ESPN College Football

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 the previous fiscal year. 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 the previous fiscal year. 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.

The days of the Rose Bowl being the bowl of bowls could soon be coming to an end now that the SEC and the Big 12 have agreed on a five-year bowl partnership.

The new deal, announced Friday, will have the champions of the Big 12 and SEC meet in a New Year's Day bowl game annually beginning with the 2014 season. So while it won’t have the tradition of the Rose Bowl, it’ll have the viewers and it’ll have the popularity.

We’re seeing more and more how power is truly the most important component in college football, and this is a great example. Soon, we’ll have the two best BCS conferences going at it in their own special bowl competing with the beloved Rose Bowl.

We’re joined on the SEC blog by Big 12 blogger David Ubben to get his thoughts on what this means for the Big 12. We’re gentlemen down here in SEC country, so we’ll let him go first:

David Ubben: Rose Bowl, we love you. Not as much as Jim Delany does, but I'm not sure anyone can stake that claim. Anyway, it's time to face an unfortunate truth: You've been one-upped. The unnamed, unplaced bowl partnership between the Big 12 and SEC won't have the same level of tradition, but it will feature better teams. That's a powerful draw.
The BCS has played 14 national title games since its birth. The Big 12 or SEC have participated in 12 of them. Teams from the league have met in the game twice.

Now, they'll have another big stage to showcase their top teams. If a Big 12 or SEC champion is in the four-team playoff that will likely begin in the 2014 season, the next-best team will fill their place in the annual game. Deciding who plays in that game is up to each conference. The nation's two best conferences will get a much-needed opportunity to face one another on the field and test the hotly debated offense vs. defense theories on the field annually. The nation's college football fans were robbed of that when Oklahoma State was squeezed out of the national title game for SEC West second-place finisher Alabama. This year, the SEC and Big 12 only play once, when eight-win Texas travels to face two-win Ole Miss in September. Not exactly must-see TV.

This will be.

It assures the Big 12 a place at the adults' table of college football, further extending the distance between college football's top four leagues -- the SEC, Big 12, Pac-12 and Big Ten, in that order -- and the ACC and Big East. The ACC and Big East have the Orange Bowl, but any game like the SEC and Big 12 put together will pale in comparison when it comes to TV ratings and more importantly, TV money.

Only a few months ago, the Big 12 had eight teams, with half the league considering a move to the Pac-12 and the conference on life support. Things are looking very different now. It's about to sign a giant television deal, likely extending the grant of rights into the next decade and assuring stability at least through then, and probably beyond.

Tired of getting stuck playing Boise State and UConn in everything to lose, nothing to gain BCS bowl matchups? Seven-time Big 12 champion Oklahoma won't have to worry about that anymore, and even if the Sooners are in the forthcoming national championship playoff, the next-best Big 12 team will have a quality opponent to prove itself against.

Another plus for the Big 12? The Cotton Bowl's odds of getting into the BCS as it stood were minimal. Now? It's still in flux, but does anyone want to bet against Jerry Jones and his wallet to get this game in his Dallas palace at some point? That's a big game in the Big 12 footprint, something that's never happened on the BCS bowl stage.

How will this affect Florida State, too? News has surely reached Tallahassee by now, and the Florida State spear-toting brass have to be wondering how much this factors into their wandering eye toward the Big 12. Is the ACC the place to be?

We'll find out soon, but on Jan. 1, 2015, there will be only one place to be.

This game.

Edward Aschoff: I couldn’t agree more with pretty much everything you said. There’s no question that both of these leagues have dominated the BCS since its first year in 1998. The conferences have been left out of the national championship just twice in the last 14 years and the SEC has participated in -- and won -- eight. The Big 12 has won two of its seven appearances.

