Pelini strongly opposes playoff of any sort

[Enhance]

Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman, the Big Ten’s representative on the Bowl Championship Series presidential oversight committee, said Thursday afternoon he was “disappointed” with the consensus reached Wednesday by commissioners from every major BCS conference and Notre Dame Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick.
LINK

Oh Harvey. :facepalm:

You can't be upset with someone who's speaking his honest mind. I agree with him too.

Be careful what you wish for. A four team playoff system (depending on the details) will only allow more SECvSEC matchups, and the SECvSEC matchup of last year had absolutely terrible ratings (relative to previous championship games).

This is only good if the other conferences (including the B1G) can start going pound for pound with the SEC.

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.

 

[The Dude]

Asking fan bases to essentially travel to two bowl games is a terrible idea. I don't like the prospect of having a SEC + Boise tournament at the end of every season either. This really fixed none of the problems it set out to.

 

[knapplc]

I don't have a problem with an all-SEC Finals if they earned their way there. If Alabama beats Oklahoma State and LSU beats Oregon last year, I'm waiting on the edge of my seat to see the Rematch in the Championship Game. When it appeared that Alabama was gifted their spot over the Pokes, I (and, by the ratings, the rest of America) have a problem with that.

The playoff will be fantastic. Must-see TV, to use an NBC-ism. It will be far more compelling than the "Insert Stupid Sponsor Name Here" Bowl, that's a certainty.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

Asking fan bases to essentially travel to two bowl games is a terrible idea. I don't like the prospect of having a SEC + Boise tournament at the end of every season either. This really fixed none of the problems it set out to.

Huh? Boise St has never ever been in the top 4 of the final BCS standings. The SEC has only had 2 teams twice. The Big 12 has actually done it 3 times. Why do people think the SEC is going to take 3 spots? One year of taking the top 2 spots does not make a trend. Just go back beyond 6 years and they didn't even get one team in nearly half the time.

Here are the top 4 places in all final BCS standings. I know the BCS standings may not even exist when the playoff comes, but it's probably is as accurate as anything to retroactively say who would've been picked for a 4 team playoff. I used the current conference affiliations, and in parens put the one they were in at the time, though I'm not sure exactly when Miami and VT went to the ACC, and couldn't recall which conf TCU was in.

1998: SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big 10

1999: ACC, ACC (Big East), Big 10 (Big 12), SEC

2000: Big 12, ACC, ACC (Big East), Pac 10

2001: ACC (Big East), Big 10 (Big 12), Pac 10 (Big 12), Pac 10

2002: ACC (Big East), Big 10, SEC, Pac 12

2003: Big 12, SEC, Pac 12, Big 10

2004: Pac 12, Big 12, SEC, Big 12

2005: Pac 12, Big 12, Big 10, Big 10

2006: Big 10, SEC, Big 10, SEC

2007: Big 10, SEC, ACC, Big 12

2008: Big 12, SEC, Big 12, SEC

2009: SEC, Big 12, Big East, Big 12 (TCU)

2010: SEC, Pac 12, Big 12 (TCU), Pac 12

2011: SEC, SEC, Big 12, PAC 12

 

[Enhance]

Asking fan bases to essentially travel to two bowl games is a terrible idea. I don't like the prospect of having a SEC + Boise tournament at the end of every season either. This really fixed none of the problems it set out to.

There two things they could to combat the traveling problem. One - give the higher seeded team home-field advantage for the first game and go to a neutral site for the championship or two - pick a specific city with the highest bid to play three playoff games to cut down on travel costs.

Of course, playoff games would draw large crowds in general, not necessarily limited to fans of the teams. It's like current bowl games. Nebraska's Capital One Bowl didn't fill the stadium, but an Orange Bowl game with Nebraska and LSU would draw hordes of people. More fans would find ways to at least go to one of those games be it playoff or championship, and college football fans would pay to watch the games if it was in their city like Omaha people do with the CWS.

 

[The Dude]

Asking fan bases to essentially travel to two bowl games is a terrible idea. I don't like the prospect of having a SEC + Boise tournament at the end of every season either. This really fixed none of the problems it set out to.

