Posted on: December 9, 2008 6:06 pm
Edited on: August 15, 2010 1:05 pm

titan against titan . . . then to the bowls

you are soooo correct about going back to 1964. . . those were the days when going to a bowl was a reward for a team's good play throughout the season . . .their REWARD!

and now the idea has spun into a format for challenging the teams to be prepared to continuing to play at top level in a championship scenario. and the reason the ROSE BOWL has, shall we say, been the 'grandaddy' of them all was because it paid more than 2 times the payout of any of the bowls. this in fact is one of the reasons the universities allowed the BCS to prosper and exist. . . you see, it's STILL all about the money.

the BCS proposition wanted to add the rose bowl to the mix so they could boost the amount of the other qualifying bowls to higher revenues. in 1968, i believe the rose bowl was paying out about $6 mil and the closest in dollar value was the orange bowl at about $3.5 mil.

all the other bowls paid substantially less. today we see the BCS bowls pay out about the same, no matter who or where. i dare say, if the rose bowl left the mix, it would again be a higher paying bowl than the other BCS bowls, and according to your plan, the pact between the big 10[11] and pacific 10 would remain in tact. a major plus for the rose bowl participants, but the other teams in the other bowls might again be licking their chops, so to speak as they will once again not be able to touch the biggest payout bowl, being the rose bowl.

i like your idea about their being 2 champions, as i know when some of the big 10[11] teams go to pasadena from the harsh cold and snow, and land in 70 degree weather where they actually see the sun, they sometimes forget why they are in southern california. i have won a few bets taking the pac 10 team and point against the big 10[11] team, and i am a big 10[11] supporter, but i also recognize the reality of the situation. as you may have also noticed is that generally most conferences were complete with their scheduels by thanksgiving weekend, and then stretched it out another week or 2 to include playoff. so now the college football season has gone about 16 or 17 weeks, not that every team plays every weekend, since some teams have a bye weekend or two in their schedule.

so now your plan has decided to encompass the Chick-fil-A, Outback, Capital One, Cotton Bowl, Sugar, Fiesta, and Orange bowls. a total of 7 bowls. this means that 8 teams will suck up ALL the proceeds from 7 bowls. and with all due respect, do you think that the teams fans will follow to 3 different bowls? do you think there may be less dollars acquired by the hosting cities that sponsor these bowl via tourism dollars?

now remember. . . it is STILL all about the money. . . and you know, we are still going to see a team that hasn't played since the thanksgiving weekend play a team that hasn't played since the first [or second] weekend of december.

the best idea that i have seen in your plan is eliminate the conference title games.

so let's back this up with another perspective before the bowl games are picked. let's limit all teams to an 11 game schedule. all teams will have a predetermined schedule, and all games will cease by thanksgiving weekend. and on the first weekend of december, all the teams, 64 or all 120 for sake of arguement, but at least 4 teams more than bowl slots available. since we all want to see the best play the best, while all are still in top seasonal form, let's have #1 host #2, #3host #4, #5 host #6, and so on up to #69 hosting #70. then we pick who plays who in what bowl, and we keep the BCS in tact, and #3 texas may not be left out of the mix. . . that will have been settled. . .

so ok hosts fla, and texas hosts alabama, and so. cal hosts utah, and texas tech hosts penn st, and bosie hosts, ohio state, and tcu hosts cinn, and ok st hosts ga tech, and georgia host byu, and ore hosts mich st, and va tech hosts pitt. with these first ten matches, we will certainly see a 'first round' of the contenders.

this also eliminates the arguement of " well they don't play anybody [of stature]".

this pits equals against equals, and gets right to the crux of the situation. and still leaves all the bowls in tact.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com