Perlman's comments....?

Comish

Comish

New member
I apologize if this is posted in another thread or forum.......

A quick search did not seem to turn it up anywhere, but if so..........I hope the mods will move it or delete it.

Anyone else find our Chancellor's comments to be almost totally out of sync with where the rest of the college football world seems to be headed?

He was very late to the party in any respect concerning playoffs or a plus 1, and now he appears to be the anchor holding back substantive movement towards a playoff.

Is he speaking solely as the voice of Nebraska in this regard....(with or without Delaney's tacit approval?)

And why is he so committed to the bowl reps and communities ?

I find his entire attitude condescending. As if the "little people" just aren't smart enough to digest all the ramifications of any major shift away from his precious bowl/benefactors.

 
I have a feeling that both the Pac-12 and B1G presidents are mostly in agreement with what to do. Perlman was the only one that gave an interview.

 
Comish said:
I apologize if this is posted in another thread or forum.......

A quick search did not seem to turn it up anywhere, but if so..........I hope the mods will move it or delete it.

Anyone else find our Chancellor's comments to be almost totally out of sync with where the rest of the college football world seems to be headed?

He was very late to the party in any respect concerning playoffs or a plus 1, and now he appears to be the anchor holding back substantive movement towards a playoff.

Is he speaking solely as the voice of Nebraska in this regard....(with or without Delaney's tacit approval?)

And why is he so committed to the bowl reps and communities ?

I find his entire attitude condescending. As if the "little people" just aren't smart enough to digest all the ramifications of any major shift away from his precious bowl/benefactors.
Click to expand...

Harvey Perlman is not just Nebraska's Chancellor. He's also on the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee (until recently he was the chairman of that board) and has also served as a member of the NCAA Board of Directors.

That is where those comments come from and why he always backs in the BCS in any Tournament debate - he works for them.

 
Blackshirt316 said:
Comish said:
I apologize if this is posted in another thread or forum.......

A quick search did not seem to turn it up anywhere, but if so..........I hope the mods will move it or delete it.

Anyone else find our Chancellor's comments to be almost totally out of sync with where the rest of the college football world seems to be headed?

He was very late to the party in any respect concerning playoffs or a plus 1, and now he appears to be the anchor holding back substantive movement towards a playoff.

Is he speaking solely as the voice of Nebraska in this regard....(with or without Delaney's tacit approval?)

And why is he so committed to the bowl reps and communities ?

I find his entire attitude condescending. As if the "little people" just aren't smart enough to digest all the ramifications of any major shift away from his precious bowl/benefactors.
Click to expand...

Harvey Perlman is not just Nebraska's Chancellor. He's also on the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee (until recently he was the chairman of that board) and has also served as a member of the NCAA Board of Directors.

That is where those comments come from and why he always backs in the BCS in any Tournament debate - he works for them.
Click to expand...
I understand that. But he has personally held this antiquated view long before he became excuser-in-chief for the disaster that is the BCS.

(to get a glimpse of the thin veneer of his excuses.........here is a link to a rebuttal of his positions).....http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--potential-four-team-playoff-not-perfect--but-it-s-a-start.html;_ylt=Ak75LA1KSwiMAXCTntjfftU5nYcB

 
It's helpful to post a link to the article you are referring to. I'm assuming you mean http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/49484/nebraskas-perlman-plus-one-still-preferred.

Most of his arguments are so weak. It sounds like his version of "plus 1" is to play the bowls as before the BCS, then pick the top 2. There's not going to be any less controversy about 1 vs 2 at that point, and there will just be wheeling and dealing to line up a bowl that either gives you the best chance to preserve your top 2 ranking, or jump into the top 2.

He complains about not having a good way to pick the top 2 in a plus 1, or top 4 in a playoff, but the current system has the identical problem. Even a 4 team playoff helps because it gives a spot #3 or #4 team that has a legit claim to be in the championship. Rarely does a #5 team really have such a claim.

He talks against playoffs: "In order to be successful, it would have to become kind of a corporate event, rather than a school event." As if bowls aren't corporate events.

He says the bowls will become an NIT but it wouldn't change the bowls any from how they are now with the BCS championship game being the only game that matters for the championship. If you are really concerned with preserving the major bowls (any maybe you ought to examine why it's so important) it's not hard at all to incorporate them into the playoffs.

"I can't figure out a good reason to have a playoff to start with." Get the wax out of your ears and open your eyes.

 
VA Husker Fan said:
It's helpful to post a link to the article you are referring to. I'm assuming you mean http://espn.go.com/b...still-preferred.

Most of his arguments are so weak. It sounds like his version of "plus 1" is to play the bowls as before the BCS, then pick the top 2. There's not going to be any less controversy about 1 vs 2 at that point, and there will just be wheeling and dealing to line up a bowl that either gives you the best chance to preserve your top 2 ranking, or jump into the top 2.

He complains about not having a good way to pick the top 2 in a plus 1, or top 4 in a playoff, but the current system has the identical problem. Even a 4 team playoff helps because it gives a spot #3 or #4 team that has a legit claim to be in the championship. Rarely does a #5 team really have such a claim.

He talks against playoffs: "In order to be successful, it would have to become kind of a corporate event, rather than a school event." As if bowls aren't corporate events.

He says the bowls will become an NIT but it wouldn't change the bowls any from how they are now with the BCS championship game being the only game that matters for the championship. If you are really concerned with preserving the major bowls (any maybe you ought to examine why it's so important) it's not hard at all to incorporate them into the playoffs.

