They had a good discussion on the Athletic college football podcast this week about whether it would be better to have a super league, and let the rest of the sport revert to their previous goals. Ideally, sure. But if that was the the case, the Group of 5 would already have their own playoff. But they'd rather let their best team play in a random bowl game against a P5 team who finished 3rd in their league, without all of their NFL talent. Appalachian State gave up winning FCS titles, to be in the Sun Belt. Setting a new line, just makes anyone below that line want to be above it.
Sure a Purdue can still upset an Ohio State, but it doesn't matter anymore. So that's where it hits me. I distinctly remember playing touch football in my backyard, and my dad yelling to us that Indiana was tied with Ohio State. We stopped the game, and watched it, due to the implications. We've removed a good deal of those implications. If Indiana beats OSU, OSU can still beat UM and PSU, reach the CCG, where they will likely win, and go to the CFP. The sport needs a 2 team title game, and meaningful bowl games, based upon merit, not sales.
Forcing people to care about bowl games is past. But if you tied bowl games to record, and then tied tangible benefits to both qualifying and winning bowl games, now you have something. Like qualifying for a better bowl gave you additional recruiting time, or scholarships, and then winning that game gave you even more? Now those games have a meaning. And if you are fine with bowls just being meaningless, then you are also fine with 99% of college football games being meaningless