ESPN College Football

Michigan State's Mark Hollis won a prestigious athletic director of the year award Wednesday, in part because he often breaks from the norm and thinks outside the box.

But he's also a traditionalist when it comes to certain topics, including the makeup of conferences. Another round of major realignment seems imminent, with the ACC squarely in the crosshairs, and the potential for 16-team superconferences remains real. Hollis echoed what Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said last week, telling ESPN.com on Thursday, "The Big Ten is very comfortable [at 12 teams] but very prepared."

Hollis knows Delany must be in a position to act if necessary. He's also concerned, though, about the reasons fueling realignment and the potential larger impact on college sports.

"I'm very much a regionalized individual," Hollis said. "I believe college sports need to be collegiate in its focus. You have to look beyond the one-sport mentality where a lot of these decisions are being made just around football. I understand the value and the importance that football has, but you have student-athletes competing in a lot of different sports. These affiliations, as they start breaking down by sport, are going to create a lot of confusion, which will be a concern for the sport. ...

"In some cases, you almost have fear as part of the decisions being made."

Fear, both on the part of individual schools and entire leagues, has kept realignment fluid for the better part of two years. No school or league wants to be irrelevant. And in an environment where massive TV deals are being awarded to conferences, no one wants to be left out.

The results are West Virginia in the Big 12, Syracuse headed to the ACC and Boise State heading to the Big East for football only.

"We're paying market value on coaches' salaries, trying to keep facilities that are very high up, trying to generate scholarship funds," Hollis said. "In order to pursue those revenues, we are sometimes making some decisions that are counterproductive to the way college sports have developed. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying we need to pause as an industry and really grasp what it is we are doing to intercollegiate sports."

Hollis' call for pause might be futile in an environment where everything seems to be in fast-forward. But at least one decorated athletic director hasn't completely lost perspective.

"I'm a purist in college sports," he said. "I love to see the pennants flying, I love to see school against school in so many sports the way Harvard and Yale compete against each other. I understand that we need to generate funds. I just want to make sure that we keep things in check and balance from that collegiate model."

It's chat day, and we had some good discussion and debate early this afternoon.

In case you missed out, I've got you covered with a complete chat transcript.

Here are some highlights:

Jon from Augusta, Ga.: Having a 9th conference game could alleviate many of the long layovers (e.g., OSU-Neb, UW-MSU) that are coming up. Do you think the league would entertain the thought of staging a yearly set of 6 neutral site games (i.e., one for each team) as a 9th conference game? In this way, each team would keep an even # of home and away games, and it could increase B1G exposure in large cities within (Detroit, Cleveland, etc) and near (St. Louis, DC, NYC) the conference footprint.

Adam Rittenberg: Jon, that's an interesting proposal, but again, the problem is the reluctance of several Big Ten schools to part with home games. The thought of five guaranteed games away from home (road or neutral) just won't fly with some ADs in this league. But I obviously like the idea of fewer gaps between league matchups, and the neutral-site element is very interesting given what's happening around college football right now.

Smitty from Carmel, Ind.: If Michigan loses to Alabama in a close game, do they have a chance at a NCG if USC, Bama and LSU all have one loss at the end of season.?

Adam Rittenberg: Depends on those losses, Smitty, and how they came about. Michigan also would need the teams it beat to get to 11-1 -- Notre Dame, Michigan State, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc -- to be highly regarded nationally. If Michigan beats Notre Dame and Nebraska but neither team wins 10 games, the wins don't hold as much value for the Wolverines. Bottom line: it'd be tough for the Wolverines to get to Miami without beating Bama.

Chris from Santa Monica, Calif.: If you were a Head Coach, would you schedule a bunch of night games (or try to) for National Exposure, even if it could possible hinder your team's success? IE, UM has 3 night games this year, all away from AA.