"I can't figure out a good reason to have a playoff to start with." Get the wax out of your ears and open your eyes.
Click to expand...
But it's still rarely going to line up properly. If anything this argument shows that playoffs are just a preference.

I can't figure out a good reason to have a playoff either. Never cared for the format. People see the anti-playoff people as ignorant. We see the pro-playoff people the same way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
irafreak said:
VA Husker Fan said:
It's helpful to post a link to the article you are referring to. I'm assuming you mean http://espn.go.com/b...still-preferred.

Most of his arguments are so weak. It sounds like his version of "plus 1" is to play the bowls as before the BCS, then pick the top 2. There's not going to be any less controversy about 1 vs 2 at that point, and there will just be wheeling and dealing to line up a bowl that either gives you the best chance to preserve your top 2 ranking, or jump into the top 2.

He complains about not having a good way to pick the top 2 in a plus 1, or top 4 in a playoff, but the current system has the identical problem. Even a 4 team playoff helps because it gives a spot #3 or #4 team that has a legit claim to be in the championship. Rarely does a #5 team really have such a claim.

He talks against playoffs: "In order to be successful, it would have to become kind of a corporate event, rather than a school event." As if bowls aren't corporate events.

He says the bowls will become an NIT but it wouldn't change the bowls any from how they are now with the BCS championship game being the only game that matters for the championship. If you are really concerned with preserving the major bowls (any maybe you ought to examine why it's so important) it's not hard at all to incorporate them into the playoffs.

"I can't figure out a good reason to have a playoff to start with." Get the wax out of your ears and open your eyes.
Click to expand...
But it's still rarely going to line up properly. If anything this argument shows that playoffs are just a preference.
Click to expand...
I don't get your point. I never said it will always line up properly, if you mean a clear 4 teams to be picked. What I meant was that there are nearly always 1 to 4 teams who lay a legitimate claim. In years when there are less than 4, I don't care about the controversy for that last spot. The top 1 to 3 deserving teams got in. Pick #4 to fill out the field via whatever criteria, and I'll ignore the whines from #5 because they weren't deserving. If you think there's a strong enough possibility of 5 or 6 deserving teams, expand the playoffs. But it's pretty clear this 2 team playoff we have with the current BCS system often leaves room for controversy in leaving out a deserving #3 and sometimes #4 team.

I can't figure out a good reason to have a playoff either. Never cared for the format. People see the anti-playoff people as ignorant. We see the pro-playoff people the same way.
Click to expand...
As a fan you certainly have a right to that opinion. As someone in authority, Pearlman can have his opinion but he should be listening to what people want. It's like a politician who has an opinion about issue X but the majority of his constituents have the opposite view. He should at least be hearing what his people are saying and considering that. If he really believes the people aren't weighing all factors, then it's certainly correct to go with what he believes. But for him to say that he can't figure out a good reason for a playoff when many, many people are giving him those reasons is being willfully ignorant and not doing the job he is supposed to do. That's the difference between you and I, and Perlman.

 
VA Husker Fan said:
irafreak said:
VA Husker Fan said:
It's helpful to post a link to the article you are referring to. I'm assuming you mean http://espn.go.com/b...still-preferred.

Most of his arguments are so weak. It sounds like his version of "plus 1" is to play the bowls as before the BCS, then pick the top 2. There's not going to be any less controversy about 1 vs 2 at that point, and there will just be wheeling and dealing to line up a bowl that either gives you the best chance to preserve your top 2 ranking, or jump into the top 2.

He complains about not having a good way to pick the top 2 in a plus 1, or top 4 in a playoff, but the current system has the identical problem. Even a 4 team playoff helps because it gives a spot #3 or #4 team that has a legit claim to be in the championship. Rarely does a #5 team really have such a claim.

He talks against playoffs: "In order to be successful, it would have to become kind of a corporate event, rather than a school event." As if bowls aren't corporate events.

He says the bowls will become an NIT but it wouldn't change the bowls any from how they are now with the BCS championship game being the only game that matters for the championship. If you are really concerned with preserving the major bowls (any maybe you ought to examine why it's so important) it's not hard at all to incorporate them into the playoffs.

"I can't figure out a good reason to have a playoff to start with." Get the wax out of your ears and open your eyes.
Click to expand...
But it's still rarely going to line up properly. If anything this argument shows that playoffs are just a preference.
Click to expand...
I don't get your point. I never said it will always line up properly, if you mean a clear 4 teams to be picked. What I meant was that there are nearly always 1 to 4 teams who lay a legitimate claim. In years when there are less than 4, I don't care about the controversy for that last spot. The top 1 to 3 deserving teams got in. Pick #4 to fill out the field via whatever criteria, and I'll ignore the whines from #5 because they weren't deserving. If you think there's a strong enough possibility of 5 or 6 deserving teams, expand the playoffs. But it's pretty clear this 2 team playoff we have with the current BCS system often leaves room for controversy in leaving out a deserving #3 and sometimes #4 team.

I can't figure out a good reason to have a playoff either. Never cared for the format. People see the anti-playoff people as ignorant. We see the pro-playoff people the same way.
Click to expand...
As a fan you certainly have a right to that opinion. As someone in authority, Pearlman can have his opinion but he should be listening to what people want. It's like a politician who has an opinion about issue X but the majority of his constituents have the opposite view. He should at least be hearing what his people are saying and considering that. If he really believes the people aren't weighing all factors, then it's certainly correct to go with what he believes. But for him to say that he can't figure out a good reason for a playoff when many, many people are giving him those reasons is being willfully ignorant and not doing the job he is supposed to do. That's the difference between you and I, and Perlman.
Click to expand...
+1

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top