Why The Game of Golf Is In Danger of Extinction and What Needs to Be Done to Bring It Back

In the summer flooded with news of Tiger Woods’ injury-induced demise and the torrid run by Rory McIllroy into his place on the top of the golf world, it seems the biggest golf story concerns the state of the game itself. Reading between the lines as to the news coverage of studies showing participation in decline and reactionary business decisions cutting back on investment in the game by industry leaders such as Dick’s Sporting Goods, it seems the game of golf is in a precarious situation. “Millennials” are not picking up the game at the same pace as their generational predecessors and the result is starting to pop up in the form of regular course closures and retail pull backs.

                  But while the leaders of the golf industry have plenty of reason to worry, they also have an opportunity to pull the game back from the precipice simply by bringing it back to its roots. Over the last thirty years, a period of time in which the game of golf underwent its own “bubble” of overbuilding and excessive pricing, golf had put itself in a position not too dissimilar from that faced by the American housing market some six or seven years ago. The growth was driven not by long-term increases in the game’s popularity but rather by speculators looking to build, market, and sell new projects in enough time to capitalize on the short-term popularity of a new product without having to take on the responsibility of maintaining a high quality facility in a profitable manner over the long-term.  Once the novelty wears off these courses are left with green fees that are simply unsustainable in their own markets and the result is, quite inevitably, financial woes of an often-fatal degree.

                  Overbuilding is certainly a part of the problem and that is likely the cause of most, if not all, of the contraction in golf courses nationwide. Courses that are well built, well maintained, somewhat-reasonably priced, and, most importantly, well located, are doing fine. These courses, public and private, have plenty of members, put together full tee sheets, and can still turn a nice profit. The biggest problem is that there are many courses missing one or more of those key ingredients and it is those courses that will not survive, forced to fold as the industry undergoes a natural consolidation to the norm.

                  Having said that, there are major problems with the game itself that go far beyond overbuilding. At its core, the attraction to golf is in the opportunity to exercise, explore, socialize, and compete all in one single activity. Unfortunately, the round in which all of those benefit are realized is becoming more difficult to come by every day.  Too often a round of golf is a five hour combination of occasional movement of endless waiting, with little in the way of adventure as you wind your way through either an open field or a path of fairway cut through row after row of single-family home. Golf was transformed into a tool for the marketing of real estate and in that effort, it was generally successful. Unfortunately, the cost has now come due in the form of uninteresting courses that take too long to play and involve adventure only in the form of endless and eminently frustrating searches for lost balls.

                  The design and maintenance of golf courses is the first and perhaps the most crucial problem with the game today. Fortunately, it is also easily fixed with a return to the roots of the game. Golf courses only recently came to carry this expectation of perfect greenness, an expectation fueled in no small part by the dramatic increase in television coverage of professional events, particularly the Masters. The perfect green colors of Augusta in the spring have captivated the golfing public and have unfortunately given rise to an expectation that the same level of perfection should be the norm in terms of maintenance everywhere, whether that everywhere is an exclusive private club or a city-owned muni. While I know many will disagree with my personal preference for the brown-colored surfaces emblematic of the game’s roots, even those who yearn for lush greens and watered fairways have to accept that those addictions are costly and those costs are simply unsustainable in today’s economic climate. I know even many who would prefer Augusta-like conditions would rather spend $25 for a round with browned-out edges than the $65-plus they currently fork over to play that same track without the irrelevant imperfections.

                  Cost is not the only negative ramification of the modern obsession with “perfect” maintenance. Overwatering makes the game harder, more frustrating, and far less interesting. Watered fairways yield far less roll and thus they take away the excitement of seeing a perfect drive bounce down the fairway for an extra 20-30 yards, leaving a short approach and a chance for birdie. For some reason, the modern course expects us to enjoy hitting drives that stop on a dime and force long iron (hybrid, because we wouldn’t want to just keep the rough shorter) approaches that will simply never result in the thrill of birdie.

