Kicking off the blog

For thirty-ish years, I have watched the college football season and the bowls from a different viewpoint than, say, normal people. Like many, including our US President, I would love to see a football playoff. So over the years, I have set up a playoff tournament, and used the performances in bowl games to determine who would have advanced in the tourney. For instance, this season I may end up sitting watching the Alabama-Texas championship game, and be the only person on the face of the earth thinking as the fourth quarter winds down, "if Texas loses by more than 10, then they will lose to Oregon in the Fiesta Bowl!"

Initially I started with an eight team tourney, but when the BCS went to 10, so did I. I think the only (and optimal) way that a playoff will happen will be if the BCS decides their bowls would serve themselves (and their pocketbooks) better as quarterfinals in a tourney than as bowls with degrees of interest from none to "maybe worth watching." I was just reading today a sports writer describing how splendidly the BCS system turned out this year, with all interesting games. Well, this is a rare year when the BCS top ten teams all make it into BCS bowls (and my tourney), but shall we forget that the majority of years have games like last year's Virginia Tech-Cincy matchup in the Orange Bowl (sorry, no corporate sponsorships mentioned until a tourney forms), in which it was reported tickets went for $1? I was not surprised when the BCS changed course and selected one of their own to get the championship game rather than let a fifth bowl, like the (touch and feel of) Cotton get in the mix. This would have made 80% of the existing BCS members' games be potentially worthless. Now, all of the BCS bowl games are potentially worthless, but 25% of the time they will get to host the top two battle it out.