[Husker] The fed bringing the heat on the BCS

[Jon Johnston]

If northern teams are stupid enough to fall for a tournament like that, then we deserve to never win another national championship. It's been 100 years that warm-weather teams have gone to cold weather places to play football, giving them a huge advantage. 

Look at your tournament in consecutive weeks. Nebraska would potentially go to the Orange, the Sugar, and the Rose. So, three weeks on the road against a team that's probably playing in it's own state. And how many Husker fans do you think can afford to make that trip three weeks in a row? And how much does it cost the team to go a bowl game, and now you want three of them? (Or two, or four, for that matter). 

That is not a healthy format for a playoff system. The only viable format would be the same as everyone else does it, home field advantage, and the bowls go away because there won't be money left for them. 

It's real easy until you consider logistics, then it's not easy at all. 

Jon Johnston

On Feb 1, 2010, at 8:26 AM, David Strong wrote:

> If we're talking about an 8 team tournament (I'd rather have 16) then 6 out of the top 8 teams always go to what are now the BCS bowls.  The other two top teams don't play in a bowl at all, they play in the BCS championship game.  Doesn't affect the other gazillion brand-name bowls in any way.  Four of those teams would be available for bowl games since the quarters would be held in mid December.  So we are talking a minimal impact on the availability of top teams to the bowls.
> 
> Look, the BCS honks have spent time and money convincing everyone how complicated and hard to implement a tournament would be.  It isn't.  It's not rocket science, it's not brain surgery, it's not a burden on the players, it's not a conflict with exams.  It's money.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
>> Once you take out a good percentage
>> of the "name" teams to fill out a
>> tourney, the bowls lose a lot of their luster. Fewer elite
>> teams
>> equals less fan interest equals less advertising money
>> equals lower
>> payouts and bowl profitability. Bowls would become the NIT,
>> basically
>> ...
> 
> 
> 
>