Huh? Boise St has never ever been in the top 4 of the final BCS standings. The SEC has only had 2 teams twice. The Big 12 has actually done it 3 times. Why do people think the SEC is going to take 3 spots? One year of taking the top 2 spots does not make a trend. Just go back beyond 6 years and they didn't even get one team in nearly half the time.

Here are the top 4 places in all final BCS standings. I know the BCS standings may not even exist when the playoff comes, but it's probably is as accurate as anything to retroactively say who would've been picked for a 4 team playoff. I used the current conference affiliations, and in parens put the one they were in at the time, though I'm not sure exactly when Miami and VT went to the ACC, and couldn't recall which conf TCU was in.

1998: SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big 10

1999: ACC, ACC (Big East), Big 10 (Big 12), SEC

2000: Big 12, ACC, ACC (Big East), Pac 10

2001: ACC (Big East), Big 10 (Big 12), Pac 10 (Big 12), Pac 10

2002: ACC (Big East), Big 10, SEC, Pac 12

2003: Big 12, SEC, Pac 12, Big 10

2004: Pac 12, Big 12, SEC, Big 12

2005: Pac 12, Big 12, Big 10, Big 10

2006: Big 10, SEC, Big 10, SEC

2007: Big 10, SEC, ACC, Big 12

2008: Big 12, SEC, Big 12, SEC

2009: SEC, Big 12, Big East, Big 12 (TCU)

2010: SEC, Pac 12, Big 12 (TCU), Pac 12

2011: SEC, SEC, Big 12, PAC 12

I was mistaken, thanks for the info.

 

[Nebraska Alum]

Another major problem is the idea of having the playoff games at “neutral locations” (read: the current BCS bowls) rather than the top-two teams getting home-field advantage. The current BCS bowls are already heavily biased toward warm weather schools, being located in the southeast and southwest. If the SEC/Texas/TCU/OU/OkSU never have to worry about playing in the cold during playoffs, the system will be rigged in their favor from the start.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

I don't believe any of the projections about hidden revenue magically appear. The pool of college football fans will not increase because we adopt a new post season structure.

If they're going off NFL analogies then I'll tell you why the playoffs have better ratings; from people who skip the boring regular season.

 

[knapplc]

If they're going off NFL analogies then I'll tell you why the playoffs have better ratings; from people who skip the boring regular season.

I would be interested to see TV ratings that support that. I don't believe they exist. I believe NFL regular-season games are typically among the highest-rated sports programs out there, outdrawing regular-season MLB, NBA and NHL games, and (I believe) regular-season college games.

 

[Enhance]

Another major problem is the idea of having the playoff games at “neutral locations” (read: the current BCS bowls) rather than the top-two teams getting home-field advantage. The current BCS bowls are already heavily biased toward warm weather schools, being located in the southeast and southwest. If the SEC/Texas/TCU/OU/OkSU never have to worry about playing in the cold during playoffs, the system will be rigged in their favor from the start.

I like the idea of home-field advantage. There are a lot of people out there who scoff at the idea of cold weather affecting warm weather teams. I don't think it would necessarily be the determining factor of a win or loss, but I do believe it'd a be significant hurdle for a warm weather team playing in the north. I don't think Nebraska plays a single conference game south of the Mason Dixon Line, and I don't think any SEC school plays a single game north of it. Furthermore, I believe the transition from cold to warm would be better than warm to cold. Many SEC schools rarely get what we might consider a "cold" game.

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

Regular season games will still matter. It's not as though there is nothing riding on these games. With a four-team playoff you're still playing every single game like today, because with one loss you're suddenly at the mercy of a Selection Committee. Just one loss puts you at risk of missing the playoffs. So every. Single. Game. Counts.

With an eight- or sixteen-team playoff, every game still counts for seeding purposes. If you lose two games you're likely on the bubble, and again at the mercy of a Selection Committee, but even with one loss your seed is at stake. You could end up an Eight Seed, meaning second round, you're playing the #1 seed.

You can't say regular season games won't count in a playoff. They will. It'll just be different.

the biggest threat IMO is to the rivalry games that got placed at the end of the year. There is too much temptation to pull your starters, especially if you know you are going to a neutral site.

