Talking BCS with Harvey Perlman...
- Thread starter omahapanda
- Start date
Interesting from the fact, that I think a lot of people continue to mistake what the BCS was about. It wasnt for greater access, it wasnt to separate higher profile bowls from others, it was strictly meant to satisfy #1 v #2 which is what most everyone wanted insteand of #1 NU going to the Orange/Fiesta and #2 Michigan/Penn St going to to the Rose. The BCS wasnt implemented to change anything other than to hopefully even out biases with the voters by using computers in the rankings. This component has been nuetered to the point that I dont understand why its even brought up in conversations.
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. Thank the NCAA for limiting schollarships and ESPN for giving you Tuesday night football so that you could actually tell a recruit that they can be on T.V. by coming to said school. Perlman is correct. These schools have more access now than they ever did. Will these programs split there money with ESPN and the NCAA powers that be for giving them an advantage that schools like NU never got so that they could "compete"?
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.
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. Thank the NCAA for limiting schollarships and ESPN for giving you Tuesday night football so that you could actually tell a recruit that they can be on T.V. by coming to said school. Perlman is correct. These schools have more access now than they ever did. Will these programs split there money with ESPN and the NCAA powers that be for giving them an advantage that schools like NU never got so that they could "compete"?
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.
Touchdown Tommie
All-Conference
I understand how the BCS has "helped" get the 1 vs 2, but it would be interesting to see the Utahs or Boise States go up against Florida or other top programs in a playoff system.
Perlman quotes. My comments bold in parenthesis.
Agree 100%:
**The six automatic qualifying conferences are conferences that had contractual relationships with bowls prior to the BCS. The Big 12 had a contract with the Fiesta Bowl, the Pac 10 and Big Ten had the Rose Bowl and the SEC had the Sugar Bowl and The ACC had the Orange Bowl. What we agreed to do was modify those agreements to allow a No. 1 and No. 2 team to play each other for the national championship. But we weren’t going to give up those contractual rights without having control over what the system was. That’s why it’s that way.
**If you look at college football now, it’s the greatest sporting event spread over September, October, November, December and a little bit of January that the country has. A playoff would seriously diminish the regular season, as it has in college basketball.
**I don’t see fans travelling around the country three weeks in succession between December and January following their team. So you’re either going to have to play at home sites – which I’m sure everybody will want to play in Nebraska in December and January – or you’re gonna have to travel, which means that bowls will cease being intercollegiate events, but will become corporate events, where everybody in, you name the city, will be there except the fans of the teams. (not because fans wouldn't want to; most just cant afford to do that) (would LUV to see these sunshine teams have to come to Lincoln late in the year)
Disagree:
**The ranking system that we have has a diversity of ways to rank teams. I suspect you can’t influence the computers, for one thing. And I’d be very surprised – notwithstanding some efforts – that voters in polls are influenced by what ESPN wants. (Right! The media NEVER influences people. ESPN ONLY regurgitates the feelings of the fans! Gimme a break! Also, again, the computers mean nothing anymore so don't bring that up.)
**You have to go back and remember the tradition here. The agreements with the bowls were by conference. Now, Notre Dame is not in a conference, but they had significant relationship and they had their own television contract. At one point in time, Notre Dame was pretty much in a bowl every year. The question is not teams, the question is conferences. (the last sentence is correct. he should have said notre dame is a big tv money draw. thats why their treated special. of course, my belief is that they should be treated no differently than any other non-bcs conference team.)
Agree 100%:
**The six automatic qualifying conferences are conferences that had contractual relationships with bowls prior to the BCS. The Big 12 had a contract with the Fiesta Bowl, the Pac 10 and Big Ten had the Rose Bowl and the SEC had the Sugar Bowl and The ACC had the Orange Bowl. What we agreed to do was modify those agreements to allow a No. 1 and No. 2 team to play each other for the national championship. But we weren’t going to give up those contractual rights without having control over what the system was. That’s why it’s that way.
**If you look at college football now, it’s the greatest sporting event spread over September, October, November, December and a little bit of January that the country has. A playoff would seriously diminish the regular season, as it has in college basketball.
**I don’t see fans travelling around the country three weeks in succession between December and January following their team. So you’re either going to have to play at home sites – which I’m sure everybody will want to play in Nebraska in December and January – or you’re gonna have to travel, which means that bowls will cease being intercollegiate events, but will become corporate events, where everybody in, you name the city, will be there except the fans of the teams. (not because fans wouldn't want to; most just cant afford to do that) (would LUV to see these sunshine teams have to come to Lincoln late in the year)
Disagree:
**The ranking system that we have has a diversity of ways to rank teams. I suspect you can’t influence the computers, for one thing. And I’d be very surprised – notwithstanding some efforts – that voters in polls are influenced by what ESPN wants. (Right! The media NEVER influences people. ESPN ONLY regurgitates the feelings of the fans! Gimme a break! Also, again, the computers mean nothing anymore so don't bring that up.)
**You have to go back and remember the tradition here. The agreements with the bowls were by conference. Now, Notre Dame is not in a conference, but they had significant relationship and they had their own television contract. At one point in time, Notre Dame was pretty much in a bowl every year. The question is not teams, the question is conferences. (the last sentence is correct. he should have said notre dame is a big tv money draw. thats why their treated special. of course, my belief is that they should be treated no differently than any other non-bcs conference team.)
From the blog/article/opinion...
Harvey Pearlman...just another example of an academic wank who knows absolutely nothing about college football.
Pearlman is a liar. There are a number of different ways to implement a playoff system and keep the bowl games.
Pearlman, you completely suck. Tradition is important, but how a team plays on the field during the season is MORE important than tradition, especially if you consider going to a bowl game as a reward to the players for having a good season.
Harvey Pearlman...just another example of an academic wank who knows absolutely nothing about college football.
huskerjack23
Starter
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.
junior4949
All-American
I didn't read the article, so I won't comment on it. However, you are 100% correct that Pearlman is a liar. When Pud was shown the door, Pearlman should have been shown the door as well. He was ear deep into the dibacle years. He was actually just as responsible as Pud for nearly ruining Husker football.
huzkerbob
All-Conference
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.
"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!!!
carlfense
Heisman Trophy Winner
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.
HuskerGBR
Special Teams Player
I agree with you Carl...a playoff is a horrible idea. Do you guys think that a playoff would really determine who is the best? I have always thought playoffs were a joke that also has the potential to not really get the best teams in the final game. All it takes is a little bit of luck and the best team could get knocked out by some lucky team like Utah. So lets say after Utah beats Alabama in their playoff game and advance to the championship game. Do you guys really believe that Utah wouldn't get destroyed by Florida? Who would really want to see that game seriously?
Plus if you don't think it would ruin the fact that every game counts well you are wrong. You could lose a few and still make it to the playoffs and still win the championship game. But you have 3 losses and the other team only has that 1 to you. Does that mean that you are really the champion? And if it is 4 or a 16 team playoff there will be that #5 or #17 team with fans of the team crying, because they have the same record as the some of the teams that made it in. Someone will still be left out.
The BCS does need to make some changes, but I still think they shouldn't listen to any of us anyways. We just have way to much emotion to judge the situation with prudence. I know if I was running the show I wouldn't listen to any of you. Haha jk or maybe I'm not?
junior4949
All-American
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.
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...