[Husker] Not Husker - Dreaming of a playoff

Tue Dec 7 18:29:48 CST 2010

Not dumb at all.  (Well, the part about beating wives and kicking dogs was sorta dumb :) ).  But getting rid of rankings and polls is a great idea.  If you are not going to have a tournament where teams play each other and the winner is the champion, then why attempt to declare a champion based on elections and computer rankings.  It is asinine.  Just let everyone play their games and compete in their conferences.  Bowls can go on just the way they are. Drop anything to do with a "champion" or #1 or anything like that.  That would certainly be preferable to the way things are now.

Just my opinion of course, all other opinions respected.

Dave

--- On Tue, 12/7/10, Don Rietsch <drr at livgenmi.com> wrote:

> From: Don Rietsch <drr at livgenmi.com>
> Subject: RE: [Husker] Not Husker - Dreaming of a playoff
> To: "'David Strong'" <gbrlist at yahoo.com>, "'"Husker List"'" <husker at tssi.com>, "'Don Mares'" <donmares at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 6:45 PM
> I have a better idea.  Get rid
> of the stupid ranking system all together.
> Then a team and its fans will all feel great about an 11-3
> season instead of
> threatening suicide, firing the coach, firing the OC,
> slitting their wrists,
> beating their wives, kicking their dogs, etc.  Make
> college football what it
> was invented to be; A GAME.  There will be just as
> much money to go around
> with the bowl games.  Let the major bowls pick the
> match ups on a rotating
> basis.  
> 
> Note:  I'm not kidding and I know full well some on
> this list will respond
> with "This is the dumbest thing I have read on this list
> since......!!!
> 
> Drietsch70   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: husker-bounces at tssi.com
> [mailto:husker-bounces at tssi.com]
> On Behalf Of
> David Strong
> Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 6:12 PM
> To: “Husker List“; Don Mares
> Subject: Re: [Husker] Not Husker - Dreaming of a playoff
> 
> 
> I'm with you Don.  Anything that will get rid of the
> money-driven farce that
> exists right now is great.  I am a contributor to the
> Playoff Pac and will
> support just about any fair effort to lean on anyone,
> academic, politic, etc
> who can influence a change.  All the propaganda that
> the BCS has spent huge
> money to float...bad for the players, lessens the regular
> season, can't be
> done logistically, will kill the other bowls, etc. etc. is
> all just
> that...propaganda.  Bought and paid for to protect the
> money cow.
> 
> But all wishful thinking I'm afraid, as long as the money
> keeps rolling in,
> no reason to change on their own.  Gonna need an
> organized effort to make it
> happen.
> 
> Dave
> 
> --- On Tue, 12/7/10, Don Mares <donmares at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Don Mares <donmares at gmail.com>
> > Subject: [Husker] Not Husker - Dreaming of a playoff
> > To: "“Husker List“" <husker at tssi.com>
> > Date: Tuesday, December 7, 2010, 5:35 PM
> > Interesting article dreaming about a
> > playoff.
> > 
> >
> http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/College-football-playoff-syst
> em-thats-better-than-BCS-opinion-120610
> > 
> > I'm a huge fan of a playoff and quite frankly can't
> > understand how we still
> > accept not having one.  I like most everything he
> > says.  Although, I think
> > we got lucky to avoid much controversy and everyone
> > screaming for a playoff
> > this year so we can settle for acceptable BCS games,
> fiesta
> > bowl
> > withstanding.  I think its a disservice that #9
> > Michigan State (11-1) and
> > #10 Boise State (11-1) are left out in the cold while
> less
> > deserving #13
> > Virginia Tech (11-2) and unranked UConn (8-4) are in
> BCS
> > bowls.  This
> > article doesn't really stop that from happening but
> still
> > gives those
> > deserving an opportunity to get in.
> > 
> > I do think this solves a lot of road blocks. 
> Namely,
> > the first round is at
> > home, final 7 games are at neutral sites - people
> will
> > travel to fill up
> > those remaining incredibly important and exciting
> games to
> > be a part of
> > history.  The four major BCS bowl sites still get to
> > host something major
> > every year - likely elite 8.  One of them still gets
> > the national
> > championship just like we do today.  If you want,
> you
> > can rotate and say 2
> > of them get to host the final four over what they do
> today
> > although cotton
> > bowl and others would cry foul over that.  No matter
> > how you slice it, this
> > is going to generate a whole lot more money and
> excitement
> > than we do now.
> > Although to be fair, you should stipulate all
> conferences
> > that have an
> > automatic birth need to have an "extra" championship
> > game.  If you wanted,
> > you could also require all teams are ranked within
> the
> > final standings of
> > the bcs top 25.
> > 
> > Still play the 35 other minor bowls with similar
> > schedules.  They aren't any
> > more or less significant than they are today.  It's
> a
> > good tradition and
> > reward worth honoring.
> > 
> > The one major argument to this approach that I can
> envision
> > is teams are
> > made up of college students.  They have to prepare
> for
> > and play the biggest
> > games of their careers during finals week.  I think
> > you could still make it
> > work.  Push it back a week like we do now and play
> the
> > final four on jan 1
> > and the national championship a week later.  This
> will
> > give everyone an
> > extra week so the students get two weeks before their
> next
> > game while they
> > are taking finals.  That also allows teams that get
> > into the tournament a
> > chance to rest and heal up.
> > 
> > How do we make this happen?  Everyone write your
> > senator-congressman and/or
> > start an online petition of signatures and present to
> ESPN
> > on ABC?
> > 
> > Don
> > _______________________________________________
> > husker site list
> > husker at tssi.com
> > http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> > 
> 
> 
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> 
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of
> virus signature
> database 5682 (20101207) __________
> 
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
> 
> http://www.eset.com
> 
> 
> 
> 