Adam Rittenberg: Depends on which team I'm coaching, Chris. Three night games away from home aren't ideal, but Michigan can win all three contests in my view. And what a season that would be, to go on the road and repeatedly win at night. If I'm Michigan, I want one home night game a year and maybe one on the road. If I'm Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana or Minnesota, I want as many night games as possible to showcase my program. But there aren't many downsides to night football, in my view. It certainly doesn't seem to bother folks in other leagues as much as it does Big Ten folks.

Bama Fan from Denver: Adam, I was curious what you would say to SEC (and Bama folks) about Jim Delany's obvious bid to try to keep more than one SEC team out of the last four (although it could ostensibly happen down the road to two B1G teams I suppose). Are fans up there embarrassed by this? I sure would be if Mike Slive was putting up the same argument. thanks!

Adam Rittenberg: SEC fans crack me up. What do you expect him to do? Bow to the mighty Slive and just say, "Fill the playoff with your obviously superior teams! Don't mind us!" C'mon, Bama fan. Of course Delany is going to fight to have his conference champion in that mix as much as possible. He's the Big Ten commissioner, not the SEC appreciation commissioner. It'd be like Slive openly stumping for playoff games in the north. It's never going to happen.

Bill from Chicago: B1G doesn't want 9-game conference schedules because of regular games with Notre Dame (Mich., MSU, Purdue) and 4/5 home/away splits. The PAC-12 plays 9-game conference schedules despite regular games with Notre Dame (Stanford, USC) and 4/5 home/away splits. What's the difference?

Adam Rittenberg: The Pac-12 has always taken a more aggressive scheduling approach than the Big Ten, Bill. And the Pac-12 coaches, quite frankly, hate it because it hurts their chances of winning national titles. The 9-game league schedules, while benefiting Pac-12 fans, have unquestionably hurt the league in getting BCS bowl bids and winning national titles. So which do you want: more enjoyable regular-season schedules or stronger positioning to unseat the SEC atop college football?

Thanks again for your questions and your participation. If you didn't get a question answered, try again next week before I take a bit of a chat hiatus.

Jim Delany may or may not get everything he wants in a new college football playoff system, but it's still good to be the Big Ten commissioner.

According to USA Today, Delany was the second highest-paid conference commissioner in 2010, the year for which the most recent tax records are available. Delany made nearly $1.8 million, with a little more than $1.2 million in base salary and more than $550,000 in other compensation. USA Today reports his pay increased about nine percent.

That puts him second only to Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, who was paid $1.9 million in salary and bonuses. Scott received that salary in his first full year as Pac-12 (then Pac-10) commissioner, but he has earned his money with innovative ideas, including expansion.

What's a measly $100,000 between friends? We propose that Scott and Delany put the differences in salary on the line for the first Pac-12/Big Ten series in 2017. Any takers?

Both men, surprisingly, made much more than SEC commissioner Mike Slive, who took home just over $1 million. If Slive could just get the SEC to succeed in some team sports, perhaps he'd be in line for a raise. Of course, the cost of living is a little lower in Birmingham, Ala., than it is in the Chicago area or Northern California, where Delany and Scott go to work.

Big Ten bloggers Adam Rittenberg and Brian Bennett will occasionally give their takes on a burning question facing the league. We'll both have strong opinions, but not necessarily the same view. We'll let you decide which blogger is right.

With college football still buzzing from last week's announcement of a Big 12/SEC champions bowl game, there is more talk about potential realignment and super conferences. Today's Take Two topic is this: What moves should the Big Ten make if the conference landscapes again start to shift?

