Ohio St. Prez says TCU, Boise don't belong

[KD in CA]

One solution is to not have any pre-season polls and have the first one at week 5 10 so the order is based on what happens on the field rather than what is anticipated to happen.

 

Fixed. Never happen of course, since TV gets too much value out of hyping games based on rankings.

 

Alabama would have to lose at least 4 games before dropping out of the top 15, simply because they were annointed as the best team before the season started. And hence the myth of the superiority of certain conferences is perpetuated (oh, look how many top 25 schools are in my conference!)

[NyQuil]

Problem is these bigger schools don't want to play Boise and TCU. Boise and TCU reach out to play other schools from the "better" BCS divisions but they decline them wanting to play cupcakes instead. It is beyond me why college football 1- Doesn't have a playoff and 2- Lets the schools create their own schedules (I understand letting them have some sort of say but there needs to be a 3rd party that ultimately decides their schedules).

 

Boise and TCU want 1-1 contracts. They dont want a home game against Nebraska and then have to go to Memorial Stadium three times.

[Mr. WEO]

At least one college coach has been advocating a 64-team playoff for a couple of years now...

 

Mike Leach Pushes for 'Mainstream' 64-Team College Football Playoff

 

Mike Leach's Playoff Will Change World

youtube.com/watch?v=l5Wm_vCbQEM

 

(FF to 2:40 mark for playoff discussion)

Wow, Leach came up with the genius idea of having 64 teams get together at the end of the season for some sort of playoff-style "tournament" to decide a national champion? Unbelievable! I bet he's already thought up some catchy phrases like "Sweet 16" and Elite 8" and "The Final 4".

 

This guy is amazing!

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

Fixed. Never happen of course, since TV gets too much value out of hyping games based on rankings.

 

Alabama would have to lose at least 4 games before dropping out of the top 15, simply because they were annointed as the best team before the season started. And hence the myth of the superiority of certain conferences is perpetuated (oh, look how many top 25 schools are in my conference!)

 

Do you really think it is a myth that the SEC and Big 10 are superior conferences to the MAC and MWC? I mean seriously?

 

Certain conferences ARE superior, and to just pretend that isn't true is pretty absurd.

Edited November 25, 2010 by SouthGeorgiaBillsFan

[ohiotim]

This thread reminded me why I stopped paying attention to college football as anything more than a farm system for the NFL. When "preseason rankings" and "voting" determine whether or not you get to play in corporate bowl games, you don't have a sport, you have a dog and pony show.

 

Clearly, college football would never benefit from a playoff system, because as you know, millions of college basketball fans stop watching once March Madness rolls around. Or wait, is it the other way around, that millions of casual or even less on-lookers suddenly become rabid basketball junkies for a few weeks? Yes, playoffs are bad for business and interest.

 

Lets just put the b.s. aside and say what the real reason Boise St. is not "worthy" of the big game - tv ratings. Much like major league baseball, regionalism drives the sport. When Texas and San Francisco played in the World Series, ESPN pundits talked about the lack of national interest. Has the Super Bowl ever suffered the same way? Does having small market teams like Green Bay or Buffalo play in a Super Bowl drive down the ratings? Methinks not.

 

Yet, if it isn't the Yankees and/or Red Sox, the World Series is nothing more than a future trivia question for most of America. Same thing for college football. Guarantee more casual NFL fans know the Saints won the Super Bowl last year than casual college football fans can name whoever won the BCS championship last year.

 

And, of course, I have a solution.

 

Dissolve the BCS and all the conferences. Create 8 regional 10-team conferences. Each team plays all the teams in their conference (alternating home and away each year), and two random non-conference teams. The champions of each conference play in a 8-team playoff.

[seq004]

Another objective opinion from an Ohio State fan in Columbus. Watch the Wisconson game E Gordan Geek.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Dissolve the BCS and all the conferences. Create 8 regional 10-team conferences. Each team plays all the teams in their conference (alternating home and away each year), and two random non-conference teams. The champions of each conference play in a 8-team playoff.

If the PAC-1X has its way, there won't be but 1 major conference west of the Mississippi.

[KD in CA]

Do you really think it is a myth that the SEC and Big 10 are superior conferences to the MAC and MWC? I mean seriously?

 

Certain conferences ARE superior, and to just pretend that isn't true is pretty absurd.

 

Are they better? Yes.

 

Are they so much better than teams from the MAC or MWC or any other non-big money sanctioned conference that those teams should not be allowed to compete for a title under any circumstances? No.

