The Nebraska State Paper.com sat down this week with University of Nebraska-Lincoln chancellor Harvey Perlman, who was recently appointed as chairman of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee, which ultimately decides how the BCS is set up on a year basis.

So in other words, if college football were to ever have a playoff, this is the man who would give it the green light to happen. And considering he crapped all over the idea in the interview, it looks like we fans will be waiting a long time for BCS to adopt a playoff system.

Why is a playoff not a viable alternative? Is it because it would cut too many teams out of postseason play?

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. 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 don’t think it’s good for college football, I don’t think it’s good for student-athletes and I don’t think it’s good for fans. I don’t see fans travelling around the country three weeks in succession between December and January following their team. So you’re either going to have to play at home sites – which I’m sure everybody will want to play in Nebraska in December and January – or you’re gonna have to travel, which means that bowls will cease being intercollegiate events, but will become corporate events, where everybody in, you name the city, will be there except the fans of the teams.

This isn’t basketball. This isn’t March Madness. Football’s a different game, different environment. We have different traditions. It’s hard to see why a playoff is a good idea.

A playoff would diminish the bowl structure? How ironic, Harvey – because the bowl structure diminishes the college football season.

This whole notion that a playoff system would diminish the regular season is absolutely ridiculous and is the worst argument that BCS-supporters have made to date. Is the NFL regular season diminished by a playoff? Hell no. So why would a playoff diminish the college football season? Teams still have to fight to get into the playoffs, making every week just as exciting as it has ever been.

Sure, nobody is interested in Bengals-Browns in Week 17, but that’s unavoidable. Nobody cares about Washington-Washington State when both teams are lousy either. Whether there’s a playoff format in place or not, there are going to be bad games on the schedule.

The traveling argument makes sense, but if they regionalized the games as best as they can, fans will still travel to see their favorite teams. Hell, look at how Pittsburgh Steeler fans; there are often more Steeler fans in opposing stadiums than there are fans of that city’s team. Granted, it’s a little different when we’re talking about poor college students compared to adults with jobs, but the students would still find a way to pack the stadiums.

But I digress. Perlman has already made up his foolish mind and we’ll once again be where we always are come December and January – frustrated and wanting more. The BCS is a joke, the arguments for it are a joke, and the people that are running it are a joke.

Remember Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas? He’s the congressman who wants to see college football adopt a playoff system and who compared the BCS to communism.

Barton is making headlines again as he plans to investigate testimony from Alamo Bowl executive director Derrick Fox made at this month’s BCS subcommittee hearing in which Fox claimed that millions of dollars are donated to local charities thanks to the revenue generated by bowl games.

Fox, while representing all 34 bowl games during his appearance on Capitol Hill on May 1, claimed in his argument against a playoff that “almost all the postseason bowl games are put on by charitable groups” and “local charities receive tens of millions of dollars every year.”

In fact, 10 bowl games are privately owned and one is run by a branch of a local government. The remaining 23 games enjoy tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service, but combined to give just $3.2 million to local charities on $186.3 million in revenue according to their most recent federal tax records and interviews with individual bowl executives.

“That doesn’t seem like something that’s really geared toward giving to charity, does it?” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) after being presented with Yahoo! Sports’ findings.

“It’s perjury if it’s knowingly said,” Barton said of the sworn testimony, which he called “misleading.” “It’s also contempt of Congress. You’ve got to give [him] some sort of due process, but ultimately the remedy is to hold [him] in contempt of Congress on the House floor or send it to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution of perjury under oath.”

Barton, the ranking Republican on the subcommittee and a playoff proponent, did caution that in today’s political climate there is no certainty that charges of perjury or contempt would be filed even if the investigation found wrongdoing.

Fox said in a written statement the “tens of millions of dollars” testimony was “a good faith estimate based on information initially supplied by the FBA [Football Bowl Association].”

