What's truly amazing to me is that all this boils down to is a problem with looking at history. Every single professional league that has gone to a playoff, just keeps expanding and expanding and expanding. I'm a baseball nut, but look at this this way:

Beginning-1969: There was the NL & AL and the winner of each league met in the World Series.

1969-1993: Each league was broken down into 2 divisions and a championship series was played within each league before the championship series winners met in the World Series

1995-Present: There are now 3 division with 1 wild card.

That's going from 2 to 4 to 8 teams in the playoffs and baseball has been the SLOWEST sport of any to go through changes considering how many purists there are.

Given how "PLAYOFFS CRAZY" the average american sports fan is, how long before a "PLUS 1" goes to a 4-team playoff? Or better yet how long before every BCS conference wants at least 1 person in the tournament giving at least 6, but since that's an odd number, how about 8 teams? Well now all of a sudden some subjectivity comes into play with teams #7 and #8 and don't forget your mid majors like Boise State last year or TCU, Hawaii or other teams like that who'll feel like they'll need another taste.

How long before it's 12 teams with 4 teams getting a first round bye? Wait a minute! How can we discriminate against different conference champions? We need at least 6 1st round byes so need at least 20 more teams in the playoffs keep it all even and working out.

And it's not just sports. For goodness sakes, look at the federal government or ANY human resource department at a company. It's a slippery slope into hell is what it is.

And I supposed the proliferation of bowls to the point that over half of I-A teams are going to go to a bowl is good? After all, nothing embodies the grand tradition of college football like corporate-sponsored money grabs that put the #5 MAC team against the #7 C-USA team.

If you're going to be anti-playoffs that's fine; you've made very good points in that vein in the past. However, warning of playoff creep is not going to get you very far against those critical of bowls because that one solidly goes both ways.

And what's to say a longer playoff is bad? The larger the sample size of games, the more likely you are to have an accurate result.

We love your web site because it is the funniest site this side of Deadspin.com. No other site site save Deadspin can compare.

Your post on the expansion of the I-AA postseason brought gales of laughter around the office. You truly are a gifted comedic writer. Last year, 64 I-A schools competed in 32 bowls.

And you "complain" about soon 24 I-AA schools making the postseason. That's comedy gold, Jerry.

This post represents one of your better comedic efforts. A few of us nearly peed ourselves while reading your post.

We understand that you need to discuss other things besides the bowl system. Understand, though, your best comedic material comes from your "defense" of the bowl system.

Keep up the effort. By the way, a couple of the guys, wants to know if you write for Conan or Letterman. I am going with Kimmel.

This whole bowl expansion argument is nothing but a red herring. The obvious exception of the BCS title game aside, bowls don't impact the regular season the way a playoff would. If the bowls did, playoff proponents wouldn't be bitching about the current setup they way they do now, would they?

CFR isn't defending the bowls. He's defending the regular season.