 

 

Enjoy your championship of 3 1/2 conferences, because that's what you have.

 

 

 

Lets just put the b.s. aside and say what the real reason Boise St. is not "worthy" of the big game - tv ratings. Much like major league baseball, regionalism drives the sport.

 

/thread.

[Sisyphean Bills]

/thread.

Not so fast. Regionalism is only relevant if fans are "region centric" in their entertainment. Boise has many fans across the country that like to watch them play football because they are damn good. I'd bet a fair number of them don't know where Boise is on a map.

[Cynical]

Dissolve the BCS and all the conferences. Create 8 regional 10-team conferences. Each team plays all the teams in their conference (alternating home and away each year), and two random non-conference teams. The champions of each conference play in a 8-team playoff.

 

Great idea.

 

Except:

- At present and last count, there are 110 schools that play Div 1A football. Your scenario allows 80 teams to compete for the big one, leaving 30 schools never getting the chance to play for the big game. So, how exactly did you "fix" the BCS problem?

- Your scenario assumes a "status-quo" among the schools. If you think the outrage is bad regarding Boise State now, imagine if they were one of the 30 teams not allowed to play for the big game. The cries of injustice would make the ones we see now look weak.

- How does a "non-playoff" team become one of the 80 "playoff schools"? Who gets to decide which team gets bumped out?

- And yes, this is a serious question, how does this realignment impact college basket ball?

[Cynical]

Boise and TCU want 1-1 contracts. They dont want a home game against Nebraska and then have to go to Memorial Stadium three times.

 

Interesting. Didn't realize BSU wanted a home - home series, especially when they have stated, in public, they are willing to travel to opponents field to play a single game, but they can't do that, because "nobody will schedule them".

 

 

Since you brought up Nebraska, Nebraska was willing to do a home-home series (1-1 as you call it), but BSU's refusal to compromise on their $1M demand to play a game away from their home field essentially killed any deal Nebraska tried to put forth.

 

BSU supporters need to realize BSU is going to struggle to find big schools willing to play them at BSU. And no, it's not because other schools are afraid of them, it has to do with another problem. More precisely, 35,000 smaller problems.

 

35,000 - that's the size of the stadium at BSU. When the big schools agree to do an out of conference game, one of the major sticking points are tickets for the fan base.

 

Alabama was paid $200K to travel to Duke, but they also received 6200 tickets.

Alabama vs. Penn State home-home series - the away team will receive $200K and 5300 tickets.

 

Do you honestly think BSU will cough up 6000 tickets to an opponent the larger more popular schools are going to demand?

[ohiotim]

Great idea.

 

Except:

- At present and last count, there are 110 schools that play Div 1A football. Your scenario allows 80 teams to compete for the big one, leaving 30 schools never getting the chance to play for the big game. So, how exactly did you "fix" the BCS problem?

Why does there have to be 110, just because there are now? I went to a MAC school, but realistically, they're never going to compete for a championship. Just look at the State of Ohio. If you're a high school talent, you're going to OSU, not BG, Toledo, Miami, Kent, Akron, etc. Axe the bottom 30, they can play Division 2 or I-A, or whatever the next level is. Exclusivity is positive, not a negative. It means a higher level of competition. One of my biggest pet peeves is when Ohio State plays a team like Akron and pretends its a legit contest. In reality, the wide out at OSU is gonna be playing on Sunday's in a year or two, and the cornerback from Akron will be looking for a real job. I want to eliminate those competition deficiencies.

 

- Your scenario assumes a "status-quo" among the schools. If you think the outrage is bad regarding Boise State now, imagine if they were one of the 30 teams not allowed to play for the big game. The cries of injustice would make the ones we see now look weak.

See above.

 

- How does a "non-playoff" team become one of the 80 "playoff schools"? Who gets to decide which team gets bumped out?

Well, since I'm president of the new BIG 80 league, this is my rule. If a school violates rules, they are suspended from play and kicked down to the 2nd tier, and a team from the 2nd tier (perhaps the previous year's champion) moves up.

 

- And yes, this is a serious question, how does this realignment impact college basket ball?

It doesn't. All basketball is still run by the NCAA with their own conferences. Same as with college hockey and other sports.

