Pitt has four National Championships, they've had some of the all time greats play there; Marino, Ditka, Dorsett, etc. Shove that second tier crap where the sun don't shine pally.
They're not Ohio State only because they're in a major city and have to compete w/ the Steelers, the Penguins, and the Pirates. its not Columbus where OSU is the only game in town, or to take a more extreme example Ann Arbor.
Believe it or not college football extends beyond the Big 10, in fact, it extends beyond the SEC. This year, more than most, has proven that the talent in the NCAA is spread across a wide variety of schools. Those days when only a dozen schools determined the best team are long, oh so very long, GONE.
It sounds like you oppose a playoff because it will interfer in the illusion of big school hegemony and that's exactly what it will do. The farce that is the BCS, establish by and for the dozen or so programs you defend, has never been more exposed.
There will be no national champion this year or any year until they throw that abomination on the scrap heap.
Are you serious? Well, all right: Yale won 26 national championships in football. Should we consider Yale a "top tier" program? Pitt simply isn't in the discussion of top tier programs, period. You're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
Those days when only a dozen schools determined the best team are long, oh so very long, GONE.
You're part right and part wrong. On one hand, you're right that occasionally, a program now might have a couple of good years and become a contender to have an excellent season. This didn't happen as often in the past. But those programs are typically based on one or two recruits and flash out after a few years. Pitt, for instance, is a good example of this (Marino, Dorsett). BYU in the 80s (Young, McMahon, Detmer). Some second-tier schools have even managed to hang around for ten years or so (see, e.g., Miami), but they will eventually return to mediocrity. Only a few schools have the institutional power to be at the top level of football year after year. Look at the best teams in college football this year and look at the best teams 50 years ago. How many are the same? Oklahoma. Texas. LSU. Ohio State. From time to time, one of these great programs will dip a little, and maybe be replaced over a period of years, but the consistency at the top of college football has been remarkably consistent over the past 50 years. It will continue to be.
It sounds like you oppose a playoff because it will interfer in the illusion of big school hegemony and that's exactly what it will do.
I oppose a playoff for the primary reason that it's a dumb idea and simply doesn't add anything to college football. I don't really appreciate the BCS either, because it's a de facto playoff system that has caused more harm than good. I think the old system of college football was far superior: you win your conference, you play in your bowl game. You win your bowl game, you had a great season. What's so hard about that?
Just to be clear, the two primary programs that I mentioned were Michigan and Ohio State. The bowl coalition was established in 1992; the Big Ten and Pac-10 did not join until 1998. The Big Ten and the Pac-10 fought the Bowl Coalition from the very beginning because it interfered with the Rose Bowl, which is my precise point. The Big Ten and Pac-10 were saying exactly the same thing I've been saying: "Our conference champs play for the Rose Bowl. What do we need you for?"
Pitt’s glory days go back to the era when they were an independent like Penn State, Miami, Notre Dame, etc. I think Pitt in particular took a major step down in terms of its reputation when the Big East conference was created and went through some of that chaos and confusion when Boston College and Miami left a few years ago.