                  Overwatering does create adventure, but only if you consider the search for a lost ball just a few yards off the fairway to be the type of adventure golf was designed to provide. Somewhere along the way, the game of humps and bumps became the game of long rough, deep bunkers, and man-made lakes. In a word, the 17^th at Sawgrass is a novelty while the 17^th at St. Andrews is a golf hole. Everyone wants to play the Island Green once but it is interesting and strategy-laden holes like the Road Hole that keep players coming back time and time again. Unfortunately, too many courses today are designed and maintained with the intent of following in the footsteps of the Stadium Course and not in the tried and true trails laid down by the Home of Golf. No wonder courses have a tough time attracting customers when a round at many of these monstrosities leaves the player broke from lost balls and high greens fees, not to mention frustrated by the experience of spending more time searching for a shot than is spent traveling to, planning, and playing that very same shot.

                  If the game is to become more popular, it needs more courses in the style of the Scottish and Irish greats. I say that with great hesitation because there is nothing more marketable in the American game than a “links” or “Scottish” style track, even if that “links” is located no less than 2000 miles from the nearest seashore. The greatness of a true “links-style” golf course is not in the knee-high “fescue” grass too often found as the primary characteristic of courses in the US but rather in the emphasis on strategic variety and an interesting ground game, neither of which comes into play at all but the more authentic of faux-links tracks in the United States. Strategy and openness, along with firm conditions and browned-out edges, make the game more interesting for the expert and yet more forgiving for the novice at the same time. More courses that accomplish both of those tasks, as do the greats overseas, will result in more people picking up and staying with the game of golf for years to come.

                  Beyond the courses themselves, the popular formatting of golf is ill fitted to growth of the game. Although stroke play is yet another television-fueled movement of the 20^th Century, it has become pervasive throughout all levels of the sport. Unfortunately, medal play takes longer, provides far less satisfaction, and involves a tremendous amount of additional frustration in comparison to match play and related team and individual formats. Even after the best of medal rounds there is always a tinge of regret in a shot missed or a opportunity wasted, to the point that many a golfer can never walk away truly satisfied. While this is a major reason when many of us become addicted to the game, it is also a major turnoff to those who never quite catch the bug. Match play, on the other hand, provides the fun of friendly competition without the annoyance of a single hole deciding a four-hour battle or the frustration of what is ultimately in the medal play world an endless and impossible search for non-existent perfection. Match play makes the lost ball just another obstacle to overcome, the missed shot an opportunity to rebound, and the playing partner a friendly opportunity with whom interesting competition can be easily had. Not to mention the fact that very few matches last the five-plus hours it often takes to finish a round of golf in this medal play-obsessed world.

                  But even the change of format and a return to the traditionally rough maintenance of golf courses will not save the game unless something is done to speed things up. Just as baseball faces an erosion of its fan base as games stretch on beyond the three hour mark, so too does golf face the threat of massive exodus if it continues to accept a 4:30 round as the norm, a 5:00 round as a common occurrence, and the 4:00 round as a mark to strive for. Expecting 4:30 results in the 5 hour-plus rounds and the goal of a 4-hour round will inevitably result in a backlog of rounds lasting much longer. With a cart (which is another phenomenon at the heart of the problem), there is no reason for rounds to stretch beyond the 3-hour mark, with walking becoming the only reason to stick around for a full 3:30. Not only does improved pace of play enhance the ability of would-be golfers to carve out time in their schedule to play the game, but it also provides those golfers with a more enjoyable experience and allows courses to fill tee sheets more densely and ultimately pump out more revenue on busier days.

                  Speeding up play starts with course rangers who actually do their jobs. Too often golf courses are saddled with a cadre of retirees who do nothing but drive around in carts so they can collect free golf, a modest paycheck, and free logo shirts. They have no interest in making sure the course is operating smoothly and balk at any request to actually help provide customers with a quality golfing experience. At the risk of sounding like I advocate age discrimination, these guys need to go if the game is going to appeal to those who are responsible for its future. Rather than confining high school kids working at these courses to positions in the range picker and restaurant, send them out as rangers and empower them with the ability to force groups off the course or out of the way. Provide those who still play the game and will play the game with the opportunity to police it and you will see pace and enjoyment spike. Keep courses operating with a bunch of old men who have zero ambition and no eye for the future and the game’s slow and steady decline will only accelerate.

