to be interesting to see. We cannot do anything that affects the greatness of the regular season."
The Big Ten and Pac-12 aren't going to rescind their scheduling partnership, which is designed to have 12 intra-league games per year. But if SEC teams can schedule patsies every year and reach a playoff based on the strength of their conference, where's the incentive to beef up?
"One of the reasons we're looking at the Pac-12 coalition is to instill that in our schedule rather than force it in," Hollis said. "But nationally, we need to have that in play, both for bowl eligibility and for championship qualification.
B1G ADs: Playoff will bring more tumult
May, 15, 2012
May 15
4:15
PM ET
By
Adam Rittenberg | ESPN.com
CHICAGO -- Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith has chaired the NCAA basketball tournament selection committee, so he knows a thing or two about difficult decisions and fan backlash.
While a four-team playoff in college football will please most fans of the sport, Smith thinks it won't mitigate the debate about who's in and who's out. Just the opposite, in fact.
Smith and his fellow Big Ten athletic directors on Monday began studying the polls, the final BCS standings and any other rankings since the 1992 season. They found that differentiating between No. 4 and No. 5 is often tougher than choosing the two best teams to play in the national title game.
"When you start looking at [Nos.] 3, 4, 5 and 6, you're going to be able to put a piece of paper between those teams," Smith said.
The final regular-season polls from recent seasons often show small differences between No. 4 and No. 5.
In 2010, No. 4 Wisconsin had only six more points than No. 5 Stanford in the AP Poll, 22 more points in the Harris Poll and 37 more points in the Coaches' Poll. In 2009, both Florida and Boise State were within 70 points of No. 4 Cincinnati in the AP and Coaches' polls. In 2004, the AP Poll had Utah at No. 4 and Texas at No. 5, while the teams were flipped in the Coaches' Poll, separated by just 24 points. In 2007, No. 4 Georgia led No. 5 Virginia Tech by just 35 points in the Coaches' Poll. The final Harris Poll that year had USC at No. 5 and Virginia Tech at No. 6.
"Who's going to pick that 4 and 5?" Smith said. "It's just like in the NCAA tournament. Who's left out? That's what's going to happen."
It's not surprising that the conference commissioners spent so much time on potential selection procedures for the playoff at last month's BCS meetings in Florida. Several Big Ten ADs say there's support for a selection committee to be used for the future format.
The playoff also will put more teams in the mix for berths than the current system, when usually only one team can have a legitimate claim to one of the spots in the title game.
"In the FCS, now they've got 20 teams in the playoff and they're talking about going to 24 because the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th teams are not happy," Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne said. "Well, you can only imagine what's going to happen here. Every team probably in the top 10 or 12, they're going to have some argument as to why they should be in the four-team playoff.
"People think this will settle it on the field, this will diminish the amount of controversy. I don't think that'll happen at all. If anything, it will escalate it because you have more teams involved."
While a four-team playoff in college football will please most fans of the sport, Smith thinks it won't mitigate the debate about who's in and who's out. Just the opposite, in fact.
Smith and his fellow Big Ten athletic directors on Monday began studying the polls, the final BCS standings and any other rankings since the 1992 season. They found that differentiating between No. 4 and No. 5 is often tougher than choosing the two best teams to play in the national title game.
"When you start looking at [Nos.] 3, 4, 5 and 6, you're going to be able to put a piece of paper between those teams," Smith said.
The final regular-season polls from recent seasons often show small differences between No. 4 and No. 5.
In 2010, No. 4 Wisconsin had only six more points than No. 5 Stanford in the AP Poll, 22 more points in the Harris Poll and 37 more points in the Coaches' Poll. In 2009, both Florida and Boise State were within 70 points of No. 4 Cincinnati in the AP and Coaches' polls. In 2004, the AP Poll had Utah at No. 4 and Texas at No. 5, while the teams were flipped in the Coaches' Poll, separated by just 24 points. In 2007, No. 4 Georgia led No. 5 Virginia Tech by just 35 points in the Coaches' Poll. The final Harris Poll that year had USC at No. 5 and Virginia Tech at No. 6.
"Who's going to pick that 4 and 5?" Smith said. "It's just like in the NCAA tournament. Who's left out? That's what's going to happen."
It's not surprising that the conference commissioners spent so much time on potential selection procedures for the playoff at last month's BCS meetings in Florida. Several Big Ten ADs say there's support for a selection committee to be used for the future format.
The playoff also will put more teams in the mix for berths than the current system, when usually only one team can have a legitimate claim to one of the spots in the title game.
"In the FCS, now they've got 20 teams in the playoff and they're talking about going to 24 because the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th teams are not happy," Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne said. "Well, you can only imagine what's going to happen here. Every team probably in the top 10 or 12, they're going to have some argument as to why they should be in the four-team playoff.
"People think this will settle it on the field, this will diminish the amount of controversy. I don't think that'll happen at all. If anything, it will escalate it because you have more teams involved."
Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith talks with Adam Rittenberg about the playoff models and what's best for the Big Ten.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Adam Rittenberg
Rittenberg joined ESPN.com in 2008 after four years at the Arlington Heights (Ill.) Daily Herald, where he covered sports at Notre Dame, Northwestern, DePaul and several other colleges. He lives in Chicago.
Brian Bennett
Bennett joined ESPN.com in August 2008 after nine years at The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., where he covered college sports and the University of Louisville beat. He lives in Louisville.
BIG TEN TEAM COVERAGE
RECRUITING NATION
Michigan: WolverineNation
Follow everything Michigan at WolverineNation: Michigan Wolverines football, basketball, news, recruiting and more.
