Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany Talks Pac-12, BCS, Expansion

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany recently discussed the Pac-12 scheduling agreement, BCS, and expansion.

Here's the highlights:

What exactly does your alliance with the Pac-12 bring to the table?

We wouldn’t have done it unless we felt it had a lot of potential. It's a historic set of academic and athletic relationships that goes back to 1902. We'll have the 100th Rose Bowl in 2014. We really thought that it's important to continue to investigate change and ways to improve. The non-conference football and basketball schedules are often criticized for not being competitive enough and we felt we could extend it. Underlying it is that neither conference overlaps with the other. Between the two conferences we touch 15 states, 45 percent of the country's population and half of the top 50 markets. We've launched [the Big Ten] Network and the [Pac 12] is launching in August, so we thought it was a great way to create competition and serve our fans.

Is it safe to assume you will not be further expanding as a conference?

I think we're very comfortable with where we are. You never say never, but we've been cautious. We were the first conference to experience major expansion from 20 years ago. We looked at configurations, like 16 and 20, and just decided that's not who we wanted to be. That would affect our DNA, our rivalries and how we do things. We like to play each other more, not less, and so I would say there is a high degree of comfort. You don't unnecessarily pin yourself in if you don't have to. [Expansion] is not active and not on the horizon. Our schools are located in roughly 25 or 30 percent of the population. Our media agreements are all national. I don’t think there is a conference that spans more than a couple of time zones. Most conferences are regional. Most rivalries are local.

It sounds like you are opposed to the "Plus-1" BCS format for college football?

We have historically been opposed to it, but we also have a lot of colleagues who are opposed. I think the last time it came up, there were five of the seven founders discussed it, and now most people want to discuss it. We're curious and engaged, but I think what a lot of people don’t understand is underlying any of our positions are university presidents, athletic directed and coaches. I'm engaging with them over the next 60 days.

I would say the No.1 factor for us is: What is the impact on the athlete and then the regular season because that's everything that we've been about for a long time. Three, is what is the impact on the Rose Bowl and the bowl system? Lastly, what is competitively fair? We have strong opinions on it internally, which are not always aligned. [Former Wisconsin football coach and current AD] [Barry] Alvarez has spoken favorably about it and [AD] Dave Brandon of Michigan has spoken strongly against [the BCS]. [Northwestern football coach] Pat Fitzgerald has spoken against it and others are in favor. I would say that for us to move or change it, it needs to work for [all four of those elements] and that the competitive fairness is somehow tied to the regular season because we play that for 13 weeks and average 70,000-plus. That's why I say it's regional; Michigan-Ohio St, Illinois-Michigan State; those games have been meaningful for a long, long time, and we want to make sure they maintain their meaning.