How Jim Delany Finds Traction On The Slippery Slope

More Money - More Headaches

Our friend ProveIt has dropped by again for his third article on ITS. Today he covers just how Delany is working the playoff/BCS scene.

Portions of Delany’s playoff model were recently leaked - a seeded 4 selected using the BCS formula with the 1st round played at the home field of the top 2 teams. The location of the title game would be bid on by prospective hosts.

The Slippery Slope
From the initial SEC proposal to the present, the majors have said they don’t believe a seeded 4 or plus 1 would appreciably impact yearly revenue. They believe a seeded 4 risks becoming a slippery slope to larger formats. They believe larger formats would result in a decrease in revenue for the year. This is the common findings of the networks, bowls, and independent research groups. When dropped like a hammer to the head of mid major commissioners, they have never denied this, choosing instead to quickly change the topic.

It is worth noting:
1. Nobody with access to, and the ability to project from, pertinent information has ever claimed a plus 1 or seeded 4 playoff would result in a notable change in revenue for the year for the majors. They have all claimed a larger format would result in a yearly loss in revenue for the majors.

2. Prior to the recent talks (and perhaps still now), no major had ever stated their conference supports a playoff of any size – this includes the SEC and ACC.

 - If you have a link to show otherwise, it would be greatly appreciated. If you have a series of unsupported plausible sounding statements, you have something anyone could make up.

This is not the 1st Time Delany Walked the Slippery Slope
Courtesy of Pariahwulfen at Off Tackle Empire, Delany promoted a true Plus 1 format to the B1G in 2005.

“Henry Bienen, president of Northwestern University, told Yahoo! Sports that Delany actually favored a playoff-type system that Delany decried in 2005… the so-called Plus-One model, the two top-rated teams that emerged after the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl were played would advance to a national championship game. “

Burn it With Fire or Sour Grapes?

Scary little guys

In spite of the recent recruiting success, our friend ProveIt has come to share some knowledge with the rest of us in form of a guest post. Be sure to tell him what you think of his article! 

You hear claims that the recruiting boards are biased, but never any details.  Are the boards truly biased and deserved to be cybernetically torched at every mention, or is this just sour grapes from fans in conferences with lower rankings?

A quick internet search of various analysis of their rankings show Scout and Rivals are notably more accurate than the others.  Rivals nominally edges out Scout in accuracy, but not enough to herald them king (usually only a couple of players a year differentiate the 2, and some criteria is questionable).

I don’t consider subjective as less accurate or more biased than objective.  An objective plus subjective analysis has the capacity to be much more accurate than a purely objective analysis.  An objective formula can be biased if the criteria are slanted.

Proving bias in a subjective analysis is difficult.  I looked at the objective rankings.

A Box Of Tissues For The NCAA

Screw the NCAA. Ha.

Ed. Note: Understanding the whole NCAA situation is no small task. Here's ProveIt with what we hope is his first of many guest posts here at ITS. Leave your thoughts and comments down below!

The laughable effect of the NCAA’s sanctions isn’t likely to give anyone pause. 3 scholarships a year for 3 years and a 1 year post season ban resulted in responses ranging from “…and what else? Over 1 year of investigation this is all?” to the ever popular sentiments “Bite me!”and “FFFFUUUU!”

What is less laughable is the rationale in the COI report (Committee of Infractions) though Tressel and the gear for tattoos there wasn’t anything new other than sanctions against Tressel.

The rest of the report starts with a false finding, and goes downhill from there…

Some Tests Are Too Easy

Ed. Note: Our friend ProveIt has accepted to share some knowledge with the rest of us in form of a guest post. Be sure to tell him what you think of his article!
Did your favorite sports site or sports writer get all excited when the BCS proposed eliminating AQ status? Well, so did I!


Was he excited when he quoted Delany as open to the idea? Well, so was I!

Does he claim it would create more opportunities for mid majors, would create fewer lopsided match ups, or would open the top bowls to everyone? If so, it’s time to find a new favorite writer.


The proposal to the BCS
Remove the 4 bowls from the BCS. The NCG would be maintained as a separate bowl, and the only bowl under BCS control. BCS AQ status is eliminated. BCS ranking would only be pertinent to the title game. The NCG might be freed to market its location much like the Super Bowl.

Delany stated here "As long as I can go to the Rose Bowl, I'm OK without automatic bids. If (CUSA commissioner) Brit doesn't want automatic bids, that's fine with me. And if he doesn't want me to have one that's OK, as long as I can go to Pasadena. If they (CUSA and MWC commissioners) are saying, essentially, let the system be market based, I can't object to that." This is the closest you may ever see Delany understating his support for an idea.