Talking BCS with Harvey Perlman...

[Husker_x]

You can't have both more and better games in a bowl scenario. You're necessarily including 4- and 5- and 6-loss teams to fill out your 35-game schedule. Aside from the schools playing in these games, nobody cares. Of course I watch these games because I love football as much as you and the next guy, but they mean nothing. When you have a 7-5 team playing a 6-6 team in a bowl game, it most certainly is "playing games for the hell of it."

I have no idea where you're going with the comparison of non-conference games with playoff games. These are two entirely different animals.

I just don't see the argument that the regular season is diminished automatically by a playoff. It becomes different, but every game still matters, whether that comes from jockeying for playoff position or just fighting for your playoff life.

I don't see what's wrong with having more crappy bowl games in the first place. I don't mind watching a crappy Notre Dame team get whipped by another crappy team. Yes, I understand that watching an LSU/Texas matchup is better, but with the bowl system it's not like having the 6-6ers duke it out is happening at the EXPENSE of the BCS games or even the major January bowls. If all you want is better games and not more games, a post-season playoff isn't required. Just stack your non-con with elite teams (home and homes) and viola.

The playoff system so far as I understand it has less to do with better matchups than actually determining which team is the best in the nation. By deciding it on the field it does remove all doubt, except for the inevitable 'well we had an off day' chatter. The question then becomes how can we do it with all the other factors included?

The current system creates a scenario where from game one ANY loss could spell the doom of your MNC dreams. This creates an urgency and intensity every week, and no one denies this. Allowing for an enormous playoff would alleviate this urgency until the actual playoff, when once again you're back to every game is life or death (which is different than position). Now it's up to the individual––are you okay with that or do you like it how it is? Personally I couldn't make a decision until there was an actual proposal on the table. Certain playoff scenarios would have less impact than others; we'd have a ratio of the more teams in the playoff, the more losses you could sustain in the regular season and still make it, resulting in less urgency. The issue with a plus one (probably my favorite proposal) is that everyone knows it's only a matter of time before it expands, and once it starts to expand, it'll be an NFL-style playoff.

 

[knapplc]

I don't see what's wrong with having more crappy bowl games in the first place. I don't mind watching a crappy Notre Dame team get whipped by another crappy team. Yes, I understand that watching an LSU/Texas matchup is better, but with the bowl system it's not like having the 6-6ers duke it out is happening at the EXPENSE of the BCS games or even the major January bowls. If all you want is better games and not more games, a post-season playoff isn't required. Just stack your non-con with elite teams (home and homes) and viola.

The playoff system so far as I understand it has less to do with better matchups than actually determining which team is the best in the nation. By deciding it on the field it does remove all doubt, except for the inevitable 'well we had an off day' chatter. The question then becomes how can we do it with all the other factors included?

The current system creates a scenario where from game one ANY loss could spell the doom of your MNC dreams. This creates an urgency and intensity every week, and no one denies this. Allowing for an enormous playoff would alleviate this urgency until the actual playoff, when once again you're back to every game is life or death (which is different than position). Now it's up to the individual––are you okay with that or do you like it how it is? Personally I couldn't make a decision until there was an actual proposal on the table. Certain playoff scenarios would have less impact than others; we'd have a ratio of the more teams in the playoff, the more losses you could sustain in the regular season and still make it, resulting in less urgency. The issue with a plus one (probably my favorite proposal) is that everyone knows it's only a matter of time before it expands, and once it starts to expand, it'll be an NFL-style playoff.

Well, I'll be clear, I agree that more football is better. I watch every bowl game I can see, whether it's the MNC game or 7-5 v 6-6. I'm like you – of two minds on this. My bottom line is that, while all systems are flawed, a playoff is the least flawed in determining a champion, and therefore preferable.

It will be difficult to have a playoff in our current environment. With eight teams you're leaving out 90-something percent of the teams. As ingrained as the bowl system is, you'd almost have to have the Champs Sports Bowl and its lower-tier brethren so folks still get plenty of football, or there will be rioting in the streets. Further, you will HAVE to resist the natural temptation to expand, expand, expand the playoffs. Eight teams is good and still makes the regular season very compelling, and 12 would drastically reduce the merit of the arguments of those left out, while 16 would be the absolute ceiling for me. Beyond that you have too many teams and the regular season really does get watered down.

Conference expansion is the elephant in the room, and could make all of this conversation moot, however.

