I've uttered those words at least twenty times over the past four
Blutarsky has been at the blogging forefront of the anti-playoff resistance. Like Blutarsky, I know the vast majority of the arguments for a playoff are shortly translated to there is more money in it for the conferences. Hey, I'm a Jack Donaghy capitalist. Being such, I also believe that quality of product is more important than doing what merely brings in more money, as long as you are making enough money to know the name of the secret European country only rich people know about.
Now, Mike Slive drops the big one and brings
A couple of other thoughts have come to mind. First, will the teams play in the Sugar Bowl? Fiesta Bowl? Rotate? Play at another place? Second, hasn't the SEC given the Big 12 champion an easier road into the BCS or whatever championship game, since the Big 12 doesn't currently have a championship game? Third, when will South Carolina propose that the conference representative in the SEC/Big12 bowl game be the team with the best record in September? Fourth, is Bob Bowlsby a vampire?
As you can tell, there are a lot of details to be worked out.
TD
2 comments:
A log of details need to be worked out, but this is a great first step to getting the playoffs into college football. I know that two of the three writers on this blog are against playoffs, but I think that it does the sport no good when people argue who's the best or who should be champions at the end of the year based on opion. Play the game on the field, not in the computers and newspapers.
What you see as a bug, I see as a feature. College football is great because of that very thing.
And it does the sport tremendous good when everyone is debating the sport in May.
Post a Comment