Customer Service Place an Ad Become a Carrier Contact Us About Us Mobile Edition E-Mail Updates Report Cancellation
| Subscribe Now Customer Service Place an Ad Become a Carrier Contact Us About Us Mobile Edition E-Mail Updates Report Cancellation
|
 |
 |
|
Weather  Calendar Obituaries Classifieds Jobs Autos Homes Rentals Coupons Ad Center |
Bloomington-Normal, Illinois
|
Home News Sports
Free Time Life Money Nation/World Opinion Blogs/Columns Archives Site Map |
| U.SportsFriday, May 23, 2008 10:03 PM CDT |
 Comments (2) |  E-mail this page |  Print this page |  Enlarge type |  Reduce type |  Search archives |  RSS feeds |  Add to My Yahoo! |
JoePa voices support for major college football playoff
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.” E-mail this story | Print this story | Search archives | RSS Show comments |  Hide comments | Hide comments on all stories |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Top of Page | Home | News | Sports | Free Time | Life | Money | Nation/World | Opinion | Blogs/Columns | Archives | Site Map | RSS
Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
|
Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.
let's be reasonable wrote on Jul 18, 2008 6:05 PM:
I think you will find that most folks have no option but to contribute to social security. There are other state and federal plans in which one is obligated to participate in which case you contribute to the alternate plan and NOT social security. In fact social security does not allow you to receive income, even if you have contributed in past positions, if your state plan, e.g., a teacher's retirement fund is the primary retirement fund. You are misleading the reader with your comments. None of this changes the fact that social security was set up as a last resort backup when all else fails, not as a primary retirement plan. So, again, you miss the point entirely. It is too bad you don't understand government sponsored retirement plans. "
Poster Boy wrote on May 23, 2008 9:06 AM:
Please read the rules before posting comments.
You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.