In the BCS system of college football an incentive is given to score as many points in 4 quarters as possible. People complain about this. They believe that in the old system, the object was to win the game by a comfortable margin (unless maybe you were playing an "evil" rival, in which case you were justified in obliterating them to your satisfaction). I did some reading, and I think that in the old system the teams also needed to win by a huge scoring margin. It made a difference in the pre-BCS days ('94):
Helen Wasiakowski of Sweet Valley, Pa., notes, "If only        good sportsmanship were a factor in determining the BCS standings."        Sadly, it's the other way around -- college polls penalize        sportsmanship. Christopher D'Lauro of Boulder, Colo., notes that        going into the final regular-season game of the 1994 season, Penn State        was ranked No.1. In that final game, the Nittany Lions held a        three-touchdown lead over Indiana in the fourth quarter; Paterno brought        in his subs to make sure everyone got on the field during the season.        (There are many on Division I teams who never actually play, and Joe Pa        was concerned about his players in this category.) The result of        clearing the bench was that Penn State won "only" 35-29. Pollsters        sneered at the final score and elevated Nebraska to No. 1. Penn State        went on to win the Rose Bowl,  but Nebraska got the national championship because Paterno made the        colossal blunder of being a good sport.
link
The BCS has other incentives for teams also: rewarding defensive achievement, rewarding stronger schedules, etc. It's not perfect, of course. I live in the Mountain West Conference. I believe the feeling is one of BCS-exlusion, although I can see how it's a bit reasonable.
In any case, running up the score is an issue beyond the BCS.