Talking BCS with Harvey Perlman...

[Scarlet Overkill]

I'm really surprised Clemson made this list!

 

I'm also shocked Penn state fans aren't mentioned. My boss is a season ticket holder and would never act that way, but she condones it from others. (It's like a pride thing with them to see how awful they can be).

 

warning - not safe for work or children:

 

Some students also had that classless thing for Halloween after the VT incident. Just pure class.

 

Also, didn't their president have to issue a formal apology to Nebraska awhile back? I'm also pretty sure they had to apologize to the Ohio State band. (maybe that was someone else, but seems like it was Penn State).

 

They are awful awful fans, for the most part, and they'd definitely be in the top 5 of my list.

 

I can see, for the most part, why OU would be on the list. But, I have personally not yet ever encountered an OU fan that I found to be top 4 in the obnoxious category. Ok, there was one. But he's dead now. Seriously.

[junior4949]

 

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.

 

 

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. The BCS was supposed to put #1 against #2 so that there weren't co-champions. Yet, even with the BCS we've had co-champions. When you throw Utah in there playing 3 more games, you are insinuating they make it to the championship game. I think this speaks volumes because they were denied everything last year, yet they did everything you're supposed to do by winning each and every game. I never said anything about ruining college football as we know it. I think a playoff system would actually enhance the game. With an 8 team playoff and still using the BCS current system to rank the top 8 teams, each and every game during the regular season would still be very significant. I'd use the BCS bowls as the playoff games. The same non-BCS bowls would still exist. The top teams already play in the BCS bowls, so it wouldn't be a matter of a #9 or #10 ranked team getting a "crappy" bowl. If it were me making the rules, there wouldn't be conference championship games as not every conference even plays them. This in turn would take one of the three extra games you mentioned away in some/most cases.

 

If there was ever a year that screamed we need a playoff, it would have had to have been 2007 where 7 of the top 10 teams had two losses. The crowned NC (LSU) was a 2 loss team. Their 2 losses came at the hands of two teams that didn't even finish in the top 25 in the BCS standings. With a playoff, we also wouldn't have the paper opponent in a Big 10 team either. We were one little point away from having the past 4 BCS Championship games with a paper Big 10 opponent. A playoff would either show them as the frauds they are or confirm they actually belong in the game.

[HuskerRob]

I agree with what Kirk Herbstreit has been saying for years.

 

There needs to be a Plus 1 format for college football, A Final Four if you will.

 

#1 BCS vs #4 BCS

#2 BCS vs #3 BCS

 

Winners play in the Championship game.

 

A playoff would take away from what makes college football so unique, in that EVERY REGULAR SEASON GAME MATTERS! Teams can't win National Championships if they have a few hiccups during the regular season, but can "turn it on" for the playoffs.

 

If a playoff were to be used in college football, it would devastate the sport.

[HuskerGBR]

 

I understand where you're coming from, I really do. The BCS was supposed to put #1 against #2 so that there weren't co-champions. Yet, even with the BCS we've had co-champions. When you throw Utah in there playing 3 more games, you are insinuating they make it to the championship game. I think this speaks volumes because they were denied everything last year, yet they did everything you're supposed to do by winning each and every game. I never said anything about ruining college football as we know it. I think a playoff system would actually enhance the game. With an 8 team playoff and still using the BCS current system to rank the top 8 teams, each and every game during the regular season would still be very significant. I'd use the BCS bowls as the playoff games. The same non-BCS bowls would still exist. The top teams already play in the BCS bowls, so it wouldn't be a matter of a #9 or #10 ranked team getting a "crappy" bowl. If it were me making the rules, there wouldn't be conference championship games as not every conference even plays them. This in turn would take one of the three extra games you mentioned away in some/most cases.

 

If there was ever a year that screamed we need a playoff, it would have had to have been 2007 where 7 of the top 10 teams had two losses. The crowned NC (LSU) was a 2 loss team. Their 2 losses came at the hands of two teams that didn't even finish in the top 25 in the BCS standings. With a playoff, we also wouldn't have the paper opponent in a Big 10 team either. We were one little point away from having the past 4 BCS Championship games with a paper Big 10 opponent. A playoff would either show them as the frauds they are or confirm they actually belong in the game.

 

I read you there man. In my heart I just feel like they would destroy the bowl experience if they do a playoff. No doubt about LSU and 2 losses though...never happened before if I can remember right. The BCS is partly to blame for that, but also the NCAA for the 85 scholorship limit. Your comment on the conference championships is also a big deal...I agree all conferences should do away with conference championships, because they are the main reasons things get messed up in the Bowl rankings. Whether we like it or not...the bowl games do great things for our economy. It is about money...just imagine what would happen to Omaha if we didn't have the college world series. I am sure there is a way to incorporate all of these things, but I don't want to see us rush to do it. Because when we rush things...we mess things up.