 

Look, I'm not saying this is gonna happen. I'm just saying that as it stands now, myself and a number of my friends aren't into college football as fervently as we are pro because there is no playoff and the ranking system is awful.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Boise is one of the best and most balanced teams in football and are every bit deserving of their ranking

[DrDawkinstein]

Auburn better wake up and start playing some football before they end up being another 1-loss team and ruining it for the SEC!

[1B4IDie]

Auburn better wake up and start playing some football before they end up being another 1-loss team and ruining it for the SEC!

After Auburn gets smoked today and if LSU leapfrogs to #2 TCU can blow a gasket or 12.

[DrDawkinstein]

After Auburn gets smoked today and if LSU leapfrogs to #2 TCU can blow a gasket or 12.

 

If LSU ends up #2, Im happy with that. It's impossible to watch the level of competition in the SEC and say one of these teams doesnt deserve to be at the top of the rankings.

[DrDawkinstein]

Boise is one of the best and most balanced teams in football and are every bit deserving of their ranking

 

the problem with that statement is that it is based largely on opinion, and very little actual proof. im not disagreeing with it, but i cant agree with it either, until they prove it. when it comes to Boise, im basically Agnostic.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

the problem with that statement is that it is based largely on opinion, and very little actual proof. im not disagreeing with it, but i cant agree with it either, until they prove it. when it comes to Boise, im basically Agnostic.

 

But that's the thing. When you do subjective rankings instead of traditional competition, there's nothing BUT opinion. The only truth is the win-loss records. If you don't lose any games, you shouldn't be eliminated.

[PromoTheRobot]

If LSU ends up #2, Im happy with that. It's impossible to watch the level of competition in the SEC and say one of these teams doesnt deserve to be at the top of the rankings.

Then just come out and say non-BCS schools are excluded, because they are. If the BCS wants a members-only championship then fine. Just stop pretending that it's open to everyone.

 

PTR

[DrDawkinstein]

But that's the thing. When you do subjective rankings instead of traditional competition, there's nothing BUT opinion. The only truth is the win-loss records. If you don't lose any games, you shouldn't be eliminated.

 

if your main criteria for a "top ranked" team is simply WL, then no team should schedule games against any other major program. everyone should just play Boise's schedule instead of real teams, and then NCAA football would just suck.

 

given the current system, if a team wants to be taken seriously, they should have a few quality wins under their belt. to say Boise has 2 "quality" wins is stretching it.

 

strength of schedule should be at least an equal qualifier as WL. Let's say 1 loss = 10 SOS points. And therefore, a 1-loss team that has a SOS ranking 10 points harder than a 0-loss team, should be equally considered for the Championship. (im just making up the quantity of SOS points, but you get my point).

 

had any of the major SEC teams lost to a small program team, or a mid-level OOC program (say Alabama loses to North Carolina) then I can understand dropping them. But the reality is that you have high ranked teams losing to teams that were once ranked in the top 5 (and even #1).

[ieatcrayonz]

Wow, Leach came up with the genius idea of having 64 teams get together at the end of the season for some sort of playoff-style "tournament" to decide a national champion? Unbelievable! I bet he's already thought up some catchy phrases like "Sweet 16" and Elite 8" and "The Final 4".This guy is amazing!

Those names are taken by bsaketball already.

[Spun]

There has been some very good debate on this thread. While I believe the comments made by the OSU president need to be said, I think he should have kept them to himself. Although, I bet there are many college presidents that are glad somebody made the remarks. I believe Gee's comments were more about all the top schools in the top conferences and less about OSU (this year). OSU is mediocre and Wisconsin seems to be the power of the conference. The argument that the SEC is loaded is valid. They are loaded and they have been for some time now. To be part of "the club" a school needs to demonstrate over time that it is worthy. That is why if BSU and/or TCU makes it to the BCS final, that is their chance to win or at least provide a competitive performance. There was a time when Miami was not considered worthy by some. Then they got their chance against Nebraska and won in a classic game. After that game, Miami rose as a legitimate power. In basketball, Gonzaga proved it's legitimacy over time and now is given it's respect in the quality of recruits, results on the court and deserved perception by basketball fans at large.

If BSU and/or TCU make it to the final game I am cool with it. Their inclusion in the final game would be a first. It isn't like both schools have been making it to the final game on a regular basis. One of the obvious limits of football is that so few games are played. I really think OSU should limit their MAC games. But as most teams do, the MAC games will be replaced by other "lesser" opponents. In the case of the Big 10/11/12, this will be corrected in part with next years addition of Nebraska.

