Nope

I left this message at the playoff problem website:
This website is just more proof of how messed-up the current system is. Does *every* other NCAA sport operate in an "unfair" manner? Why not just do a 8 or 16 team playoff and include conference champs + a few wildcards? If you don't win your conference - then you can't really gripe.
With this current system - you'll have 3!! undefeated conference champions who'll have no more right to claim a shot at championship than 0-12 WKU. That's messed up. You should be very ashamed of this nonsense. It's so unfair to the players who'll never get another chance. Please change.

That's about as Orwellian as college football is capable of being, I think.

I'm thankful for Dr. Saturday and the fact that he exposed this (admittedly, pretty obvious and silly) sham.

Why would anyone in the BCS pr staff think this was a good idea. Admittedly, I am not a big playoff guy, esp. a 8 to 16 team playoff screams the path to hell is paved with good intentions. A play-in game for undefeateds is fine by me. If you lost, well, sorry, don't lose next time. But in sum, do I think this BCS is "fair", not really. But it is a system that generates the most cash, interest, etc. and a mega playoff is risky for the finances of the sport. Yeah, cf is different that all the other sports, it makes around 10X more than the next largest money generating sport, basketball, so why would the conference ever want to f with anything that is their sole bread and butter. Point these out, that money talks and "playoff bs" walks, you would get farther than to try to argue these vs this holistic "BCS is the ultimate system of all time!"

Except Kass, a playoff would generate even more money than the BCS does now. So that argument holds absolutely no sway.

Also, a quote from the playoffproblem website:
"At the beginning of every season, every team has an opportunity to earn a spot in a BCS Game, including the National Championship Game."
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. I love how the BCS blatantly lies about itself. Here's something to think about, for all of you who are "pro-BCS" how can you honestly say a playoff wouldn't be better, when the system you're supporting has to LIE about how it's fair just to 'make a point'?

playoffs first there are ten conf + independants so an 8 team playoff still is not fair. a 16 team playoff is is 3 games for the top two a 25% increase in the number of games they play now thats not really fair to ask players to increase the odds of getting hurt without doing anything for them they play so they can get pro careers and everytime a player walks on the field he is risking getting hurt. a 16 team playoff this year allows in a 8-3 navy, 8-3 troy, 9-2 temple, 9-2 houston, in and leaves 8-3 miami, 8-3 vt, 9-1 pitt, 10-2 penn state, 10-2 iowa, 9-2 ok state, 12-1 alabama (assuming fl beats them), and a 8-3 lsu sitting at home can somebody tell me how this would be better or fair in any way. the only FAIR way to decide a champion would be to split the div, 120 teams in one div would require to many games to ever be fair to everyone.

Paging Doctor Shill, paging Doctor Shill. Your honorarium (read: payoff) check from the BCS is waiting...
What a pathetic excuse for an argument. The BCS was an invention by self-serving backslappers who were desperate to avoid having their old boys' network broken up. The change from the old system to the BCS is like racism going from being overt (e.g. Ku Klux Klown robes on the streets) to subtle (refusing to rent to people, refusing to hire, refusing loans or doing business).
The only reason those in charge of the BCS ever set criteria for non-BCS teams to get in was because they never expected teams like Utah, Boise State, and TCU (among others) to be able to meet the criteria. If they had known that non-BCS teams would be kicking their a$$e$ regularly, they would never have been allowed to play. But now that the old boys' club teams are losing regularly, they can't be avoided in bowl games. So the BCS teams have resorted to something equally gutless: avoiding them in the regular season. Instead of playing Boise State, BCS teams signed on to play teams like Houston and Central Michigan instead, expecting to have easier opponents. How's that working out for you?
With BCS teams losing regularly to non-BCS teams, including losing games to I-AA teams, it's no longer about "low quality of the non-BCS teams", but rather the low quality of character among the BCS teams. The BCS has lost superiority on the field, being barely better than the other five conferences, and is now desperately grasping at straws to pretend that hasn't happened. If they don't, they'll lose the ability to hoard money as they've done in the past, and smaller schools will be able to get a bigger cut on merit.
Any attempt to defend the BCS is as much a joke as was the claim that a playoff would hurt players academically. (A 10 game regular seasons and 4 round playoff means only two teams play 14 games, the same as the SEC and Big 12 champions play now.) The only thing that is being protected here is money and the undeserved and oversized chunk that BCS conferences and teams are hoarding.
The last thing the "big six" want is for the non-BCS teams to legitimately win games in the regular season or bowl games, never mind a playoff. To paraphrase an old World War II saying, how are they gonna keep the non-BCS teams down on the farm once they've seen the lights of the Fiesta Bowl?

