Is money - and England - spoiling the county game?
There is a financial theme running through my ramblings this week.
Should the size of prize money, including the Champions League, mean we spectators should all take T20 more seriously?
So seriously that we take a view that last weekend's Edgbaston finals day was unacceptable and nothing more than a farce.
I for one, and the vast majority of Twitter followers, thought it was a great day.
Congratulations to Sally Brooks of the ECB and her team who appeared to do a very good job.
A running order was turned on its head and they got through, providing one of the best days of drama and sporting theatre you can find.
General sports programmes normally packed to the brim with football on Saturday felt compelled to cross over to Edgbaston.
Ben Stokes's explosive form for Durham this summer has been rewarded with an England call-up for the one-day and Twenty20 matches against India (Getty Images)
But a question remains. Were the players and clubs short-changed by truncated games and one-over eliminators?
One former international player, who in my opinion never writes or speaks an unreasonable word, told me it was unfair on players who had worked so hard to reach finals day for it all to end that way.
Clubs also invest quite heavily in players with the prospect of Champions League gold to come at the end of the season.
All of that I understand, but back in 2003, when the format first took off, this was about the watching spectators. It was about bringing new people into the game.
The fact there is now more money involved makes not a jot of difference to the paying spectator and therefore is perhaps not good enough reason to change.
I received very little support to my recent tweet, frustrated by England taking a second-string squad of players out of the Championship season in its final month to play a one-day game in Ireland. In fact I took a bit of abuse.
However, persuading people to take the County Championship seriously as a competition is not easy at the best of times and the scheduling of that match and the squad chosen makes it even more difficult.
Perhaps it is time to treat the domestic first-class game as a trial system for England and nothing else. It's something which would conveniently suit too many people including, so I'm told, some county chief executives.
One idea which came my way was that county clubs could receive points as well as financial compensation for every day of Championship cricket that they lost any player, other than those centrally contracted, to an England call-up.
Durham supporters, for example, who have lost Ben Stokes for the one-day series against India, would at least feel the time they give supporting their team is better appreciated.
The aim of a club should be two-fold; to provide both England players and try and win things. But it's becoming increasingly difficult to believe in the Championship as a competition such is the extreme disruption which has become worse this year.
We can't do anything about the weather, which can seriously effect the destiny of the title, but we can do something about rewarding clubs who are both the best in the country and providing England players.
Again that reward needs to go beyond money, something of which the paying spectator cares little for when watching and supporting their team.
Instead, if they were awarded points, these points would be earned - unlike the calls for points to be given to clubs who play on away pitches deemed 'unfit' or 'poor'.
What will be disapointing is if in the future the Championship-winning side proves to be the one which produces the fewest number of players for England.