 

[Husker_x]

I don't see what's wrong with having more crappy bowl games in the first place. I don't mind watching a crappy Notre Dame team get whipped by another crappy team. Yes, I understand that watching an LSU/Texas matchup is better, but with the bowl system it's not like having the 6-6ers duke it out is happening at the EXPENSE of the BCS games or even the major January bowls. If all you want is better games and not more games, a post-season playoff isn't required. Just stack your non-con with elite teams (home and homes) and viola.

The playoff system so far as I understand it has less to do with better matchups than actually determining which team is the best in the nation. By deciding it on the field it does remove all doubt, except for the inevitable 'well we had an off day' chatter. The question then becomes how can we do it with all the other factors included?

The current system creates a scenario where from game one ANY loss could spell the doom of your MNC dreams. This creates an urgency and intensity every week, and no one denies this. Allowing for an enormous playoff would alleviate this urgency until the actual playoff, when once again you're back to every game is life or death (which is different than position). Now it's up to the individual––are you okay with that or do you like it how it is? Personally I couldn't make a decision until there was an actual proposal on the table. Certain playoff scenarios would have less impact than others; we'd have a ratio of the more teams in the playoff, the more losses you could sustain in the regular season and still make it, resulting in less urgency. The issue with a plus one (probably my favorite proposal) is that everyone knows it's only a matter of time before it expands, and once it starts to expand, it'll be an NFL-style playoff.

Well, I'll be clear, I agree that more football is better. I watch every bowl game I can see, whether it's the MNC game or 7-5 v 6-6. I'm like you – of two minds on this. My bottom line is that, while all systems are flawed, a playoff is the least flawed in determining a champion, and therefore preferable.

It will be difficult to have a playoff in our current environment. With eight teams you're leaving out 90-something percent of the teams. As ingrained as the bowl system is, you'd almost have to have the Champs Sports Bowl and its lower-tier brethren so folks still get plenty of football, or there will be rioting in the streets. Further, you will HAVE to resist the natural temptation to expand, expand, expand the playoffs. Eight teams is good and still makes the regular season very compelling, and 12 would drastically reduce the merit of the arguments of those left out, while 16 would be the absolute ceiling for me. Beyond that you have too many teams and the regular season really does get watered down.

Conference expansion is the elephant in the room, and could make all of this conversation moot, however.

That's absolutely right. The other sweeping issue with any talk of a playoff (well, two issues) is the quality of the conferences in question, and then the uneven mess of conference divisions. Right now the Big XII is arguably at a disadvantage because of our conference championship game. It's just one more game you have to play, and probably against the second or third best team in the conference. This wouldn't be an issue if every conference had one, or if floaters like Notre Shame weren't leeching off the system. I'm in favor of seeing real, meaningful playoff proposals forwarded to the NCAA, but there would be SO MUCH that has to change to make a level playing field.

 

[knapplc]

That brings us around to a discussion of the bloated nature of the divisions. It's completely impractical to have 120 teams in one division. There's simply no way to have competitive teams across that kind of landscape. Perhaps with this megaconference talk we'll get into something more realistic like 60 or 40 teams in the top tier, and then all the talk about "playing patsies" will largely die down. I see that as a huge win for everyone.

 

[Husker_x]

Yeah, the NFL has the advantage model wise. 32 teams, 12 playoff seeds. A nice ratio. The entire college football landscape all but prohibits the kinds of changes fans are looking for. The idea of finding a 'national champion' with 120 teams is itself strange. But it's not out of the question to think that this talk of superconference realignment could solve the problem and at least lay the groundwork for a more reasonable postseason, with the potential of actually finding the best team in college football.

 

[knapplc]

The thing is, if we do move to a superconference model, Nebraska HAS TO position itself into one of the large conferences. We cannot afford to be the king of the little conference. Whether that means glomming on to the Big Ten or the SEC doesn't much matter to me, but out of those conferences, it's going to be hard to maintain any kind of recruiting momentum, and the cash disparity will be so great that in a decade the mini conference could easily be squeezed out of existence.

The weirdest thing about all of this is the NCAA's role. They're usually regarded as the primary mover and shaker of college football, but in realignment they have no voice - or at least, very little. They go from shot-caller to tag-along, yet when the dust settles they'll be responsible for making the recruiting and scholarship rules that will affect all teams.

