Just to beat Skander to the punch....

[Joe Vancil]

...the BCS system SUCKS.

Florida won the National Championship game, and therefore, they're the national champion.

Boise State never lost, but they're not a factor.  That's just WRONG.

If you haven't lost, then either you should be the champion, or you should still be in the championship mix.  And in no way should a team that HAS lost be considered the National Champion in front of you.

That "moo"-ing you hear is the cash cow from the Bowl System that is holding back the chances of a Boise State.

Have I mentioned lately that I think we're running short on hamburger?

[westkoast]

I agree 100%

Seems like every couple of years the whole BCS system causes some sort of problem.  Just so happens that it always screws one team or another.  There has to be a way to re-work the system.

[rickortreat]

There is no way to determine a true collegiate national champion, without going to a playoff system. 

SO what?  Who cares except the crazed fans who follow their teams.  IT means nothing.

The real problem is that we're so concerned with sports, that we've forgotten it's just entertainment, and of little importance.

[Skandery]

The Bowl Championship Series is a big steaming pile of Horse SH*T.  Yes there is a very specific someone to blame why this unjust, corrupt, filthy, money-grubbing system is allowed to perpetuate this atrocity year after year after year.  Anyone with a keen sense of justice needs to pray for the downfall of the BCS.  I'm glad Florida beat (actually demolished) Ohio State which now makes this the 8th controversy in the 9 year history of the BCS.  Back to the specific a$$wipe who is responsible.  It is Jim Delaney, director of the Big 10 conference, (and former North Carolina basketball player under Dean Smith--sorry Joe the guy is still human scum) and his best friend Tom Hansomme, director of the PAC 10 working in cahoots to line their own pockets and that of the Presidents of the schools in these Power Conferences.  I just read an awesomely detailed article lining out the whole enchilada.  Here you go.
==============================================================================  
Playoff plunderer
 
By Josh Peter, Yahoo! Sports

 They shout on talk radio shows, write screeds on message boards and plead with the sports gods in a futile effort to be heard by the faceless Bowl Championship Series. They are the growing number of fans who want a college football playoff. They want it now, dammit. They want to know how to get it done. They want to know who the hell to call.

Lucky Jim Delany.

The madmen and mad women crying out for the death of the BCS may recognize Delany's name but probably wouldn't recognize his face. They likely have no idea he rose from humble beginnings, took over as commissioner of the Big Ten in 1989 and brokered deals that extended his influence far beyond the Midwest. Chances are they have no clue Delany, 58, has emerged as a man widely considered the most powerful figure in college sports and the biggest obstacle to a Division I-A football playoff.

BCS haters may decide Delany is public enemy No. 1. But inside the corridors of college athletics, he is respected, envied and, in some cases, feared.

Delany, according to one colleague, can exhibit "Doberman-like aggressiveness." With a bite to match his bark, he further has enriched the wealthiest conferences and cemented the BCS system that has drawn the ire from two of the most powerful men in his own conference – Penn State football coach Joe Paterno and Michigan football coach Lloyd Carr.

But as he has done with the public outcry, Delany largely has ignored the coaches' call for a playoff. He readily admits a playoff could be good for Division I-A football at large but quickly adds, "I don't work for college football at large."

From Big Ten headquarters in Chicago, Delany presides over a college sports monarchy. The Big Ten is the nation's biggest conference, a collection of 11 universities that covers an area with almost 25 percent of the nation's TV households and prompts television networks to genuflect. When Delany arrived at ESPN's headquarters in Bristol, Conn., this year, employees wore buttons that proclaimed "Bristol is Big Ten Country."

Despite the royal treatment, Delany dismisses talk that he is the king of college athletics. But at times one would think he wore a crown.

Earlier this year, for example, when Notre Dame's athletic director and the commissioner of the Sun Belt conference devised a plan to modify the BCS, the two men immediately took the idea to Delany.

"If you're going to make it work, you've got to get Jim to sign on to it," said Wright Waters, commissioner of the Sun Belt conference.

That's one reason playoff advocates have ventured to Big Ten headquarters and trotted out plan after plan, all of which Delany has sacked. Never mind that a playoff is used to determine the football champion in Division I-AA, Division II and Division III, not to mention every other sport sanctioned by the NCAA. Never mind that the president of the University of Florida has vowed to press the issue with his colleagues. Or that commissioners from the other major conferences now say they're open to the idea of a playoff as it gains traction faster than Adrian Peterson accelerating off tackle.

Disregarding the howls for change could test Delany's power. For now, he stands positioned to battle not only the likes of Paterno and Carr but also the force of public will.

Polls show more than 50 percent of college football fans favor a playoff. Those percentages figure to spike now that undefeated Ohio State will play in the BCS title game against one-loss Florida rather than Boise State, which improved to 13-0 after its remarkable, highlight-heavy victory over Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl.

Eventually the consumer will get what he demands, Delany said. But he cites TV ratings and attendance figures as evidence that the consumer has yet to truly demand change.

Defending his assertion, Delany said revenue from college football has grown to $900 million from $200 million since 1990; average attendance for Big Ten games has increased to 71,000 from 58,000 over that same period; and the rising TV ratings and sponsorship dollars suggest the game is as healthy as ever.

"There's probably more of an outcry than there was 15 years ago for something different. I don't disagree with that," Delany said during a recent interview in Chicago. "But what I've also seen simultaneously is the growth in interest in the BCS and the regular season.

"If the public walks away from our games during the regular season and walks away from television during the regular season and walks away from the bowls, they're saying, We won't support this anymore. We want something else.' But I don't see them walking away from anything."