                  Golf is a great game for so many reasons I would need an entirely separate forum just to begin. But too often today it is played at facilities that have strayed away from the characteristics that make the game as great as it is. At these facilities, golf is a game that discourages newcomers by intimidation, expense, frustrating, or, most often, all of the above. As long as that trend continues, golf will slowly retreat back into its cocoon of being a game for “old white men” and as those old men inevitably die out so too will the great game. As a young person who caught the bug at an early age, I know how much golf has to offer. I just wish there were more places in this country where those who haven’t have the fortune to experience golf at its finest have that opportunity.

                 

NCAA On Life Support After Landmark Ruling

Just a few months after the National Labor Relations Board administrator’s shocking decision in favor of Northwestern football players seeking recognition as employees, yet another bombshell legal decision hit the world of college athletics Friday afternoon when Judge Claudia Wilken released her 99-page decision in O’Bannon v NCAA. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and finding the NCAA’s prohibition on compensation being paid to student-athletes for the use of their names, images, and likenesses, Wilken found the NCAA’s current model of “amateur” athletics to constitute a violation of § 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and thus placing the future of that model in serious doubt.

Although Wilken somewhat inexplicably ruled that the NCAA may still cap compensation while student-athletes remain enrolled at the full cost of attendance and may even cap post-graduate compensation at $5,000 per year of participation, the finding of an antitrust violation is real precedent that could have far reaching implications beyond the issue of compensation for the use of student athlete names, images, and likenesses.

When the NCAA decided nearly a year ago to fight on after both Electronic Arts and the Collegiate Licensing Company, co-defendants in the antitrust suit brought by a class of plaintiffs led by former UCLA basketball star Ed O’Bannon, it was effectively gambling the future of its entire organizational model on the outcome of the case. With Wilken’s unequivocal finding that the NCAA is a cartel operating in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, it appears that gamble has been lost.

For now.

There is no doubt the NCAA will appeal Judge Wilken’s decision and her entry of a permanent injunction which effectively eliminates the capping of scholarships at “full grant-in-aid” where that cap falls short of the full cost of attendance. The Ninth Circuit, which has in the past shown sympathy for the NCAA model in contravention of its usual disdain for institutional blight, will have the next say on the matter and how they decide will, at least in terms of legal precedent, be of far great importance than what Judge Wilken provided last week.

The history of antitrust cases involving collegiate and professional sports does not bode terribly well for the plaintiffs. Although the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in American Needle marks a departure from the trend, the normal response at the appellate level is to find in favor of the status quo. District court judges like to make a statement and those at the appellate level love nothing more than to shoot that statement down as fast as possible.

But the real value of this case lies not in the remedy ordered, a smogasborg of pro-plaintiff and pro-NCAA conclusions Judge Wilken slid into the end of her opinion, but rather in the holding of the case: the NCAA is a cartel operating without adequate justification to render its price-fixing scheme immune from Sherman Act violations. With regard to that issue, Judge Wilken unequivocally sided with the O’Bannon plaintiffs and has now left the NCAA in a position where it will need to make major changes to avoid finding itself facing similar antitrust suits on more fronts than it could possibly handle.

Because they are usually fact-dependent, remedies, which are often a function of the requests made by plaintiffs who may be reluctant to ask for too much, do not provide tremendous value in terms of setting precedent.

On the other hand, the holding of this case does set valuable precedent that goes beyond the narrow scope of the fact pattern at hand. No longer will the NCAA be able to hide behind its claims of upholding a tradition of amateurism or of protecting the opportunities available to student-athletes in every sport to participate at the highest level. Judge Wilken has clearly rejected those claims and should her ruling be upheld on appeal, that would set just about as damaging a precedent as the NCAA could possibly face, perhaps damaging enough to force the NCAA to become a mere shell of itself.

