What's the Point? We've just had the greatest college football season that I can remember, a topsy-turvy, Screamin' Eagle of a thrill ride from Appalachian State's win over Michigan to Pitt's upset of West Virginia (and yes, Missouri's dismantling by Oklahoma). And so now it's time to settle into bowl season. And my reaction?

Eh.

Sort of that feeling you get from eating too big a holiday meal, and you just sit there and feel like you never want to eat that kind of food again.

BC-Schmess.

For all of the NCAA's trumpeting that the BCS was going to be the next best thing to having a playoff in college football, this year proves how flawed that system is. Actually, there's a word for it but my employers would rather I not use it in this forum.

I'm not nearly as rabid a Missouri fan as many I come in contact with, but boy do they have a gripe. If you're going to use the BCS rankings to determine who goes to the BCS bowls, then the top ten teams should go. Period. If not, then just blow up the BCS computer, say it was a nice try, and then move on to something that's not thinly disguised as a sham.

I understand that there is a rule that only two teams from any of the BCS power conferences can go (hence, Missouri's exclusion), with the reason being that those fat cat conferences can't load up their coffers with three and four shares of the pot. The rich getting richer, with the Boise States and Hawaiis from mid-major conferences only getting occasional slices of the pie.
But if the rankings say that it's a particularly strong year for the Big 12, for example, then let the system play out, and then dole out the extra share(s) to a charitable fund. Or perhaps a general scholarship fund for non-athletes---you know, a way to give back.

I know what you're thinking. What is the color of the sky in my world?

I understand it's a very naive thought, but why play out a season full of upsets, with one of those hoppers that pull the lottery numbers out (What do they call those things? Lottery number hoppers?) determining the rankings each week, only to have the computer's selections overwritten because of politics, money, and all those other things that aren't supposed to get in the way of amateur athletics. (Wink. Wink. Nudge. Nudge.)

I am really glad for Illinois and Kansas. But I should also be allowed to be happy for Mizzou.

Now, the Cotton Bowl is a fine game. National TV. New Year's Day (albeit at 10:30 in the morning. Truly New Year's Day.). A matchup against Heisman Trophy winner Darren McFadden and Arkansas that will be a great game. But all MU fans will have one thought in the backs of their minds, no matter how great a game, no matter how great the atmosphere, and no matter how great a party the Cotton Bowl committee throws:

Mizz-screwed.

In its purest form, the BCS rankings should take the human element out of this next month. Have the national championship game host rotate among the four major bowls like it does now, with the BCS championship site hosting the #9 vs. #10 teams in their bowl game the previous week. Another bowl hosts #7 vs. #8, another gets #5 vs. #6, and the fourth gets the #3 vs. #4 game. The bowls would then rotate the seeding of their games yearly. Neat. No muss. No fuss. Not even any hanging chad.

Or else don't do it.

The previous system didn't work, either, with the final polls determining the "mythical" national champions. You might have co-national champions, or a school from out of nowhere (see BYU, 1984) would only occasionally have a shot at being the champions. All the polls did was create arguments.

Arguments without the numbers to back it up.

Now you at least have both.

But it could be better. ¶ 1:30 PM