MONEY MATTERS

There's no sign Delany will walk away from a very lucrative position.

Studies indicate the slightest step toward a playoff – seeding the teams in four BCS bowl games and pitting the two top-rated teams emerging from those games in the national championship – could generate another $50 million. But with a new system, Delany and the commissioners of the other BCS conferences could lose control of the knife that guarantees them a huge slice of the financial pie.

The so-called BCS conferences – which include the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC – outnumber the less powerful conferences six to five. Thanks to that slim majority, the six conferences grant themselves automatic bids to the five BCS bowls and this year will take in more than three-quarters of the estimated $120 million the BCS will generate.

The annual yield since has widened the financial gap between the haves and have-nots, and since the formation of the BCS eight years ago, no conference has benefited more than the conference Delany runs. He appears determined to protect the Big Ten's economic interests even if it means preserving a flawed system.

The NCAA can do nothing about it either. The organizing body for college sports controls the men's basketball tournament and the billions of dollars that come with it because 31 conferences compete in Division I basketball. Furthermore, CBS has agreed to a $6 billion, 11-year contract for the TV rights not just to air games between teams in the BCS conferences, but for a tournament that features the likes of George Mason, Gonzaga and other giant-killers and spurs millions of fans to try to match the glass slipper with the next Cinderella while filling out their 65-team brackets.

Despite Boise State's electrifying victory over Oklahoma, college football fans seem less consumed with upsets than showdowns between the traditional powers. That has enabled the six biggest conferences to form the BCS, control about 80 percent of the postseason money and perhaps prompt Delany to declare last year that the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl would abandon its BCS partners if they took even the slightest step toward a playoff.

That sentiment has frustrated the likes of DeLoss Dodds, athletic director at the University of Texas who fought for a playoff for 10 years. He finally abandoned his efforts in part because of Delany. Dodds said it became increasingly clear that the alliance of the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl would block his efforts or any others to implement the playoff.

Of course without Delany, there might not even be a BCS.

ROSE-COLORED VIEW

They needed Delany, who played a lead role in bringing the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl into the system designed to match the nation's two top-rated teams in a national championship game. He also was the man most responsible for securing a sweetheart deal for the Rose Bowl, which annually pitted the Big Ten and Pac-10 champions and, under most circumstances, still gets the winners from those two conferences.

"He's pretty darn good," Mitch Dorger, CEO of the Rose Bowl, said of Delany's negotiating skills.

The current BCS deal stipulates the following:

The Rose Bowl automatically gains one of the four spots in the BCS rotation. The other bowls – Fiesta, Orange and Sugar – must pay $6 million a year for that same right.

The Rose Bowl retains its traditional broadcast slot on New Year's Day afternoon, which allows Rose Bowl officials to package the game with the annual Tournament of Roses parade. The other bowls must rotate broadcast time slots, disrupting New Year's Day festivities traditionally held in conjunction with their games.

The Rose Bowl TV contract is negotiated separately from the rest of the BCS contract, which gives the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl valuable leverage if they oppose a move by the other BCS partners such as the adoption of a playoff.

"It's a matter of independence and control is what it is," Delany said when asked about the advantage of the separate TV contracts. But the Sun Belt's Waters said he sees potential conflicts of interest.

In the last round of TV negotiations, for example, Delany helped secure the Rose Bowl an eight-year deal with ABC reportedly worth about $300 million.

According to a source involved in the negotiations, the deal is worth $3 million less a year anytime the Rose Bowl hosts a non-BCS team such as Boise State. But that's a non-issue after Delany ensured as part of the new four-year contract between the BCS partners the Rose Bowl won't have to host such a team.

TALKING TV

After the Rose Bowl signed its deal with ABC, concerns lingered because the rest of the BCS package remained unsold. Conference commissioners worried the separate Rose Bowl contract would dilute the value of the other BCS bowls – the Orange, Fiesta, Sugar and BCS title game – especially if ABC remained the only bidder.

But during an exclusive negotiating period between ABC and the BCS, Delany visited Fox's offices in New York and told network executives that ABC was no shoo-in for the deal, according to a source familiar with the visit. When ABC made what the commissioners felt was an inadequate offer for the rest of the BCS package, and when the exclusive negotiating period expired, there was Fox, agreeing to a four-year deal reportedly worth $320 million that a source involved in the talks said far exceeded ABC's offer.

Kevin Weiberg, commissioner of the Big 12, said the BCS didn't need Delany's help to draw Fox into negotiations. But there's no denying Delany's strong relationships.

Because Disney owns ABC and ESPN, the same executives who signed off on the Rose Bowl contract signed off this year on ESPN's $100 million deal to broadcast Big Ten football and basketball games. Fox, which for the next four years owns the broadcast rights to every BCS game except the Rose Bowl and the title game that will be held in conjunction with the Rose Bowl in 2010, bought 49 percent ownership of the Big Ten Network set to launch next year.

Disney and Fox – the two companies helping enrich Delany's conference – could view the Big Ten commissioner as an important ally. After all, the future rights to the BCS could spark a fierce bidding war if Delany & Co. agree to any form of a playoff. While cynics might think Delany is extracting extra money for the Big Ten from networks that could benefit from his influence in future BCS negotiations, Waters said, "Welcome to the world of Jim Delany."

A POTRAIT OF POWER

Like the BCS, Delany ignites controversy. His friends describe him as brilliant, creative, principled and persuasive. His foes describe him as shrewd, smug, long-winded and arrogant.

