I go back and forth over which is the better recent observation.
On the one hand, I think it may be this:
These issues of scheduling 1-AA opponents and ridiculous numbers of home games deserve to be kicked upstairs to the NCAA, or would if the NCAA weren't so toothless and gun-shy. Member institutions' athletic directors have a vested interest in maximizing revenue at their institutions. At big schools, it means scheduling every home game possible. For what it's worth, Michigan clears a good $4 million from every home game. Appalachian State will also walk away with a guaranteed $400K, demonstrating that it's also in the best financial interests of a small school to take the paycheck and the pounding. It's a win-win from an AD's perspective, but the loser is college football. The NFL long ago recognized that selling the league as a whole was more important than any one team. Obviously, there are many ways in which the NFL model is incompatible with the college game, but the NCAA needs to recognize that real competition is integral to growing the brand. That isn't helped by 8-home-game seasons and 1-AA opponents. Simply capping the number of home games at seven would be a good start. In a better world, 1-A teams would be banned from putting 1-AA cannon fodder on the schedule, but - barring that - wins over 1-AA opponents shouldn't count for the BCS or towards bowl eligibility.
I also want a pony.
On the other hand, I also think it may be this:
[T]here ain't exactly a whole lot of difference between the RPI and math behind the BCS. . . .
Before you can "settle it on the field", as playoff advocates like to bray, you've got to pick who gets to show up in the first place. That's why I continue to argue that there are flaws in any playoff format that have to be addressed before anointing it as new and improved over the current state of affairs in D-1 football.
And the bigger you make that playoff field, the more you magnify the flaws.
Preach it, gentlemen!