Talking BCS with Harvey Perlman...

[junior4949]

2008 definitely was because of the tweaking the BCS does annually. I believe due to OU and NU that you now have to win your conference to even be eligible for the title game despite some conferences not even having a title game. Do to the Big 12 formula, this kicked out Texas. This was not the case in 2000 with Florida State and Miami as in 2001 Nebraska made the title game without even playing in the Big 12 Championship game. It does come back to my point though: did we in fact keep a better team (Texas) out of the title game do to more flaws in the current BCS format? In the end, we're beating a dead horse even discussing this. We're more than likely decades away from a playoff even being considered.

[SaturnDrew]

I was reading an article where I found this quote by Harvey Perlman:

 

“I appreciate that [disparities in college football] may seem unfair and it may very well be unfair,” said Perlman. “That’s the way the world is, I’m afraid.”

 

I find this quote to be absolutely absurd. It's like saying, "We know the system isn't fair, but we've already developed it, we don't want to change it, and everybody will have to live with it."

 

I personally think it's very sad that under the current BCS system that I'll never be able to see a team like Utah, Fresno State, Boise State, East Carolina, etc, etc, etc compete for a national championship simply because "Life's not always fair," even though they could very well be (and maybe even were) the best team that particular year.

[HuskerGBR]

 

...win all your games and you are good to go. (The Utah argument does not count...they need to play someone first and Alabama was a bowl game so that doesn't count either). ...

 

 

Wait a minute..Whut?

 

Why doesnt a bowl game count?

 

 

(careful)

 

I think that he meant that it didn't count for scheduling purposes because they didn't schedule Alabama. (he seemed to be saying that if they played a big name school like Alabama during the regular season then Utah would have a better argument for deserving to be in the title game.)

 

Exactly right carl. Been working so haven't been on to clarify that. It wasn't a regular season game so we can't say that they should go to the NCG based on the "they beat Alabama argument." So that's what I meant by that.

[junior4949]

I was reading an article where I found this quote by Harvey Perlman:

 

“I appreciate that [disparities in college football] may seem unfair and it may very well be unfair,” said Perlman. “That’s the way the world is, I’m afraid.”

 

I find this quote to be absolutely absurd. It's like saying, "We know the system isn't fair, but we've already developed it, we don't want to change it, and everybody will have to live with it."

 

I personally think it's very sad that under the current BCS system that I'll never be able to see a team like Utah, Fresno State, Boise State, East Carolina, etc, etc, etc compete for a national championship simply because "Life's not always fair," even though they could very well be (and maybe even were) the best team that particular year.

 

I think you're exactly right. Perlman is right in the fact that life isn't fair. However, it is absurd to know something isn't fair and then continue to be unfair over and over again. We can go through history and show things that weren't fair, but that's why they changed things.

 

The reason we won't have a playoff anytime soon is out of fear. The bowls fear they will be diminished somehow. Someone's not going to get the kind of payday they do now. Etc. Etc. I don't believe it has to be this way at all if you incorporate what we have now and add to it. Rather than completely overhaul the system, why can't we just add a wrinkle here and there? Keep the bowls as they currently are. Keep the BCS as it currently is because we have to have some sort of system to rank the final 8 teams. Actually, it would help the bowls as 2 would get jumped up in the BCS bowls for the 8 team playoff. I know, wishful thinking. As long as we have the Perlman's running the show, the only thing that will change is the BCS formula each and every year.

[HUSKER 37]

 

 

Friday, July 3, 2009

 

from Napa Vince:

BCS still better than March Sadness

 

I’m not into making guarantees but you can bet your life that at some point during the 2009 college football season, many people will grovel to no end about the BCS.

 

Heck, our own president – Barack Obama -- of the United States has gotten on his soapbox about wanting a playoff. Memo to Mr. President, worry about fixing our country first.

 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln chancellor Harvey Perlman was recently appointed chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee. In a nutshell, Perlman just assumed a pretty important seat of power, as head of the committee that looks at the viability of playoffs, TV contracts, and the like.

 

The BCS just shot down a Mountain West proposal for an eight-team playoff. It was the chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight committee, University of Oregon President Dave Frohnmayer, who delivered the vague statement explaining that any playoff suggestion “disrespect our academic calendars and they utterly lack a business plan.”

 

Collegefootballnews.com addressed the topic as well. I have one thing in common with CFN.com, I am not in favor of a playoff in college football. Yes, I said not in favor.

 

Yes, the BCS (Bowl Championship series) is not perfect but a playoff (a la NCAA March Madness in basketball) is the not the cure-all either. It would be “different” than the BCS but the only thing that change guarantees is that things will be “different,” but “different” does not necessarily mean “better.”

 

Yes, the bowl games are watered down in that more than half the teams in Div. I-A get to one. That’s bad enough but let’s not water it down anymore than the other sports have. Most people would argue that “every other sport has a playoff so college football should get one.”

 

The argument you hear most often is to take the six BCS league champions, the top non-BCS conference champion, and one wild-card. That idea sounds all well and good but what makes you think the powers that be would not get sucked in by money and expand the college football playoffs?

 

Major League Baseball, yes the sport with so many that spews out terms like “integrity,” “tradition,” and “purists,” expanded. It used to be that only division winners reached the postseason. Now, it’s four teams per league (three division winners and a wild card). I don’t have a huge problem with that because since MLB adopted the wild card format in 1995, numerous wild card teams have gone on to win the World Series. Why did MLB expand its postseason? Money. Owners of mediocre teams got sick of their teams being out of the pennant chase in late June and changed things to add more playoff teams and a wild-card.

 

I know many college football playoff advocates swear by the NCAA Tournament and call it “March Madness.” March Sadness is more like it. Back when only the conference champions were allowed in the tournament, it was much better. Now any team that can walk on to a bus and avoid tripping over the step gets in the tournament. What a joke.The other sports have screwed it up too. The NFL is borderline is not perfect but it’s acceptable in that 12 out of 32 teams make it to the postseason. The NBA and NHL, however, are brutally watered down in that over half the teams reach the postseason. The good news there is that it is a best-of-seven format where the better team usually wins. However, why are there so many playoff series – money!

 

As screwed up college football is as far getting two teams in the BCS title game, it gets it right more so than any other sport. True, teams like unbeaten 2008 Utah might be hard to convince, USC in 2007, Auburn in 2004, Oregon in 2001 or Miami in 2000 but it is also hard to argue with a team that went through the rigors of the regular season and then won a BCS championship.

 

The BCS has been tweaked over the years with things such as quality win points, computer rankings, strength of schedule, etc. The anti- BCS folks have been equally tweaked and want say a four-team or and eight-team playoff with the preservation of the bowl games. Unfortunately, they forget one thing.

 

The pro March Madness folks would then say but "at least it's played on the court." True but it doesn't stop teams that were "on the bubble" from complaining about not getting an NCAA tournament bid.The NCAA men's basketball tournament might be exciting but it's nothing more than a gimmick and de-emphasizes the regular season. Fans that love it say that a team can "get hot" all of the sudden. My argument is that any team can "get hot" all of the sudden but once they lose a game, the pressure is gone.

 

Whereas going undefeated is a bigger accomplishment. It's like pitching a perfect game in baseball. With each win, the laws of averages are not on your side because that team has a Bull's Eye right across its ever loving chest.Again, March Madness is exciting but the field of 64 teams is watered down worse than a flat Budweiser and please don't come at with the George Masons of the world either. I say cut the field to 16 teams and have truly the best teams.

 

If the idea is to find out which college basketball team is the best by having a tournament and having everyone play it off, then when play the regular season in the first place? The BCS might need its share of tweaking but I've always argued that it comes closer to crowning a true national champion than college basketball does. The best way to make a playoff in football a plausible situation is to make Notre Dame join a conference. I believe that’s as big of a reason as any why there is no playoff. Others have come up with a solution of matching up all conference winners. I like that scenario in that there is no ambiguity but some years one conference is appreciably strong while another is weak. I’d say just take the Top eight BCS teams, conference champ or not.Of course, for a playoff to work Notre Dame must get off its high chair and join a conference but given their elitist mentality that’ll never happen.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Cobby's view:

 

Harvey Perlman Saves America While Guarding the BCS Against Playoff Supporters

by Cobby on Jul 7, 2009 7:49 AM CDT in Cobby - Humor 1 comment

 

College football fans want a playoff. Or so we're told by media pundits who say they want a playoff but are really being backed by hard-line commie pinkos who want to destroy the one damned good thing that America still has going for it - the college bowl system and the Bowl Championship Series.

 

Harvey stands true to defend the chaos... er... tradition that is major college football. Don't listen to those who favor a playoff. They only seek to take the grand tradition and make it the same as every other major sport, furthering the blanding of America, seeking to marginalize America by celebrating mediocrity and averageness the same way in which they favor a sixth-grade graduation.

 

Do Div-II and Div-III have a playoff? Of course they do! Does anyone care except when they're being used to make a case for having a playoff for Div-IA? NO!

 

Taking over at a time when things appear darkest for the BCS, Harvey Perlman stands ready, freezing his adversaries in place as they ponder Perlman's dry statements trying to determine whether or not he's just made a joke. Put him in front of a Senate Committee and he'll handle it with ease with his uncanny ability to keep a straight face no matter what he's selling at any moment.

 

He's not a whimpy pansy man like former Nebraska Chancellor Graham Spanier. Put him in front of a Senate Committee (or a bunch of Girl Scouts for that matter) and he'd fall over in a fetal position in less than five minutes, signing documents allowing every college football playoff game to be played in Austin, Texas for the next 20 years.

 

So, BCS supporters, you can rest easy at night knowing that Nebraska's own Harvey Perlman is there to defend your favorite sport and all the chaos... tradition that goes along with it. Let those that favor boredom and playoffs (could that be redundant? Yes!) start watching more NFL games or attending Division II football games if only so that they learn more about how that playoff selection process works.

 

Corn Nation salutes you, Harvey Perlman! Defend the BCS!

[HUSKER 37]

 

Were you replying to me or CornHOLIO?

cornholio, but i was working off of your points and post.

knapplc takes the snap from under center & hands it off to sd'sker who rumbles for a 1st down in the argument for playoffs

that is funny.

but i am very passionate about the bcs v. playoff debate.

Me too. The BCS is a cancer on the sport I love most.

 

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.

 

So... how does Tom Osborne feel about a playoff system?

 

“Well, right now we’re looking at an awful lot of teams playing 14 games,” he said. “If you go to a plus-one (format), you’re at 15 games. We’re really asking a lot out of student athletes.”

 

Osborne remembers the days of nine-game regular seasons. Back then, he said, offseason training programs for players weren’t as extensive.

 

“Now players are involved in some kind of training almost year-round, and they’re trying to go to school,” Osborne said. “They have normal progress rules academically that they have to meet that they didn’t have back then. … There’s just so much being put on their plate.

 

“I really question the wisdom of a playoff. … Right now, the season is the playoff. That’s the thing so many people don’t grasp. They look at the professional model where you can maybe lose 40 percent or even 50 percent of your games and still qualify and win a championship. Right now, the way it is, every game is important. You can’t really take a Saturday off. Strength of schedule is important.

 

“Maybe we can tweak the system. Maybe you can have your computer ranking on one thing or another, and have a different format in selecting the teams. But I just know that no matter how you do it, you’re not going to have something that satisfies everybody.”

[mturn087]

Playoffs.....your talking about PLAYOFFS i just hope we win a game. No seriously though everyone wants to see how these mid majors would do againist the big boys how about they play each other during the season. Texas vs Texas Christian, Flordia vs Boise State, Alabama againist Penn State that one is happening! Nebraska againist Michigan or Ohio State. Stuff like that used to be be a staple of college football of high mark match ups. That is going away and that is why we are seeing more teams go undefeated. Flordia look at the schedule no one with a pulse outside the SEC. Texas same difference. Say they actually played schedules we might widdle down the number of teams vying for a national title and elminate the play off talk.

[sd'sker]

Playoffs.....your talking about PLAYOFFS i just hope we win a game. No seriously though everyone wants to see how these mid majors would do againist the big boys how about they play each other during the season. Texas vs Texas Christian, Flordia vs Boise State, Alabama againist Penn State that one is happening! Nebraska againist Michigan or Ohio State. Stuff like that used to be be a staple of college football of high mark match ups. That is going away and that is why we are seeing more teams go undefeated. Flordia look at the schedule no one with a pulse outside the SEC. Texas same difference. Say they actually played schedules we might widdle down the number of teams vying for a national title and elminate the play off talk.

mmmhh... michigan needs to get past appalachian st. first.

[HUSKER 37]

Playoffs.....your talking about PLAYOFFS i just hope we win a game. No seriously though everyone wants to see how these mid majors would do againist the big boys how about they play each other during the season. Texas vs Texas Christian, Flordia vs Boise State, Alabama againist Penn State that one is happening! Nebraska againist Michigan or Ohio State. Stuff like that used to be be a staple of college football of high mark match ups. That is going away and that is why we are seeing more teams go undefeated. Flordia look at the schedule no one with a pulse outside the SEC. Texas same difference. Say they actually played schedules we might widdle down the number of teams vying for a national title and elminate the play off talk.

 

I seriously doubt you'd see any more "marquee" games out of conference if you had to rely on being undefeated (or close to) to get in to the top 8 at the end of the season.

[sd'sker]

Playoffs.....your talking about PLAYOFFS i just hope we win a game. No seriously though everyone wants to see how these mid majors would do againist the big boys how about they play each other during the season. Texas vs Texas Christian, Flordia vs Boise State, Alabama againist Penn State that one is happening! Nebraska againist Michigan or Ohio State. Stuff like that used to be be a staple of college football of high mark match ups. That is going away and that is why we are seeing more teams go undefeated. Flordia look at the schedule no one with a pulse outside the SEC. Texas same difference. Say they actually played schedules we might widdle down the number of teams vying for a national title and elminate the play off talk.

 

I seriously doubt you'd see any more "marquee" games out of conference if you had to rely on being undefeated (or close to) to get in to the top 8 at the end of the season.

it is a better risk/reward scenario. a high marquee helps a lot, and hurts a little. you can have one loss and remain in the top 8, if that loss was to a good team. and if you win a big time game, it might be enough to propel you into the top 8.

[knapplc]

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.

[Husker_x]

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.

 

I'm of two minds about this. Your reply didn't address any of the more pressing points in the quoted post. For starters, I hate the BCS, but I do enjoy a plethora of bowl games. My reasons are selfish-–it really only amounts to the fact that the more football I can get in a season, the better, and if that means Notre Dame goes to play Louisiana Tech, so be it.

 

The recruiting aspect is one of the more worrying side effects of a playoff. If we're into February with games still on the docket, you're now pushing Junior Day back and winter conditioning. Unless the NCAA trotted out a whole new host of rules and regs about when players can sign (I'd almost guarantee an early and then much later signing periods), teams that are successful might have phyrric victories when their staff is too busy to take phone calls. Without the luxury of a draft and severe scholarship limitations, be careful what you wish for.

 

The talk about the sanctity of the regular season is overstated but not irrelevant. In my mind it comes down to a simple comparison. How do you like the NFL structure? If your answer is that you do, a playoff is your horse. Regular season games will be diminished greatly in intensity, but when the post-season hits, it'll be just like Christmas again. Everyone knows that if we start with a four team playoff it's only a matter of time before we hit 24, or 34.

 

Lastly, the strain on fans is not something to be brushed under the rug. Nebraska is able to sell out every home game because we only play a handful every season.

[knapplc]

I'm of two minds about this. Your reply didn't address any of the more pressing points in the quoted post. For starters, I hate the BCS, but I do enjoy a plethora of bowl games. My reasons are selfish-–it really only amounts to the fact that the more football I can get in a season, the better, and if that means Notre Dame goes to play Louisiana Tech, so be it.

 

The recruiting aspect is one of the more worrying side effects of a playoff. If we're into February with games still on the docket, you're now pushing Junior Day back and winter conditioning. Unless the NCAA trotted out a whole new host of rules and regs about when players can sign (I'd almost guarantee an early and then much later signing periods), teams that are successful might have phyrric victories when their staff is too busy to take phone calls. Without the luxury of a draft and severe scholarship limitations, be careful what you wish for.

