Nebraska Chancellor Perlman Argues Against Playoff, Contradicts Self Horribly

Nebraska Chancellor Perlman Argues Against Playoff, Contradicts Self Horribly


Nebraska Chancellor Perlman Argues Against Playoff, Contradicts Self Horribly

The school presidents “will still make the final decision” on a college football playoff. If Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman is a bellwether, that could be problematic. ESPN’s Adam Rittenberg canvassed Perlman’s thoughts on college football postseason change. Perlman tried arguing against a playoff, but, by doing so, presented the best arguments for implementing one.

Perlman believes the school presidents’ first choice would be to choose the No. 1 and No. 2 teams after the bowl games.

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.

He also claims, however, that choosing two teams to play in a college football final is impossible.

“I don’t think it’s possible to pick the two best teams in the country to play. In football, that just doesn’t work.”

Perlman states the “highest priority” for Big Ten and Pac 12 presidents should be to preserve the bowl system and the conference’s connection to the Rose Bowl.

Our highest priority is to preserve the status of the Rose Bowl and our connection to it.

If you have a playoff system outside the bowls, it would do serious damage to the bowls. … I don’t think anybody would pay attention to the bowls.

Why does he like the bowls? He fears a playoff because the Rose Bowl Game Presented by VIZIO, the Discover Orange Bowl, the Allstate Sugar Bowl and the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl Game would be supplanted by some sort of “corporate event” rather than a “school event.”

In order to be successful, it would have to become kind of a corporate event, rather than a school event. While we’d probably do well, given the television revenues, I don’t know that it’s a favorite of the fans of the schools who participate.”

Seriously, why would schools want to get involved with corrupt corporate entities or participate in a system where they have no control?

Perlman, who considers the bowls to be the highest priority, acknowledges Big Ten teams have a disadvantage playing in “neutral site” bowl games. But, so what? They’re just bowl games.

There clearly is a competitive advantage if you’re playing in the Rose Bowl against a Pac-12 team, or if you’re playing in the Sugar Bowl against LSU or in the Orange Bowl against Florida. But so what? It’s a bowl game. That’s just the lay of the land.”

Inadvertently, Perlman stumbles on the salient point. He asks “would the Nebraska fans, in the first week of January, rather travel to Pasadena or Indianapolis?” If cost was no concern, it would no doubt be Pasadena. Cost is no concern for school administrators. Who wants to give up a free trip to a warm weather spot in January?

[Photo via Presswire]