Mike Elko is as right as ham on rye, if it matters at all. Which it doesn't.
This is because saying out loud what is self-evident doesn't make it less self-evident. And what Texas A&M's football coach said the other day at the SEC spring meetings was as self-evident as it gets.
What he said was, essentially, is that everyone in college football these days is in it for themselves.
"I don't know why you ask us," he replied in response to a reporter's question about the Power 4's latest harebrained idea, which is a 24-team playoff. "It doesn't matter what we think. I don't know why we're trying to become a trophy sport. What does Mike Elko want? 40 (teams). Then I won't get fired.
"None of us are answering for the good of the sport. We're answering for the good of ourselves."
Well, sure. The 24-team proposal being pushed hardest by Big Ten commissioner Tony Petitti is because, essentially, the Power 4 conferences need cash to pay their worker bees, who've become as mercenary as their coaches and universities. More Power 4 teams in the playoff would mean deepen the revenue stream. And, yes, it would help Coach hang onto his job because, by golly, he made the playoff even if he only went 8-4 or 9-3.
With the glaring exception of the SEC -- which, let's face it, doesn't need anyone's help now that it's swallowed up half the Big 12 -- the other Power 4s are slowly coming around to Petitti's hard sell. That it's a profoundly stupid idea that finishes blowing up what once made college football great matters not at all.
For example: One of the arguments advanced by the pro-24 crowd is that it would compel teams to schedule more marquee opponents instead of Lower Eastern Murgatroyd Tech. This makes absolutely zero sense, of course; if anything, teams would be compelled to schedule more Lower Eastern Murgatroyd Techs in order to get to the magic playoff threshold, which with a 24-team playoff would go from 10 or 11 wins to eight or nine.
Also: If everything becomes about making the playoffs (and getting one's hands on all that lovely green stuff), what happens to the lifeblood of the sport -- i.e., the traditional rivalries that have given college football a historical texture the Sunday version can't match?
"That's silly, Mr. Blob," you're saying now. "Alabama-Auburn will always be Alabama-Auburn. Michigan-Ohio State will always be Michigan-Ohio State. Army-Navy will always be Army-Navy."
The latter I'll give you, because Army-Navy is unique among rivalries. But the rest of 'em?
If making the playoffs becomes the Alpha and Omega of college football, what of them? Alabama and Auburn might still despise one another, but what happens if they both wind up playing one another in the playoff? Will the rivalry game still be THE RIVALRY GAME, or will it merely be a warmup act?
At least now those end-of-season rivalries sometimes have the added spice of a possible playoff berth; last year, for instance, Michigan needed to beat Ohio State to have a shot at getting in. In a 24-team field, the Wolverines would have already had a berth nailed down. With the prospect of playing Ohio State again down the road.
Dilutes the hell out of The Game, the name Michigan-Ohio State swiped from Yale-Harvard. Because bragging rights would be postponed until later.
Me?
I'd rather just keep watching Army-Navy every December. Stubborn coot that I am.