I remember watching that game for the first time and actually caring when Heupel was QB. Everyone made such a big deal about that game because OU was finally good again and it might’ve been 1 vs 2 or a top 5 matchup. I think the game is changing in a lot of good ways, but I think it can change while maintaining the uniqueness of what makes college football great.
It's wild to me that the game is still as regional as it is. Since the conferences were formed, professional sports have come on the scene (and their more national feel) and travel is much easier. The reason for them to exist, or at least exist in their current form, is less compelling than in the past.
I agree . I think it’s kind of a double edged sword. I want the game to be more national in some ways. For example, in a CFP model I want as many on campus games as possible. I’m also an advocate for a college football czar that oversees the entirety of the Power Football conferences (remains to be seen how many that is). I want scheduling consistency, scholarship consistency, practice hours,etc…I realize that’s a lot of moving parts, but I think it can be done . I also am in favor of regional common sense conferences. I don’t necessarily agree that UCLA should be traveling to College Park for a conference game. The same way I never understood the 49ers and Falcons being in the same NFC division . That part of me is old fashioned I guess.
Not sure how I feel about a college football czar. I know the decentralized nature of college sports can be odd and frustrating, but is there a professional sports commissioner, except maybe Adam Silver, who anybody thinks does a remotely good job? Selig/Manfred/Bettman/Goodell are despised by virtually every fan of those sports. A CFB czar would probably end up making a bunch of questionable decisions being one of the most vilified figures in sports, someone who you could project/blame all the sport's problems on.
