Talking BCS with Harvey Perlman...

[knapplc]

i like how you attack people for having an opinion that's not yours.
for all of you who are believers in the free market, you are pro-bcs or else you are hypocritical.

This was a joke, right? In the first sentence you castigate Jen for attacking people whose opinions differ from hers.... and then in the second sentence you..... (wait for it)...... attack people whose opinions differ from yours.

So that was a joke? Yes?

 

[huskerjack23]

i like how you attack people for having an opinion that's not yours.
for all of you who are believers in the free market, you are pro-bcs or else you are hypocritical.

This was a joke, right? In the first sentence you castigate Jen for attacking people whose opinions differ from hers.... and then in the second sentence you..... (wait for it)...... attack people whose opinions differ from yours.

So that was a joke? Yes?

oh...you got me!

lol

 

[SOCALHUSKER]

i like how you attack people for having an opinion that's not yours.

for all of you who are believers in the free market, you are pro-bcs or else you are hypocritical.

The free market is the process of voluntary transactions occuring without coercion or interference. In what way would that make a free market advocate who doesn't agree with the BCS a hypocrite? Is it not possible to be against the BCS, but still agree that they have the right to pursue business without the use of coercion or intereference?

 

[SOCALHUSKER]

i like how you attack people for having an opinion that's not yours.
for all of you who are believers in the free market, you are pro-bcs or else you are hypocritical.

This was a joke, right? In the first sentence you castigate Jen for attacking people whose opinions differ from hers.... and then in the second sentence you..... (wait for it)...... attack people whose opinions differ from yours.

So that was a joke? Yes?

oh...you got me!

lol

No HJ23, you got me!!

 

[HuskerGBR]

Uh, we already have teams losing a couple and making it to the NC game. A playoff removes the dark gray clouds that have been hovering over the NC game for several years. Every year the BCS makes changes, and every year someone believes they're getting screwed. A playoff removes all doubt who the NC is. I've yet to see a team in the NCAA basketball tournament conclude they're NC after getting beat.

Uh did you read my post or what man? 4 man playoff...the number 5,6,7,8 teams in the nation have the same record as the number 4 team. You don't think they won't cry about not getting in? 16 team playoff would add way too many games and then every game would not matter as much as it does right now.

Don't talk about basketball...it's completely different.

1. Nobody cares about the regular season really.

2. The tournament has 65 teams so of course there is little doubt.

But who is to say that this team wouldn't have beat this other team if they played? But the brackets aren't set up for those teams to play so honestly you never really know who the champion is. The champion could have lost to some other team they didn't see because they were in another bracket and got knocked off by someone else. Make sense? Any team can beat another team with the right luck...does that mean they are the better team in the long run? You think the Cardinals were the right team to be in the SuperBowl? They had a horrible record but made it into the playoffs when plenty of other teams didn't make it and they had much, much better records but didn't win their division. Playoffs are just as flawed buddy.

You doubt that Florida was the NC last year? Let me put it to you this way...Nobody has thought up of another system that works. Don't try to explain a system to me, because you have no idea of all the factors you need to consider so I don't want to hear a system from me, you, or anyone else that is not a freakin genius. Like NASA type genius who thinks of every angle possible.

Once again my advice to NCAA is to not listen to any of us. We have no idea what happens in the background and most people rush to judgements and mess things up with their emotional bias and haste.

 

[skerinKansas]

i like how you attack people for having an opinion that's not yours.
for all of you who are believers in the free market, you are pro-bcs or else you are hypocritical.

1. I wasn't "attacking" him. I pointed out that he was being completely dishonest about why there isn't a play-off system in D-1A college football.

Just so you know, EVERY level of college football, from D-1AA on down to the lowest NAIA, have a play-off system where the academic needs of the students are met. Pearlman's comments about play-offs hurting the bowl structure is a strawman or red-herring type of argument at best.

2. The fact that Pearlman supports the "Notre Dame" exception, based on "tradition" is inexcusable.

If the threshold for ND receiving an automatic BCS bid was that they had to win 10 or 11 games I don't think anyone would raise a stink. But I'm sorry, playing all three service academies along with filling the rest of their schedule with weak Big 10+1 teams, and only needing 9 wins at that, is an outrageous miscarriage of common sense.

