Congratulations to Claaaas!

: )

Now on to ripping up your points!  (joke!)

1. The idea that small, underfunded schools sometimes upset large powerhouses is trying to make the exception the rule.
2. I think I am the marathon runner here.  The Giants paced themselves, losing to some teams earlier in the season but using those games to learn from and slowly accumulating advantages.  Perhaps the Pats shouldn't have shown so much (by trying to win the last regular season game, which meant nothing).  Had the Pats tried to focus on the SB, instead of a perfect season, they wouldn't have shown so much in the final regular season game.  The Giants used pacing to not "race" through the season like a hare, but to plod onwards like a tortiose.  They learned from each of there losses and used the knowledge to beat each of those teams in the playoffs.  If the Pats had known the SB was a marathon and not a race, they would have had gas in the tank at the end.
3. Again, I'm not claiming the NYGs are the best or better team, so point 3 is pretty much moot.  What I AM saying is that one team seemed to focus on being undefeated (despite their statements), while the other focused on the SB.  The Pats didn't rest their starters in games they were winning by 40 pt margins.  They also went for it on 4th down when leading by 40 points (in the fourth quarter).  They risked injury and risked giving other teams more film to study.  They also played the final game of the season to WIN, not to prepare for the SB.  I think that made them look good in terms of "games won", but if the goal was to win the SB they were pretty foolish.
4. Determining winners by computer calculations and votes?  That can't possibly be the best way to determine a winner, can it?  But to your point, it most certainly IS determined by a computer (though not a super one).  The software (the program of which is not available to the public or to the football programs) calculates votes, rankings, poitns spreads, etc.  I may be over simplistic here, but just give me some games determined by wins.  Your point about divisional games is countered by the fact that the teams now qualify for a tournament where everyone must win on their own merits, and the higher seeded teams are compensated by byes, homefield, and playing lower seeds.  Why is it that every year sports analysts pull out their hair when a college team is "robbed" of a bowl appearence, but you never hear complaints about NFL teams being robbed from a championship appearence (unless it is a raiders fans crying about blown calls).  I hold it is because the NFL decides the season on the field, while college teams are at the whim of voters and a silly computation system.
5. What you call primal I call a fundemental, deep rooted sense of fairness.  People inherently know fairness when they see it, and unfairness to.  Fairness is certainly a tradition.  Let's face it, the bowl system is an appeal to money - sponsorships by companies that want to advertise their own bowl.
6. You might take another look at the British Army, which won convincing victories during the same time period "overextended" in places like India and the African continent.  But your point is that my analogy is not topical because of concerns about supply lines or hostile ground.  With respect, that wasn't how I used my analogy at all.  In the context I used it in, I was clearly not making a point about "homefield advantage".  I was making the point that an army, a team, or an individual can lose most of their battles, games, or matches and still win because very few contests are decided by the number of wins, but the "key" wins.  Let me provide some examples:

• Does the better team always win the BCS?  No.
• Does the better team always win the championships in baseball, hockey, or basketball? No.
• Does the better military always win a military engagement?  No.  (We can look at the US Civil War instead of the Revolution too.  The lesser equipped Confederate military was better lead and walked all over the Union for most of the war.  They still lost.)
• Does the better guy always get the girl?  It happened in Spiderman 2, but it doesn't always turn out that way.

Bottom line, I think we don't disagree on which team was better over the course of the year.  But I used to coach track too, and the winner was never "who led most of the race" but who crossed the finish line at the end in first place.  That applied to sprint and distance both.  I also coached wrestling, where a kid leading in points could still get pinned and lose the match.  In chess a kid could have less pieces on the board and still find a mating pattern.  To me, letting an opponent pile up tactical victories is fine if the strategic goal of winning is what my side is focused on.  

And right now I'd rather be in the Giants shoes celebrating the SB victory than be in NE's shoes saying, "But we were better."