[BigBL87]

 

 

I'll continue to not understand how schools like Utah and Boise St can scream about access when they haven't "earned" it like the old guard has. Programs like NU's are the reason college football is the money maker it is today, not the now termed "non-BCS" programs.

 

...

 

Honestly, I don't know what the "non-BCS" schools would have to do "earn" it in my mind. Maybe they need to sell their product to a "major" bowl to get a contract, just like the old guard conferences had to do.

 

The problem I have here is that they honestly don't get much of a chance to earn it. An "Old Guard" program has little to gain from scheduling teams like Utah and Boise St.. If you lose to them, you get ripped because you lost against a non-BCS team. If you win the game, it's not a big deal, because it's not like they were a "major" BCS team.

 

I really don't know what more Utah could do to earn it. They went undefeated through their schedule (in which their Out-of-conference games were not easy at all) and then beat a highly ranked Alabama team in a BCS bowl game. It's hard to say they should make their schedule more difficult, because until a conference invites them they can't change their conference schedule, and you can't say they should schedule harder games OOC, because most "Old Guard" schools have at least 2 cupcake games on their schedule.

[HuskerJen]

How does a playoff not hurt the bowl structure?

 

Because existing bowl games could be used to host the play-off games and teams which do not qualify for playoffs, but still meet bowl eligibility requirements, would still be able to go to the, or a, bowl game.

 

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.

 

1. There are older fans who would be able to travel to all the play-off games.

 

2. With Nebraska's national fan base, someone who lives in Seattle might not be able to go to the quarterfinal in Jacksonville, FL but maybe they could make the semi-final in California.

 

The point: Not all fans could afford to go to all play-off games but that would just give other fans a chance.

 

Now, local tourism dollars would probably be decreased in a play-off scenario versus the current bowl structure.

 

 

If they can't afford to travel how is that any fun?

 

See points 1 and 2 above.

 

Playing games in an empty stadium? Whoopee!

 

Have you seen the stadiums for D1-AA and lower? They are full or pretty close to it most of the time.

 

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.

 

1. I'm not advocating having play-off games a "higher seeds" home field so that's a moot point and doesn't even begin to "destroy" the current bowl structure.

 

2. Again, for teams that don't make the play-offs, keep the smaller bowls so they can still go.

 

3. If the Rose Bowl isn't hosting the national championship game, or if neither the Pac-10 champ or Big 10+1 champ are involved in the BCS title game the Rose Bowl maintains its Pac 10 / Big 10+1 ties...ergo...Wisconsin vs Oregon in the Rose Bowl could still happen under the current system.

 

4. What about the yawner in the Rose Bowl a year or two ago when Illinois played USC? Under a play off system USC wouldn't have been in the Rose, it would've been Cal or some other Pac 10 school and maybe, just maybe, Illinois would've had an actual chance to win rather than getting blown out like a slightly better version of Notre Dame.

 

The point: We can have a true playoff system, just like EVERY other level of football and still maintain the quality and integrity of the current bowl structure.

 

And the individuals who say that a play-off system would render the college football regular season meaningless are offering a straw man argument.

 

1. Make a team's non-conference strength of schedule more of a factor. Give more "points" to a team which plays a strong OOC schedule and give less points to a team which plays a "Kansas State" ou of conference type schedule.

 

2. Award automatic playoff berths to conference champions.

 

There you have it...a way to institute a play-off system which: I) maintains the integrity of the current bowl system and II) maintains the importance of the regular season.

 

NEXT!!!!!

[Alamo City Husker]

Perlman should have been fired along time ago for giving Callaclown and Pederpunk raises, with mandatory buyout clauses. I still am surprised how he got out of it unscarred.

[HuskerGBR]

How does a playoff not hurt the bowl structure?

 

Because existing bowl games could be used to host the play-off games and teams which do not qualify for playoffs, but still meet bowl eligibility requirements, would still be able to go to the, or a, bowl game.

 

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.

 

1. There are older fans who would be able to travel to all the play-off games.

 

2. With Nebraska's national fan base, someone who lives in Seattle might not be able to go to the quarterfinal in Jacksonville, FL but maybe they could make the semi-final in California.

 

The point: Not all fans could afford to go to all play-off games but that would just give other fans a chance.