And, as always if you don't like what I have to say then you can...

I think Jen raises some valid points. I'd like to see a Plus 1 championship bracket. Round one games played 2 weeks after the conference championships, with the NC game 2 weeks after that. Fill in the rest of the weeks with the other 29 bowls, and now you have still the billions of dollars a bowl game brings in, and a bracket that would eliminate much griping. Last year, round one games would have been Florida/Utah, and Oklahoma/ Texas part 2.

I think you'd play the 1st round game at the higher seed. The 4 (and soon to be 5 with Dallas's new stadium for the Cotton Bowl) would rotate the NC game. It'd be easily expandable to 8 later. Just my 2 cents.

 

[The Maudfather]

I won't spent to much of my time on this because it's mostly all retreaded :bs: There was one important statement that fans need to pay attention to.

"And in fact, we had a report from the commissioner of each of the Division I conferences and none of them were prepared to adopt the Mountain West Conference proposal now because we just signed an agreement for four years. And everybody believes it’s our obligation to comply with our agreements."

"Everybody has said they’d be willing to consider the Mountain West proposals at the time they could be implemented. "

In other words, the BCS is already contractually obligated to provide their bowl "product" to the networks as agreed to at the time of signing. If the contracts never lapse (like the last one didn't), then there will never be an incentive to change.

Sorry folks, but the BCS isn't interested in fair competition, just making profit off of competition. It's not about what games you the fans want to see, or crowning a "true" national champion. What's important to these men is making as much money as they can off of bowl games. And the more teams you invite with large fan bases, the more money they bring to the table. It's not rocket science, it's simple greed.

Everyone wants a 16 team playoff like everyone else has in every other sport or level of football. We don't want the present beauty contest/popularity matchup after a 40 plus day layoff! We want REAL football!!!

Not everyone. I don't want a playoff. I like having every single saturday of the regular season matter. I don't like the idea of letting teams take games off.

Agreed. I don't want to see the NCAA turn into the NFL, where you have teams who have already clinched a playoff berth, benching starters and taking games off. Who wants to pay full price for a ticket to watch the backups play in a game that doesn't matter? Not me. The current system is pretty simple, play a decent schedule, run the table, and you're in.

BCS=every game matters

:boxosoap

 

[hskrpwr13]

i like how you attack people for having an opinion that's not yours.

for all of you who are believers in the free market, you are pro-bcs or else you are hypocritical.

The free market is the process of voluntary transactions occuring without coercion or interference. In what way would that make a free market advocate who doesn't agree with the BCS a hypocrite? Is it not possible to be against the BCS, but still agree that they have the right to pursue business without the use of coercion or intereference?

I could be wrong, but I think where this was going was that the BCS didn't change anything. The BCS just took all of the contracts already in place between the conferences and the bowls and put them under one BCS conglamerate so that #1 v #2 would matchup versus bowl and poll.

The underlying theme was that if the MWC, or whomever, wants to work out a contract with a certain bowl then so be it. But said conference shouldn't expect all these BCS conferences to tear up their bowl contracts, that they put in the work to obtain, so that little new (as opposed to ol') non BCS conference can be handed a slice of the pie on a silver platter. That thought process seems communistic.

 

[Touchdown Tommie]

No matter what the NCAA does, they are going to make people mad...they cannot win! It is funny how all other divisions have playoffs except D1 though. I know money is everything and the bowls are a huge draw.

I think what needs to start happening with all of the Mountain West schools and Notre Dumb is they need to start scheduling tougher non conference games. Boise St. and Utah can walk through their conference schedule, but can they play a USC, PSU, Florida in a non conference game? I am not saying the MWC is not respectful, but they have more "cupcakes" than most of the power house conferences...that is why most of the lower school in the MWC are playing big time conference schools.

 

[UGAHusker]

I'm surprised more people don't want to go back to the Bowl Coalition, I mean, it worked for us before (1994, 2 undefeated teams, Huskers consensus National Champs).

 

[huskerswrkhavoc]

i like how you attack people for having an opinion that's not yours.
for all of you who are believers in the free market, you are pro-bcs or else you are hypocritical.

