Michigan Was in the top 25 until they lost to OSU. They were still in the top 25 after their opening loss to Appalachian State. I don't think any team should stay in the top 25 after week 1 unless they lose to another top 25 opponent. It's all about name recognition.
Read Below about Hawaii and how teams didn't want to play them. It's not their fault about their schedule.
ESPN - Schlabach: On (and off) the Mark - College Football
How would they be perceived if they were the team to beat Michigan in the opening game like they wanted. Or if MSU didn't pay them off so they wouldn't have to play them? Granted I'm assuming they win those games, but I've watched Hawaii play 3 or 4 times, and they look really good to me. At least when they have the ball.
As a fan, would you watch the Cyclones play in a playoff system, every game? Can't the bowl games be held at home? And the same bowls would definitely want to be a part of the playoff system just like they agreed to be a part of the BCS system that rotates who gets the National Championship. There is plenty of money to be made in a playoff system, if not more.
Michigan was also undefeated in the conference until two weeks ago. Their only loss besides appy state was to then-2nd ranked Oregon (who wasn't ranked to begin the year, and certainly isn't considered a "name" in college football).
My point is, I guess, that the rankings really don't matter until the end of the year. The top 5 or 10 teams will be the top 5 or 10 teams whether their name is Kansas or Alabama or USF or LSU. Name recognition doesn't win you games, and winning games is what gets you into the top 10.
I have seen Hawaii play a few time and have been much less than impressed. They really haven't played all that well on the road, and they've rocked some bad teams at home. Hawaii had the option to not get paid by MSU and play them, had they chosen. At the end of the day as far as Hawaii goes this year, HOW they got such a bad schedule isn't as important as the fact that it is such a bad schedule.
As an ISU fan of course I would watch all the playoff games. The odds of us ever even getting into the playoff are pretty slim, however. It's not like a playoff would automatically start including everyone in the top 25.
No, bowl games cannot be held at home. They wouldn't be bowl games, they'd be playoff games. There's a difference between a road game and a bowl game. That's why there isn't a bowl game in Ames or Iowa City every year.
If I could only afford to go to one away playoff game in the postseason, which one would I choose? The first one? What if we lose the first round and I had planned on going to the 2nd round? Would I save and go only to the championship game? How would I plan a trip on less than week's notice? Part of the reason that bowls are so successful is that you have almost a month to plan a trip to one. That's enough time to get reasonable airfare, hotel accommodation's, work and holiday plans altered, etc.
The main reason those bowls agreed to be part of the BCS system was because it ensured that they had good matchups if they lost their traditional team to the BCS championship game. In a playoff, unless they were the first round game, and hence the least relevant, they would have to worry about "recycled" teams, who's fanbase had already traveled to one game just a week or two prior. Repeat that for a third round game, and i suspect you'd end up with either an empty stadium for the NC game, or a stadium full of fans with an allegiance to neither team.
