Baseball writers in the 1990s adopted a saying during incessant labor stoppages and steroid crises:
"The game is so good, even these idiots can't kill it."
College football today is like baseball in its messiest era, a sport so compelling and cinematic that the wrongheadedness of those who run it and the interminable nature of the games themselves can't dent its popularity.
After decades of denying the intelligence of a playoff, college football finally adopted one a few years ago. It worked so well they expanded it from two to four teams. In this case, more is better, and even more would be much better.
When college football loyalists defend the current system, remember that they defended each of the previous two systems.
And when ESPN runs a midday special to discuss this year's final four, making myriad arguments on behalf of myriad teams, recognize that the debates are necessary primarily because the current system excludes worthy teams.
No talking head, current head coach, former player or media member has any idea how to compare Washington and Clemson. The teams that can be logically compared — the top programs in the Big Ten, the best conference in the land — provided inconclusive results.
The chosen four of Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State and Washington excludes Penn State, which beat Ohio State and won the conference in which they play.