1. I wasn't "attacking" him. I pointed out that he was being completely dishonest about why there isn't a play-off system in D-1A college football.

Just so you know, EVERY level of college football, from D-1AA on down to the lowest NAIA, have a play-off system where the academic needs of the students are met. Pearlman's comments about play-offs hurting the bowl structure is a strawman or red-herring type of argument at best.

2. The fact that Pearlman supports the "Notre Dame" exception, based on "tradition" is inexcusable.

If the threshold for ND receiving an automatic BCS bid was that they had to win 10 or 11 games I don't think anyone would raise a stink. But I'm sorry, playing all three service academies along with filling the rest of their schedule with weak Big 10+1 teams, and only needing 9 wins at that, is an outrageous miscarriage of common sense.

And, as always if you don't like what I have to say then you can...

How does a playoff not hurt the bowl structure? While I'd like to think it wouldn't sit down and reflect on it. He has very valid points about that.. 1) Fans wouldn't be able to afford traveling to the 3 or 4 games depending whether you had an 8 or 16 team tourney. If they can't afford to travel how is that any fun? Playing games in an empty stadium? Whoopee! 2) Having games at the "higher seeds" home field would, as stated by Perlman, destroy the bowl setup as we know it. Now, are there ways around it? Yea, I'm sure they are.. Eliminate the smaller bowls, have your now "BCS" bowl games be your best teams not in the tourney etc.. But come on... does anyone really wanna see Wisconsin vs Oregon in the Rose Bowl? It's just not going to bring in that big of a draw when the game isn't one of the top teams in the nation.. So unless you can convince me otherwise, I have to agree that it would destroy the current bowl system.

 

[junior4949]

Uh, we already have teams losing a couple and making it to the NC game. A playoff removes the dark gray clouds that have been hovering over the NC game for several years. Every year the BCS makes changes, and every year someone believes they're getting screwed. A playoff removes all doubt who the NC is. I've yet to see a team in the NCAA basketball tournament conclude they're NC after getting beat.

Uh did you read my post or what man? 4 man playoff...the number 5,6,7,8 teams in the nation have the same record as the number 4 team. You don't think they won't cry about not getting in? 16 team playoff would add way too many games and then every game would not matter as much as it does right now.

Don't talk about basketball...it's completely different.

1. Nobody cares about the regular season really.

2. The tournament has 65 teams so of course there is little doubt.

But who is to say that this team wouldn't have beat this other team if they played? But the brackets aren't set up for those teams to play so honestly you never really know who the champion is. The champion could have lost to some other team they didn't see because they were in another bracket and got knocked off by someone else. Make sense? Any team can beat another team with the right luck...does that mean they are the better team in the long run? You think the Cardinals were the right team to be in the SuperBowl? They had a horrible record but made it into the playoffs when plenty of other teams didn't make it and they had much, much better records but didn't win their division. Playoffs are just as flawed buddy.

You doubt that Florida was the NC last year? Let me put it to you this way...Nobody has thought up of another system that works. Don't try to explain a system to me, because you have no idea of all the factors you need to consider so I don't want to hear a system from me, you, or anyone else that is not a freakin genius. Like NASA type genius who thinks of every angle possible.

Once again my advice to NCAA is to not listen to any of us. We have no idea what happens in the background and most people rush to judgements and mess things up with their emotional bias and haste.

You specifically stated that the regular season wouldn't matter because you could lose a game or two and still end up being the champion. We already have that with the current system. Utah was the only undefeated team last year. You also conclude that a team could get lucky and beat a better opponent and make it to the championship game. Do you not think that already happens? Do you think if Oregon State played USC 10 times that USC would win probably 8 or 9 of those games? How many times out of 10 does Florida lose last year in the swamp to Ole Miss? Do I doubt Florida was the NC last year? No, they have the trophy in their trophy case. However, Utah was the only undefeated team and they beat a common opponent (Alabama) slightly worse than Florida did. Both games were played on a neutral site. Does this mean Utah beats Florida? Maybe, maybe not. Without a playoff, we'll never know. We'll never know whether or not Texas or USC could have beaten Florida. One could argue that USC might have had the best chance considering that only 2 teams in the regular season scored more than 10 points against them. Again, without a playoff we'll never know. I just find it odd that every other division of college football out there has a playoff, yet division 1 can't figure out how to do it.

