Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany loves the Rose Bowl.
Jim Delany’s (second) big Rose Bowl bluff
At one point, he refused to support the College Football Playoff, claiming that it could ruin a game deep in tradition. From the New York Times:
"Not all change is manageable," Delany said. "You want to control change. You want evolution, not revolution, because you don't know what the unintended consequences will be."
...
"I just want to make sure that the changes that we make are evolutionary," he said, "that they support the regular season and from the Rose Bowl perspective they sustain that tradition and that we're able to produce something that the public appreciates and supports."
Of course, Delany eventually came around, because he found out that he could control the change he was worried about. Now, faced with another potential change that he may not be able to control, Delany is back with yet another Rose Bowl threat.
Delany: "There wouldn’t be a Rose Bowl if we or them were operating on very different wavelengths with regard to payment of players."
— George Schroeder (@GeorgeSchroeder) June 20, 2014 This doesn’t make sense for many reasons, but first and foremost because Delany’s scenario involves the Big Ten paying players and the Pac-12 not. That wouldn’t happen, since there’s absolutely no way Pac-12 schools would be on board with giving themselves a massive recruiting disadvantage (nor would any other power conference).
There’s also no way the Big Ten schools would suddenly be cool with leaving a ton of money on the table because they have to pay their players. They claim they’ll need lots of extra money anyway, so why would they just stop playing in games that provide the league with tremendous amounts of television revenue (and even more next year with the addition of the College Football Playoff)?
The Rose Bowl is not disappearing if players get paid; Jim Delany’s just spitballing to make a point. This isn’t a new tactic for the Big Ten commissioner, nor is losing the Rose Bowl a new piece of blackmail.
See More:
