Pelini strongly opposes playoff of any sort

[zoogs]

Just after the CCGs?

 

Isn't one big advantage of making a bowl the extra weeks of practices you get for the team? I wonder how that would be reconciled with an advance bowl schedule. Also, the Rose Parade is on Jan 1st, no? With the bowl game the next day, or is it the night of? I don't remember.

[VA Husker Fan]

Just after the CCGs?

 

Isn't one big advantage of making a bowl the extra weeks of practices you get for the team? I wonder how that would be reconciled with an advance bowl schedule. Also, the Rose Parade is on Jan 1st, no? With the bowl game the next day, or is it the night of? I don't remember.

The Rose Bowl is on Jan 1, unless the 1st is a Sunday, in which case it's Jan 2 (to avoid conflict with NFL games, I presume).

[Notre Dame Joe]

Well, according to today's announcement, cities get to bid on the national title game. So in theory, Chicago could open the checkbook and bring LSU to play on Soldier Field.

[Nebula]

College football is revenue and ratings driven, but for my own part, I don't have any problems with SEC vs. SEC match-ups. If we have a four team playoff, and the four best teams at the end of the year are from the SEC, what's so wrong about all four of those teams playing for the national title? Thousands of fans out there don't want their team getting screwed out of a championship so a team from a weaker conference has a shot at the title - fans like us. Then we turn around and complain about the SEC dominating everything? We can't have it both ways. If we neglect a great team in favor of a not-as-good team in the name of fairness, then the system will be as much BS as the current one.

 

They're the best conference and they continue to prove it every single year. Until Nebraska or other teams do something about it, I feel the best teams (regardless of conference) should be playing for a title. 10-2 and finishing third in the SEC is more impressive than winning the Big East at 10-2. So, even though the ratings for this last year's BCS National Championship weren't good, I can't think of any team who 100% deserved a shot more than LSU or Bama.

Without trying to sound bitter or jaded, my primary complaint with the $EC is that they bolster their rosters unfairly. They have bottom barrel academic requirements, oversign like mad, and I'd bet anything on widespread impropriety in terms of additional Reggie Bush like benefits being handed out left and right. (What was Cam Newton's running rate? 200K? And he WAS the difference for Auburn. They won the MNC because of that kid.)

 

I just don't think it's a level playing field. Add in the ESPN economic investment towards the conference, and I just think there is a lot of room for subjective analysis that will lean towards the $EC. (Going back to Newton. That story just kinda...went away. War Eagle! )

 

Yet I agree with everything you said. I just don't think those teams arrived at the apex of CFB through equitable means. I think the entire conference (save Vanderbilt, probably) have willfully manipulated the system to the detriment of the very game itself. Never in my life have I been more disinterested in a CFB championship game than I was last year. I've literally never felt what I did regarding that game last year: apathy.

 

A playoff won't solve this for me.

[Enhance]

Just after the CCGs?

 

Isn't one big advantage of making a bowl the extra weeks of practices you get for the team? I wonder how that would be reconciled with an advance bowl schedule. Also, the Rose Parade is on Jan 1st, no? With the bowl game the next day, or is it the night of? I don't remember.

I think those extra weeks of practice can be a good and bad thing. I mentioned this earlier, but I believe that five week lay off between championship week and the MNC is almost like an entirely different season in some aspects. Five weeks of no real competition isn't good for any team, imho.