Yet Bruce Binkowski of the FBA said the organization doesn’t compile such figures and in literature doesn’t assign a dollar amount to the bowls’ charitable donations because “we just don’t know.”

As Barton stated, perjury charges may never come in light of Fox’s statements, but it is interesting that the main argument made for keeping the current non-playoff system in place is an outright lie. If you read the entire article, it notes that Fox and ACC commissioner and BCS coordinator John Swofford stated several times during the subcommittee hearing that donations to local charities and economic impact on host cities are the two main reasons of why bowl games must be saved at all costs. Yet there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that the local charities receive “tens of millions of dollars every year” from the BCS, so either Fox and Swofford fabricated those statements or they flat out lied in effort to keep the current college football format in place.

If the BCS did generate millions of dollars for charities every year, then a case could truly be made that college football is better off without a playoff system. (Although if bowl games generated money for charities, I don’t see why a playoff system couldn’t.) But again, there isn’t any evidence that that is indeed the case and therefore Fox and Swofford have some explaining to do.

Hopefully this is just the start of the BCS’ unraveling.

com-mu-nism
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

2. (often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

If the above definition sounds familiar, Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas says that it’s probably because you’ve been watching college football and are familiar with the BCS.

A congressman who wants to see college football adopt a playoff system is comparing the Bowl Championship Series to communism.

Republican Rep. Joe Barton of Texas said Friday that efforts to tinker with the BCS are bound to fail. He told a House hearing that the BCS is like communism and can’t be fixed.

Barton has introduced legislation that would prevent the NCAA from labeling a game a national championship unless it’s the outcome of a playoff system.

The coordinator of the Bowl Championship Series told the panel that a playoff system would threaten the existence of celebrated bowl games. Fans, President Barack Obama and some lawmakers favor a playoff system.

While I agree that there is a massive need for a playoff to be implemented into college football, I wouldn’t go as far to compare the BCS to communism. Fascism? Maybe. Communism? Not so much.

Does anyone else find it ironic that Barton is a Republican representative of Texas and is comparing the BCS to communism after the Long Horns didn’t get a shot to play for the national championship last year?

Here’s what Dave Brown, who vice president of programming on ESPN, had to say about college football implementing a playoff system:

“The next four-year cycle is done, so a playoff is not a consideration at this point,” Brown said. “I wouldn’t want to see the bowls changed because I don’t want to create meaningless games during the regular season. I don’t think that would be good for college football.”

Besides, Brown said, this bowl season has been one of the most successful ever, even if some people complain that 34 games is a few more than necessary.

“This season’s bowl results have been great for us,” Brown said. “Our ratings on ESPN and ESPN2 have been up, so business continues to be very good.”

You don’t want a playoff system because you don’t want to create meaningless games during the regular season, yet you’re perfectly fine with creating meaningless bowl games? Come on Dave – come on Dave!

None of the bowl games matter except for the national championship game. And the only reason why people watch non-BCS bowl games is because 1) they’re off because of the holidays and would rather watch a bowl game than Oprah 2) they went to whatever school that’s playing or 3) they bet on the game just so it had some kind of importance to them. That’s it. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that the system in place is working just because ESPN is making money.

Hey, ESPN is making money so f*ck the fans and what they want, right? This kind of shortsightedness really chaps my ass.

Gregg Doyel of CBS Sports writes that both Texas and USC should stop bitching about not having a chance to play for a national championship.

Didn’t make it into the BCS title game? Boo-fricking-hoo. The system might not have worked in your favor this season, but it will one day. And that’s the thing about being Texas or Southern California, and about being Florida or Oklahoma, for that matter: The even larger system — the college football system — is designed to funnel you into the BCS title game as smoothly as possible.

So Texas and USC didn’t get there this season. So what. You will soon enough, maybe even next season. And if not next season, then the next. That’s almost a sure thing. By the year 2011, both Texas and USC will have played again for the national championship — and if it hasn’t happened for either school by then, Mack Brown or Pete Carroll has screwed up.

