The folks at SI were kind enough to send me a copy of their coffee table book (available here), and my roommates and I came away pretty impressed.  Its huge, meaning that there are a cavalcade of great college football photos to flip through between the All-Decade teams and great essays on a lot of different things relating to the sport.  There's one particular photo of Brady Quinn scoring the go-ahead touchdown against Southern Cal in 2005 we considered getting blown up, but realized that would bring up a lot of "Oh, you won that game?" questions from guests, putting us all into weeping heaps of nostalgic heartbreak on the floor.  As you get ready for the stretch run of the season and then bowl games, it's a great conversation piece to have around for the holidays.

Dave Sabino, one of the main editors of the book, was kind enough to answer a few questions for me and to apply the copious amounts of research he did to some good, old-fashioned quizzing.

1) I think the clearest difference between college football fans - beyond what color face paint they wear on Saturday - is whether or not they support a playoff in lieu of the current end-of-season disaster that befalls us every December.  What are your thoughts on how to crown a champion, and is that even possible?

I've been a proponent of a 12-team postseason-with conference champions plus wildcards making a playoff playing in the current Bowl Venues-for a long time, but since there's so much money involved in the current Bowl System, I can't imagine it having much of a chance, unless the networks throw their support behind it.

2) How important do you think some of the traditional powers (the Irish, Crimson Tide, Nittany Lions, Longhorns, Sooners) fielding competitive teams is to the overall quality and interest in any given college football season?

It's important since those are the basis for many non-affiliated fans interest. You see it in every sport. Baseball needs the Yankees, Red Sox, Cubs and Dodgers to thrive. The NBA is worse off when the Lakers and Celtics are poor. Same for the Cowboys, Steelers, Bears who all attract national fans. Not to say that the other schools don't matter, but Texas vs. Oklahoma or USC vs. Notre Dame simply have more appeal to the casual fan than Virginia Tech vs. Texas Tech. Of course that's not to say that schools like Texas Tech don't deserve to thrive too. You just have to earn your stripes to be considered a traditional powerhouse.

3) Flipping through The College Football Book, there are a ton of memorable moments and games.  What game is most memorable for you after years of watching football, and more specifically, are there any Notre Dame games that stick out as particularly memorable.

I did a lot of research on great games and Notre Dame was everywhere. From the earliest days of Gus Dorais passing to Knute Rockne at West Point in 1913 to the Catholics vs. the Convicts in 1988, the Fighting Irish are part of the fiber of college football. My personal favorites include Vince Young vs. USC in the 2006 Rose Bowl and Miami vs. Nebraska in the 1984 Orange Bowl.

4) You're allowed to go back and give the Heisman trophy to any player from any season that didn't initially win it.  What year is Doc Brown taking you to, and who is getting the hardware?

I'd have to take away Gino Torretta's Heisman and give it to runner-up Marshall Faulk. Torretta's Hurricanes were a defense-first team featuring a ton of NFL players like Micheal Barrow, Jessie Armstead and Warren Sapp. Playing at San Diego State, Faulk didn't get the attention he deserved in the East and therefore didn't win.

5) Finally, do you like the current track that college football seems to be on, where teams with one or two losses are making the championship game due to parity setting in, or do you prefer two undefeated goliaths set apart from the pack meeting in early January?

Personally I like the recent parity because it stresses the need for a playoff system. When championships are won on paper (or on a computer) something's wrong. The only way it's going to change is for there to be some form of outrage from the public which will then be heard by advertisers and networks.