 

The talk about the sanctity of the regular season is overstated but not irrelevant. In my mind it comes down to a simple comparison. How do you like the NFL structure? If your answer is that you do, a playoff is your horse. Regular season games will be diminished greatly in intensity, but when the post-season hits, it'll be just like Christmas again. Everyone knows that if we start with a four team playoff it's only a matter of time before we hit 24, or 34.

 

Lastly, the strain on fans is not something to be brushed under the rug. Nebraska is able to sell out every home game because we only play a handful every season.

 

What exactly is "pressing" about your interest in football, and its subsequent desire for crap bowl games? Do you want more games or better games?

 

Recruiting would likely change, but why should that suddenly become a worry? The NCAA isn't going to allow top-tier schools to suffer because they're gearing up for next week's playoff games. They'll adjust the recruiting schedule accordingly and maybe (shocking, I know) allow for more dead period times to allow these kids to focus on their studies rather than the recruiting game. What a novel concept!

 

The strain on fans is another tired old argument against playoffs, but if Div. II schools can fill stadiums across the country for playoff games, this argument is really overblown.

[Husker_x]

I'm of two minds about this. Your reply didn't address any of the more pressing points in the quoted post. For starters, I hate the BCS, but I do enjoy a plethora of bowl games. My reasons are selfish-–it really only amounts to the fact that the more football I can get in a season, the better, and if that means Notre Dame goes to play Louisiana Tech, so be it.

 

The recruiting aspect is one of the more worrying side effects of a playoff. If we're into February with games still on the docket, you're now pushing Junior Day back and winter conditioning. Unless the NCAA trotted out a whole new host of rules and regs about when players can sign (I'd almost guarantee an early and then much later signing periods), teams that are successful might have phyrric victories when their staff is too busy to take phone calls. Without the luxury of a draft and severe scholarship limitations, be careful what you wish for.

 

The talk about the sanctity of the regular season is overstated but not irrelevant. In my mind it comes down to a simple comparison. How do you like the NFL structure? If your answer is that you do, a playoff is your horse. Regular season games will be diminished greatly in intensity, but when the post-season hits, it'll be just like Christmas again. Everyone knows that if we start with a four team playoff it's only a matter of time before we hit 24, or 34.

 

Lastly, the strain on fans is not something to be brushed under the rug. Nebraska is able to sell out every home game because we only play a handful every season.

 

What exactly is "pressing" about your interest in football, and its subsequent desire for crap bowl games? Do you want more games or better games?

 

Recruiting would likely change, but why should that suddenly become a worry? The NCAA isn't going to allow top-tier schools to suffer because they're gearing up for next week's playoff games. They'll adjust the recruiting schedule accordingly and maybe (shocking, I know) allow for more dead period times to allow these kids to focus on their studies rather than the recruiting game. What a novel concept!

 

The strain on fans is another tired old argument against playoffs, but if Div. II schools can fill stadiums across the country for playoff games, this argument is really overblown.

 

There is nothing pressing about my interest in football, but then again it wasn't MY post I was referring to. But as a fan of the sport who attends the games, pays for the beer and pizza, and is a target of all that lovely advertising, you could say that my opinions count for something. And since this is a conversation about what the fans want out of their sports, hope it's not too inconvenient if I throw my two cents in.

 

More games or better games, you say. How about both? The issue isn't playing more games for the hell of it, and you certainly don't have to watch the 6-6ers duke it out at the Motor City Bowl. However the 'better games' mantra is a specious argument––I don't see many people harping to have Nebraska play Florida, LSU, Iowa, and Alabama right in a row for our non-conference schedule. And we all know why.

 

I'm completely open to the idea of a playoff. What I'd like to see is a comprehensive proposal. With a potential conference Armageddon on the horizon and an increased trend of early pledges in recruiting, it's more than a matter of saying, "The BCS blows. I want a playoff." Leaving it to a computer chip was and is a ridiculous way to determine a national champion. But fans would do well to take stock of how popular and great the sport is already. A prolonged post-season necessarily diminishes the regular season, and whatever anyone wants to say, D-1 college football can boast a week in/week out heavy stakes make or break atmosphere.

[knapplc]

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.