Using an 8 team playoff which is something I've advocated for quite a while, you can't tell me that it wouldn't have been exciting. The first games would have been OU vs Penn State, Florida vs Texas Tech, Texas vs Utah, Alabama vs USC. Those games would have been huge and exciting.

 

[HuskerGBR]

How does a playoff not hurt the bowl structure? While I'd like to think it wouldn't sit down and reflect on it. He has very valid points about that.. 1) Fans wouldn't be able to afford traveling to the 3 or 4 games depending whether you had an 8 or 16 team tourney. If they can't afford to travel how is that any fun? Playing games in an empty stadium? Whoopee! 2) Having games at the "higher seeds" home field would, as stated by Perlman, destroy the bowl setup as we know it. Now, are there ways around it? Yea, I'm sure they are.. Eliminate the smaller bowls, have your now "BCS" bowl games be your best teams not in the tourney etc.. But come on... does anyone really wanna see Wisconsin vs Oregon in the Rose Bowl? It's just not going to bring in that big of a draw when the game isn't one of the top teams in the nation.. So unless you can convince me otherwise, I have to agree that it would destroy the current bowl system.

@Junior-

Huskerswrkhavoc put this exactly how I feel. So on your post, Junior, about an 8 team playoff then that means the teams that make it all the way to the final game would be playing 3 games. How many people are really going to travel to see a team like Utah play 3 more games? You guys are asking that we ruin college football as we know it, because you want a "fair" system. Trust me a playoff is not fair either. Like I said you would have the number 9,10,11,12, etc. teams that might have 2 losses like some of the other 8 teams that made it in. They would cry about it and you know it...not so much the players but the fans. For example Nebraska is #9 and didn't make it, but they have the same record as a couple of teams who did get in...wouldn't be so cool would it? Then we would go to some crap bowl game that only husker fans would watch. Instead of getting a decent bowl game that most of the country would watch.

That's all I have to say about this. Us as fans need to just sit back and watch the game. Leave the business end to people that know a little more about the behind the scenes aspect then fans do.

 

[huzkerbob]

How does a playoff not hurt the bowl structure? While I'd like to think it wouldn't sit down and reflect on it. He has very valid points about that.. 1) Fans wouldn't be able to afford traveling to the 3 or 4 games depending whether you had an 8 or 16 team tourney. If they can't afford to travel how is that any fun? Playing games in an empty stadium? Whoopee! 2) Having games at the "higher seeds" home field would, as stated by Perlman, destroy the bowl setup as we know it. Now, are there ways around it? Yea, I'm sure they are.. Eliminate the smaller bowls, have your now "BCS" bowl games be your best teams not in the tourney etc.. But come on... does anyone really wanna see Wisconsin vs Oregon in the Rose Bowl? It's just not going to bring in that big of a draw when the game isn't one of the top teams in the nation.. So unless you can convince me otherwise, I have to agree that it would destroy the current bowl system.

@Junior-

Huskerswrkhavoc put this exactly how I feel. So on your post, Junior, about an 8 team playoff then that means the teams that make it all the way to the final game would be playing 3 games. How many people are really going to travel to see a team like Utah play 3 more games? You guys are asking that we ruin college football as we know it, because you want a "fair" system. Trust me a playoff is not fair either. Like I said you would have the number 9,10,11,12, etc. teams that might have 2 losses like some of the other 8 teams that made it in. They would cry about it and you know it...not so much the players but the fans. For example Nebraska is #9 and didn't make it, but they have the same record as a couple of teams who did get in...wouldn't be so cool would it? Then we would go to some crap bowl game that only husker fans would watch. Instead of getting a decent bowl game that most of the country would watch.

That's all I have to say about this. Us as fans need to just sit back and watch the game. Leave the business end to people that know a little more about the behind the scenes aspect then fans do.

You mean like the coaches? Oh wait, most of them want a playoff too. dedhoarse

 

[HuskerGBR]

You mean like the coaches? Oh wait, most of them want a playoff too. dedhoarse

No I don't mean the coaches either. They need to just prepare their teams and prepare these kids for the real world. And good job of saying nothing useful there bob.