As has been stated repeatedly in this thread, NCAA/BCS football and college sports are about very big money. Home games are important for all schools as that is the engine for entire athletic programs. Some "second tier" schools forego the home part of their "home and home" agreements because it is more lucrative for them to play against a big time program. As for the bowl games, it is well known that selections are based in large part on which schools travel well and also provide TV ratings. As far as who gets admitted to the bigger conferences, consideration is given to what each school offers to the full conference athletic program. And believe it or not academics do have some impact on who gets admitted! When Penn State was admitted to the Big 10/11/12, I believe they only had a club level hockey program. When Miami, Florida State and Notre Dame were admitted to sports conferences it was only in part. An interesting story about Penn State is how there has been a major financial contribution to fund a hockey arena that will soon include Men's and Women's hockey and possibly a Big 10/11/12 version of a hockey conference.

A very good point was made pertaining to the conferences with championship games; I also believe those conferences shouldn't be punished for having title games.

[McBeane]

if your main criteria for a "top ranked" team is simply WL, then no team should schedule games against any other major program. everyone should just play Boise's schedule instead of real teams, and then NCAA football would just suck.

 

given the current system, if a team wants to be taken seriously, they should have a few quality wins under their belt. to say Boise has 2 "quality" wins is stretching it.

 

strength of schedule should be at least an equal qualifier as WL. Let's say 1 loss = 10 SOS points. And therefore, a 1-loss team that has a SOS ranking 10 points harder than a 0-loss team, should be equally considered for the Championship. (im just making up the quantity of SOS points, but you get my point).

 

had any of the major SEC teams lost to a small program team, or a mid-level OOC program (say Alabama loses to North Carolina) then I can understand dropping them. But the reality is that you have high ranked teams losing to teams that were once ranked in the top 5 (and even #1).

 

With his logic, Northern Illinois (10-2) would be a ranked program. Win-loss can only get you so far when you are playing scrub teams.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

I <3 Boise State. Very fun team to watch. Kellen Moore is the most under rated college QB in the game, period.

[McBeane]

I <3 Boise State. Very fun team to watch. Kellen Moore is the most under rated college QB in the game, period.

 

Again, no. How can a Heisman candidate be under-rated?

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Again, no. How can a Heisman candidate be under-rated?

look at his stats.

 

look at what he means to his team.

 

look at his performance.

 

He is under rated and deserves more hype than what he has been getting.

[McBeane]

look at his stats.

 

look at what he means to his team.

 

look at his performance.

 

He is under rated and deserves more hype than what he has been getting.

 

He is going to be invited to New York for the Heisman ceremony. How in the world could he be considered under-rated?

[McD]

Those names are taken by bsaketball already.

 

Seriously....??? You don't see his sarcasm?

[McD]

I understand and agree in large part to the "better conference" theory, but I don't buy into the bigger school will always win, or "deserves" to be there all the time because they play supposedly better schools. And, really... if you're truly better, what's wrong with playing a team you should handle quite easily? Here's the thing... we need a playoff, pure and simple. 64 teams is too many, but I can see a 32 team field using a conference playoff/championship to get down to 16 or 8, then having a conference champs play in the field the rest of the way. Independents?? Well, they need to get in a conference or figure a way to get into some kind of playoff system between the other large "Indy's" or they get left out. To me, seeing how the men's basketball bracket plays out is awesome, and even the "Butler's" of the world get their shot at glory. Nobody is questioning the power of the "better" conferences, but nobody should question a teams legitimacy if never given the opportunity to play. Ever hear of Buster Douglas?

[McD]

Lol... I dont know if any of you are watching this Boise St. vs Nevada game, but after being up 24-7 Boise is now only up 24-21. Now I wont sit here and say Boise is getting JOBBED...but, lol, Boise is getting JOBBED by the refs! A fumbled punt that Boise recovers, and a "phantom" call on hitting the punt returner early?!?! TERRIBLE call! 4th down pass interference call against Boise (guy turned around, but I could live with the call), but then Boise makes a long throw on 3rd andf long... the DB CLEARLY interferes with him and NO call?!?! All game changing calls against Boise St. Lol, well looks like maybe the OSU Prez has some officials in his pocket too huh? I guess the little schools need to be careful not to get too close to the "big boys" or else the officials will help take them out. Sad really, but Nev is #19 and is playing with a lot of emotion at home right now. If Boise has the "goods", then they'll prove they can win in a tough environment even with the bad calls. If they can't I guess they dont need to be playing for the title... Should be a good finish!