What a lame ass web page... Blatant PR campaign to keep thier jobs and protect the big schools broken system.
Non-confrence games are a joke now days anyway. No one in the top 4 rated teams played anyone of note for thier non-confrence games. Cincy played oregon state and boise played oregon. I think we can safely say we can get rid of non-confrence games and tack on a 16 team play-off at the end of the season. If you think it can't be done... simply look at AA football for a clue on how.

post #10 A after reading your post i assume you were not alive before the bcs because the bcs was formed to clean up the old bowl system where #1 in the polls was more likly to end up in a bowl vs #8 then # 2 before the bcs #1 almost never played #2, now as for you ranting about how the mid-majors beat up on big six teams this year the mid majors are 19-96 vs big six does not sound llike a whole lot of beating going on there to me. now your coment about the bcs only set the critia so a mid-major could get in was they never expected a mid major to make it there you are just plain wrong mid-majors were given an automatic bid that gives them an edge over big six teams it was an attempt to level the field and ensure a mid major got a big payday. now as for you playoff how do you chose the teams that DESERVE to be in that playoff do you really think a 8-3 troy belongs in a playoff while 10-2 penn state or 12-1 alabama should be left at home and that is not even getting into you wanting to cut 120 games off the regular season to play a 16 team playoff some of you playoff people really need to look at the whole problem before you cry for change

@ genius man
So you have proof of that? Or am I just supposed to believe that on faith. Not to mention that you are crazy if you think the regular season isn't helped by the current system. Playoff, while probably more fair, is a riskier payoff. May be better, may be worse. Why f with something that is generating huge cash?
So it is actually your point that holds no water.

I am under the understanding (I could be mistaken) that the Big East's continuation as a BCS conference has been called into some doubt the next time they sign whatever they sign to keep the BCS.
I was wondering, would the NCAA dangle a potential BCS berth in front of the Mountain West Conference, just to shut them up for a few years?
To my understanding, the reason the NCAA wants to keep the BCS is pure $$$. They have events planned way out in advance, with mostly very big programs, that they can promote for a month ahead of time.
There's one and only one argument I've heard against a playoff that I personally think has a lot of merit: declaring a "National Champion" in college football is utterly futile. You have over 100 teams, who play just 12 or so games, with massive week-to-week and team-to-team disparities in talent and resources. A 4-team or 8-team playoff may be slightly better than the 2-team playoff system we have now at giving us a "true" champion, but statistically, it's a drop in the bucket as far as actually giving us a true champion. This thing isn't built to be a national field. Then again, telling a national sports network a major sport should be regional will probably illicit the same ears-covered "na-na-na-na-na" the NCAA gives the playoffphites.

#7 is a perfect answer to #6, but it points out a pattern of bad-faith arguments for the status quo.
"But it is a system that generates the most cash, interest, etc...."
The most meaning what? More than the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Championship? CBS pays half a billion a year to televise the championship of a sport whose inherent level of interest outside the half-dozen hotbeds is far behind football.
"... and a mega playoff is risky for the finances of the sport."
Because the Brinks truck might get hijacked? Because the bowls might try to cash the checks the NCAA would cut them and strain their backs carting those briefcases of hundreds around?
If you really think a cfb playoff is a risky business proposition, then I can imagine that you think investing in T-bonds is only for daredevils too.

to #14... that is why we have confrences.. essentually if you can't win your confrence. Your not in the playoff bracket. Sure a few second or 3rd place teams in confrences are going to get left out. But if they can't win thier confrence. Then too freaking bad. a 16 team playoff would easily accomidate 11 confrence champions and 5 wild cards. Is there going to be a team or two every year that gets left out that "might" should have been in. Ofcourse. But leaving out a 15-16 ranked team is a lot better than leaving out other undefeated teams in the top 5.