The bottom line is that the O’Bannon plaintiffs have finally broken through the glass door and have set the stage for massive changes in the landscape of intercollegiate athletics, particularly at the high-major level. Although the remedies Judge Wilken ordered may lack a solid logical basis and may not cure all of the issues facing student athletes as this moment in term, her ruling that the NCAA operates in violation of the Sherman Act by preventing schools from compensating student-athletes for the use of their names, images, and likenesses is real precedent that the NCAA will now have to find a way to work around as it faces the inevitable flood of litigation that follows a landmark ruling like this one.

Both because this ruling will inevitably be appealed and because its scope is narrowed by the facts at issue, this is merely the beginning. But between this bombshell ruling and the traction CAPA is having in its petition on behalf of Northwestern football players, it is clear that we are entering a major period of change in the world of intercollegiate athletics, one that the NCAA and its compatriots will have to enter with an open mind in order to survive.

A Blot on Our Record

A Blot On Our Record

I’m Proud to be an American.

We hear it everyday. As if it is some national motto, the phrase flows off the tongues of songwriters, politicians, media members, and “regular folk” on a daily basis with little thought as to its meaning. Well call me “anti-American” but I cannot get myself to join in the chorus. In fact, I write today as an American citizen embarrassed by my country.

Don’t get me wrong, I am thankful to have grown up in the United States. The “problems” we face on a daily basis pale in comparison to the real problems faced by those less fortunate than us around the world and that peace and relative security gives us the privilege of being able to focus on education, self-improvement, and innovation like no other set of people on Earth.

But I am not proud to be an American. Our country has it all and yet, because of words written by a group of wig-wearing racists over 200 years ago, we have kept ourselves from taking action on the growing problem of gun violence that has turned mass shooting from “story of the year” to a normal part of the daily news cycle.

The United States Constitution is a marvelous piece of political doctrine. It has established a system of government “by the people” that has yet to be truly rivaled in its 200-plus years of existence and has allowed the nation to become a beacon of freedom and prosperity the rest of the world continuously seeks to replicate.

But there is a part of that great document that has prevented the United States from truly reaching its potential and has left the rest of the world shaking its head in disbelief: the 2^nd Amendment.

Now, I don’t want this to be a treatise on constitutional interpretation. Personally, I believe the 2^nd Amendment does not provide the “right to bear arms” that it has commonly been thought to stand for and instead merely authorizes the creation of state militia to complement and counteract the potential power of a federal military (go ahead, read the damn thing before you disagree).

But for the sake of argument, I will just allow the popular notion to stand in place of reality and go along with the concept that a “right to bear arms” is guaranteed by the 2^nd Amendment. Now the question becomes: So what?

The Constitution, as it was originally written, was not a perfect document. If it was, there would have been no need for the 27 amendment passed, at great political difficulty, to it during the intervening 220-something years.

Take, for example, the protections given to slave owners. Many of the “founding fathers” whose word we are supposed to take as impermeable were themselves owners of many slaves. In fact, the great Thomas Jefferson had several affairs with (rapes of?) slaves he owned and despite supposedly wishing for his slaves to be freed by the law, did little to exercise his immense power both as an owner and as a politician in order to make that desire a reality.

This misguided belief in the righteousness of slavery necessitated the passing of the 13^th (and 14^th) Amendment in the wake of the Civil War. Recognizing that slavery was a blemish on the record of our country and seeking to better our society both morally and economically, the post-war Congress led the charge to eliminate a glaring hole in the “all men are created equal” premise upon which the Republic was supposedly founded.

Amendments themselves have also been subject to repeal over the course of American history. The 18^th Amendment, establishing prohibition, was repealed just 14 years later in the 21^st Amendment not because of some massive shift in society’s views on the morality and efficacy of intoxicating beverages, but rather after the nation began coming to the realization that prohibition led to more harm than good.