Take 1: Brian Bennett

I don't think the Big Ten is very interested in expanding past its current 12 members, but Jim Delany and the league have to be ready to do something if the winds change. That could happen if a couple of ACC teams bolt for the Big 12 or somewhere else, creating some free-agent chaos. The problem for the Big Ten is that there are not a whole lot of really attractive schools who fit geographically, academically and culturally. Maryland and Rutgers would probably be the best two possible additions, but neither get your blood pumping. Maryland is a bit of a mess right now with its major sports, while Rutgers has never really accomplished anything in football. Neither makes the league stronger. Notre Dame remains the Holy Grail but looks far more interested in joining an expanded Big 12 if it ever is forced to give up its independence. Schools like Florida State and Clemson just don't mesh with the Big Ten. If the league needed to add, I think Virginia Tech might be a good target. While the Hokies may not be an ideal fit, they are highly competitive in football and open up some new areas of exposure for the conference. That would make bringing in Maryland and/or Rutgers more palatable. But let's hope it doesn't come to that, because the Big Ten is in really good shape right now with 12 teams.

Take 2: Adam Rittenberg

I agree that 12 is a good number for the Big Ten, and any further expansion, other than Notre Dame, would likely be a reluctant move for the league. But the Big Ten can't afford to sit on its hands while the realignment landscape remains so active. Let's make this clear: I hate the idea of 16-team superconferences. It's expanding for the sake of expanding. Leagues would completely lack intimacy and commonality, teams would play even less often and there would be filler teams everywhere. That said, the Big Ten likely can't afford to stay at 12 if both the SEC and the Big 12 go to 16 teams. Beyond Notre Dame, the Big Ten likely would be adding for the sake of adding. But unfortunately, that's the reality. In this case, Maryland isn't the worst option, although Maryland's athletic department is a mess right now. I think it would be important to stretch the boundaries -- every other league is doing so -- and look to the southeast. Georgia Tech is a potentially intriguing option, located in a major market (Atlanta) in SEC territory. The AAU factor remains extremely important to Big Ten presidents, despite Nebraska's loss of membership. AAU schools that make sense include Georgia Tech, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia. While it's nice to think about the Big Ten having a larger presence in the New York market, there's a risk there because Rutgers doesn't bring you much. The more prudent move would be to look to the southeast.

The Big Ten's fiscal year doesn't end until June 30, but the league is headed toward another record revenue total.

According to figures provided to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch by Illinois' athletic department, 11 of the 12 Big Ten members will receive about $24.6 million in shared revenue from the past year. Nebraska, which officially joined the Big Ten on July 1, 2011, isn't receiving a full revenue share yet.

From the Post-Dispatch:

The projected payout is based on budget estimates and is expected to include $7.2 million from the Big Ten Network, a drop from last year's $7.9 million. However, contracts with ESPN/ABC and CBS will result in $10 million per school, which is a 22 percent increase over last year.

Official revenue totals from the 2011-12 fiscal year won't be available until next May, but ESPN.com obtained the league's tax documents from the previous fiscal year (2010-11).

Big Ten schools received between $22,879,703-$22,941,702 for the previous fiscal year (July 1, 2010-June 30, 2011). The league adopts equal revenue sharing, although there are typically slight differences in the individual payouts.

The league's overall revenue rose to $265,078,691 from $232,403,651 in 2009-10. The league paid $251,886,723 to its 11 member schools.

Some notable league expenses included the drug-testing program ($263,378), the kickoff luncheon/football media days ($378,025; the luncheon also generated $148,884 in revenue); and an internship program ($269,500).

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany earned $1,215,106 in 2010-11. League presidents and chancellors, classified as "directors" for the league, earned between $332,089-$1,168,685. The three highest-paid presidents: Ohio State's E. Gordon Gee, Northwestern's Morton Schapiro and former Penn State president Graham Spanier.

The bottom line is that the Big Ten's financial numbers are strong amid talk that college football's top four conferences -- SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 -- are distancing themselves from the pack.

It's about winning championships for the Big Ten, but it's also about positioning for the next TV negotiation. The Big Ten's current deal expires after the 2015 season.

Some Big Ten chats are better than others, and today's was one of the better ones we've had in a while. Kudos to you for participating and asking good questions. Midseason form. Good to see.

For those who missed out on the fun, I've got you covered. Here's the full chat transcript.