 

Now, local tourism dollars would probably be decreased in a play-off scenario versus the current bowl structure.

 

 

If they can't afford to travel how is that any fun?

 

See points 1 and 2 above.

 

Playing games in an empty stadium? Whoopee!

 

Have you seen the stadiums for D1-AA and lower? They are full or pretty close to it most of the time.

 

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.

 

1. I'm not advocating having play-off games a "higher seeds" home field so that's a moot point and doesn't even begin to "destroy" the current bowl structure.

 

2. Again, for teams that don't make the play-offs, keep the smaller bowls so they can still go.

 

3. If the Rose Bowl isn't hosting the national championship game, or if neither the Pac-10 champ or Big 10+1 champ are involved in the BCS title game the Rose Bowl maintains its Pac 10 / Big 10+1 ties...ergo...Wisconsin vs Oregon in the Rose Bowl could still happen under the current system.

 

4. What about the yawner in the Rose Bowl a year or two ago when Illinois played USC? Under a play off system USC wouldn't have been in the Rose, it would've been Cal or some other Pac 10 school and maybe, just maybe, Illinois would've had an actual chance to win rather than getting blown out like a slightly better version of Notre Dame.

 

The point: We can have a true playoff system, just like EVERY other level of football and still maintain the quality and integrity of the current bowl structure.

 

And the individuals who say that a play-off system would render the college football regular season meaningless are offering a straw man argument.

 

1. Make a team's non-conference strength of schedule more of a factor. Give more "points" to a team which plays a strong OOC schedule and give less points to a team which plays a "Kansas State" ou of conference type schedule.

 

2. Award automatic playoff berths to conference champions.

 

There you have it...a way to institute a play-off system which: I) maintains the integrity of the current bowl system and II) maintains the importance of the regular season.

 

NEXT!!!!!

 

Sorry Jen but you just make it sound so easy. It's not and only a fool would think there is an easy fix. There are so many holes with what you just said that I don't even want to think about it or go to far into it. Keep the smaller bowls you say and only the fans of that team will watch it. Everyone else will be more concerned about the playoffs and guess what...we don't want an NFL system and no one cares about Div- 1AA and that they have a playoff. You said they fill their stadiums...oh yeah 16k people...congrats.

 

You say award automatic playoff berths to conference champions. I hope you are assuming every conference would have a conference championship or that none would. Also what happens if say they do have a CCG and Colorado beats Oklahoma somehow and Colorado was number 24 in the polls. So they should get to the playoffs automatically? And if you did away with CCG's then how would you determine the winner of the conference?

 

Just too many holes in a playoff system for college football so I am against it for those reasons and the fact I love college football because there is no playoffs. I watch pretty much every game I can (except the dumb Tuesday night games) during the regular season and honestly I don't do that for any other sport out there.

[HuskerJen]

Sorry Jen but you just make it sound so easy.

 

It would be easy to institute play-offs. What makes it "hard" is a certain segment of society wants to keep a stupid and inherently flawed system in place.

 

There are so many holes with what you just said that I don't even want to think about it or go to far into it.

 

Name them.

 

Keep the smaller bowls you say and only the fans of that team will watch it.

 

And you are basing this on what exactly? Seems to me as though you are projecting what you do to every other college football fan. Personally I love college football and I'll watch the FAU Owls play Toledo, I'll watch San Diego State versus Boise State, etc.

 

Everyone else will be more concerned about the playoffs and guess what...we don't want an NFL system and no one cares about Div- 1AA and that they have a playoff. You said they fill their stadiums...oh yeah 16k people...congrats.

 

The actual number isn't the point: It's the fact that the stadium is sold out or close to it.

 

You say award automatic playoff berths to conference champions. I hope you are assuming every conference would have a conference championship or that none would. Also what happens if say they do have a CCG and Colorado beats Oklahoma somehow and Colorado was number 24 in the polls. So they should get to the playoffs automatically? And if you did away with CCG's then how would you determine the winner of the conference?

 

In your sCUm and OU scenario, if the Buttaloes were to somehow beat OU in the conference title game then yes, as conference champs they'd go to the playoffs.

 

Yes every conference would have a title game or none would.

 

Are you aware that the Pac 10 and The Big 10+1 are two conferences that somehow determine a conference champion without a title game? So it can be done...crazy I know.

 

Just too many holes in a playoff system for college football so I am against it for those reasons

 

Again with the "holes." All you've done is vaguely hint around at all the holes without any specific examples to support your position. So again, what "holes" are you talking about?