[bills44]

/ thread

[DrDawkinstein]

welp, that ends this discussion for this year. thank you nevada!

[McD]

welp, that ends this discussion for this year. thank you nevada!

 

Seriously? Damn man... what an ass. Who the hell has to have it out for a small school that can hang with the big boys. It's almost anti-Bills like. What the hell do we do all the damned time against the NFL powers? You've proven nothing really. Nevada was ranked #19, playing at home in their BIGGEST GAME EVER (so they say), and if the refs dont call (or call fairly 2 calls), this game is over in the 3rd. No I wont B word about the officiating.. **** happens, but if you watched the game you'd know what I'm talking about. Also, BSU's kicker blew 2 FG's under 30 yds... one with no time left and 1 in OT... what a joke, lol! What I find even more ironic is... to all those IDIOTS that think Special Teams aren't important... TAKE A LOOK!!!! Yes, I'm calling you out HoF voters!!!

 

I still stand by my thought of schools outside of the supossed big conferences have just as much of a shot as anyone, that's all... I pull for the underdog, so I'll be routing for TCU to make some noise... I just can't stand people/schools that run their mouths when they know they'll never have to back it up... Really, to me it still comes down to certain schools who just dont want to give up the limelight that they dont deserve anymore...

[Cereal]

welp, that ends this discussion for this year. thank you nevada!

 

I couldn't decide if I'd rather see them lose to Nevada, or if I'd rather see them finally get to a national title game only to get wrecked by the likes of Oregon or Auburn. Either way, the ending of this game was HILARIOUS. Props to Nevada though; enjoy it.

 

Days like today that make NCAAF so gosh darn awseome!

[McD]

I couldn't decide if I'd rather see them lose to Nevada, or if I'd rather see them finally get to a national title game only to get wrecked by the likes of Oregon or Auburn. Either way, the ending of this game was HILARIOUS. Props to Nevada though; enjoy it.

 

Days like today that make NCAAF so gosh darn awseome!

 

Now you wont get to see that game, or the possibility of it. BSU already beat one of those "untouchable/unbeatable" big schools recently, when they beat OSU, so they can play with anyone. Again, I'm no BSU "fan", but I want to see a small school play big. Now TCU waits for a shot, but I'm ok with Oregon vs Aub, they've both earned their way so far.

[Hplarrm]

College football is a huge joke when it comes to the national championship. I don't pay any attention to the BCS because it's a sham.

 

PTR

I think this post actually neatly lays out where folks tend to come down on this debate. If one judges college football to be primarily about football (providing entertainment for us sports fanatics) then a playoff system and choosing one winner each year is critical (though this does bring to mind faint recollection of some Dallas Cowboy who when asked if the SB was the most important moment in his life to date he replied "if it is so important then why do they play it every year."

 

If on the other hand one view's college football as being primarily about college then one can really not care about having a playoff system and the usual there must be only one winner approach to sports.

 

As one who judges college football to be primarily about college I realize the BCS is a sham and I could not care less about the fact that it is a sham.

 

The NFL owners have profited for years by having developed as a singular art having taxpayers subsidize their player development by not only training their workers and testing them in college football, but even collaborates with the NCAA to have their training feed into an orderly combine system where the rough edges of comparing one college to another (and their diverse schedule strengths and travel requirements are minimized by common testing and assessment of athletes in the spring combine.

 

NFL teams use to compete with each other totally in terms of commitment to scouting and development of contacts across the country. Now there is a lot of sharing of scouting and ranking of players which began with the BLESTO-V scouting reports.

 

Now this corporate monolith has the workers not only as clearly being partners with the NFL (the final gasp of good ol American economic competition was eliminated when the team owners kicked the butt of the AFL-CIO led Ed Garvey led NFLPA and the proud athletes of the totally defeated union bought the arguments of smart NYC lawyers that the best strategy for the NFLPA was to threaten to dissolve itself.

 

This strategy would have denied the team owners a willing partner in fostering the NFL draft which actually took the un-American act of forcing individuals to sell their services to only one team and not to the highest bidder (aka the American way).

 

The team owners ran kicking and screaming to agree to the CBA with the players thus securing their status as an operating partner with the NFL rather than simple vassal workers.