SEC commissioner Mike Slive has just about everything he wants in his conference, but he hasn’t had the Rose Bowl. Sure, all those national championship trophies are nice, but an annual game like the Rose Bowl commands respect. The game that the Big Ten and Pac-12 covet so much, and is watched by millions annually, will now get a major run for its money. While they’ll be played in different time slots, there’s no question that this will turn into the ultimate popularity contest. If you could sense that Big Ten-SEC tension before, just wait. Now, the SEC will be looking down on the Big Ten and picking at the game it holds so dear. Don’t think that didn’t cross the commissioner’s mind when he was thinking about this deal.

The SEC has truly been front and center in the college football world for the past six years with its 6-0 record in BCS championships, and now it will pursue a game it thinks can have the gusto of the Rose. This is a great opportunity for the SEC to build another fine tradition for the country’s top college football conference. And fans/the media want to see more of these matchups. For the most part, we're all deprived of them during the regular season, so here's a chance for us to win something as well. These two conferences need to play more. The best should always play the best, and as David said, we can finally settle the whole offense-defense debate.

This also means that more SEC teams have the chance to play in a primetime, marquee matchup in January. If this had been in place last season, Arkansas, which certainly had a BCS-caliber team, would have played in a BCS-like bowl, since Alabama and LSU met in the title game. The Cotton Bowl got the matchup this game would have received, but it would have been on a much grander scale and much more attention would have been paid to it. Oh, and much more money would have come out of it.

It would likely help the SEC this year too, as there could be as many as five teams jockeying for BCS position. Imagine if the four-team playoff took place this season? You might have two more SEC teams fighting for a chance at a national championship, meaning this game would give No. 3 a chance strut its stuff in front of its own grand audience.

There’s no question that with a four-team playoff, the SEC will have more opportunities to put teams in the national championship, continuing its dominance. Now, Slive has helped to ensure that a high-caliber team left out of the championship hunt will still play in a game that will command the type of attention that comes with a BCS bowl.

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."

1. Jimmy Johnson has been out of coaching for more than a decade, and out of college football for nearly 25 years. But he knows enough about the University of Miami to know that he likes second-year coach Al Golden. “I told Al he’s doing it the right way,” Johnson said Tuesday at his College Football Hall of Fame press conference in New York. “He’s an outstanding recruiter. He’s very disciplined. I think he’s the perfect guy to get Miami back on track.”

2. The Big Ten athletic directors backed away from commissioner Jim Delany’s trial balloon of playing semifinal games on campus. It is, in theory, a good idea to even the playing field. But it ignores the history of bowls and the celebratory nature of the traditional postseason. All sides seem to want to integrate the playoff system into the bowls as much as possible. The battleship that is college football’s postseason doesn’t turn easily.

3. A very happy 100th birthday Thursday to Ace Parker, one of the greatest American athletes of the prewar era. Parker starred for Wallace Wade at Duke from 1934-36 as a single-wing tailback (5.9-yard rushing average), punter and defensive back. The 1936 Blue Devils went 9-1 with seven shutouts. Parker won the NFL MVP Award in 1940 with the Brooklyn Dodgers. Parker also played outfield for two seasons for the Philadelphia Athletics (1936-37). He is the oldest living member of the Pro and College Football Halls of Fame.

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 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."

AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. -- Coming changes to the BCS have captivated the college football world this offseason.

Coaches have been paying attention, too, and have their own opinions about how a future four-team playoff should look. One of the bigger discussion points at the ACC spring meetings Monday was about the BCS. Executive director Bill Hancock presented some of the ideas that have come up during meetings with the conference commissioners.

Nothing has been settled about who gets in, but one of the biggest debates has centered on whether winning a conference championship should be a requirement. Hancock polled the room to see what the ACC coaches want, and the consensus was that conference champions should be given preference.

"There has to be some stipulation in there about champions," Florida State coach Jimbo Fisher said. "Because not everybody plays the same schedule. We play a nine-game conference schedule. Other teams don’t. That’s weighed in. Some conferences have a conference championship game. Others don’t. Being a conference champion is no small task. Not only are you going through your conference, then you turn around and play a conference championship game. There has to be a lot of weight given to conference champions."