Some highlights:

Mr. T. from Columbus: Don't you think the B1G gave up too easily in pushing for home games in the semifinals of the playoffs? The biggest thing people complain about in bowl games is that the Southern teams never have to travel. Well this was the opportunity for our conference to keep pushing to change that but instead they would rather keep their allegiance to the Rose Bowl.

Adam Rittenberg: Mr. T, I'm surprised the Big Ten didn't push a little harder. But the sentiment among Jim Delany an the ADs, one I believe to be correct, is that the national opposition would have been too strong to overcome. Is it worth fighting a losing battle? Perhaps it would have been, but the Big Ten also would have been viewed as a nuisance/obstructionist, etc. It sounds weird, but it's a lot less controversial nationally for the Big Ten to stump for the Rose Bowl than for campus sites. Won't be too much opposition from other leagues to having bowl sites.

Jason from Cali: Adam, do you think some of Delany's comment on changing bowl affiliation and requirement, moving from 6-6 to 7-5 for eligibility, statements are based on the fact that many of the B1G bowl games are agaisnt the SEC and he wants to change that?

Adam Rittenberg: No. Although a 6-6 Ohio State team played Florida last year, most of the Big Ten-SEC bowl matchups feature teams with 8 or more victories. So the increase in wins for bowl eligibility would impact the Big Ten's agreements with the Meineke Car Care Bowl (Big 12), the TicketCity Bowl (Big 12/Conference USA) and the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl (MAC) more than any of the Big Ten-SEC bowls. That said, Jason, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Big Ten reduce its SEC bowl matchups from three to two in the next cycle. Don't really see a need for the Big Ten to play three Florida bowls on the same day against the same league. A bit silly.

Adam from Toledo: Adam - tried to submit this a second ago but don't think it worked, so sorry if this is a repeat. I know not a lot of people are giving Michigan much of a chance to win their opener in Dallas against Alabama and Nick Saban. What I want to know is what exactly Michigan needs to do in order to have a chance at winning. Obviously Denard needs to make better decisions (and better throws) with the ball, but given Blue's lack of top-flight receivers, I don't think that alone will carry the Wolverines. What else can Michigan do to win?

Adam Rittenberg: Adam, it's imperative for Michigan to keep the score down. Alabama might have lost a bunch of stud players, but the Tide have other stars ready to step in. And they should be able to pass the ball pretty well this year. Michigan needs a big game from its corners -- the guys we were discussing earlier -- and it has to capitalize on scoring opportunities in Alabama's half of the field. I don't think Michigan can win this game with more than one turnover, and that's all on Denard. It's all about limiting mistakes and efficiency against a team like Bama. Also big for Michigan's new-look defensive line to handle Barrett Jones and the Alabama offensive front.

Steve from Philly: Would Penn State consider going to the ACC ever? I know it sounds crazy but PSU has ties to Pitt and Syracuse and could fit in nicely there.

Adam Rittenberg: That idea is out there, but I'd be surprised if Penn State made the jump. The Big Ten is a stronger overall athletic conference. It has an incredibly successful television network (BTN), and Penn State has seen the benefits for many of its programs. Penn State is not a basketball school, and the ACC always will be a hoops-first league. My take: If Penn State wants to play with Pitt and Syracuse so badly, it's an admission of where PSU fits into the national picture. If PSU wants to be big time, stay in the Big Ten and win more Big Ten football titles against Michigan, Ohio State, etc.

Brian from Detroit: Awhile back you said you thought Michigan State was a basketball school. Do you still think that? Or has Dantonio changed your mind?

Adam Rittenberg: It's interesting, Brian. When I posed that question to the blog last year, I got tons of emails from MSU fans saying it's a football school, end of story. I think there's a lot of truth to that, and Mark Dantonio's recent success has brought the football passion out of a fan base that had been knocked down too many times in the early part of the last decade. Does MSU basketball get more media coverage than MSU football? Without a doubt. Is Tom Izzo a bigger deal than Dantonio? Without a doubt. But I think Michigan State is one of those rare schools that has great passion for both major revenue sports.