It's easy to find Delany critics, like the one who sniped, "He's almost as smart as he thinks he is," or another who cracked, "Jim's a legend in his own mind." But it's almost impossible to find critics willing to take shots in plain view, supposedly for fear of reprisal.

Those who fear Delany's power point to Rick Bay.

In 2001, when Bay was athletic director at San Diego State and in position for a spot on the NCAA men's basketball selection committee, Delany formed a coalition that killed Bay's candidacy. Bay, in addition to being an ardent critic of the BCS, also happened to be athletic director at Minnesota in 1991 when Penn State joined the Big Ten and Bay criticized Delany for the way in which it was handled.

After Delany's power play in 2001, Bay accused the Big Ten commissioner of retaliating against Bay for the anti-BCS remarks. In the end, Delany looked like the BCS beast crushing a harmless gnat.

"It probably does smack of that," Delany said. "But I thought Rick was affected emotionally about the way Penn State was [brought into the Big Ten], and I thought Rick was very furious also about the exclusion on the BCS side. I don't think Rick could disconnect me or the Big Ten from his analysis of our value in any other event, and that was my position."

Countered Bay during a recent interview: "That I would be biased against BCS schools impugned my integrity and was about as far from the truth as anyone could be. But I think it demonstrated how small Jim could be in some circumstances when challenged."

Delany drew more derision when it became clear that southern schools were cashing in on the rising popularity of the College World Series. The Big Ten commissioner cried foul.

Complaining that the Big Ten schools and schools from the north faced an unfair advantage because of the cold climate, he pushed for the college baseball season to start in March. That meant the College World Series might drag into July, and one fellow commissioner urged Delany to ask the Big Ten baseball coaches what they thought about parts of the plan.

"I don't even know the names of our baseball coaches," Delany replied, according to two commissioners who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

He certainly knows the names of the Big Ten's presidents, and their spouses, and quite possibly their children, and perhaps even their pet dogs, cats and goldfish. Conference commissioners might rule college athletics, but their power source stems from the college presidents. Few commissioners have gained as much influence over the men and women in the ivory towers as Delany has – and at times he has done it at risk of alienating the powerful men in the football towers.

HOW HE GOT HERE

Those men in the football towers, such as Michigan's Bo Schembechler, weren't sure what to make of Delany when the Big Ten hired him as its commissioner in 1989. He was only 41, but he was a rising star with an intriguing resume.

Delany played basketball for Dean Smith at the University of North Carolina. He was a scrappy guard on two Final Four teams and a captain on the 1970 squad. He never earned much playing time in Chapel Hill, but he did earn a law degree. He spent a year as counsel for the North Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee, a year as staff attorney for the North Carolina Justice Department and four years cracking down on rule breakers as an investigator for the NCAA Enforcement Staff.

From there it was off to the Ohio Valley Conference and into the spotlight.

He convinced the OVC presidents to pay ESPN for airtime when the network agreed to broadcast games as long as they tipped off at midnight. (Students showed up in pajamas and the OVC showed up on the national radar.) He convinced power brokers he deserved a spot on the prestigious men's basketball selection committee. And in 1989, having become the first commissioner of a mid-major conference to serve as chairman of the men's basketball selection committee, he convinced Big Ten presidents he was ready for the big time.

Then he became the most despised man in Big Ten athletics.

Shortly after Delany's hiring, Penn State initiated talks to join the Big Ten. Working on behalf of the presidents, Delany kept the talks top secret. In fact, he kept the talks so secret that most of the Big Ten athletic directors (including Bay), coaches and faculty members learned about Penn State's joining the conference when they read it in the newspaper.
 
They were furious.

Since then, Delany has repaired many of the damaged relationships. But as he said during the turmoil that followed Penn State's addition to the Big Ten and has repeated since, "I work for the presidents, and I work with everyone else."

If the presidents trusted him, Delany realized, they would empower him. And so it happened.

Delany enriched the conference, driving annual revenue to more than $100 million a year, a triple-fold gain since his arrival. He protected the conference's image as an academic leader, spearheading NCAA legislation that penalizes athletic programs with chronically low graduation rates. And when he and former SEC commissioner Roy Kramer forged the Bowl Championship Series eight years ago, Delany reasserted the Big Ten's place as a big dog in college sports.

Of course, the runts tried to chase him off the porch.

[Skandery]

The rest of the article is was too big. 
===============================================================================
THE BCS BACKLASH

A group of presidents representing the non-BCS schools threatened legal action against the Big Ten and other power conferences for restricting access to the BCS. Congress called for special hearings. And there was Delany, sitting before the Committee on House Energy and Commerce, extolling the virtues of the BCS and decrying the ills of a proposed playoff.

Yet during a recent interview, Delany softened his views. He may have had no choice.

Henry Bienen, president of Northwestern University, told Yahoo! Sports that Delany actually favored a playoff-type system that Delany decried in 2005, but that the Big Ten commissioner hadn't built a strong consensus among the Big Ten presidents needed to approve it. In that system, the so-called Plus-One model, the two top-rated teams that emerged after the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl were played would advance to a national championship game.

This year, such a model could have created an opportunity for Boise State to play for the national championship. Yet at the time of his congressional testimony, Delany warned the model would lead to a full-blown playoff and declared the Big Ten would abandon its BCS partners if they adopted such a system.

"There probably was a level of poker or posturing on it," Delany said of those threats.

It was a startling admission, but not the only one.

Asked about the rampant cynicism over arguments against a playoff, he said, "I think some of the arguments that have been advanced against the playoffs have not been credible. The academic effect, it's just not a credible argument. I haven't advanced it, but it's been out there."

