Mark Starr of Newsweek sure has it right on the tendentious issue of college football "playoffs."
I’ve never been an advocate of a college playoff system. I don’t like the idea of extending the season any closer to NFL length and keeping those “student athletes” out of the classroom any longer than they already are. Make it a four-team playoff and there will, inevitably, be a fifth team that gets screwed. Expand it to eight and pretty soon we’ll be watching “January Jubilee,” a 64-team big dance with Chris Berman hyping the opening game: “Will little Delaware be the Trojan Horse that trips up mighty USC and Matt 'Days of Leinart Roses?' ”Posted by Alan at January 9, 2005 10:57 AMBut when the college system essentially vests everything in a single game, it risks a monumental stinker that pollutes the entire 28-bowl marathon. Nobody remembers the gems (Louisville 44, Boise State 40; Iowa 30, LSU 25; Texas 38, Michigan 37) because they are of no consequence—just the lone snoozer that counts for something more than a payday.
What to do when you hate the current system but dread an extended college playoff? My choice would be a return to the traditional bowl format, with meaningful conference rivalries like Big 10-Pac 10 and the prospect of several games that matter. It might reverse the TV ratings plunge for other bowls. And the added fun comes afterward in the endless debate—fodder for barroom discussion and sports talk radio—about which team really deserves the No. 1 ranking. That’s why folks of a certain age can still get worked up over 1966 and whether Notre Dame, Michigan State or Alabama deserved the top spot. In years hence nobody but USC alum will have much reason to rehash this season’s outcome.