Afternoon Kickoff 7/2
Well, we've heard one side of the BCS vs. playoff debate. So why shouldn't there be a playoff? New chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee Harvey Perlman has the answers.
Perlman, the chancellor at Nebraska, addressed all of the latest issues in an interview with Nebraska StatePaper published yesterday. You can read entire interview by click that link, but here are some highlights:
"We rejected the Mountain West proposal unanimously, which included the representative of the five conferences who are not automatic qualifiers.
And in fact, we had a report from the commissioner of each of the Division I conferences and none of them were prepared to adopt the Mountain West Conference proposal now because we just signed an agreement for four years. And everybody believes it's our obligation to comply with our agreements."
Who wants to bet that in another four years, we'll hear the same thing?
"Now, coaches and players will always want to play as many games as possible. And I respect them for that, but I don't think any of us are prepared to adopt a playoff system that interferes with exams in the fall semester, that extends into the spring semester any more than we have to."
Because you know, the other three levels of NCAA football don't have playoffs and a month of March Madness doesn't affect classes at all...
"What I think most people don't understand is that the alternative to the current system is not a playoff. The alternative to the BCS is going back to our traditional relationship with our bowl partners."
If the goal of everybody is to make the Rose Bowl happy, then this sounds like a fine plan.
It would diminish the bowl structure and it would reduce the number of opportunities for student-athletes to play in the postseason and that's not a good thing.
Who says you can't keep bowl games if there is a playoff?
If you look at college football now, it's the greatest sporting event spread over September, October, November, December and a little bit of January that the country has. A playoff would seriously diminish the regular season, as it has in college basketball.
I agree 100 percent.
I'll admit, I've never been as adamant about a playoff system as the rest of the nation. Some people want a 16-team playoff, and that would be the biggest mistake the sport has ever made.
I still think the best solution might be the plus-one format, matching No. 1 vs. No.4 and No. 2 and No.3 in two BCS bowls and having the winners advance to the title game -- or something similar.
But the Mountain West's plan for an eight-team playoff? Yeah, that would work too. Six major conference winners, the top smaller conference team and one wild card. First two rounds at neutral sites so the fans don't have to travel every week. If that was the system, the regular season would not be diminished because only conference winners (with one exception) would get playoff bids. Sounds good to me.
Oh wait, let's get one more statement from Chancellor Perlman:
"It's hard to see why a playoff is a good idea."
Jim Mora, your thoughts?
*****
Quick hits:
-Yesterday, The Michigan Daily posted a rumor that a Michigan-Georgia home-and-home could happen in 2010 and 2011. The Atlanta Journal Constitution thinks otherwise.
-The NCAA's decision to reduce Alabama State's probation from five years to three could have an impact on the ongoing Florida State case.
*****
Link/Video of the Day:
A memorable day for Chancellor Perlman's school: 1997 vs. Missouri, on their way to a split national title:
*****
Don't forget to follow the Footblog on Twitter and comment on blog posts through your Facebook account by clicking "Comments" at the bottom of each post.
Seriously.
We'd love to hear your thoughts.