In Delany's congressional testimony, he devoted ample time explaining why the bowl system, as opposed to a playoff, was more consistent with the academic missions of Big Ten universities. Presidents allegedly worried that a playoff would extend into the second semester and cause players to miss too much class time.

Without the benefit of a copy of the testimony, Delany recently added, "You could certainly create a playoff that didn't advance into the second semester. I could make an argument that a playoff has got better academic consequences."

Furthermore, Delany said, BCS advocates have failed to use their best argument: that the current postseason system maintains the value of the regular season. Forget the Big Ten's longstanding relationship with the Rose Bowl, or the tradition of the bowl system, or the other arguments to counter critics who contend power and money alone have driven the effort to preserve the BCS.

"There's no doubt in my mind that there's far more money out there than what we have," Delany said. "But there's also no doubt in my mind that there would be a huge sucking sound coming out of the regular season towards the postseason because I know, as a fact, that there is a consumer dollar, there is a marketing dollar, there is an advertising dollar and it's not an unlimited dollar.

"It's a migratory dollar. And the dollar tends to follow those areas of those elements of a competitive season that are most attractive. And right now what I would say is that we're at some sort of equilibrium of a bowl system and a championship game on the one hand. There's some gravitas from an economic perspective, from a public interest perspective in the regular season. I see there being a balance."

Others see a huge imbalance. The importance of the regular season drives up fees networks pay for the TV rights to regular-season games, and conferences like the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 sign multimillion dollar deals while the Western Athletic Conference, Mountain West Conference and other non-BCS conferences fight for table scraps.

By Delany's reasoning, increased playoff money that would be shared by all conferences would reduce the non-shared revenue from regular-season TV deals. And that's a big concern.

Citing estimates that the BCS would generate 30 percent more money if it adopted the Plus-One model, Delany said the risk doing so outweighs the potential reward. At least for now.

"I would guess someday there would be a playoff," he said. "Someday."

But for those who expect Delany to cave in to public pressure anytime soon, he cites an important aspect of the latest contract he helped broker between the Rose Bowl and ABC that officially begins this year.

"We have an eight-year agreement with ABC in the Rose Bowl," he said. "So that speaks for itself."

That will give Delany, the Pac-10 and the Rose Bowl leverage to fight any move toward a playoff until 2014.

Until then, Delany sounds braced for the battle against Paterno, Carr, Florida's president and the growing public support for a college football playoff. It's a fight that might determine just how powerful Jim Delany is, and a fight he intends to win.

THE JIM DELANY FILE

Name: James Edward "Jim" Delany
Hometown: South Orange, N.J.

Family: Wife, Catherine; children, Newman, 17, and James Chancellor, 14.

College: University of North Carolina. Earned Bachelor of Arts degree in political science in 1970 and earned law degree in 1973.

Career experience: Investigator for NCAA enforcement staff, 1975-1979; commissioner for Ohio Valley Conference, 1979-1989; commissioner of the Big Ten, 1989-present.     

Notable: Helped negotiate $6 billion, 11-year contract with CBS for the rights to the NCAA men's basketball tournament; oversaw Penn State's inclusion into the Big Ten, triggering conference expansion around the country; has served as vice president of the USA Basketball executive committee.

Source: Big Ten Conference website   

WHAT THEY'RE SAYING ABOUT DELANY  

"He's a good Jersey schoolyard basketball player. Just tough as nails and knows his stuff. … You give him a bully pulpit and he's formidable.'' – Tom Yeager, commissioner of the Colonial Conference and a former NCAA investigator with Delany.

"In my humble view, Jim Delany is clearly the most powerful figure in college athletics.'' – Kevin White, Notre Dame athletic director

"Jim's very influential and the Big Ten is influential. And I think if they decided a playoff was the right thing, they would be very, very persuasive.'' – Dick Schultz, former NCAA executive director

"I can guarantee you that any proposal Jim brought forward would get every consideration from the presidents.'' – John Wiley, Chancellor at the University of Wisconsin

"I would not want to sit across the table in a negotiation with him. My white flag would be out soon.'' – Terry Denbow, vice president of university relations at Michigan State

"When he takes the side of an issue, he's smart enough to know that he's going to be on the winning side.'' – Karl Benson, commissioner of the Western Athletic Conference

"Don't be totally shocked if in a year or two or three Delany and these people reverse field and they said we've decided to bow to the public and do the playoff. If the money is there.'' – Murray Sperber, former English professor at the Indiana University and a notorious critic of the ills in college sports

"With Mr. Delany, I have the distinct impression that he really approaches his position much more from the point of view of a politician rather than the other people in the industry.'' – Ellen Staurowsky, chair of the sports management and media graduate program at Ithaca College

"It's tied to money, power and control.'' – Cedric Dempsey, former NCAA executive director, on why there isn't a playoff in Division I-A football

MORE HISTORY: http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfootball/

BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES HISTORY
 
Since its formation in 1998, the Bowl Championship Series has produced an annual matchup between the top two teams as determined by its own rankings system and also produced plenty of controversy. Here's a look at what's gone wrong, and what's gone right, through the years.

1998: Let the complaining begin. Undefeated Tennessee played undefeated Florida State for the BCS title, and Tennessee prevailed 23-16. Tulane, of Conference USA, finished the regular season 11-0 and didn't qualify for any of the four BCS games. Tulane ended up in the Liberty Bowl, where it beat BYU, and linebacker Brian Timmons said after the game: "We feel in our hearts we are the true national champions." More likely, they felt left out.