Today, we have a similar situation and it comes to us in large part thanks to the common interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment. Those who have interpreted that Amendment to stand for the “right to bear arms” often hold that such a guarantee was designed to protect the people from the power of the federal government. Assuming that was in fact the case, the Amendment is clearly outdated. Though there are legitimate concerns to be had about the scope of the federal government and its involvement in the daily lives of citizens, there is no threat of outright tyranny given the maturity of the federal bureaucracy.

Any over-reach of federal power in the modern world is not one that can or should be addressed through armed revolt, but rather will be resolved through the political process. Words, not guns, are the best weapons against federal power in the 21^st Century.

After all, are a few nutjobs with AK-47’s really going to overthrown the federal government, the same federal government with an arsenal of over 1000 nuclear warheads?

While the crazies with bazookas are no longer able to overthrow the government by “bearing arms”, they are able to kill innocent people every day. From Columbine to Jonesboro, from Sandy Hook to Aurora, mass shootings are taking place way too often right now and are being facilitated by a legal system that has decided it has no power to stand in the way of violence against the innocent.

This is not to mention the hundreds of people killed every year in our nation’s inner cities as a result of gang violence, often by virtue of the offenders gaining access to weapons that serve no purpose in an urban setting other than to facilitate the killing of other human beings.

In 2009, the US death rate by firearms was 10.2 per 100,000 people. No other developed country saw a rate even half that high and in Canada, where there a similar cultural fondness for hunting but no similar belief in the fundamental right of civilian armament, firearms only killed 2.5 per 100,000 people, less than ¼ the US total.

Numbers don’t lie: the United States has a gun problem. Despite having just 4.5 percent of the world’s population, the United States is home to 40% of the world’s civilian firearms, many of which are being used in the commission of violence against other human beings.

Well before the Constitution was ratified, our nation was founded upon the principles established in the Declaration of Independence. In that founding piece of American political philosophy, the “founding fathers” declared an inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.

At the risk of boring you on the specifics of constitutional history, I will just mention the fact that the Declaration of Independence came first, then the war, then the Articles of Confederation, and finally the Constitution, with its 10-amendment “Bill of Rights” attached as a compromise in order to pass a resolution that replaced the faulty Articles of Confederation with a solid government.

Surely the Constitution, designed simply to set up a government with the power to unify the various states into a true and lasting Union, was not intended to come in conflict with the principles established at the birth of the nation.

But as it is applied today, the 2^nd Amendment does just that. In the course of trying to protect the supposed right to civilian armament, the government has failed its duty to ensure the people are able to exercise their inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Last year, over 11,000 people were stripped of that right thanks to the nation’s unwillingness to cure its growing addiction to and problem with guns.

With each shooting and with each life lost thanks to the 2^nd Amendment, I become more and more embarrassed to be associated with American. The “right to bear arms”, if it does exist in the Constitution, has run its course and while we somehow remain blind to that fact, everyone else in the world see it for what it is: A blemish on the great legacy of democracy in America.  

That blemish, more than any other political, economic, or moral misgiving of our country, is a true blot on the great record of the United States of America. As long as that blot remains, I for one cannot get myself to say that I am “Proud to Be an American”.

The Big Ten's Bowl Problem

New Year, Old Story: For The Big Ten, Its Time to Put Up or Shut Up

Now in its 100^th year, the Rose Bowl has always been an annual rite of passage. The TV gold panorama shots of the packed stadium set against the backdrop of the San Gabriel mountains is as much a signal of the new year as is the dropping of the diamond ball in Times Square. But while the Rose Bowl has always been a part of the New Year’s tradition, a new tradition has come to the forefront over the past several years: Big Ten football ineptitude.

Once again this year, January 1^st was not a good date for those trying to show that Midwesterners can still play football at a high level. With losses by Iowa and Wisconsin today following earlier defeats of Minnesota and Michigan, the conference dropped to just 2-4 for the 2013-2014 bowl season and a staggering 49-65 in bowl games during the BCS era (1998 to present).