 

[Husker_x]

Out of all the scenarios of conference realignment right now, the one where Missouri alone bolts to the Big 10 is the scariest. Not that Missouri is a world beater, but they've actually turned into a respectable program football-wise in recent years. Their luck against the South hasn't been great, but as of late it's Nebraska and Mizzery holding the North in place. If they bolt Nebraska is the king of a dung heap. Maybe Gill gets Kansas respectable, but you're still talking three or four years of rebuilding.

And then there's Texas. I don't really know what their options are, but if they leave the Big XII folds up shop. It would be Nebraska and Oklahoma trying to hoist up a dismally small conference in the age of the superconference.

All of this makes me think that the Little 11's offer is the best scenario for Nebraska. Ultimately that's my main concern––what's good for Nebraska. Our Texas recruiting will suffer but not perish, our TV exposure and revenue will go up, and we'll be playing teams like Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, and Penn State instead of Colorado and ISU. Hard to argue with that.

 

[junior4949]

My bet is that we continue hitting our heads against a brick wall and expecting a different outcome.

 

[CornKing]

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.

Sounds like the U.S. government has heard you. lol :facepalm: FML

 

[Paperback Writer]

Out of all the scenarios of conference realignment right now, the one where Missouri alone bolts to the Big 10 is the scariest. Not that Missouri is a world beater, but they've actually turned into a respectable program football-wise in recent years. Their luck against the South hasn't been great, but as of late it's Nebraska and Mizzery holding the North in place. If they bolt Nebraska is the king of a dung heap. Maybe Gill gets Kansas respectable, but you're still talking three or four years of rebuilding.

And then there's Texas. I don't really know what their options are, but if they leave the Big XII folds up shop. It would be Nebraska and Oklahoma trying to hoist up a dismally small conference in the age of the superconference.

All of this makes me think that the Little 11's offer is the best scenario for Nebraska. Ultimately that's my main concern––what's good for Nebraska. Our Texas recruiting will suffer but not perish, our TV exposure and revenue will go up, and we'll be playing teams like Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, and Penn State instead of Colorado and ISU. Hard to argue with that.

In my opinion, Nebraska isn't going to be invited to join the Big10. But I agree that Missouri leaving the Big12 to join the Big10 is scary. That's why I hope that the Big10 adds either Notre Dame or Rutgers. Preferably, Notre Dame because the Big East is already damaged with the departure of Miami, FSU, and VT.

Also, think Colorado is headed to the PAC10 along with Utah and BYU will take Colorado's spot in the Big12. I think the Big12 can survive losing Colorado as long as BYU replaces them. Not a fair swap as far as market share goes but BYU has been more competitive in football and Men's Basketball than Colorado at the moment and is at least Colorado's equal in terms of facilities. In my opinion, it's the best scenario for the Big12 as I think Colorado's departure is almost certain while Missouri's departure is somewhat iffy.

Like most, I want what's best for Nebraska and I think it's future is in the Big12. I don't see Nebraska being invited to the Big10 for academic reasons. What's hurt the Big12 North is the demise of Colorado and Nebraska. With Nebraska back, Colorado out, and BYU in: the Big12 North gets a couple of Top 25 team in Nebraska and BYU. With Missouri on the fringe of the Top 25, and a possible successful Kansas under Gill or a resurgent KSU under Snyder - that might be enough for a return of Big12 North respectability. With the continued strength of the Big12 South, that puts 5-6 teams in the Top25 by my calculations and that's a decent conference. A major assumption is that BYU will reamin in the Top 25 (like they have for the past 4 seasons) in the Big 12. Even with a tougher conference schedule in the Big 12, I think BYU is capable of it.

 

[Captain K]

Out of all the scenarios of conference realignment right now, the one where Missouri alone bolts to the Big 10 is the scariest. Not that Missouri is a world beater, but they've actually turned into a respectable program football-wise in recent years. Their luck against the South hasn't been great, but as of late it's Nebraska and Mizzery holding the North in place. If they bolt Nebraska is the king of a dung heap. Maybe Gill gets Kansas respectable, but you're still talking three or four years of rebuilding.

And then there's Texas. I don't really know what their options are, but if they leave the Big XII folds up shop. It would be Nebraska and Oklahoma trying to hoist up a dismally small conference in the age of the superconference.

All of this makes me think that the Little 11's offer is the best scenario for Nebraska. Ultimately that's my main concern––what's good for Nebraska. Our Texas recruiting will suffer but not perish, our TV exposure and revenue will go up, and we'll be playing teams like Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, and Penn State instead of Colorado and ISU. Hard to argue with that.