I like the idea of home-field advantage. There are a lot of people out there who scoff at the idea of cold weather affecting warm weather teams. I don't think it would necessarily be the determining factor of a win or loss, but I do believe it'd a be significant hurdle for a warm weather team playing in the north. I don't think Nebraska plays a single conference game south of the Mason Dixon Line, and I don't think any SEC school plays a single game north of it. Furthermore, I believe the transition from cold to warm would be better than warm to cold. Many SEC schools rarely get what we might consider a "cold" game.

Or they insist on it in September. Imagine if you had a PAC rival who demanded to cancel the series unless their away game was moved to October :sarcasm

 

[Foppa]

Another major problem is the idea of having the playoff games at “neutral locations” (read: the current BCS bowls) rather than the top-two teams getting home-field advantage. The current BCS bowls are already heavily biased toward warm weather schools, being located in the southeast and southwest. If the SEC/Texas/TCU/OU/OkSU never have to worry about playing in the cold during playoffs, the system will be rigged in their favor from the start.

I like the idea of home-field advantage. There are a lot of people out there who scoff at the idea of cold weather affecting warm weather teams. I don't think it would necessarily be the determining factor of a win or loss, but I do believe it'd a be significant hurdle for a warm weather team playing in the north. I don't think Nebraska plays a single conference game south of the Mason Dixon Line, and I don't think any SEC school plays a single game north of it. Furthermore, I believe the transition from cold to warm would be better than warm to cold. Many SEC schools rarely get what we might consider a "cold" game.

If I remember hearing correctly, U Florida hasn't played an out-of-conference game outside the state of Florida since 1994? That is ridiculous. No wonder they and the SEC don't want to play anywhere but Florida and other southern areas. Their scheduling track record speaks for itself.

 

[Excel]

Another major problem is the idea of having the playoff games at “neutral locations” (read: the current BCS bowls) rather than the top-two teams getting home-field advantage. The current BCS bowls are already heavily biased toward warm weather schools, being located in the southeast and southwest. If the SEC/Texas/TCU/OU/OkSU never have to worry about playing in the cold during playoffs, the system will be rigged in their favor from the start.

I like the idea of home-field advantage. There are a lot of people out there who scoff at the idea of cold weather affecting warm weather teams. I don't think it would necessarily be the determining factor of a win or loss, but I do believe it'd a be significant hurdle for a warm weather team playing in the north. I don't think Nebraska plays a single conference game south of the Mason Dixon Line, and I don't think any SEC school plays a single game north of it. Furthermore, I believe the transition from cold to warm would be better than warm to cold. Many SEC schools rarely get what we might consider a "cold" game.

If I remember hearing correctly, U Florida hasn't played an out-of-conference game outside the state of Florida since 1994? That is ridiculous. No wonder they and the SEC don't want to play anywhere but Florida and other southern areas. Their scheduling track record speaks for itself.

1991, and they lost but it's a bit unfair to say that all of the SEC doesn't want to play outside the South or make it sound like some bad and unheard of thing for the teams that do have that strategy.

LSU and Bama have made a point to schedule games outside the south and since 2000 Auburn, UGA, Arkansas and Tennessee have all traveled several times to face OOC opponents outside the South. Vandy's done it for decades.

The only real big offenders in that conference are USC and UF.

We're not in a great position to knock them when we have teams like Wisconsin scheduling the kinds of opponents they do...

 

[Enhance]

A SEC school traveling North in September defeats the whole purpose of playing a 'North' game. Nebraska has 90-100 degree temperatures in September, and I'm sure places like Washington, Minnesota, etc. sit in the 80s or 90s during this time, as well. Physically removing a team from SEC country isn't what interests me - it's the timing of said removal. I think LSU playing Nebraska in a December playoff game would be far more interesting than some place in the South, and I believe it would give a slight advantage to Nebraska. That's the kind of game I want to see.

 

[Foppa]

now they have pushed back the BCS championship game until Jan. 7th? that's bullsh#t.

Yes. I absolutely hate that. Even if this whole conversation about +1 or Playoff collapses and we keep the status quo (we won't, but if), I want that changed. Start the bowls just after the CCGs and play them until January 1st, and have the BCS Champoinship that day.

:yeah