I guess I don't see why you think that's elitist. It's simply a recognition that the member institutions of the Big Ten and Pac-10 don't play for any "national title;" they play to win the Rose Bowl. The same could be said of an SEC team and the Sugar Bowl; Big 12 and the Orange Bowl; etc.
Football is competition. Competition is about being the best. If you don't care who the best is why even keep score.
Sure, and that question is answered, at least for the Big Ten and the Pac-10, on January 1 in the Rose Bowl. That's what you play for. There's no difference in what you're saying and saying that the NBA Championship is inadequate because it doesn't allow for global competition, thus it is impossible to say that the NBA Champion is the "best." As you pointed out, why bother playing if, at the end of the day, the NBA does not determine who's best?
The answer to that, of course, is that we simply don't care whether the Spurs could beat some European team. The NBA folks play their games and at the end of the day, they call one team the champ. Sort of how the Big Ten and Pac-10 play their games, play the Rose Bowl, and call one team a champ. It doesn't matter that the SEC also plays football and has the Sugar Bowl. That's great for them, but it doesn't affect the world of the Big Ten.
I suspect that part of your beef is that Pitt doesn't have a real, traditional conference tie-in for a bowl game, but that doesn't have to be the case; start your own bowl. It worked out pretty well for the WAC.
There's every difference in the world. The NBA is the best basketball on the planet because they draw the best basketball players from all over the world and pay them the highest salaries.
The Big 10 and the PAC 10 are 2 out of about 10 conferences, they're arguably not even the best 2 conferences.
BTW, Pitt is in the Big East which is a BCS conference.
Look, its been pleasant talking w/ you but you're arguments really don't measure up.