In my opinion, Nebraska isn't going to be invited to join the Big10. But I agree that Missouri leaving the Big12 to join the Big10 is scary. That's why I hope that the Big10 adds either Notre Dame or Rutgers. Preferably, Notre Dame because the Big East is already damaged with the departure of Miami, FSU, and VT.

Also, think Colorado is headed to the PAC10 along with Utah and BYU will take Colorado's spot in the Big12. I think the Big12 can survive losing Colorado as long as BYU replaces them. Not a fair swap as far as market share goes but BYU has been more competitive in football and Men's Basketball than Colorado at the moment and is at least Colorado's equal in terms of facilities. In my opinion, it's the best scenario for the Big12 as I think Colorado's departure is almost certain while Missouri's departure is somewhat iffy.

Like most, I want what's best for Nebraska and I think it's future is in the Big12. I don't see Nebraska being invited to the Big10 for academic reasons. What's hurt the Big12 North is the demise of Colorado and Nebraska. With Nebraska back, Colorado out, and BYU in: the Big12 North gets a couple of Top 25 team in Nebraska and BYU. With Missouri on the fringe of the Top 25, and a possible successful Kansas under Gill or a resurgent KSU under Snyder - that might be enough for a return of Big12 North respectability. With the continued strength of the Big12 South, that puts 5-6 teams in the Top25 by my calculations and that's a decent conference. A major assumption is that BYU will reamin in the Top 25 (like they have for the past 4 seasons) in the Big 12. Even with a tougher conference schedule in the Big 12, I think BYU is capable of it.

I agree, but isn't the purpose of conference expansion to be the biggest and baddest and securing the largest television contract? You can have your red in Rutgers and hope they become big-time enough to warrant being on tv a lot or take Nebraska and have the credibility instantly. NU is a team the networks want to schedule. Imagine, NU vs Michigan, NU vs Ohio St, NU vs Notre Dame, almost every season. We will see how much of this is about money by whether we get an invite or not. If they overlook our lower SAT scores etc. for our football prowess then it's cha-ching! :cowbell:

 

[HUSKER 37]

Me Three. But since (after) the '97 season, I've actually felt that any potential playoff would ultimately be the deathblow to my only favourite sport.. My ultimate fear is that you short sighted, emotion-driven, idealistic and grandiose playoff-mongers will someday severely damage a sport that, by virtually any measure, is doing quite well...Especially when compared to sports or divisions of Football that DO have playoffs.

I could live with a plus one scenario...a week or two after all the Bowls were over..the two undefeated teams left over would play..if only one undefeated or a bunch of one-loss teams existed after the bowl season...THEN you go to the best two according to all polls combined (like the present BCS polls).

But here’s the problem: Eventually a plus-one would become a four-team playoff or worse.. an eight-team playoff. Then a 16-team event. Then 32. And on and on. That’s what happened in the Football Championship Subdivision (formerly Division I-AA), which began as a four-team playoff, then grew to eight and now 16. The NCAA men’s basketball tournament expanded from 24 teams in 1974 to 65 today.

And therein lies one of my biggest concerns — college football evolving into something we don’t recognize.

I don't even think you can really find a "real champion" unless you do a best-of-seven playoff format (or at least three)...Since the advent of those various conference championship games (Necessitated by having so many teams, they don't get to play all the other members)...I wonder how many teams won a rematch (I'm still pissed about T.O. having to face OU again in the OB in '78? after finally beating Barry for the first time in 7 tries) <_<

Hopefully, It's obvious that round-robin play (or something close to it) is superior to split divisions (see SEC, Big 12, ACC) and possible repeat matchups in conference title games. Can a team truly be its league champion if it hasn't faced all its league opponents? Do you follow?

One of the more stressful and the thing I liked about College Football was that you only got one chance at your opponent..everything was left on the field..There was no tomorrow...The whole season was like that...every game having national championship implications.

The sport is arguably more popular than it’s ever been. TV ratings and attendance are up. You just saw 70,000? fans at Nebraska’s spring game. And you just want to blow it all up and start over?

I’m not saying a playoff would render the regular season “meaningless.” But I think it’s incumbent upon college football’s brain trust to protect the sanctity of the regular season. College football has by far the best regular season of any sport. Maybe an eight-team playoff wouldn’t have much impact on the regular season. However, we all know the playoff wouldn’t stop at eight teams.

Besides, I’m even a little concerned about a playoff marginalizing the bowl structure, which helps make college football "special"...Heck..just ask T.O.Bull..The BCS already has tarnished that in some way over what we had before.

