Quote:Follow the money.  It is all about politics of the bowl games and the money involved.

 

I personally have opposed the BCS in it's current format since inception.  Give me the old bowl tie-ins or an all out play-off.  This subjective championship is no different than the mythical championship that proceeded it.  At least in the old bowl tie-ins the Bowl games meant something.

 

The BCS did it's job and is better than what came before.

 

The BCS was put in place to simply assure that #1 played #2. And for the most part that's what has happened. Sure there have been years where there has been some disagreements as to who should be #2, but mostly we got what we wanted.

 

Before the BCS came about, we'd have #1 in the Rose Bowl and #2 playing in the Orange bowl, or some such. Very frustrating.

 

The old bowl tie-ins meant something? Like what? Before college football was "nationalized" it was cool to see teams from different regions play each other, and the bowl system has been good for college football, especially before college football became the multi-bajillion dollar business that it is now. But I don't know that it meant anything other than entertainment.

 

And while I'm looking forward to the playoff, watch out what you wish for. They'll still be much grinding of teeth as to whom should play in it. No matter how many teams you add.

---