I must have missed this

[bellefay1 1]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3408761

PITTSBURGH -- Penn State football coach Joe Paterno is lobbying again for major college football playoff, calling the reasons against it "bogus" less than three weeks after the Bowl Championship Series decided to maintain its current format for the foreseeable future.

The 81-year-old coach said Thursday he doubts if a playoff system would be enacted soon, particularly after a May 5 meeting of the 11 Football Bowl Subdivision conference commissioners and Notre Dame's athletic director ended with a decision to reject a four-team playoff and begin negotiations with the television networks with the current system in place.

"I don't think so right now, and I don't know why," said Paterno, who is entering his 43rd season as Penn State's head coach. "I'm only going to be a head coach another 10 or 15 years, and I don't think it will happen by then."

Paterno, whose contract runs through the upcoming season but has not been extended, laughed at his own joke.

Paterno's pro-playoff stance differs from that of the Big Ten, which has long opposed a playoff. At the May 5 meeting, only the Atlantic Coast Conference and Southeastern Conference commissioners favored continued discussion of SEC commissioner Mike Slive's proposal that would have seeded the top four teams in two BCS bowls and had the winners meet a week later for the national championship. The BCS bowls are the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta.

Those opposing the playoff cited the sanctity of the regular season and the fact the players would be forced to miss too much class time. It could also extend the season into a second semester. Paterno rejected those rationales, noting the highly profitable Division I men's basketball tournament is more disruptive to its players.

"To be frank with you, I don't know what the reasons are not to have a playoff," Paterno said during a speaking appearance in Pittsburgh. "You can talk about missing class and all that kind of stuff, [yet] you see basketball go on forever. You have a lot of bogus excuses, but obviously the majority of people who have the say don't want it."

Paterno also is unhappy with the rules of the coaches' poll, a key element in selecting which teams play in the BCS title game. Coaches are required to vote for the winner of the BCS title game in the final voting, a condition Paterno sees as working against the principle of a voting process.

Paterno has not voted in the coaches' poll since 2004, when he wanted to vote for undefeated Auburn but was forced to vote for Southern California after it won the BCS title game.

"They said, 'Well, you've got to vote or else you can't participate.' So I will not participate in the voting," Paterno said. "Not that I'm against what other people want to do, it's just that philosophically I think you ought to win it on the field. If I have to vote for somebody only because people have said these are the two teams that ought to be in the BCS championship game and I think they left somebody out that probably ought to be in it, that's when I'll feel a playoff ought to be appropriate. I've always been for a playoff."

Mabye this had gone over my head but was this common knowledge?

[PChamp119 96]

If he decided not to participate in the poll, why didn't he vote for us #1 then?

[Justin5 20]

If he decided not to participate in the poll, why didn't he vote for us #1 then?

Umm, because he didn't participate.

[IslandTiger 0]

If he decided not to participate in the poll, why didn't he vote for us #1 then?

Umm, because he didn't participate.

[WAR-MATT 2]

WAR JOEPA!!!!!!!!!

[PChamp119 96]

If he decided not to participate in the poll, why didn't he vote for us #1 then?

Umm, because he didn't participate.

Wait... perhaps I misinterpreted...

He was given the choice to vote for whomever he wanted and then in the FUTURE not be allowed to participate.... or he did not vote period on his final ballot. I thought it was the first...

So I'll ask again - if he decided not to participate in the FUTURE, why did he not vote for Auburn on his last official ballot? For those who are slow, he could've voted Auburn #1 and accepted the fact that he would not be a pollster afterwards. Well... he decided not to be a pollster afterwards, so why didn't he vote the way he wanted to, when he had the opportunity?

[Hoopie 6]

If he decided not to participate in the poll, why didn't he vote for us #1 then?

Umm, because he didn't participate.

Wait... perhaps I misinterpreted...

He was given the choice to vote for whomever he wanted and then in the FUTURE not be allowed to participate.... or he did not vote period on his final ballot. I thought it was the first...

So I'll ask again - if he decided not to participate in the FUTURE, why did he not vote for Auburn on his last official ballot? For those who are slow, he could've voted Auburn #1 and accepted the fact that he would not be a pollster afterwards. Well... he decided not to be a pollster afterwards, so why didn't he vote the way he wanted to, when he had the opportunity?