Since I've gotten over 30, I've come to the conclusion that controversy is a positive..I still love getting into arguements with Mechicken fans about how badly we would've crushed their striped weasles had they not hid from us in the Rose Bowl in '97...If we'd actually played, we'd have to talk about the weather..or worse..Buckeyes.

Playoff-mongers tend to forget some key details as they attempt to save the world.

For instance, the fans. Say a certain team is rolling along in the playoffs. Will fans be able to book an airplane ticket in a week’s time? When it’s a one-game bowl situation, fans have a month to find prime ticket rates. How many fans are going to be able to afford to go fill stadiums on short notice?

Think about the two teams that advance to the title game. During the month long playoff process, the teams’ coaches would have little-to-no time to recruit, and their classes probably would get raided. Some reward.

I think the bowls do a lot to bolster excitement in programs. Some feel there are too many bowls. But there are a lot of good coaches and a lot of people who work awfully hard in programs. As it stands, a lot of players and a lot of programs are rewarded for hard work.

In a playoff format, do you really think coaches and players would enjoy the bowl “experience”? The must-win nature of a playoff would become a grind. Forget the sightseeing and off-field activities that go along with bowl games. The pressure on everyone involved would be immense.

Playoff proponents like to say that the reason you play the season is to win a championship. I've always felt the chance to win a championship is “a” reason to play, not “the” reason.

Of the current BCS system, Elventy-four teams go back to campus as champions...(ok..34) If you go into a playoff system, you have one winner and everyone else goes home a loser...for several players, that's their last game ever.

Who's being short-sighted? You're championing a system that is one of the more corrupt methods of determining a "champion" in modern sports. You advocate a bowl system that is so screwed up that it would fail an investigation under the Sherman Act – which Congress is threatening to do, by the way. You've been sold a lemon by bowl proponents, yet happily drive it off the lot thinking you've gotten some great deal. Congratulations – you're the sucker born every minute.

You toot the horn of controversy, as if because people deride the current system that somehow makes it "good." By that logic I suppose the Healthcare bill we just passed must be the best piece of legislation ever. If the only thing we care about is the controversy, let's just stop keeping score in games, and at the end we'll flip a coin to see who wins. At the end of the season we'll put 120 chits in a bag and pull out the winner. Think of all the grand controversy we'd have when Florida Atlantic wins the National Championship! It'll be great! If you want controversy, there you go.

You've been taught to believe that the regular season in college football is somehow sacrosanct, that it's some "every game matters" scenario. Clearly this is bunk, since nearly 60% of all teams in Div. 1A make the postseason. Regular season games don't mean anything in the current system when six-loss teams make the postseason. Bowl games are nothing more than Participation Trophies. They're a part of this modern PC culture where nobody loses, nobody's a failure, and we all get a pat on the head and a prize at the end. It's the Stuart Smalley method of sports.

All of the rest of your denouncement of the playoffs amount to so much bunk. Yes, the point of the season is to determine a champion. If it wasn't, nobody would care. There would be no trophy and they wouldn't keep score. Of course that's the reason we play football every year. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

This response is probably unnessecary..Husker_x stated most of what I was thinking better than I could.

I'll just try to clear up a few of my stances and try not to resort to personal attacks.

Who's being short-sighted? You're championing a system that is one of the more corrupt methods of determining a "champion" in modern sports.

By short sighted, I mean trying to look past the innitial 10 years..For the most part, The playoff post season would definitely be better than the old bowl system, but eventually you'd have universities afraid to play their token one or two tough OOC opponents...With a short playoff field of teams, your record will be the determining factor to get your hoof in the door.

You advocate a bowl system that is so screwed up that it would fail an investigation under the Sherman Act (WHICH PART?) – which Congress is threatening to do, by the way. You've been sold a lemon by bowl proponents, yet happily drive it off the lot thinking you've gotten some great deal. Congratulations – you're the sucker born every minute.

I'm more than a last minute sucker..Back in '93 I was screaming for a playoff..even more so in '97. It was sxtremely frustrating that the Big-10 champion could avoid playing us and claim part of the MNC.

But as I've gotten older, I've come to realize there's a lot more important things in life than if my entertainment is fair.

I've kind of realized that getting what we mostly all want (playoffs) is similar to the easy girl in highschool.

Sure it would be fun and exciting the first few times...but you still yearn for that one you can't always have.

