Hey guys, let me start by saying listen to the link below. It's a great radio piece by one of ESPN's own radio host calling out the SEC and their announcers and how ESPN portrayes the SEC and the other conferences.
So hopefully you listened to the video. The radio host brings up a great point about ESPN and why we have so many pointless bowls. It's because ESPN has all the tier 1 rights to bowl games and they make lots of $$$$$$ off of them. So I started to think about this and the SEC imagine they instil on America about the SEC being able to part the Red Sea, and it dawned on me...how to really hurt the SEC, stop the public image of the SEC being the savior of the earth, and make the BIG 10 have a much more meaningful season. Now, this is just for fun, so don't bash me too much if you disagree. My thoughts on this are what if the BIG 10 limited the amount of bowl games they will participate in to two. What if the BIG 10 would only play in both the Rosebowl and Playoff in the same year and got rid of all the other pointless bowls. For example, OSU goes 12-0 and gets invited to the playoff, they would accept and go, and Michigan is 11-1 and gets invited to the Rose Bowl, they would go, but that's it. If OSU were to lose 1 game, but win the BIG 10, they would go to the Rose Bowl but that's it. The only two invites the BIG 10 would accept would be a playoff spot or the Rose Bowl. Now, why would we do that you may ask? Please see the reasoning below.
1) it would make the BIG 10 conference play to die for. Well, not literately, but how much more exciting would it be knowing only one team gets the golden ticket...maybe 2 at max. There would be a win only mentality. I think a system like that would appeal to kids/USA more than 7 out of 12 average Joes get rewarded.
2) it would start to losen ESPN's grip on college football. Why do people think the SEC is SO dominate? Don't get me wrong, they are the best conference, but its not anything close to what it's portrayed to be. It's because ESPN tells people its so great so they believe it. By removing the BIG 10 games we shouldn't even be playing we no longer have Michigan getting beat to SC, Nebraska getting beat to Gerogia and so on. Now, this year is a bad example because we were very competitive, but coming in the matchups were horrifying. So, by removing games we take away ESPNs ability to say they are a far superior conference, therefore changing the national image.
3) to hurt ESPN financially. Have you noticed every bowl game is on ESPN? It's just another opportunity for them to proclaim the SECs dominance and make the conference look stronger. Why wouldn't they want to do that, they make $$$$$$ on the SEC. But the answer to that question is they own all of the tier 1 rights to bowls. If we remove the pointless games, it takes away money from ESPN and will help remove the national perception that the SEC can part rivers.
4) it would be good for college football. I hope you listened to the video above. I agree with Bob that ESPN is ruining college football. Again, you must watch the video to understand this as he explains how ESPN makes excuses for the SEC losing games but doesn't apply the same logic for other teams. This is why a Louisville "caught" a Florida team off guard and could never do what they did in the Sugar Bowl again. And guess what, the rankings come out and Florida is still ahead of a team that had them down 30-10 at one point. It's because they make excuses as to why that team beat them and convince them that it could never happen again, but dont give any credit to Louisville by stating the have a damn good team, better than an SEC team. it would hurt the image which cost them money. They control the whole sport. Delany could help put a stop to it.
Whats your thoughts on this? Again, I truly believe this would make the BIG 10 more appealing and competitive. It makes it more enticing that it hurts ESPNs $$$$$$, while changing the national perception of college football.
sorry if there is a bunch of typo's. iPads aren't ideal for things like this.