PC...He was told how he had to vote and that there was not a choice of voting any other way. He decided not to vote at all rather than vote for USC.

[PChamp119 96]

If he decided not to participate in the poll, why didn't he vote for us #1 then?

Umm, because he didn't participate.

Wait... perhaps I misinterpreted...

He was given the choice to vote for whomever he wanted and then in the FUTURE not be allowed to participate.... or he did not vote period on his final ballot. I thought it was the first...

So I'll ask again - if he decided not to participate in the FUTURE, why did he not vote for Auburn on his last official ballot? For those who are slow, he could've voted Auburn #1 and accepted the fact that he would not be a pollster afterwards. Well... he decided not to be a pollster afterwards, so why didn't he vote the way he wanted to, when he had the opportunity?

PC...He was told how he had to vote and that there was not a choice of voting any other way. He decided not to vote at all rather than vote for USC.

Man, don't you just hate it when you go out and make a statement, only to have done ZERO research...

2004 Rankings by Week

There were 61 voters according to the Coaches USA Today Poll each week. Well... if Joe Pa had magically not been allowed to vote, there would've been only 60 voters the final week. In case you can't comprehend - he keeps stating "So I will not participate in voting." He does NOT say "So I did not participate in the final 2004 voting." It says he did not vote SINCE 2004... nowhere does it state that he did not vote in the final ballot.

So again, I ask... why did he not make Auburn #1? I do recall him voting all 3 teams #1 the final week of the regular season. I give him props for that

The ironic thing... and I have pointed this out for 4 damn years is that even after the season was over... Auburn was still not a unanimous #2 vote. Whomever did not vote Auburn second should be banned from college football period.

[AUloggerhead 2,509]

I think you're missing Paterno's point: polling is a stupid way to determine a champion, and it goes without saying that it's even stupider when you're forced to vote a certain way. Paterno recognized that the forced voting is a farce and hasn't participated in it since 2004 -- that shows integrity. Only a moron would care how he was forced to vote in the 2004 final poll. I'm glad he's speaking out, regardless.

[quietfan 233]

If he decided not to participate in the poll, why didn't he vote for us #1 then?

Umm, because he didn't participate.

Wait... perhaps I misinterpreted...

He was given the choice to vote for whomever he wanted and then in the FUTURE not be allowed to participate.... or he did not vote period on his final ballot. I thought it was the first...

So I'll ask again - if he decided not to participate in the FUTURE, why did he not vote for Auburn on his last official ballot? For those who are slow, he could've voted Auburn #1 and accepted the fact that he would not be a pollster afterwards. Well... he decided not to be a pollster afterwards, so why didn't he vote the way he wanted to, when he had the opportunity?

PC...He was told how he had to vote and that there was not a choice of voting any other way. He decided not to vote at all rather than vote for USC.

Man, don't you just hate it when you go out and make a statement, only to have done ZERO research...

2004 Rankings by Week

There were 61 voters according to the Coaches USA Today Poll each week. Well... if Joe Pa had magically not been allowed to vote, there would've been only 60 voters the final week. In case you can't comprehend - he keeps stating "So I will not participate in voting." He does NOT say "So I did not participate in the final 2004 voting." It says he did not vote SINCE 2004... nowhere does it state that he did not vote in the final ballot.

So again, I ask... why did he not make Auburn #1? I do recall him voting all 3 teams #1 the final week of the regular season. I give him props for that

The ironic thing... and I have pointed this out for 4 damn years is that even after the season was over... Auburn was still not a unanimous #2 vote. Whomever did not vote Auburn second should be banned from college football period.

Just a guess...but might the official final ballets have been sent out with USC automatically pre-printed in the #1 spot? Then the coaches only filled in #'s 2-25?

[SouthLink02 8]

I get confused at times with what polls are automatic after the NCG but I believe the coaches do in fact HAVE to put the BCS Champ #1

Here we go

the coaches’ poll stipulates that coaches must vote the BCS title game winner as their final No. 1

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/1/8...FebruaryMeeting

[PChamp119 96]

I know a coach has to. But I interpret it that a coach, if not following the rules, loses his privilege to vote in the future.