 

It is a great irony that by managing to hand off almost all player development costs to the colleges (many of which are state schools and pro football breeding institutions like Univ. of Nebraska but one downside is that unlike other major pro sports like MLB and the NHL where teamowners must give huge speculative contracts to 16 year old minors, the NFL gets the advantage of having taxpayers and others pay for training, but the downside is that they do not get ownership of the players until not only they are adults, but actually because they officially restrict free trade for workers until their college graduating age class graduates.

 

Thus the college educated NFLPA leadership of folks like Gene Upshaw, Troy Vincent, etc had an adult understanding of the CBA. Upshaw saw the first CBA as an interim step which gained the players partnership.

 

The last renegotiation he dictated publicly that the new CBA would see the salary cap cover total revenues (rather than a designated gross (which saw maneuvers like the Bills chucking several thousand general admission seats at the Ralph for premium seats where they did not have to share the take with the players) but would be for a % of player take which began with a 6.

 

The final deal which Tagliaboo-boo and the other children of Pete Rozelle talked Mr. Ralph and the others to bend over and ask for another was for a 60.5% of the total gross receipts.

 

The bottomline is of course that in the end its the golden rule\

 

AKA he who has the gold rules!

 

In this case significant financial benefit goes to many forces who profit from the status quo and unless there are some big buck forces out there that would profit a lot from a change no change is going to happen to create a playoff system.

 

If someone wants to make a financed base case that some force will push for change AND entrenched rich forces will not successfully resist change AND rich forces in the middle cannot be easily bought off with payoffs rather than endorse change change will not happen,

[The Senator]

Seriously....??? You don't see his sarcasm?

Seriously, is there a post you don't begin with ' seriously ' ?

 

Mehinks you got 'pwned' by the master himself - chalk up another one for crayonz!

 

(BTW, did you not see the utter asinine stupidity in WEO's remark that crayonz was responding to - particularly since Leach stated several times that a large-scale (in this case, 64-team) playoff system was no great brainstorm of his own, but something that has been around for decades and long-used in just about every other sport except college football?)

[Mr. WEO]

Seriously, is there a post you don't begin with ' seriously ' ?

 

Mehinks you got 'pwned' by the master himself - chalk up another one for crayonz!

 

(BTW, did you not see the utter asinine stupidity in WEO's remark that crayonz was responding to - particularly since Leach stated several times that a large-scale (in this case, 64-team) playoff system was no great brainstorm of his own, but something that has been around for decades and long-used in just about every other sport except college football?)

No, it wasn't, which was my point.

 

Yet YOU posted this:

 

Mike Leach's Playoff Will Change World

 

and this:

 

Mike Leach Pushes for 'Mainstream' 64-Team College Football Playoff

 

Leach's whole shtick is that he's some sort of savant because he says things that seem funny to sports writers and went to law school. It turns out that he's only millimeters deep and, as far as offensive football goes, he's an idiot savant.

 

 

What is "asinine" is your endless crusade to give meaning to this desperate little man that football has forgotten.

[SoFFacet]

Per Gene Wojciechowski's article on espn:

 

Nevada's coach was asked about OSU Prez' comments:

 

So when I asked Ault if there was anything he'd like to say to Gee about the quality of non-automatic qualifier teams, the Nevada coach didn't hesitate.

 

"My only comment is [Ohio State] wouldn't beat Boise State," he said.

 

"Would they beat you?"

 

"No,"

Edited November 27, 2010 by SoFFacet

[Sisyphean Bills]

I think this post actually neatly lays out where folks tend to come down on this debate. If one judges college football to be primarily about football (providing entertainment for us sports fanatics) then a playoff system and choosing one winner each year is critical (though this does bring to mind faint recollection of some Dallas Cowboy who when asked if the SB was the most important moment in his life to date he replied "if it is so important then why do they play it every year."

 

If on the other hand one view's college football as being primarily about college then one can really not care about having a playoff system and the usual there must be only one winner approach to sports.

Or maybe it's not a black vs. white situation. Who decreed that there can only be The One? Who says that the game of football must be boiled down at the major college level to deciding only one champion? That's never been the case. And even if it were made the case in the Bowl Subdivision, it still wouldn't be the case as smaller schools would still have their own, different championships.

 

The fact is most college football players do not turn pro. Having a once-in-a-lifetime bowl experience in some place they'll never be again is, quite simply, a hell of a good time. You get to play a game you love against other players from a different part of the country and make some friends and see the sights. That's what the "awful" bowl games were really all about. So, a bowl game is both a football game and a unique college experience.