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has already floated one plan that would include only conference champions. Under this plan, conference champions would be required to finish in the top six of the final standings; the top four advance to the four-team playoff. If four conference champions are not in the top six, then the highest ranked at-large teams would be selected.

Under this plan, Alabama would have made it into a four-team playoff last season. No. 4 Stanford would have been left out.

"The BCS is an evolving situation, and it has been in, what, 16 years, and they’ve improved on it every year and I think they will improve on it some more," Boston College coach Frank Spaziani said. "It’s not black and white, and it’s not clear cut. That’s why it’s a difficult question. There’s good people running it and they have a good plan.

"I’m in favor of the BCS, what they’re doing right now and opening up the dialogue and coming up with something. I do know the conference champion does need to be involved. A conference champion, certainly, in order to keep the season and the championship games relevant has to be involved in whatever the BCS comes up with."

The next BCS meeting is set for June, when details are expected to be worked out on how the final four teams would be selected, where the games will be played, how current BCS games factor in and whether bowl tie-ins to those BCS games remain.

From league commissioner Jim Delany to the presidents to the athletic directors and to the coaches, the Big Ten is united in its desire to keep the Rose Bowl as relevant as possible.

Even the league's newest head football coach, Penn State's Bill O'Brien, wants to preserve The Granddaddy of Them All as a premier game every year. O'Brien told reporters Monday during a coaches caravan stop that he and his fellow coaches want the bowl games (i.e. the Rose) folded into the playoff structure.

O'Brien is also aligned with Delany in wanting favorable playoff access for conference champions.

From the Centre Daily Times:

"It's definitely headed down the road of a Final Four, and I agree with Jim Delany and our coaches," O'Brien said. "I think all the coaches in the Big Ten want to keep it in the bowl structure, especially with how it relates to the Rose Bowl. The Rose Bowl should be part of the Final Four. My only deal in that is to make sure the Big Ten champion is represented in the Final Four."

O'Brien added that he's "just a rookie head coach," but it's notable that he's already on board with the company line in the Big Ten.

What surprises me about the Big Ten's position is how the push to keep the Rose Bowl relevant trumps the desire to have playoff games on campus. The possibility of hosting nationally relevant games in late December is unquestionably a win for Big Ten coaches, Big Ten administrators, Big Ten fans and Big Ten players. Right now, coaches like O'Brien essentially play road games in the major bowls. That won't change in the system that the SEC and other leagues are pushing. Still, the campaign for on-campus games has taken a backseat to the demand to keep the Rose Bowl relevant.

Sure, Big Ten folks see the writing on the wall -- on-campus playoff games seem highly unlikely -- but the lack of effort to advocate for them is surprising and disappointing.

When Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany meets reporters Tuesday at the league's spring meetings in Chicago, he won't be wearing a houndstooth hat and singing "Sweet Home Alabama."

Delany likely will, however, point out that he didn't target the Alabama Crimson Tide with his now infamous "that team" remark in discussing scenarios for college football's future postseason structure. In case you missed it, Delany last week told the Associated Press that the postseason format shouldn't include teams that failed to win their division.

"I don't have a lot of regard for that team. I certainly wouldn’t have as much regard for that team as I would for someone who played nine conference games in a tough conference and played a couple out-of-conference games on the road against really good opponents. If a poll doesn't honor those teams and they're conference champions, I do."

Many interpreted Delany's comments as a direct and obvious shot at Alabama, which won the national championship in January despite failing to win the SEC West division during the regular season. The Big Ten commissioner drew heavy criticism in SEC country, and came off looking like a guy bitter at the SEC's recent dominance of college football and trying to find any way to prevent the possibility of another all-SEC national title game. The fact that Alabama has dominated Big Ten teams in recent matchups -- Penn State in 2011 and 2010, Michigan State in the 2011 Capital One Bowl -- didn't make Delany look any better.

I appeared on a Birmingham radio show Friday, and I can report that they're none too pleased with Mr. Delany in Tide Country.