1999: More squawking from the little guys. It was hard to argue with the BCS title game that pitted undefeated Florida State and undefeated Virginia Tech. But Marshall, of the Mid-American Conference, finished the regular season 12-0 on a the team that featured future NFL quarterback Chad Pennington yet got shut out of all four BCS games. Marshall played in the Motor City Bowl and remained undefeated after beating BYU.

2000: Oklahoma was a lock for the BCS title game after finishing the regular season unbeaten. The controversy flared over which team deserved a shot against the Sooners. Florida State, Miami or Washington? All three teams had just one loss. Further complicating the matter, Miami had beaten Florida State during the regular season but lost to Washington. Yet Florida State finished No. 2 in the BCS rankings, then lost to the Sooners in the title game.

2001: Miami marched into the BCS title game with an 11-0 record, but Nebraska stumbled there. The Cornhuskers entered their regular-season finale unbeaten, then suffered a 62-36 shellacking against Colorado. Yet Nebraska still finished No. 2 in the BCS rankings, edging out 10-1 Oregon. Then Miami stomped Nebraska in the title game while in the Fiesta Bowl, Oregon beat Colorado – the same team that had just crushed Nebraska. Go figure.

2002: At last, a controversy-free postseason: 13-0 Ohio State played 12-0 Miami in the championship game. Better yet, the two teams produced a classic, with Ohio State winning 31-24 in double overtime.

2003: "LSU won the national championship by beating Oklahoma …" reads the BCS site. Oh, yeah? Trying telling that to Southern California. USC, Oklahoma and LSU all finished the regular season with one loss, but the Trojans ended up No. 3 in the BCS rankings. They also ended up No. 1 in the final regular-season Associated Press poll and stayed there after beating Michigan in the Rose Bowl to claim a share of the national championship that brought further embarrassment to the BCS.

2004: Auburn's time to carp. The Tigers, along with Oklahoma and Southern California, finished the season undefeated. But USC and Oklahoma finished 1-2 in the BCS rankings. That relegated Auburn to the Sugar Bowl, where it beat Virginia Tech. At least the Tigers could commiserate with Utah fans. Unbeaten Utah became the first team outside the six power conferences to qualify for the BCS and pounded Pittsburgh 35-7 in the Fiesta Bowl – but, like unbeaten Auburn, never got a shot at the title.

2005: Too much excitement over the title game to moan about the BCS. Unbeaten USC and unbeaten Texas played a thriller that Texas clinched in the final minute. Notably, the six power conferences agreed to open access to schools from the other Division I-A conferences and eventually decided on a fifth BCS bowl.

2006: Unbeaten Boise State, the second team outside the six power conferences to crash the BCS party, stunned Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. "We went 13-0 and beat everyone on our schedule," Boise State quarterback Jared Zabransky said after the 43-42 overtime victory. "We deserve a chance at the national title." Sorry, Jared. Florida, 12-1 but No. 2 in the final BCS rankings, will play 13-0 Ohio State in the national championship game.

[Skandery]

The following are two articles by Dan Wetzel that sort of supplement the huge one you've just read.  He goes a little more in depth about the Rose Bowl and how boycotting it is the only way a college football fan can force change and in the other article talks about his proposal for a playoff system.

===============================================================================
The perfect plan
 
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports

GLENDALE, Ariz. – As perfect as the January weather is here, as perfect as the sunset over the craggy mountains can be, as perfect as a sun-baked afternoon around the pool feels to the fans of Ohio State and Florida who have flocked here for a post-holidays holiday, this still isn't perfect.

It could be, of course, if only Monday's Bowl Championship Series title game was the conclusion of a 16-team college football tournament that could rival the NFL playoffs and Super Bowl as the biggest, grandest and richest sporting event in America.

The reasons why this is not close to happening, no matter the overwhelming wishes of fans, players and coaches, are well-documented elsewhere in this Yahoo! Sports report.

Despite its unlikelihood, the ideal solution is worth a perfect dream. Here's how it should be set up.
 
A 16-team field. Just like Division I-AA, a tournament would feature four rounds with teams seeded one through 16. Just like the wildly popular and profitable NCAA men's basketball tournament, champions of all 11 conferences earn an automatic bid to the field.

While no one would argue that the winner of the Sun Belt (this year, Troy) is one of the top 16 teams in the country, there are multiple benefits of including champions of low-level leagues.

First, it brings true Cinderellas into the mix. And while the likelihood of a 16th-seeded Troy beating No. 1 Ohio State in Columbus is remote, the men's basketball tournament has proven the mere possibility (or even a close game) draws in casual fans by the millions.

Allowing annual access to the tournament – a celebration itself on small campuses – would encourage investment in the sport at all levels, and that would improve quality throughout. Suddenly, there would be a reason for teams in the Sun Belt to care.

The inclusion of weaker teams – essentially three to four teams with little chance at winning – rewards the top seeds with virtual bye games. That maintains the integrity and importance of the regular season because everyone would want to get into the top four seeds.

At-large bids. In addition to the 11 automatic bids, there would be five at-large selections made by a basketball-like selection committee. This would ensure that in almost every season, 11 of the teams in the tournament would be high-major programs – the automatic bids from the six major leagues (ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC) and the five at-large teams which would in all likelihood come from those same conferences.

Now Michigan, which finished the regular season 11-1 with a lone loss at No. 1 Ohio State, would not only get a second chance at a national title but also a home game or two.

While the selection process still would draw complaints from the teams left out, those teams often would have two losses or significant flaws. Gone forever would be the days of an unbeaten Auburn not getting a chance.