You’re supposed to succeed, Texas. You too, USC. That’s why I can’t muster up a speck of sympathy for either of you. It’s not like Iowa State or Ole Miss has been left out of the BCS equation despite a worthy résumé. That would be a heartbreak, because Iowa State and Ole Miss might never pass this way again.

But Texas and USC? You’ll pass this way again, and when you do, you’ll be riding first class. Feeling badly that Texas or USC didn’t make it into the BCS title game with 11-1 records — while Florida and Oklahoma did, at 12-1 — is like feeling badly that Donald Trump didn’t get a Christmas bonus. The man has enough advantages already.

Put it all together. Texas and USC have better access to better talent than anyone. They have better resources to hire better coaches than anyone. They have better facilities to develop that talent.
They have to win, and win big. Every season.

So don’t expect sympathy from anyone outside your fan base because you missed out on the BCS title game, Texas. Or you, USC. Not even if you have the same number of losses as Florida and Oklahoma. And not even if, in Texas’ case, you have beaten the Sooners already this season.

If perfection is what it takes to make it into the BCS title game, well, so be it. There are very few college football programs equipped to produce a perfect season.

Well said. But in defense for those of us college football fans who aren’t loyal to Texas or USC, we’re bitching because the system sucks. Texas and USC are just used as props this year for proving a point – the BCS isn’t the best way to determine who the best teams are in college football. But again, Doyel is right that Texas and USC don’t have anything to complain about in the long run.

After absolutely demolishing Missouri 62-21 in the Big 12 Championship Game on Saturday night, will the Oklahoma Sooners take on the Florida Gators in the BCS National Championship Game?

Considering they set a record for scoring 60-plus points in five straight games, it’s going to be hard to deny the Sooners a trip to Miami. I realize they played a high school secondary in MIZZOU, but lighting up the scoreboard for 62 points is impressive – I don’t care if it’s done against a woman’s flag football team. If Oklahoma leapfrogged Texas in the BCS standings last week, than there’s no way the idle Longhorns top the Sooners in the new standings.

OU’s victory Saturday night was impressive. And their non-conference schedule was harder than UT’s. But even considering all that, the Longhorns deserve a chance to play for a nation title – as does USC, Penn State, and yes, even Boise State. Nobody will convince me that the current BCS system is fair. And nobody will convince me that the current system is the best way to determine who the best two teams are in college football.

A playoff wouldn’t solve everything, but it would certainly be better and more exciting than the crap way college football relies on computers to determine what teams are more deserving to play for a title. I would love to see Texas get another shot at Oklahoma and to see what Colt McCoy and Sam Bradford could do against USC’s defense. That would be exciting. What’s not exciting is playing the “what if” game – what if Texas played MIZZOU on Saturday night and won 62-21?

If it winds up being Florida and Oklahoma in the title game, nobody is going to argue that it isn’t an exciting matchup. But that’s not the point. The point is that the current system is full of loopholes. And it’ll be the same mess next year, only probably with different teams.

Think about this, the system is so screwed up that the announcers during the end of the OU-MIZZOU game were actually debating whether or not the Sooners should score just once more (they were already up 55-21 by the way) with under four minutes remaining to make sure they appeared dominant enough to the BCS. How sad for a team (and announcers for that matter) to be worried about something like that with the game already in hand.

Greg Cote of the Miami Herald thinks the BCS format in college football is just fine and that a playoff wouldn’t be any better than the current system.

Instead it looks as if we will be getting an Oklahoma Sooners team that would be 12-1 against either a 13-0 Alabama or a 12-1 mighty-hot Florida. Sounds like a legitimate championship game to me. Sounds like if you don’t agree, you are either insane or turning sour grapes into whine because your beloved Texas Longhorns just missed. The odd-team-out always claims an entitlement that does not exist.

True, we should get a good game this year in the national championship. But nobody is debating that.