Wasn't "that team" an obvious dig at the reigning national champs? According to the Big Ten, it wasn't.

The Big Ten recently sent ESPN.com an explanation of Delany's remarks, which includes a list of teams that finished in the final four of the BCS standings despite not winning their conference or, in some cases their division. The league also provided a list of league champions that finished No. 5 or No. 6 in the standings, and would presumably be left out of a playoff if selections were based entirely on the top 4 rather than other factors. Delany has turned down recent ESPN.com interview requests to discuss the postseason models.

Delany recently floated the idea of having the top four conference champions earn automatic berths in the postseason if they're all in the top 6 of the final rankings. If four league champs don't appear in the top six, the remaining spots would be filled by the highest ranked nonconference champions or independents. If this model had been applied during the BCS era, seven teams that finished in the top four of the BCS standings but didn't win their leagues would have been left out, including No. 3 Michigan in 2006. Alabama would have qualified last year as an at-large team thanks in part to the Big Ten champion (Wisconsin) finishing so far down the standings (No. 10).

Delany's league champions/division champions postseason model would have looked like this during the BCS era:

1998

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: No. 3 Kansas State and No. 4 Ohio State did not win their conferences
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: Conference champions No. 5 UCLA and No. 6 Texas

1999

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: None
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: None

2000

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: None
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: None

2001

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: No. 2 Nebraska did not win its conference or division.
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: None (Conference champion No. 3 Colorado would have been in playoff)

2002

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: No. 4 USC did not win its conference
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: Conference champion No. 6 Washington State

2003

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: No. 1 Oklahoma did not win its conference
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: None (Conference champion No. 10 Kansas State, which defeated Oklahoma in Big 12 championship Game, would not have been in playoff)

2004

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: No. 4 Texas did not win its conference or division
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: Conference champion No. 6 Utah (Conference champion No. 2 Oklahoma would have been in playoff)

2005

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: No. 4 Ohio State did not win its conference
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: None (Conference champion No. 3 Penn State would have been in playoff; also, No. 5 Notre Dame would not have been in playoff)

2006

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: No. 3 Michigan and No. 4 LSU did not win their conferences
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: Conference champions No. 5 USC and No. 6 Louisville (Conference champions No. 1 Ohio State and No. 2 Florida would have been in playoff)

2007

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: None
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: None

2008


NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: No. 3 Texas did not win its conference or division and No. 4 Alabama did not win its conference
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: Conference champions No. 5 USC and No. 6 Utah (Conference champions No. 1 Oklahoma and No. 2 Florida would have been in playoff)

2009

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: None
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: Conference champion No. 6 Boise State

2010

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: No. 4 Stanford did not win its conference
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: Conference champion No. 5 Wisconsin (Conference champion No. 2 Oregon would have been in playoff)

2011

NON-CHAMPIONS IN TOP FOUR: No. 2 Alabama and No. 4 Stanford did not win their conferences or divisions
CHAMPIONS RANKED NO. 5 OR 6: Conference champion No. 5 Oregon (Conference champion No. 1 LSU would have been in playoff)

The list shows that quite a few squads fit Delany's "that team" label, including some from the Big Ten. Most of the non-champions that finished in the top 4 only failed to win their leagues. The five exceptions were: No. 2 Alabama and No. 4 Stanford from 2011, No. 3 Texas in 2008, No. 4 Texas in 2004 and No. 2 Nebraska in 2001.

(It's important to note that the Big Ten and Pac-12 didn't adopt division play until 2011, so there likely would have been more teams in the group -- and there will be more in future seasons.)

Here's what would have happened to those teams in those years if the top 6 model was in place:

2001 Nebraska: Still would have qualified for playoff
2004 Texas: Would have been replaced by No. 6 Utah
2008 Texas: Would have been replaced by No. 5 USC
2011 Alabama: Still would have qualified for playoff
2011 Stanford: Would have been replaced by No. 5 Oregon

Does this make you feel any differently about Delany's comments? The top non-division winners, Nebraska 2001 and Alabama 2011, both of whom played for a national championship, still would have qualified for a playoff. It'd be very hard to see a playoff in 2008 without Texas, although many regarded No. 5 USC as the best team in college football that season. I could live with seeing Utah over Texas in 2004, and I certainly could live with seeing Oregon over Stanford in 2011 after the Ducks trounced the Cardinal at Stanford Stadium before stumbling later against USC.

