Well, at least an SEC-owned championship game every year would force the rest of the conferences to up their game. The national playoff is why there's parity in college basketball; teams have to be able to compete on a national level in order to advance in the bracket. Maybe then college football would get out of the doldrums it's been in this year and last (come on...the last good college football year was 2005, which paled in comparison to 2004 and 2003) and you'd see real parity in college football. The idiots at ESPN don't want that really, though, because they insist -- faultily, I might add -- that college football is only good when the \"traditional powers\" are good. That is, football is only worth covering if Ohio State, Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia (yes, we are a traditional power, ESPN told me so!), Southern Cal, Oklahoma and Nebraska are up. If those teams aren't up, well then it's just not interesting. Really? I think the South Florida thing is one of the most compelling stories of any football year. Same goes for what happened to Wake Forest last year. I think that what's happened to Boise State and Louisville since the start of the century is INCREDIBLE. Not to mention a few years ago when the MAC was good, and MAC teams were beating \"big\" schools left and right. And I don't think I have to mention Troy. The destruction and re-emergence of the Big East is a great story, especially when juxtaposed with what's happened to the ACC since realignment happened.
What in the world does it mean that it's good for college football when Ohio State is good? That's idiotic. The same goes for ND or USC. What? None of those idiots know what they're talking about, they're just talking to fill space.
...and all of this is from a guy who doesn't support a playoff system...
Red and Black, Win or Lose