[Husker] Re: Not Husker - Dreaming of a playoff

[Stephen D. Scott]

No matter your opinion on the issue, I recommend the book:

  Death to the BCS: The Definitive Case Against the Bowl Championship
  Series, by Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter, and Jeff Passan.

It's an interesting account of how the BCS works, especially the
requirements imposed on the teams that play.  According to the authors,
many teams lose money when they attend a bowl, due to their travel costs,
requirements to buy unsold tickets, etc., while bowl organizers pocket
large salaries.  The authors also respond to every argument that BCS
supporters make against playoffs, and propose a 16-team playoff system
that preserves the bowls, has higher-seeded teams host the first three
rounds, and would generate significantly more revenue than the BCS does.

UNL Chancellor Harvey Perlman and Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany are
featured prominently in this book as strong supporters of the BCS.

I heard that a similar article recently appeared in Sports Illustrated,
but I have not read it.

Stephen


On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 07:47:28AM -0600, husker-request at tssi.com wrote:
> Interesting article dreaming about a playoff.
> 
> http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/College-football-playoff-system-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