The tricky part here, in my view, is including the division champion requirement. Not all divisions are created equal -- despite the best efforts of leagues -- and we've seen some lopsided conferences in recent years, most notably the SEC in 2011. The power in that league clearly rested in the West Division. No one would argue that.

Delany would be better off sticking with the league champions argument than adding division winners to it. How many people would have been upset if Oregon had made the playoff over Stanford in 2011? Oregon won the Pac-12 and had beaten Stanford on its home field.

Again, it would have been great to see No. 5 USC in a playoff in 2008.

The hard part is what happens if a team like No. 2 Alabama in 2011 is leapfrogged by, say, a No. 6 champion from the Big Ten or ACC. It would get very ugly.

There's also the matter of how these teams are selected. I hate preseason polls and the influence they have on the BCS title race. It's why I'm strongly in favor of a selection committee being at least part of the decision process with the postseason model.

Winning your league should mean something. Winning your division? Meh.

But in the end, the four best teams should make a playoff, despite the selection headaches that surely will occur.

At the Pac-12 meetings last week in Phoenix, it became clear that conference coaches and athletic directors as well as commissioner Larry Scott favor a potential four-team college football playoff including a requirement that each of the four participants wins its respective conference championship.

The reasoning for that is logical and unassailable: A national title contender should first prove it's the best team in its conference. College football folks -- coaches, administrators, etc. -- frequently talk about preserving the value of the regular season. Not requiring a playoff team to win its conference directly contravenes that.

On the other side of the playoff debate are the folks who don't want any such requirements. They say introducing one muddies things up. They say it's important to pick the "four best teams." Keep it simple and credible!

Four best teams? Er, how will we determine that? The ole BCS rankings? A selection committee?

Not acceptable.

There needs to be give and take here. If the Pac-12 and Big Ten are going to sacrifice their automatic tie-in to the Rose Bowl, that means they need to get something in return. Thankfully, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany already has proposed an equitable plan that allows for both sides of this debate to get most of what they want.

It's the top-six plan: Conference champions would be required to be ranked in the top six of the final rankings in order to earn automatic berths in the four-team playoff. If four conference champions aren't ranked in the top six, then the highest ranked at-large teams would fill however many voids there are.

CBS Sports' Brett McMurphy went through all the scenarios. He found that, since 2004, only seven top-four teams in the final BCS standings would have missed the playoffs with this top-six plan.

Writes McMurphy:

Under this format, in the past eight years, 30 of the 32 teams in the playoff would have been conference champions. Only two teams -- No. 2 Alabama (in 2011) and No. 4 Ohio State (in 2005) -- that weren't a conference champion would have qualified for the national semifinals.

Using the conference affiliation for the schools for each season and not their future affiliation, the SEC would have had the most schools in the playoffs from 2004-11 with eight, including seven conference champions. The Pac-12 and Big 12 would have been next, each with six schools, followed by the Big Ten with five (four conference champions, one at-large), the Mountain West with four, the Big East with two and the ACC with one.

Of the Mountain West's four representatives, two were by Utah, now in the Pac-12, and two by TCU, which joins the Big 12 this fall.

That sounds about right.

The teams left out? Stanford and Texas, both twice, and Alabama, Michigan and LSU.

That sounds about right.

The best scenario to look at is 2008. From McMurphy's breakdown:

Top 6 ranked teams: No. 1 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ), No. 2 Florida (SEC champ), No. 3 Texas (at-large), No. 4 Alabama (at-large), No. 5 USC (Pac-10 champ), No. 6 Utah (Mountain West champ).