This would guarantee that the tournament, despite the inclusion of smaller teams, still would be dominated by the heavyweight programs that are almost exclusively the best. In most years – when a Boise State isn't perfect – the seeds would play out so that Nos. 1 through 11 would be major teams and all home games would be in major stadiums. By the second weekend, it would be mostly, and rightfully, about the big boys.

Home games for the higher seed in the first three rounds. The most bizarre part of college football's current championship system is that the schools allow outside businesses – the people who own the bowl games – to get a cut of the revenue. It would be unfathomable for a league such as the NFL or NBA to allow independent promoters to stage its playoffs.

College football is leaving millions on the table by staging top games in far-off locales. Ohio State, for instance, earns an estimated $5 million-plus for each home game. And that is just direct revenue. Forbes estimates Buckeye football games generated $42 million for the Columbus area in 2005.

Since money talks in college football, the addition of the 14 hugely profitable home games that the first three rounds would create would be an enticing revenue stream. Also, with the competitive value of home field, this again maintains the importance of the regular season because the higher the seed, the more likely a team advances.

One of the flawed arguments of most projected playoffs is the inclusion of the current bowl games. But it would make no sense to stage multiple neutral site events since few fans would be able or willing to travel week after week. Moreover, it just would continue to line the pockets of business that have no rightful claim (except that is how it always has been) to college football.

Bowl games could still exist. One could serve as the championship game, giving college football its neutral, Super Bowl-style site to conclude the tournament. Whether it is here in suburban Phoenix or a rotation of other traditional bowls such as the Rose, Sugar and Orange doesn't matter.

As for all the other bowls, they can go on as they wish. There is value to the smaller bowls in smaller communities, and if the Sun Bowl in El Paso still wishes to stage a game, it by all means should. It just won't have selection access to the 16 tournament teams. But it doesn't have access to teams of that quality now. It still can host a meaningless game between two moderately successful schools. For most bowls, nothing changes.

The lack of 16 "bowl-qualified" teams would filter down, of course, and run as many as eight minor bowls out of business since there won't be enough bowl-eligible clubs.

But if the reason college football is not staging a playoff is the need to save the International Bowl in Toronto, then something is seriously wrong.

The schedule. While Division I-AA plays all four rounds in four weeks and stages the title game before Christmas, Division I-A might be better served playing the first one or two rounds in December, breaking for final exams and staging the semifinals just after Christmas and the title game in early January.

The schedule is a minimal concern. Something can be worked out. Whatever it is, it would allow teams and stars to become familiar to the American public, for momentum to build and excitement to grow.

If Boise State beating Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl proved that Cinderella can exist in college football, the fact that the underdog Broncos suddenly are the most popular team in the country but have no more games to play is proof that college football is leaving so much on the table.

Right now, more fans would probably rather watch the razzle dazzle of Boise State play one more game than watch the actual BCS title game even if both Florida and Ohio State probably are better teams.

It's just the latest example of a flawed system and why as great as things can seem out here in the desert with a great game approaching, college football still has so far to go to achieve perfection.

[Skandery]

Rose roadblock
 
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
January 5, 2007

GLENDALE, Ariz. – Joe Paterno called the most powerful man in college athletics and told him the Bowl Championship Series was a disaster.

"We need a playoff system," he said to Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany.

Delany respectfully dismissed the demands of Penn State's legendary coach, claiming there wasn't enough support among school presidents for such a major overhaul.

Paterno would have none of it. Like many, he believes Delany leads the Big Ten presidents, not the other way around. If Delany made the case, Paterno believed, a playoff would be in place within a decade and college football's fatal flaw would disappear.
 
"[Paterno] basically takes the position, like a lot of people would, 'Look, [there isn't the support] because that's [not] where you're leading them,' " Delany said.

But when the conversation ended, Delany went back to building and protecting the Big Ten's business, which, until the market forces change, does not include the need for the playoff that fans, players and, indeed, even the oldest school of octogenarian coaches desperately want.

So, if Joe Paterno can't get Delany to do anything, neither can you, the average frustrated fan who can't fathom why Boise State doesn't get to play again, that six computer formulas and erratic poll voters determine the championship-game matchup and that what is fine for the NCAA's lower divisions isn't OK for the one everyone actually cares about.

If you are so inclined to take on an activist role, the solution is simple – boycott the Rose Bowl.

The Granddaddy of Them All? Ignore it. Don't attend it, don't talk about it and certainly, especially if you happen to have a Nielsen ratings book, don't watch it on television.

As slow, unexciting and passive as it sounds, that is about the only thing the average fan can do.

If there is one thing that is standing in the way of a full-fledged college football playoff from taking place, it is the market strength of the bowl game that Delany's Big Ten and his allies in the Pac-10 control.

As long as the Rose Bowl generates more money than any other game – in part because of favorable business deals Delany negotiated for it – nothing is going to happen.

No matter how much you and Joe Paterno complain.

The Rose Bowl is the emergency exit for the Big Ten and Pac-10, the one that allows those two conferences to block movement toward a playoff because they can back out of the plan and return to the old days when their champions met in Pasadena and made millions.

In the current BCS deal, Delany secured valuable concessions for the Pasadena, Calif.-based bowl.


The waiving of a $6 million BCS entry fee.


A separate and extremely rich (eight years, $300 million) television deal with ABC. All other BCS games – Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, Orange Bowl and BCS championship game – are broadcast on Fox.


