kenpersons

The NFL is about winning the Super Bowl.

The NBA and MLB are also about winning their respective world championships.

College Basketball is all about emerging from the field of 64 with a trophy.

College Baseball is about making it to Omaha and bringing back a title.

College football? Is it even realistic to expect it to be about the National Championship?

Sure, some teams have their eyes on the prize every year, but no more than twenty in a given year have a realistic shot. And twenty is stretching it. Ten would be more accurate. Out of 117 teams, between 10 and 20 are playing for the top spot.

That leaves at least ninety (if not more) schools playing for something else. Be it pride, conference gold or a bowl berth.

So, if the clear majority of college football is not playing for a national title, why is there so much money and focus in producing a national champion?

There will never be a perfect system to pick solid matchups for a title game without a playoff.

There will never be a playoff that realistically offers the national championship as a prize to all 117 teams.

Why can't the powers that be accept their own reality and embrace it?

The National Championship will never be more than a glorified popularity contest surrounding a bowl game.

Bowl games, however, are shams themselves, burdened with conference tie ins that reward teams not for success, but powerful allegiances.

I pose that if they're going to keep the BCS (ie: a formula that determines the quality of teams), then it needs to extend all the way to 58 teams (or however many total play in bowls) and let the best teams go bowling, regardless of conference.

This way they keep their attempt at a 1 v 2 matchup, but .500 teams from big conferences (ie Georgia Tech) aren't robbing slots from better, smaller schools (ie Northern Illinois).

Let every team be accountable for their standing. No excuses. Schedule hard, play hard, let the chips fall.

Is it too much to ask?