Conference champs in four-team playoff: No. 1 Oklahoma, No. 2 Florida, No. 5 USC, No. 6 Utah.

Non-conference champs in four-team playoff: None.

Top-6 teams left out: No. 3 Texas, No. 4 Alabama.

Revisionist history: The good news is that the top four conference champions are all ranked among the nation's top six teams. The bad news is No. 3 Texas and No. 4 Alabama, both of which didn't win their conference, would not be included in the playoff. Lower ranked, but conference champion, USC (No. 5) and Utah (No. 6) would have made the field.

In 2008, the top-six model would have created a far superior postseason. The most likely scenario would have seen USC, clearly the best team in 2008, beating Utah, which physically manhandled Alabama 31-17 in the Sugar Bowl, for the national title.

Wait ... did I just pull one of those "Just because" deals there, making assumptions about how good a team is?

Yes, I did. Most folks outside of the Southeast -- including Vegas bookies -- believed USC was the best team in 2008. It finished the regular season with the same record as Florida and Oklahoma, but its loss on the road against an Oregon State team that won nine games was deemed worse than the Gators' and Sooners' blemishes. That judgment was arbitrary and ran counter to what many folks believed: The Trojans in 2008 would have left a bootprint on the foreheads of either Florida or Oklahoma.

And, of course, when Utah held Alabama to 208 total yards -- 31 yards rushing! -- it's nearly impossible to say the Crimson Tide belonged in the same building. Oh, that's right, an Alabama team playing in its first BCS bowl game since 1999 was SO disappointed that it lost the SEC title game that it decided not to try hard in the Sugar Bowl. Please.

Of course, this analysis is bothering some folks. Good. That's how the "Just because" stuff felt for the Trojans in 2008 and for Oklahoma State last year. The most certain way to ensure the new four-team playoff will foment annual controversy is to make the "Just because" element its foundation. We'll still be debating the subjectivity -- and inherent biases -- of the system for weeks as the season winds down.

See, out here on the West Coast, the top-six plan seems simple. It seems fair. It doesn't muddy anything up. It actually provides clarity: Win your conference.

It first tries to award the highest-rated conference champions for, you know, accomplishing something during the regular season, then it makes sure that we don't end up with a three-loss team in the playoff.

It's the best and most equitable endgame in the four-team playoff scenario. And the Pac-12 and Big Ten should fight for it.

Big East presidents and athletic directors are charged with a huge challenge today, as they search for a new commissioner.

If I were in charge, these would be my prerequisite qualifications, in no particular order:

• Must be a strong leader.
• Must have a clear vision for the conference.
• Must be dynamic, charming and personable, somebody with excellent skills of persuasion.
• Must put football first.
• Must have ties to television and marketing.
• Must have previous relationships with major college football players.

If it were entirely up to me, I would also look for somebody outside the league office. That is not a slight against associate commissioner Nick Carparelli, who truly seems to get what the Big East needs. I just think the Big East could use a fresh perspective, somebody with no ties to anybody in the league, who can see what the Big East needs objectively and go from there.

Every commissioner the Big East has ever had has had ties to the league. But just look at what Larry Scott has done in his time at the Pac-12, just for an example. Scott and John Marinatto began their jobs on the same day, both in need of making their leagues and their teams household names.

Marinatto was just promoted up after serving alongside Mike Tranghese. Scott came from the women's tennis association, free of any ties to the Pac-12, and has transformed the league, using the business, television and marketing skills that served him well in previous stops. I don't have to spell out how the leagues have diverged since July 1, 2009.

Much in the way athletic directors are now businessmen and not football coaches, commissioners have to be well-versed in negotiating TV and marketing deals while keeping their leagues relevant.

The other aspect, of course, is going to be convincing folks like Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and SEC commissioner Mike Slive that the Big East should get the same slice of the BCS revenue pie as the other major conferences. That is not a guarantee once the new BCS cycle begins in 2014, with an expected four-team playoff. You can bet whoever is the new commissioner is going to have to do a lot of cajoling for that to happen.

