His inclusion of Rutgers says that he is probably trolling, but I'll play along.

This statement is just wrong: "The nationalization of college football is geared towards the same end every other change in major sports over the last 15 years has been: chasing the NFL." The XFL and The AAF are chasing the NFL. College football is not. There is a real possiblilty that in the not-too-distant future college footall could exceed the NFL in media money. But that will never occur if they form the CFCL. The demographic/geographic makeup of college football is what allows them to squeeze the media companies for the big bucks. The current system will be become the P4. We agree on that. But I think he overlooks the value that comes from Alabama playing, not just Auburn and Georgia, but also Tennessee and Mississippi; from Ohio State playing Illinois and Iowa, in addition to Michigan. The NFL is "football." College football is waaaay more than that. We could point out that many of these traditional rivalries have disappeared through recent realignment. A few have, sadly, but most of them remain, and they stoke interest among alums everywhere.

This past NFL season, I watched two quarters of an NFL game. That's as much as I've seen of pro football in twenty years. (Very impressed with the passing accuracy of both quarterbacks, otherwise ... meh.) Unless you have a big bet on the game, I don't know why you would care who wins on Sunday.

Has the author considered which teams among the chosen twenty would be satisfied to take up a system that would, by mathematical certainty, add half a dozen losses to their record each season? Would they feel better about it because they were in the CFCL?

College football, and football in general, face some serious hurdles in the coming years. If they are lucky enough to solve the "concussion" controversy and dodge the "pay the players" scam, then they should definitely not try to become the NFL-Lite. It would be embarassing.