While this ugly record in the silly season has done as much to bolster the reputation of the vaunted SEC as it has to slowly diminish the stature of the once-powerful Big Ten, it does have its fair share of legitimate and often overlooked reasons.

First and foremost, the Big Ten had traditionally ended its regular season up to two weeks prior to its bowl opponents. Although this has largely been eliminated since the conference added a championship game during the 2011 season, it did play a part in much of the dark era of Big Ten bowl performance. Though obviously both teams face a layoff prior to the “postseason”, there is a big difference between three weeks off the field and five weeks away from the game. Certainly this falls more in the category of “excuse” than legitimate explanation, but it does carry some weight when you look at the flat starts and uncharacteristically sloppy play that has marred the performances of the conference’s best teams under the national spotlight.

But perhaps more importantly, bowl games are played in the south and southwest rather than the Big Ten’s home turf. Moreover, the games played in the south are played against teams from the south (SEC) and those played out west are generally played against teams from the west (Pac-12). The Big Ten’s struggles in the Rose Bowl against Pac-12 teams playing in their own backyard aren't all that new. Even after Michigan State snapped a three-game slide (all by Wisconsin) by defeating Stanford, the conference has won just 4 of the 11 BCS-era match ups and just 13 of the 40 matchups played since 1970.

The Pac-12 dominance could be the result of having better teams and certainly during the periods of USC dominance, that is very much the case. However, the one-sided nature of the modern Rose Bowl is also in part a function of the fact that Big Ten teams are not built to play in the LA basin. Furthermore, the Pac-12 representative traditionally faces a very minimal travel burden and doesn’t have to make the climate adjustment that for many of us from the great white north makes performance at a high level virtually impossible to pack for the trip.

The same phenomenon largely holds true with regards to the Big Ten’s ineptitude against SEC foes in the “lesser” bowl games that lead off the New Year’s Day slate. Teams designed to handle the cold weather of November Big Ten games are forced to play in the heat and humidity of Florida or in the indoor track that is the Louisiana Superdome (almost always, coincidentally, against Louisiana State) and have to do so against teams built for precisely those conditions in which the games are played.

Don’t pretend that a game between Ohio State and LSU in the Superdome is a “neutral site game” and don’t tell me that Michigan can play against Florida on an “even playing field” in Orlando. Bowl games in the south are home games for the SEC representative and to call them anything else is to ignore reality.

If you consider the bowl games the road games they really are, the Big Ten’s record becomes a whole lot more respectable. While a .430 winning percentage is far from outstanding, consider that during the 2010-2011 season road teams in games between BCS conference teams (and ND) won just 32.73% of the time. Though the bowl environment certainly dampens the advantage for the home SEC (and to a large extent, Pac-12 as well) teams, the familiarity with conditions most commonly faced on the field and the desire of these teams, particularly those from the SEC, of protecting the “home turf” of their region gives rise to an advantage significant enough to explain a good deal of the basis for the Big Ten’s bowl game struggles.

Could the SEC be far superior to the Big Ten at this point in time? Sure, of course they could. Is it legitimate to argue that they are the best conference in the country? Certainly.

But are the results in their bowl games against Big Ten opponents a valid piece of evidence to support these contentions? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Remember, the Big Ten struggling in bowl games is nothing new. Though the folks at the worldwide leader seem to act as if the last decade has seen the SEC surge ahead of the rest of the country in terms of football prowess (particularly in relation to the Big Ten), the statistics simply don’t back that assertion. And yes, I know the only stat that matters in the eyes of many is national titles and the SEC has won all of them.

But where are those “National Titles” decided? Here is a clue: It isn’t Indianapolis, Detroit, Chicago, Minneapolis, or any number of viable midwestern sites.

Much of this is sentiment I have expressed before and it is sentiment I will continue to believe in despite the fact many so-called experts conveniently choose to ignore it.