Favored status in the team selection process that encourages the Big Ten vs. Pac-10 matchup that features the kind of tradition-rich, major-market powerhouses, such as this year's Rose Bowl participants Southern California and Michigan, that almost ensure high television ratings.


An escape from ever having to select a non-BCS conference team such as Boise State, which despite its Fiesta Bowl heroics this year is a potential ratings and revenue risk for a bowl game.


Exclusivity to the coveted late afternoon New Year's Day time slot.

"It's a matter of independence and control," Delany said.

It is a deal that every other bowl game, and every other conference, would die to have because it generates additional money, prestige and, most importantly, power. Delany is well aware that a playoff would generate a bigger revenue pie for his league to feast on, but it also would require him to give up the knife that cuts the slices.

Delany admits the most common arguments against a playoff – including ones he expounded in front of Congress – such as academics, scheduling and increased demand on student athletes are not legitimate. "The academic effect," he said, "it's just not a credible argument."

This is solely about business.

In essence, the Big Ten and the Pac-10 dictate the postseason plans of all of college football because of the business of the Rose Bowl.

Delany and the Pac-10's Tom Hansen are the only two conference commissioners currently completely opposed to not just a playoff but also any movement in that direction (the often discussed Plus-One model).

Barring a well-organized and well-disciplined movement by the other nine conferences and independent Notre Dame, there is no breaking through that roadblock.

Unless, of course, the Rose Bowl wasn't such a big deal anymore. Unless there was a grassroots effort to kill the ratings, drain the revenue and weaken the base of strength against a championship tournament.

It certainly wouldn't happen overnight, but at this point, it may be the only plan that ever will work.

College football is big business run by cold, calculating businessmen. Money and television ratings are the only things that talk.

Louder, even, than Joe Paterno.

[Reality]

Nice exposes on the B.S.c.

How nice was the ending to the Okla-Boise State game?
That BSU coach knows how to gamble on the playcalling.
Altho i still say the 4th and 18 flea flicker was an amatuer response by Okla.

[westkoast]

There is no way to determine a true collegiate national champion, without going to a playoff system. 

SO what?  Who cares except the crazed fans who follow their teams.  IT means nothing.

The real problem is that we're so concerned with sports, that we've forgotten it's just entertainment, and of little importance.

Then they should goto a playoff system.  I don't see why not.  People ache for playoff-type bowl games.  We have the Costco Bowl, the El Polo Loco Bowl, the Toilet Bowl....it is not like people won't tune into more games.

[ziggy]

I disagree on this whole national championship tourney.  I don't believe it will make college football better.  Here are a few reasons why.

1.)  There will be FEWER big time non-conference games, like Ohio State vs Texas, USC vs Arkansas, LSU vs Cal etc.  This year like most years there is at least one 1 loss team playing for the title.  To be able to get #1 or #2 you have to prove you are worthy, and you do that by playing a tough non-conference schedule.  If you only have to be 1 of 16 why take the risk of losing when you have a great shot of making the final 16, by NOT playing tough non-conference games?  The point is to win the National Championship, and you can't do that if you don't get in the tournament, so why take any unnecessary risks.  Don't believe me, look at what Nebraska use to do before the BCS came along.  They were focused on getting the Big 12 title, and going undefeated, so they played cupcakes every year.  When was the last time Nebraska played a team like USC out of conference???  The BCS has made these big non-conference games happen more often.

2.)  You now make the Conference Championship games (ACC, SEC, Big 12) unnecessary.  Why risk it?  Without a conference championship games both teams are virtually assured of getting in, so why take the risk and have one of those 2 not make it?  Once again fewer big time regular season games.
 
3.)  You do not eliminate the bickering for who gets in, it just moves down the list. 

4.)  Instead of 1 team from the mid-majors every other year making a BCS Bowl (there have actually only been 2 Utah and Boise State) you might get 1 every year and that is it, MAX.  With 16 teams, you will get 2 from each of the Big 6 (12), one independent (ND) (13), 2 third place teams from the Big 6 (15) and then maybe 1 mid-major.  Don't believe me, look at how it would have gone this year.

SEC
Florida
Auburn
Arkansas
LSU
 
ACC
Wake Forest
 
Big Ten
Ohio State
Michigan
Wisconsin
 
Big 12
Oklahoma
Texas
 
Pac 10
USC
Cal
 
Big East
Louisville
West Virginia
 
Independent
Notre Dame
 
Mid-Major
Boise State
 
That is 16 teams.  Which Big 6 conference team of the 15 above does not get in, and which mid-major gets in their place?  See #6 below.

So in 15 bowl games (30 team games, or said another way 30 game payouts), the Big 6 get payouts on every single game, and probably would get 28-29 of all the game payouts, or about 95% of the money.

5.)  Mid-Majors will no longer have the mid-level and lower tier bowls to play in.  The mid-majors this year will earn in the range of about $25 to $30 million in bowl payouts, PLUS Boise States $16 million.  In the future they will get one team and they will lose in the first round most of the time, so they will get at most $10 million.  In the once every 3 or 4 years when they win, they will then maybe get an extra $12-14 million for a round 2 game.  In any case the mid-majors will get much less money than now.

6.)  At best there will be 2 mid-major teams in the Big 16 bracket, so you will always have 4 to 5 conference champs who will go nowhere, even though they won their conference.  So what to do??? 

Well these conference champions could get to play in some bowl game (GMAC, Armed Forces Bowl, Emerald Bowl, Las Vegas Bowl, Weedeater Bowl).  Consider the success of the NIT compared to the NCAA tournament, and tell me that these bowls will have any relevance and that they will last more than a couple of years.  So in short no money for the mid-majors.

