The best argument for keeping the bowl system as is; the Buffalo Bulls.

"All season long this team has played every play with great effort and tonight was another great example of that," said head coach Turner Gill. "I am so proud to be a part of this team and this University. These players have accomplished something very special for themselves and this University."

Sure, if Florida ever went to the International Bowl, heads would roll down North-South Drive (Gale Lemerand Drive for you youngsters). But for Buffalo, who declined their only prior bowl invite rather than make their black players face Jim Crow laws in 1950s Orlando, their conference championship and bowl game is huge. Buffalo and Turner Gill are the perfect example of a school that is benefitted by the smaller bowl games.

The best argument against the current bowl system; the Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

The Fighting Irish (6-6) will face Hawai'i (7-6) in the seventh annual Sheraton Hawai'i Bowl on Dec. 24, the NCAA announced Sunday evening.

"We're very excited about heading out west to play in the Sheraton Hawai'i Bowl," head coach Charlie Weis said. "This is a great opportunity for our team to face a quality opponent in their backyard and we'll need to be ready."

Sure, if Florida ever went to the Hawaii Bowl, heads would roll down University Avenue. But for Notre Dame, this is a cushioned landing for the most inept and overrated coach in the history of American college and pro sports. Notre Dame is lucky that they will have a schematic advantage, as they have had all season. The only way Notre Dame benefits from the Hawaii Bowl is if Charlie Weis falls into a volcano.

Barack Obama has more important things to worry about, like his Senate seat being sold to the highest bidder. And Congress has better things to worry about, like if the domestic car industry will survive until the spring. But both have made statements this season advocating the creation of a college football playoff. We are now at the point where we have some real momentum towards a college playoff.

For traditionalists, I can only assume they look at this with the same disdain they looked at baseball's wild card, hybrid cars, boy shorts and the Blackberry. All of these things have been criticized, but all are now well received. That's not to say creating a playoff would end all arguments, it may do the opposite. In fact, the BCS worked this year, if you are a fan of college football's most popular conferences. But, the longer we continue with this system, the longer we open it up for chaos. We seem to agree that Utah cannot play with Alabama. But if they win, it's entirely possible they go undefeated next season too. Where would a 25-0 Utah, with five wins over BCS foes, go in the rankings?

Oklahoma took care of business against Missouri, but what if they didn't? I don't understand why Texas, who did not win their division, much less conference, would go in over USC or Penn State. Wouldn't two conference champions be more qualified than the Big 12 South runner-up?

If there was a playoff, even a four team playoff, you will have far more fairness than the current system. That's what this comes down to. The whole reason for a BCS or the previous Bowl Alliance and Bowl Coalition is to avoid the process of writers picking the best team based on personal preference rather than the results in January. Each system has come closer to making a perfect match of No. 1 vs. No. 2. Well, we now know that a perfect match is impossible.

It is not inevitable there will be a playoff in 10 years, even with a President-Elect who apparently has not made a poor decision yet. But, the BCS-supporters need to watch out. When there is something that can unite Democrats and Republicans, things can move pretty quickly. A playoff can be closer than you think.