However, I am done using it as an excuse because it is no one else’s fault by the Big Ten conference itself. Time and time again, the Big Ten has allowed itself to be the sacrificial lamb (albeit one that is very well-paid) for two conference in the Pac-12 and SEC that are gradually becoming the class of the college football landscape, taking hold of a mantle the Big Ten itself once held very securely.

If the bowl games were what they should be, exhibitions to reward teams for a successful season and to provide TV networks (well, just 1 network now) with a massive audience to get the year started, then I would have no problem with the conference continuing to put itself in a difficult position and would be fine persisting in my crusade to eliminate the bowl season from consideration in the never-ending debate concerning college football superiority both on the conference and individual team level.

But with the end of the BCS era (thank the lord) and the beginning of the college football “playoff” next season, it is clear that the bowl games can never again be mere exhibitions. Regardless of how illogical it may be, the bowl games not only will be deciding the national champions of the current season, but also the contenders for the title the following year.

While this is a phenomenon that began when the BCS was formed in 1998 (and was bolstered by the changes made to the BCS formula in 2006, conveniently the very season that marked the beginning of the SEC “streak”), it is one that the Big Ten had a perfectly good opportunity to stop when it negotiated for the new four-team playoff system that will begin with next season.

Though undoubtedly other parties were involved, the negotiations for a new system to replace the BCS at the end of its contract in 2014 were essentially a battle between the interests of the on-field “power” that is the SEC and the off-field power that is the Big Ten (Have you seen the Pac-12 network available in a New York City hotel?).

For many of the reasons I have always stated, the SEC wanted to ensure that the entire “playoff” would be played in the confines of Dixie, with the “concession” being made that they could occasionally move into the “neutral” southwest when the available sites south of the Mason-Dixon were all gobbled up.

On the other side of the table, the Big Ten stood ready with a proposal that would, if you believe in the theory of vast SEC superiority, have benefitted the “best conference in America” had it been adopted. The Big Ten’s plan was to reward the higher seeds in the four-team playoff by having the semifinals played in the home stadiums of the #1 and #2 teams. This would allow the rest of the bowl system to stay in tact, with the semifinal winners moving into the national title game and the losers filling back into the “BCS Bowl” slots from which they were removed when they were selected for the playoff.

As ESPN’s own Big Ten blogger Brian Bennett said back in 2012 when the proposal was unveiled, “Playing semifinal games at home sites instead of using the bowls makes so much sense that I'm actually surprised that top college football officials would consider it.” From the Big Ten’s perspective, it was a way to allow for the possibility that a title-contender from the Midwest could make its way to the finale by taking advantage of playing in the cold comforts of home while also preserving the Rose Bowl as a likely Big Ten-Pac 12 matchup on January 1.

The SEC couldn’t get a playoff approved without the Big Ten’s support and since this proposal gave teams around the country a chance to host a spotlight game on campus, it would seem like this would be the plan toward which the support of athletic directors around the country would flow.

But the SEC knew what the Big Ten held so dear and took advantage of it: The Rose Bowl.

Even though it has been a contractual part of the event for only the last half of its century-long existence, the Big Ten conference and commissioner Jim Delany are obsessed with the Rose Bowl. Ironically, however, the conference’s devotion to protecting the matchup with a Pac-12 foe in Pasadena on New Year’s Day may have not only resulting in the caving in to SEC demands for a more southerly playoff track, but also in the end of the very matchup the conference was so intent on protecting.

As a result of the conference’s inability to use its leverage to set up a system that removed the inherent bias against them, the SEC has ensured that it will continue to dominate the college football landscape for years to come, provided only that its members can continue their tradition of protecting home turf like every college football team in America has a tendency of doing.

Delany and company not only failed to win approval of their proposal for semifinals hosted by the higher seeds, they didn’t even reach a compromise. With just an ounce of hard-nosed bargaining, the Big Ten’s leadership could have at the very least won support for a system in which the entire playoff was conducted in a completely neutral set of venues, either influenced by the geography of that year’s higher seeds or otherwise varied from year-to-year to ensure a wide geographic spread of neutral venues.