 

and the fact I love college football because there is no playoffs. I watch pretty much every game I can (except the dumb Tuesday night games) during the regular season and honestly I don't do that for any other sport out there.

 

So if there were playoffs you'd stop loving, and watching college football, simply because a playoff system was instituted?

[knapplc]

Haha. "Holes in the playoff system." =)

 

I get a chuckle out of these arguments against a playoff. If I ever doubted that people were gullible, the bowl system would erase all doubts. The fact that people continue to buy into the pablum being given out by the bowls shows just how little ability people have to think critically.

 

There's a reason that nearly every major and minor sport IN THE WORLD uses a playoff-based system of determining a "champion." It's not because it's foolproof, or that it always crowns the best team, it's because it's the least faulty system man has developed.

 

Nobody ever said playoffs would solve everything. It's simply that they solve more problems than any other system, ESPECIALLY the bowl system.

[carlfense]

1. There are older fans who would be able to travel to all the play-off games.

 

2. With Nebraska's national fan base, someone who lives in Seattle might not be able to go to the quarterfinal in Jacksonville, FL but maybe they could make the semi-final in California.

 

The point: Not all fans could afford to go to all play-off games but that would just give other fans a chance.

 

Now, local tourism dollars would probably be decreased in a play-off scenario versus the current bowl structure.

 

Wait a second . . . we couldn't fill the Gator Bowl for a New Years Day bowl game this year . . . how can you argue that we could fill multiple bowl games? That just does not make sense.

[huskerswrkhavoc]

How does a playoff not hurt the bowl structure?

 

Because existing bowl games could be used to host the play-off games and teams which do not qualify for playoffs, but still meet bowl eligibility requirements, would still be able to go to the, or a, bowl game.

 

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.

 

2. With Nebraska's national fan base, someone who lives in Seattle might not be able to go to the quarterfinal in Jacksonville, FL but maybe they could make the semi-final in California.

 

The point: Not all fans could afford to go to all play-off games but that would just give other fans a chance.

 

Now, local tourism dollars would probably be decreased in a play-off scenario versus the current bowl structure.

 

 

If they can't afford to travel how is that any fun?

 

See points 1 and 2 above.

 

Playing games in an empty stadium? Whoopee!

 

Have you seen the stadiums for D1-AA and lower? They are full or pretty close to it most of the time.

 

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.

 

1. I'm not advocating having play-off games a "higher seeds" home field so that's a moot point and doesn't even begin to "destroy" the current bowl structure.

 

2. Again, for teams that don't make the play-offs, keep the smaller bowls so they can still go.

 

3. If the Rose Bowl isn't hosting the national championship game, or if neither the Pac-10 champ or Big 10+1 champ are involved in the BCS title game the Rose Bowl maintains its Pac 10 / Big 10+1 ties...ergo...Wisconsin vs Oregon in the Rose Bowl could still happen under the current system.

 

4. What about the yawner in the Rose Bowl a year or two ago when Illinois played USC? Under a play off system USC wouldn't have been in the Rose, it would've been Cal or some other Pac 10 school and maybe, just maybe, Illinois would've had an actual chance to win rather than getting blown out like a slightly better version of Notre Dame.

 

The point: We can have a true playoff system, just like EVERY other level of football and still maintain the quality and integrity of the current bowl structure.

 

And the individuals who say that a play-off system would render the college football regular season meaningless are offering a straw man argument.

 

1. Make a team's non-conference strength of schedule more of a factor. Give more "points" to a team which plays a strong OOC schedule and give less points to a team which plays a "Kansas State" ou of conference type schedule.

 

2. Award automatic playoff berths to conference champions.

 

There you have it...a way to institute a play-off system which: I) maintains the integrity of the current bowl system and II) maintains the importance of the regular season.

 

NEXT!!!!!

 

 

The posts like these really annoy me.

 

You seem to think that everything needs to be your way and everyone should see it that way. That's not the way it works. Seriously. I understand that you can have a Wisconsin vs Oregon Rose Bowl the way it is now. That's not the point, the point is that if it happens NOW it'd be the two best teams from each conference, not the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th best out of the conference. Nobody wants to watch the two 3rd place teams from the Big 10 and Pac 10 go at it on New Years Day. Just not what people want.

 

You say keep the smaller bowls for the teams not in the playoff and use the current "bigger" bowls for the playoff. Well, how are you going to have the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, and Sugar Bowls be part of this playoff AND host their own games that they are known for?