Bren from Berkeley, Calif.: Adam, just say the facts. The SEC loses sleep at night at simple thought of playing in snow. You heard the stats in the NFL about southern team's records after Dec 7th. when playing in the north. You think Mike Slive for one second wants the fragile perception of his conference burst...?

Adam Rittenberg: I don't know if the SEC loses much sleep at night these days, Bren. But you're right -- of course the SEC doesn't want its teams to play in the north. The difference is, the SEC has support from other leagues in this aim (ACC, Pac-12, etc.). The fact is the most significant college games never have been played in the Big Ten footprint. Why the other leagues would want that to change makes no sense.

Thanks again for the questions, and my apologies to those whose questions weren't answered. Let's do it again soon.

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.

CHICAGO -- Here's one possible reason the Big Ten decided not to push harder for playoff games at campus sites.

"We're trying to not be the barrier," Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke told ESPN.com. "We have strong values and strong opinions. We've said that throughout. You go back to 2008, and we wanted the BCS to remain intact. And we've have a 60-plus-year relationship with the Rose Bowl. We've never hid that fact.

"But it's pretty clear that some level of compromise is necessary. So instead of putting stakes in the ground and making it hard for the various constituencies around the country to get ideas up on the table, we're trying to be part of the process."

It's an important shift from the past, when the Big Ten, and specifically longtime league commissioner Jim Delany, have been portrayed as the primary barrier to a playoff in college football. Although the Big Ten/Delany wasn't the only party to oppose the four-team playoff proposed by SEC commissioner Mike Slive and ACC commissioner John Swofford four years ago, the other opponents weren't placed in the obstructionist role nearly as much.

These days, the Big Ten couldn't stop a playoff even if it wanted to, but the league could live up to its reputation by refusing to budge on the campus-sites issue. See, there's little to no support for campus sites elsewhere in college football. It almost certainly would be a losing battle for the Big Ten.

Is it worth fighting? Many folks think it is. But the Big Ten/Delany would be viewed mostly in a negative -- and familiar -- light.

The league's push for playoff games at bowl sites, which keeps the Rose Bowl as relevant as possible, isn't nearly as confrontational nationally as a campus-sites push would be. Why would leagues like the SEC and Pac-12 oppose bowl sites, which are located so close to their campuses?

"I'd like to be able to play more on my campus," Burke said. "But I recognize the chances of that occurring given the climate are probably [low]. ... You listen to the national debate, and it's not there. So that's where, to me, it leads you back and you try to figure out how the bowls can be integrated."

Asked if the Big Ten fought hard enough for campus sites, Burke replied, "We have, but there's also got to be give and take. Jim has tried to step back. He has been around the longest of all the commissioners. So you've got to be a little bit careful now. You've got to let others get into the debate at the table, so that they feel like you're not just trying to shove something down their throat.

"He has put some stakes in the ground on the field that are important. If it's an issue that is not absolutely core to our values, the values of our ADs and our presidents, we're going to try to help create a consensus."

Jim Delany, consensus builder? The label might never catch on, but there's definitely a push from the Big Ten to no longer stand in the way any more.

"There's a lot here that's happening that doesn't necessarily favor a conference," Delany said. "Basically, you try and do what's right for college football. That's part of our task."

CHICAGO -- Two years ago, Big Ten expansion dominated the discussion at league's spring meetings.

This week, the subject barely came up when athletic directors and others got together. The Big Ten presidents and chancellors announced in August that the league "will not be actively engaged in conference expansion at this time, or at any time in the foreseeable future, barring a significant shift in the current intercollegiate athletic landscape."

The shifting elsewhere has continued, and teams are switching leagues practically every day, but the Big Ten seems content to stay out of the realignment chaos. Iowa athletic director Gary Barta told ESPN.com the ADs spent "hardly any time at all" talking about realignment this week.