A playoff is impractical because it would require a significantly shorter regular season, which would fail to win support from schools and conferences, if only for financial reasons.

No problem. Take Michigan Technical School for the Blind off of Michigan’s schedule, Reading Rainbow Camp off of Texas’s schedule, ITT off of Florida’s schedule and every other no-name program that the bigger schools play twice a year and that frees up two weeks. Start conference play Week 1 or Week 2 if you’re worried about having enough time at the end of the year.

If you had a four-team playoff based on the current BCS rankings, you don’t think No. 5 Southern California and No. 6 (and unbeaten) Utah wouldn’t be crying foul?

Make it an eight-team playoff, and how do you think No. 9 (and unbeaten) Boise State would be feeling right now?

An arguably deserving team always will be left out, whether it’s whatever playoff format you choose or whether it’s two teams in a championship game.

The BCS works because, in effect, it is a playoff to reach the championship. Teams in the top six or so are in it every year, and it kicks in around mid-October, when the BCS rankings begin. The way the format works is, don’t lose late. Period.

So if teams will be left out no matter what, why not give college football fans (essentially) two playoffs? Teams would be fighting to get into the eight-team playoff in October (which, in Cote’s words is like a playoff), and again when the actual eight-team playoff starts. What’s the harm in that? And at least teams that potentially could be left out (teams like Boise State and Utah) have a better shot to play for a national title in an eight-team playoff than they do in the current system where they have zero chance.

The absence of precise black and white is college football’s unique, enduring asset. The BCS maintains the tradition of bowl games while ultimately deciding the champion on the field, not by polls.

You get a recognized champion and you get the inevitable debate. That’s the best of both worlds — and that’s what the pro-playoff crowd never seems to get.

The bowl games are a joke. And if crowning a champion and getting to bitch about the current BCS system is getting the best of both worlds, than I must be missing a few brain cells because it’s not fun to watch this mess take place every year. What would be fun is a damn eight-team playoff. What would be fun is watching USC come from a 6 seed and knock off a 5 seed and then a 3 seed and on and on.

Cote’s idea that it’s fun to debate about this crap system every year is ridiculous. Debating isn’t part of the fun – it’s part of the frustration.

That’s what Darren Everson of The Wall Street Journal writes:

It’s becoming increasingly clear that, unlike the champions of other conferences, USC must go undefeated to reach the national-title game. Even in 2003, when the Trojans finished the regular season ranked first in both major polls, the BCS computers excluded them from the title game. The Big 12 likely will land a one-loss team in the national-championship game this season, as have the Big Ten and Southeastern conferences in recent years (the SEC sent two-loss LSU last season).

But USC, regarded as playing a weaker schedule in the Pac-10, has been held to a tougher standard. The irony of this predicament? The Trojans should have less to prove than other contenders, given their 5-1 all-time BCS bowl record and that, like the rest of the Pac-10, they buck the national trend by playing a rigorous nonconference schedule. Sensitive to more fickle fan bases less likely to swallow the weak nonconference pablum served elsewhere, USC and other Pac-10 schools schedule more major-college competition than other conferences. For example, undefeated Alabama’s nonconference slate included Clemson, Tulane, Western Kentucky and Arkansas State.

Meanwhile, the Trojans played Virginia, Ohio State and Notre Dame — three big names, albeit two mired in surprisingly mediocre seasons. Come season’s end, though, USC gets little credit for it, and gets unfairly punished by the computers for playing in a conference with Washington and Washington State teams playing outrageously awful ball. The worst in other conferences — say, Iowa State in the Big 12 — were about as beatable. They just didn’t get outscored 127-0 over two games the way the Cougars did.

The Pac-10 also lacks a championship game. Florida, a team with a resume similar to USC’s, can play its way into the national-title game thanks to its conference title match with Alabama. Then again, there’s no need for it out west, since every Pac-10 team plays each other.