Instead, they simply caved and allowed the SEC to win approval for 100% of its proposed system and to enable the status quo of patently unfair venues to continue into this new era of college football.

If anything, the new system is more geographically biased toward the schools of the old south than the BCS was even in its heyday. Of the six bowls that will be used to fill the semifinal games, the bowls still being used for no reason other than to continue the less-than-ethical relationship between high-level AD and presidents, conference commissioners, and bowl representatives charged with safeguarding the traditions (ahem, financial coffers) of their “not-for-profit” events conducted with 200+ unpaid entertainers, four of them are located in the deep south, two in the southwest, and ZERO in the northeast, mid-atlantic, or Midwest.

Since the Super Bowl can be held in Indianapolis and even outdoors in New Jersey, why does a NATIONAL college football semifinal game have to be played nowhere but the southern half of our vast nation?

Had the southern bias been, as it largely is now, confined simply to the title game itself, my anger at the “peace for our time” tactics of our conference negotiators would be somewhat restrained. But now instead of just one opportunity to be blasted by a full speed train of home field advantage, the new system provides two opportunities for Big Ten teams to find themselves at a loss against “SEC Speed”.

I know the title game venues beyond 2017 are TBA, but with a three-year lineup of Dallas, Glendale, and Tampa, does anyone really think that Indy, Detroit, or Minneapolis would have a prayer?

As much as I wish I could place the blame for this extension of the acutely unfair status quo on the evil overlords of the SEC, I cannot. This one falls squarely on the Big Ten and its inability to assert itself in the boardroom any better than it has of late on the field.

Agreeing to the playoff system the Big Ten agreed to is akin to allowing Tiger Woods to reach Jack Nicklaus’ 18 majors by playing every US Open and PGA Championship at either Torrey Pines, Bay Hill, or Firestone (if you aren’t a golf fan, check out his record at those venues).

So having lost its opportunity to even the playing field at any point prior to the 2025 season, it might just be time for the conference to wave the white flag and admit defeat. Not defeat from the standpoint of agreeing that its brand of football is inferior to that played in the land of Dixie but rather that its brand is, by design, unable to compete in the consensus venues used to decide the “national champion” and if that is the case, continuing to try fitting a square peg into a round hole is a useless effort.

As long as collegiate football titles are decided in Dallas, New Orleans, Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Glendale, and even Pasadena, the SEC will have a perpetual advantage and the Big Ten a never-ending hill to climb.

The opportunity to rectify the situation unfortunately passed with the long-term playoff agreement put in place last year. At this point, the only solution for the Big Ten is to cut off the opportunities they present to conferences like the SEC, Pac-12, and Big 12 to bolster their reputations at the Big Ten’s expense in patently unfair matchups.

Maybe you do that by reinstituting the “One bowl team” rule that the Big Ten had in place until the 1970s. But since the schools would never agree to that because of the irrational belief in the financial power of the bowl appearance, perhaps the conference could instead simply abandon the traditional matchups and find more favorable contracts that would improve the overall record. Doing so wouldn’t even require stooping down to the “Group of Five” level but would instead simply happen by virtue of playing teams from the west in bowls held in the south and visa versa.

Is it wishful thinking? Of course. But at this point I am sick and tired of making excuses for the annual ineptitude put on display by a conference that time after time squanders the opportunities it has to place itself on a more level playing field nationally.

At this point it is clear the money is too great and too important to conference leadership for them to place it at risk in pursuit of an agreement for crowning a “national champion” and for setting the national landscape of college football that isnt inherently tilted toward the gulf of Mexico (with an honorable mention going to the Pacific Ocean) both physically and consequentially.

Instead, I will just turn the calendar forward come December 31 and remember what the New Year should mean in the college sports landscape: the beginning of the march to madness. After all, its a lot easier on the psyche to concentrate on basketball, where subjective interpretation is irrelevant because in the end the titles are won on the playing surface. Even in this new “playoff” system the conferences have devised, football simply cannot say the same.