"We have a great 12," Northwestern athletic director Jim Phillips said. "We have some really like-minded institutions, and I think everybody's more than thrilled about where we're at right now. Do you make sure you understand what's going on in the landscape? Absolutely. That's our responsibility. But right now, are we really, really pleased with where we're at? That's an exclamation point."

Most of the monitoring responsibility falls on Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, who stated those in his position are "not doing their job" if they don't track issues like expansion, television deals and compliance issues. Since the Big Ten began realignment fever in December 2009, every other league in the FBS has changed in some way.

The Pac-10 became the Pac-12. The SEC has swelled to 14 teams, and the ACC soon will, too, unless Florida State heads for greener pastures.

"The tectonic plates underneath conference alignment are still hot," Delany said Wednesday. "... Clearly you're reading that some people who thought they were going in one direction, TCU, are now going in another direction. Some out West who thought they were going East are now maybe reconsidering that. You're seeing discussions. So what that tells me is the tectonic plates, there's still fluidity. Our position hasn't changed. We're very pleased with the 12 institutions we have. We're not in an active mode.

"But we're monitoring it."

CHICAGO -- The Big Ten is bringing together its brainpower to help gather more information about the effects of concussions in sports.

Commissioner Jim Delany announced Wednesday that the league members will launch a research initiative about how head injuries affect athletes in all sports. The Committee on Institutional Cooperation, the Big Ten's internal academic consortium, which includes all 12 sports members and the University of Chicago, will manage the project and the research efforts.

"We basically lack across the country great longitudinal information," Delany said. "So we're trying to organize ourselves in a way to begin to develop that information. We've got 9,500 athletes [in the Big Ten], so what that is over a four year period is 40,000 student-athlete years. We're having important discussions with other major research institutions, the presidents in some of those other conferences, are determining whether or not they want to join with us in this collaboration."

In early 2011, the Big Ten began discussing the idea of pooling its resources -- the league is filled with major research institutions, top hospitals and noted doctors and scientists. The next step is to gain funding from organizations like the National Institute of Health.

"In addition to trying to work with the NFL and NCAA rule committee members, and our officials and our coaches," Delany said, "we feel that we are uniquely positioned because of the research that occurs on our campuses, not only in the hard sciences but the social sciences because of the placement of our doctors and trainers having been together for a very long time.

"It's a beginning of a long journey, but we're hoping 25 or 30 years from now that the discussions we're having now, if we're able to get funding from any number of sources, can provide the long-term research and information to help guide decisions."

CHICAGO -- When the Big Ten put 20,000 general public tickets on sale for the inaugural football title game in late July, they were gone within two hours.

But many of those tickets -- bought by fans whose teams didn't qualify for the game in Indianapolis -- reappeared on websites like Stubhub.com days before the game, creating a soft secondary market. Some tickets were priced as low as $9 right before the game.

Although the game sold out, there were several thousand empty seats at Lucas Oil Stadium when Wisconsin played Michigan State.

"You don't want to sell 20,000 tickets in two hours and find out that 10,000 or 8,000 of those were washing around in the secondary market leading up to the game," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said Wednesday. "So the game was sold out, but the tickets that were out there were not efficiently distributed."

The Big Ten will explore new ticket-sales technology to fix the situation going forward. One proposal is to have fans buy tickets -- and possibly even rental cars and hotel rooms -- on a conditional basis, where they could be refunded if their team doesn't qualify for the title game.

"You're actually able to sell the same ticket three times," Delany said. "... In the bowl system and in Major League Baseball and in sports generally, the technology is providing opportunities for more efficiently moving tickets into people's hands and into event operators."

Delany said most elements of the inaugural league title game were a big success, including the fan fest and the television production, but the ticket-sales piece will be improved going forward.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany recaps the league's spring meetings with Adam Rittenberg.

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."

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:

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.

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."