He is also going to have to make sure he has a unified league moving forward, one that has everybody holding hands together, rather than looking for the next best opportunity. It is an unenviable task, one that is going to require a special skill-set that Marinatto simply didn't possess.

For those interested in how the process is going to work, Cincinnati president Gregory H. Williams is head of the search committee, which will be comprised of league presidents and athletic directors. A search firm will likely be used to help gather a pool of candidates.

Ultimately, the school presidents choose the commissioner. Under league bylaws, only current members have a vote. Temple, which begins play in football in 2012, would have a vote in this case. Boise State, San Diego State, SMU, UCF, Houston, Memphis and Navy will be involved in discussions, but cannot vote. Neither can Pitt, Syracuse or West Virginia, all departing members.

The sense coming out of last week's BCS meetings is that college football soon will adopt a four-team playoff model with two designated semifinals and a championship game.

But don't count out the so-called "plus-one," where the top two teams are selected after the bowl games and face one another for the national championship about a week later.

The plus-one is still very much alive, University of Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman told ESPN.com on Thursday. Perlman, who serves on the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, said that during informal discussions between Big Ten and Pac-12 presidents and chancellors, the plus-one model has the most support.

"It is clear the presidents will still make the final decision," Perlman told ESPN.com "We've had some informal meetings, the Big Ten presidents and the Pac-12 presidents, and I think we're largely aligned in thinking a plus-one with a different ranking after the bowl games to select No. 1 and 2 would be acceptable. Our second choice would probably be a four-team playoff inside the bowls. Our highest priority is to preserve the status of the Rose Bowl and our connection to it."

He later added: "I don't think we would be very enthusiastic about any of the other options."

That includes a proposal to have semifinal games played on campus, which Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has supported. The plan seemed to lose steam last week at the BCS meetings in Florida, but SI.com reported Monday that it remains on the table.

"I don't think that's acceptable to us at this point," Perlman said of the campus-sites plan. "There would be some advantages to the Big Ten in doing it that way, but the end result would be that the bowl system and the Rose Bowl would be kind of like the NIT in basketball. If you have a playoff system outside the bowls, it would do serious damage to the bowls. ... I don't think anybody would pay attention to the bowls."

Perlman has long opposed a college football playoff and hasn't changed his position, saying Thursday, "I can't figure out a good reason to have a playoff to start with." But like many, he acknowledges changes will be made, and in his view, the plus-one is the simplest option and the best option. It preserves the bowl system and keeps player welfare in mind.

"We play enough football games," he said.

Some more notes from my conversation with the Nebraska chancellor:

• The selection for a plus-one or a four-team playoff is tricky, and Perlman has no preferred model because, in his view, there isn't one. "If you don't like computers, then you'll think it's wrong," he said. "If you don't like committees, you'll think it's wrong. I think we'll just pick one, the system that seems to have the most fan confidence, and use it. I don't think it's possible to pick the two best teams in the country to play. In football, that just doesn't work."
• Any type of change to the postseason structure increases the burden for fans. "I don't think it's overblown," he said. "That's one of the reasons why I've never been in favor of a playoff to start with. In order to be successful, it would have to become kind of a corporate event, rather than a school event. While we'd probably do well, given the television revenues, I don't know that it's a favorite of the fans of the schools who participate."
• Nebraska fans and some local media members don't seem as enthralled by the Rose Bowl as those in other parts of the Big Ten. But Perlman certainly falls in line with the view shared by Delany and the other Big Ten presidents and chancellors. Here's what he said when asked about the potential of having nationally significant games in or close to the Big Ten footprint at neutral sites: "If the last game was bid out, it would certainly be advantageous for us. But on the other hand, would Nebraska fans, in the first week in January, rather travel to Pasadena or Indianapolis? There clearly is a competitive advantage if you're playing in the Rose Bowl against a Pac-12 team, or if you're playing in the Sugar Bowl against LSU or in the Orange Bowl against Florida. But so what? It’s a bowl game. That's just the lay of the land."
• Although his playoff stance hasn't changed, he thinks elements of the BCS can be improved, such as the elimination of the automatic-qualifying status which has "created incentives for some pretty strange conference realignments that wouldn't have taken place otherwise." Like Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne, Perlman favors a system that creates better matchups in the major bowls and eliminates some of the clunkers we've seen recently. "With some tweaks," Perlman said, "you could create a series of games in five or six bowls that would be compelling, and would possibly end up producing a No. 1 or a No. 2 team."
• Perlman favors a model that reclaims New Year's Day but ends before the start of the winter academic term. He also supports the proposal to give conference champions the most consideration for the title game or the semifinals. "You ought to be able to win your conference to be a national champion," he said.