Everson brings up several good points. It’s not USC’s fault that Ohio State and Virginia took a step back this year or that Notre Dame is a mess. They didn’t schedule Appalachian State or the Citadel. (Although I fully believe that App State would beat Washington or Washington State if they played tomorrow.)

That said, USC gets more than enough media love so yes, they do have to go undefeated. They should beat Oregon State and they should hang 60 points on Washington and Washington State. No Pac-10 title game? Then every week is a Pac-10 title game for the Trojans.

The BCS is a mess and USC’s situation is just another small example.

With their 61-10 plastering of Fresno State on Friday night, No. 9 Boise State officially wrapped up its season unscathed. For the second time in three years, the Broncos finished the regular season undefeated, and yet the only thing they can hope for is a chance to play in a BCS bowl game.

Do they deserve more? Do they deserve to play for a national championship?

Some say they do because they were one of only three teams (Utah and Ball State being the others) to finish undefeated. But most say they don’t because the only team with a pulse on their schedule was Oregon, who the Broncos beat 37-32 in Eugene earlier this season (which is more impressive than people are letting on).

Personally, I say they do have the right to play for a national championship, just as Utah and Ball State do. It’s not fair to assume anything in college football. It’s not fair to say, “Well, if Boise State played Alabama in the national championship, they would get waxed.”

Guess what? We already played that game two years ago with Boise and they produced one of the greatest bowl games ever when they beat Oklahoma in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl. We can’t assume anything in college football and that’s what makes the game so exciting.

Did Boise State play anybody outside of Oregon? No. But you can make the argument that nobody plays anybody. College football teams are lucky to get two teams worth a damn on their schedule every year. The SEC is down this year and so is the Big Ten. But just because the Big 12 is arguably the power conference this year, doesn’t mean that Oklahoma or Texas would roll over Boise in a bowl game. Granted, I’m not suggesting that Boise plays a similar schedule to any team in the Big 12 or SEC, but the point is that not a lot of teams are playing daunting schedules.

And this is why the BCS is so screwed up. It assumes things. It assumes things based on schedule, and points and everything else but what really matters – beating another opponent on the field. The only way we would know if Boise could hang with the “big boys” in college football is if they played them in a playoff.

But I guess the Broncos don’t deserve that shot. Why? Because a computer says they don’t. It’s the most ridiculous thing in all of sports next to some NFL teams not having cheerleaders.

A couple weeks ago Ball State University turned in an unimpressive victory against fellow MAC opponent Miami of Ohio and I wrote how the Cardinals and the BCS were a joke.

Well, the BCS is still a joke – but Ball State isn’t. I was wrong about this team and I’m more than willing to eat crow. (I know a couple of Ball State fans that would be more than willing to watch me eat every bit of that crow, too.)

There are a lot of media outlets that assume that just because a team isn’t in one of college football’s main conferences (i.e. SEC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac-10, etc.), that they would never be able to compete with the big boys. I fell into that trap after watching the Cardinals a few weeks ago, but I was wrong in my assumptions. After beating top MAC teams in Central Michigan and Western Michigan the past two weeks, Ball State has more than proved that they are legit.

How do we know that Ball State wouldn’t compete with Oklahoma? Boise State certainly did when they beat the Sooners in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl. It’s time to stop assuming that just because a team plays in the MAC that they couldn’t hold their own.

BSU’s Nate Davis has been one of the best quarterbacks in the nation and while he doesn’t face defenses as good as Alabama, Texas, Florida and Oklahoma every week, it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t deserve the opportunity to see what he could do on a national stage. He has tremendous arm strength, great leadership and has showed all season that he’s a tremendous competitor.

We need a playoff in college football. Undefeated teams like Ball State, Utah and Boise State deserve the opportunity to see if they can compete against the likes of ‘Bama, Florida, Texas and Oklahoma. If they get waxed like Hawaii did last year against Georgia in the Sugar Bowl, so be it. But maybe they’ll surprise some people, too. The main thing is, they deserve a shot. And college football fans deserve a better system.