 

You say that "There are older fans who would be able to travel to all the play-off games." You know what? "Older" people still have jobs, families, and lives to live. They can't take a month off of work to travel to all these different places to watch a team play football.. Especially with the economy in the state it is right now there is 0 chance you are going to get people willing to follow that much. Also, not every school has a national fan base like Nebraska does. In fact, it's quite unique. Sure you have some fans in other parts of the nation, but for the most part, a bunch of people from Oregon St. aren't going to travel to Miami to play in the 2nd round of a playoff system.

 

Why can Division I NOT run a playoff like every other brand of football out there? Every other division doesn't have a bowl system. Plain and simple. Even with the argument that you'll keep the current system, it just wont work like that. We don't live in a perfect world where everything goes according to plan.

 

With you're non-conference "weighted" system you are hurting the smaller "non-BCS" schools. With more weight put on your non-conference, more people are going to schedule BCS schools in their non-conference, leaving less to go around to the Utah's, BYU's, Boisie State's, and Fresno St's of the world. And, it WOULD render some of the regular season worthless.. If you have an 11-0 LSU team going into its last game of the regular season, and a 9-2 Nebraska is sitting in say, 7th place, as LSU you know for a FACT that you're in. Plain and simple. Say you have a starting running back that has a bad ankle, and could further injure it by playing. Well, in the playoff scenario you aren't going to care if you lose because, hell, whats it matter? In a BCS type system they are going to play everyone they can because they know they have to win the game. Sure they'll be careful and give them rest and pull them when the game is out of hand, but not until then.

 

Also like someone said above, who wants to watch Nebraska play in some smaller bowl game when you can sit and watch the playoffs? Honestly it would hurt US in recruiting more if we weren't one of the top x amount of teams in the playoff EVERY YEAR.

 

 

Trust me, I used to be all for an 8 team playoff.. I never understood why they wouldn't create one. But when you look at the concerns that don't involve just crowning a national champion, they are a lot greater than what meets the eye.. Money is a big thing in the world, and the cities that host these games NEED the revenue they bring in from these bowl games.. That includes the tourism dollars that the games bring in..

 

 

 

 

And knnaplc.. It's not that people buy into the fact that the bowl system produces a fool-proof national champion every year. It's that implementing a playoff system without destroying the bowl system is something that isn't easy to achieve. If the bowl system was destroyed it would also in turn destroy many cities and thousands families that rely on that revenue that time of year for their livelihood.. Now, if that's okay with you, then I guess a playoff is perfect.

[HuskerJen]

1. There are older fans who would be able to travel to all the play-off games.

 

2. With Nebraska's national fan base, someone who lives in Seattle might not be able to go to the quarterfinal in Jacksonville, FL but maybe they could make the semi-final in California.

 

The point: Not all fans could afford to go to all play-off games but that would just give other fans a chance.

 

Now, local tourism dollars would probably be decreased in a play-off scenario versus the current bowl structure.

 

Wait a second . . . we couldn't fill the Gator Bowl for a New Years Day bowl game this year . . . how can you argue that we could fill multiple bowl games? That just does not make sense.

 

If the Gator Bowl game against Clemson had been a playoff game, say the quarter-finals, and Nebraska was chasing a national championship do think there would have been unsold seats? My guess is that between our fans and Clemson's fans it would've been sold out.

[carlfense]

1. There are older fans who would be able to travel to all the play-off games.

 

2. With Nebraska's national fan base, someone who lives in Seattle might not be able to go to the quarterfinal in Jacksonville, FL but maybe they could make the semi-final in California.

 

The point: Not all fans could afford to go to all play-off games but that would just give other fans a chance.

 

Now, local tourism dollars would probably be decreased in a play-off scenario versus the current bowl structure.

 

Wait a second . . . we couldn't fill the Gator Bowl for a New Years Day bowl game this year . . . how can you argue that we could fill multiple bowl games? That just does not make sense.

 

If the Gator Bowl game against Clemson had been a playoff game, say the quarter-finals, and Nebraska was chasing a national championship do think there would have been unsold seats? My guess is that between our fans and Clemson's fans it would've been sold out.

 

I don't think I buy that. If I can afford to only see Nebraska playing in a post-season game I'd gamble on the hope that I'd get to see them in the title game. I know I couldn't afford both. I think a lot of fans from both programs would be in a similar situation.

[HuskerJen]

The posts like these really annoy me.

 

Then why have this debate?

 

Show me where I said anything remotely close to "it has to be 100% my way." Oh that's right you can't because I didn't. Stick to the facts of what I said and stop inventing ways to pretend you're all butt-hurt.

 

I'm simply sick and tired of all the excuses as to why there isn't a true play-off system in college football. And that's all the anti-playoff crowd can give are excuses.