Neb. chancellor says presidents could veto four-team playoff

UNTflyer · May 5, 2012

"I can't figure out a good reason to have a playoff to start with," he said. "We've had some informal meetings, the Big Ten presidents and the Pac-12 presidents, and I think we're largely aligned in thinking a plus-one with a different ranking after the bowl games to select No. 1 and 2 would be acceptable.

Really? How about the fact it is how 97.2% of all other sports determine their champion? How about "the fans want it"? How about "it's fair"?

"Our second choice would probably be a four-team playoff inside the bowls. Our highest priority is to preserve the status of the Rose Bowl and our connection to it."

F*#% the Rose Bowl, the horse it rode in on, and college presidents who think they know everything including how to market a sports league. It is absurd that progress over the years always seems to be held up by the Rose Bowl committee. The Rose Bowl may have meant something when it was PAC-10 vs Big Ten and these were the best conferences in the nation, but now they are just another BCS bowl game who gets the extra spotlight every four years.

Just an example of dusty old dinosaurs who always complain about how things were so much better in 'the good 'ol days' preventing us from moving forward.

http://www.cbssports...ff-for-plus-one

Edited May 5, 2012 by UNTflyer

outoftown · May 5, 2012

wouldn't they have to have a majority? I doubt that anyone except Big ten and some of the Pac 12 Presidents is willing to block it... I don't think that gets them even close to a majority

Mark Gommesen · May 5, 2012

One of the reasons that this major issue right now is because the Federal Attorney General has issued an opinion that the current BCS structure may violate Federal Restraint of Trade Laws. You have develop and structure that allows every school an opportunity. Change is coming the nice way or the hard way.

greenminer · May 5, 2012

One of the reasons that this major issue right now is because the Federal Attorney General has issued an opinion that the current BCS structure may violate Federal Restraint of Trade Laws. You have develop and structure that allows every school an opportunity. Change is coming the nice way or the hard way.

Worst case scenario: since the NCAA does not technically grant a national championship in FBS football, is it in the realm of possibilities that the big 6 just separate themselves from NCAA and form their own league/super-conference? That is something I have been considering for a couple years. All this conference shuffling is a race to be included in the final "cut"....whenever that may happen.

We are going to find out sooner rather than later if they are greedy enough (or self centered, whatever is more appropriate) to not share the revenues.

UNTflyer · May 5, 2012

I really don't think that happens - the backlash from fans and Congress would overpower them.

Bye bye, tax exempt status!

untjim1995 · May 7, 2012

I really don't think that happens - the backlash from fans and Congress would overpower them.

Bye bye, tax exempt status!

There wouldn't be anywhere close to enough backlash from "fans" nor Congress to stop this. Those Congress members are primarily graduates of or represent states that get major help (see votes) from those big-time schools. The big schools would just argue that there is nothing keeping other schools from doing the same thing, to start another group for collegiate athletics. Plus, the TV networks influence would be phenomenal in helping get this going. Besides, no one in congress even fought any of the schools that have moved upward in conference affiliation even though tradition and local rivalries have gone away. Money from TV and football run the show today--nothing else.

If (when) the big wigs of college football go out on their own, there will probably be about 70-75 schools. It won't be everyone in AQ leagues today, especially Big East teams or lower level teams from power conferences (i.e. small private schools). But it will be the teams that the networks drool over. Something like this:

Eastern Teams: Florida, Florida State, Miami, USF, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Clemson, South Carolina, North Carolina, NC State, Boston College, Virginia, Va Tech, Maryland, Rutgers, and UConn

Upper Midwest teams: West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Nothwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri

Southern teams: Kentucky, Louisville,Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, LSU, Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State,

Western Teams: Colorado, Boise State, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, BYU

That's a lot of states and their main (only) schools. As a matter of fact, I think the NCAA knows that this is very feasible, which is why they have never put any real control on football. They control every other sport, but they know that this separation could happen, and probably very easy. If (when) the NCAA pairs down Division 1-a (FBS) football again, you'll see it start with the SBC, WAC leftovers, and MAC schools getting lowered. Then the other teams not listed above but not in the conferences just mentioned will have to fight for qualification. Its why UNT making it into CUSA right now is so important. The SBC is just a hiccup away from being a "i-aa" conference. CUSA/MWC give yourself a chance to move forward. If we do it well over the next decade, we can assure ourselves of a nice seat at the big boys' table. Literally, with our size, location, and facilities, it can be done here!!

