Pete Fiutak thinks that Saturday's game should be dubbed the national championship:

Not only have Ohio State and Michigan had the two best teams all year, there isn't anyone else deserving to be in the picture. In the storied history of college football's greatest rivalry, and it is college football's greatest rivalry, this will be the biggest game ever played between the two. That makes this, arguably, the biggest regular season game in the history of the sport. So let this weekend be it. Crown the winner the national champion, and let's get the talk about the 2007 season going. USC, Florida or Arkansas as the preseason No. 1 ... discuss.

That's the way it looks to me. The national championship is mythical anyway, might as well do what makes sense. But of course, that wouldn't generate all the revenue that they're expecting in Glendale in January. And of course, it's easily conceivable that the computers will decide to do a rematch, anyway.

Wrong...Wrong...Wrong...
Football is not voted on... it's not a game of statistics that give you something to do while waiting for the next inning to begin. It is team battle. And as anyone from Texas A&M will tell you after last week it's all about preparation in the days before a game. There is no champion without play offs.

There isn't one with playoffs, either.

Mythical or not, it won't be decided in Glendale unless there's a really big earthquake in these parts between now and New Years.

Mythical or not, it won't be decided in Glendale unless there's a really big earthquake in these parts between now and New Years.

Am I missing something here? Where do you think the Fiesta Bowl will be played?

Biggest college football game in 2006. Of all time?... forget it. Last year, per the bozos at ESPN, it was Texas vs USC. The year before that, somebody else. And next year... it'll be some other game. Just wish ESPN would shut up about it.

Something I've often wondered about - Suppose there's a late-season game between the consensus #1 and #2 teams, at the #1 team's home field. Suppose #1 wins by a very close margin after a hard-fought game. Isn't that what the outcome should be? Number 1 barely edges number 2? In that case, why do the subsequent polls always drop #2 several places? Wouldn't you think that the rankings should stay exactly the same? With #2 only marginally inferior to #1, shouln't they remain as #2?

I think the confusion is because the Johnny-Come-Lately Bowl is being held in Glendale, AZ, not CA; the Rosebowl being in Pasadena, perhaps he thought you were mistaken about the location.

The National Championship in NCAA division I is determined by the AP poll and by the BCS. Aside from giving the Fiesta Bowl some kind of standing as a bowl game and increasing revenue, the BCS was supposed to ensure that the title wasn't split, as has happened on numerous occasions. That LSU and USC split these titles a few years back doesn't mean that there is "no championship".

I don't much like the BCS, but crowning a champion in the middle of the season is stupid idea. It's really stupid to suggest that end of the year winner be pre-season number one.

It looks like this will be a good game, but who knows how it will turn out? The USC-Oklahoma Orange Bowl was touted as a game for the ages... 55-19 USC; an outcome pleasing to Trojan fans, but not exactly a great game.

I like a good college football game--I happened to be on business travel last week and watched almost the whole the Rutgers/Louisville game while doing some work in my hotel room--something I almost never do, what with three kids and a wife who all could care less about college football. It was quite a game, and I'll bet it was a lot more exciting than the Ohio State/Michigan game is going to turn out. (Now that I've said that, it'll no doubt end on a two point conversion in the fourth overtime...) My sons have enjoyed it when we actually go to the UNM football games, but college football on TV doesn't inspire them.

However.

Sometimes I hate thinking about the BCS and the lack of a football playoff, because it leads me down the following mental road:

You can't really crown an indisputible champion without a playoff.

You have to make the playoff big enough to include all the teams that have a realistic shot at winning, say 8 teams. If you don't do this, there is still room for arguments about the "indisputible."

Would this make the regular season games less 'meaningful?'

Are the gazillion NBA regular season games 'meaningful?' It sure seems like the players care a lot more during the playoffs.

For that matter, isn't it all just a game? Is any particular sporting contest 'meaningful?' Is it really only 'meaningful' if you are vying for a championship? If that's the case, why are we playing so many unmeaningful games?

Speaking as my kids' soccer (and occasional basketball) coach and fan, I have to conclude that sports is not 'meaningful' because you have the chance to win an undisputed championship. It's a lot more about discipline, self control, teamwork, striving to meet your potential and going beyond what you thought possible in yourself, learning to win well and lose well, slogging on when it doesn't seem to be worth it, exercise, and fun. It's fun to win, but if it's not any fun if you lose sometimes, then it's probably not worth doing. If we're going to change the way we crown a "college football champion," let's do it and be happy. Let's not get too caught up in the cosmic signficance therein.