While many of you disagree with Perlman's view, as do I, he deserves credit for actually speaking up about this topic. Brian Bennett and I reached out to more than half the Big Ten's presidents and chancellors for interviews and were repeatedly turned down.

The Big Ten presidents hold their annual spring meeting June 3 at league headquarters, and the Collegiate Commissioners Association meets June 20 in Chicago.

"At some point, the commissioners will make a recommendation or a series of recommendations to us," Perlman said, "and we will meet and make the [final] decision hopefully before July 1."

When the Big Ten schedules for both the 2015 and 2016 seasons are released later this month, they'll look familiar. Conference play once again will kick off on the last Saturday in September or the first Saturday in October.

There had been interest from some Big Ten coaches to have league games earlier in September, most likely in Weeks 2, 3 and 4. Leagues such as the SEC, ACC and Pac-12 begin conference play earlier than the Big Ten, which has gone with a model featuring four or five weeks of nonconference games, followed by eight or nine weeks of conference games. The 2013 and 2014 schedules feature two start dates for Big Ten play -- there will be two games on the final Saturday of September in both years and four games on the first Saturday of October -- but the conference games will take place after most of the nonleague games are complete.

Wisconsin coach Bret Bielema said last summer that he proposed playing at least one league game on each Saturday of September, saying, "You can have a showcase game every week."

Bielema's plan would prevent sorry slates like Week 4 in 2010, when no Big Ten teams faced opponents from BCS automatic-qualifying conferences. Week 4 in 2011 featured only one such matchup (Colorado at Ohio State), and Week 4 this coming season is rather uninspiring aside from Michigan-Notre Dame under the lights. The Big Ten is usually irrelevant nationally one Saturday per season.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany sees the potential value, telling me last summer, "I would be open to that. ... Early-season games are something that deserve a lot of consideration and study."

Yet in 2015 and 2016, the Big Ten schedule will maintain its structure. That is, unless the teams want to move games earlier.

"If two schools want to move a game already scheduled to earlier in September, that'd be fine," Big Ten senior associate commissioner Mark Rudner told ESPN.com.

Rudner, who creates the schedules in conjunction with the teams, said if two teams both have the same available date in early September, they can propose a switch to the league's athletic directors. If they gain approval, which they should, they can reschedule the game. The Big Ten's television partners wouldn't stand in the way, either, Rudner said.

The challenge is finding dates that work for both parties.

"Trying to make it work is really, really difficult because schools are reticent to change nonconference contracts we already have," Rudner said. "They all have different preferences."

Six Big Ten teams have three nonconference games finalized for 2015 and two -- Purdue and Iowa -- have all four set. Other teams are close to finalizing all four games for 2015. Nine of the 12 teams have at least two nonconference games scheduled for 2016.

It doesn't mean games can't be moved. For example, both Ohio State and Illinois have Sept. 26 open on their 2015 schedule. The Buckeyes and Illini both are in the Leaders Division, so they'll play every year. If interested, they could try to move their game.

It's also possible for teams to move nonconference games to October or November to make room for league games. Some nonconference opponents, especially FCS teams and small-conference teams looking for big paydays, will be willing to do what it takes to get those guarantee checks.

"It's not impossible," Rudner said.

But it's up to the schools to make it work.