UNTflyer · May 8, 2012

Do not underestimate the desire of Congress to regulate.

There is almost universal agreement that something stinks about college athletics. Anything seen as a move to break away from NCAA oversight will not be tolerated by Congress.

greenminer · May 8, 2012

Do not underestimate the desire of Congress to regulate.

There is almost universal agreement that something stinks about college athletics. Anything seen as a move to break away from NCAA oversight will not be tolerated by Congress.

I sure hope you're right, but I'm honestly pessimistic about the whole thing. One way or another, I think we are going to find out.

gksmith · May 8, 2012

Leave it to Nebraska to rock the boat.

Instead of the Cornhuskers their mascot shoud be the P****ys...because they are such wimps when it comes to football. They threw a fit about Boise State in the BCS bowl, and when Boise State put out that mandate "We will play anyone, anywhere, any time" a few years ago, BSU and Nebraska had the same open date on their schedule. Nebraska was too big a P***Y to schedule them.

untjim1995 · May 9, 2012

Do not underestimate the desire of Congress to regulate.

There is almost universal agreement that something stinks about college athletics. Anything seen as a move to break away from NCAA oversight will not be tolerated by Congress.

I just think that Congress may get involved, but if it does, the NCAA we know of will get crushed. One thing is for sure--if Congress gets involved, the rich will get richer, and this thing will get royally screwed up for all but about 50 teams.

Edited May 9, 2012 by untjim1995

MeanGreenTexan · May 9, 2012

There wouldn't be anywhere close to enough backlash from "fans" nor Congress to stop this. Those Congress members are primarily graduates of or represent states that get major help (see votes) from those big-time schools. The big schools would just argue that there is nothing keeping other schools from doing the same thing, to start another group for collegiate athletics. Plus, the TV networks influence would be phenomenal in helping get this going. Besides, no one in congress even fought any of the schools that have moved upward in conference affiliation even though tradition and local rivalries have gone away. Money from TV and football run the show today--nothing else.

If (when) the big wigs of college football go out on their own, there will probably be about 70-75 schools. It won't be everyone in AQ leagues today, especially Big East teams or lower level teams from power conferences (i.e. small private schools). But it will be the teams that the networks drool over. Something like this:

Eastern Teams: Florida, Florida State, Miami, USF, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Clemson, South Carolina, North Carolina, NC State, Boston College, Virginia, Va Tech, Maryland, Rutgers, and UConn

Upper Midwest teams: West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Illinois, Nothwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri

Southern teams: Kentucky, Louisville,Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, LSU, Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, and Kansas State,

Western Teams: Colorado, Boise State, Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, BYU

That's a lot of states and their main (only) schools. As a matter of fact, I think the NCAA knows that this is very feasible, which is why they have never put any real control on football. They control every other sport, but they know that this separation could happen, and probably very easy. If (when) the NCAA pairs down Division 1-a (FBS) football again, you'll see it start with the SBC, WAC leftovers, and MAC schools getting lowered. Then the other teams not listed above but not in the conferences just mentioned will have to fight for qualification. Its why UNT making it into CUSA right now is so important. The SBC is just a hiccup away from being a "i-aa" conference. CUSA/MWC give yourself a chance to move forward. If we do it well over the next decade, we can assure ourselves of a nice seat at the big boys' table. Literally, with our size, location, and facilities, it can be done here!!

The problem here is, you're excluding A LOT of private schools with deep pockets and alumni in high places up to, and including congress, that will keep this from happening in a heartbeat.

The privates you mention are: USC, BYU, Stanford, Notre Dame, Northwestern, BC, & Syracuse. You're leaving out Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Duke, SMU, TCU, and Baylor.