You toot the horn of controversy, as if because people deride the current system that somehow makes it "good." By that logic I suppose the Healthcare bill we just passed must be the best piece of legislation ever. If the only thing we care about is the controversy, let's just stop keeping score in games, and at the end we'll flip a coin to see who wins. At the end of the season we'll put 120 chits in a bag and pull out the winner. Think of all the grand controversy we'd have when Florida Atlantic wins the National Championship! It'll be great! If you want controversy, there you go.

Extreme much?

Growing up..One of the reasons I always wanted my unborn Son to play Football above anything else..Was because I felt it best emulated real life..Life usually is NOT fair..Why should our entertainment always be fair?

The "Everybody gets a trophy" that you like to pin on anyone that dissagrees with you can set our kids up for great dissapointment if we neglect to show them the other side.

You've been taught to believe that the regular season in college football is somehow sacrosanct, that it's some "every game matters" scenario. Clearly this is bunk, since nearly 60% of all teams in Div. 1A make the postseason. Regular season games don't mean anything in the current system when six-loss teams make the postseason. Bowl games are nothing more than Participation Trophies. They're a part of this modern PC culture where nobody loses, nobody's a failure, and we all get a pat on the head and a prize at the end. It's the Stuart Smalley method of sports.

I only really followed the Huskers ..Devaney was already in his second year in Lincoln when I was in Kindergarten...EVERY game mattered because making a bowl (or postseason) was never the goal..Going undefeated and winning the MNC was the only goal...Once we lost to Oklahoma or some Florida school;, the season was pretty much a loss.

All of the rest of your denouncement of the playoffs amount to so much bunk. Yes, the point of the season is to determine a champion. If it wasn't, nobody would care. There would be no trophy and they wouldn't keep score. Of course that's the reason we play football every year. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

I guess I didn't really get that super competitive gene that most have..Even when I was playing I hardly noticed what the score was or even remember what our record was my Sr. year...I loved it because I could plant QBs..and then help dig them out of the turf....I'd feel sick after a loss, but I'd feel much worse if Nebraska lost the previous Saturday.

I taught my best friend how to play raquetball durring our Freshman year at UNL and within a month he was beating me on a regular basis..I just enjoyed the workout and making him crash into walls..Last time we played he got really upset..I finally found out it was because I finally beat him..I didn't even realize he was winning almost all the time.

Given Tom Osborne's fameous competitive side, I was somewhat surprised to read his book, "More Than Winning", but it really hit home with me.

Winning Championships was nice, but if that was your ultimate goal, you were going to set yourself up for a lot of dissapointment...The enjoyable and fullfilling part has to be the process of getting there.

With all this talk of superconferences and re-allignment, this is probably all moot.

But I've come to think of the controversy of having split national champions every few years is the right mix..And that a playoff champion would not nessesarily give you the "True Champion"..Just a different one.

 

[zoogs]

In all honesty I say who cares about determining the "right" champion.

Controversy is great. I wouldn't call the bowl system corrupt at all. Just imperfect and very imprecise, but that's by design.

 

[junior4949]

One of the reasons I believe an 8 team playoff using the current BCS format for ranking the teams and the BCS bowls for playoff games makes sense stems from the fact that the BCS in its current form has failed. It was implemented to put the #1 and #2 in the title game. If it hasn't failed, then there wouldn't ever be co-champions. It's not just the NC game either. Take the 2007 season for example. KU gets to a BCS game even though they had one of the weakest strength of schedules out there. They didn't even win their division in the Big 12. Missouri should have played in that game instead of KU. I'd venture to guess that teams would be more willing to play more tough teams in the nonconference if there was a playoff because they could possibly lose one game and still make it to the playoffs. Then, we might not have all these teams scheduling D2 teams or whatever in the nonconference. This might benefit some of the schools like Boise State as maybe some of the big boys would actually be willing to play them in the regular season.

While some may deem controversy as being great, I ask you what if Penn State gets picked over Nebraska in 1994 to play Miami? What if Nebraska didn't get a share of the title in 1997? A lot of TO's legacy could have easily been erased. Our big run in the 90's could have been just one NC. I don't think the entire system needs overhauled. Keep all the existing bowls and reward the teams that had decent seasons. Take the best 8 teams and match them accordingly in a playoff using the current BCS games. I think this would be a lot more exciting and fair than things currently are.

 

[Judoka]

Then, we might not have all these teams scheduling D2 teams or whatever in the nonconference.

There are 120 Division I college football teams, IMHO, D2 teams should never be considered for scheduling.