Ok we will have all the conference champions get automatic bids like they do in basketball (with 65 teams, while college football is 16).  OK that means that we will have
ACC - Wake Forest
Big Ten - OSU
Big East - Louisville
Big 12 - Oklahoma
Pac 10 - USC
SEC - Florida

Plus
Conference USA - Houston
Mid American - Central Michigan
Mountain West - BYU
Sun Belt - Middle Tennessee or Troy State
WAC - Boise State

That is 11 teams, so 5 more are open.  So which 5 of these do you choose
Auburn (10-2)
Arkansas (10-2 before SEC title game)
LSU (10-2)
Michigan (11-1)
Wisconsin (11-1)
Texas  (9-3)
Cal (9-3)
West Virgina (10-2)
Notre Dame (10-2)
Come on now people make the tough choice, who do you kick off this list, and now get ready for some serious howling about how the ssytem is totally unfair, and we are not getting the best teams playing for a title.

7.)  Games like Boise State's would be quickly fade into history as a great but unimportant game.  They would play Oklahoma first round, then they now have to face probably Ohio State.  The probability they win again is very very low, so they end on a down note, and people focus on all the other games.  They are forgotten.  Don't believe me, name me one mid-major last second upset of a big time team in the NCAA basketball tournament for the entire decade of the 90's.  At best you might be able to remember 1 a decade, and even then it is now just considered a non-descript game, because the underdog ended up getting beaten later in the tourney so they really don't matter.
The Bowl system made a game like Boise State more probable.

8.)  Now I am probably the only person on this board who has ever watched a Boise State game, outside of this years Fiesta Bowl.  I have watched them play probably 3-4 times in the last couple of years.  I am sure I am the only person who knows where their QB is from (Hermiston Oregon).  I would suspect I am the only person here who knows anyone who has ever gone to Boise State.  I would also suspect that I am probably the only person here who has ever been to Boise (maybe Randy or Jomal).  I was rooting for BSU because they are a NW team, and I am really glad they won.  Fact of the matter though is that Boise did not deserve to play for the National Championship, and the notion that the BCS kept that from happening is utter poppycock.  Every other one of the top 16 teams that I mentioned above played a far tougher schedule.  Does anyone believe that if those teams had played this schedule that nearly everyone of them would have gone undefeated?

Sacramento State
Oregon State
Wyoming
Hawaii
Utah
Louisiana Tech
New Mexico State
Idaho
Fresno State
San Jose State
Utah State
Nevada

9.)  Now save the blah blah blah about how never know, maybe Boise could have puilled it off and made the final 2.  Ok when is the last time a team from outside the Big Six won the NCAA basketball tournament?  In the last 15 years, how many teams from outside the Big Six have actually played in the championship game?  How many have made the final 4?
It would be far tougher to do it in football than in basketball, and it seldom if ever happen in basketball, so it would be nearly never in college football

10.)  No more Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, as well as Cotton Bowl, Gator Bowl, Peach Bowl, Holiday Bowl.  I am sorry but the idea of just throwing these games, with all their support and tradition, out the window I think cheapens college football.

[Reality]

zig,
the And One compromise proposal seems to be reachable amoung both the Greedoids and the True #1 seekers.

One game after all the bowls if clearcut #1 is not left standing.
Now, how many teams will play that One Game, i don't know.  Because that would just keep the can open if its a year that several teams have claim to #1.

Honestly most years, if the top 4 were allowed to play out that would solve it.
Except that would be And Two games.

I give up.
And One would be an improvement for sure.
This year it would be Florida vs Boise State.

[Joe Vancil]

Wow.  I couldn't disagree more, Ziggy.

1)  Fewer big-time non-conference games.

     Given that my proposal is to make the conference champions the participants of the tournament, non-conference games don't work against you.  In fact, if you can win them, they work BIG TIME in your favor *IF* you lose your conference.  Besides - you're going to have to go through the tough teams in the tournament if you want to be the champion.  Either you prepare against teams like that, or you're quickly going to be toast come tournament time.

2)  Conference Championship games unnecessary.  

     Couldn't disagree more.  Only one team from your conference is guaranteed a spot.  The rest have to fend for themselves against the competition.  If you're playing a cupcake schedule, and don't even go up against your own conference champion, why would you be selected to the tournament?  Heck - mandate having a conference champion to allow access to ANY team from the conference to the tournament.  No Big 12 Champion?  No Big 12 representatives.

3)  Doesn't stop the bickering - just moves it to the less relevant.

Agreed - which is what SHOULD happen.  We don't argue whether or not a team that missed the NCAA basketball tournament is worthy of being the national champion - we argue whether or not they should have had AN OPPORTUNITY as opposed to some other team.  As it stands in football - as of today, I recognize a national champion that lost, while a team that never lost never had the opportunity to even get to the championship game.  The current argument isn't about opportunity for something irrelevant - it's about opportunity for AN UNDEFEATED TEAM.  There's no question that a Boise State should or shouldn't be in the tournament...obviously, they should.

4)  Not enough mid-majors.

Disagreed, because I won't follow this format.  See 6 below.

5)  Mid-majors no longer have mid-level and lower tier bowls to play in.

Mid-majors are already getting screwed.  After all - they've just had an undefeated team, and it's not playing for a national championship.  Why would you, as a graduating high-school athlete, go to a mid-major college, knowing that you've got no opportunity to play for a national championship?  Now, assuming you *ARE* a talented player, if a Boise State creates a tradition of excellence, and *IS* competing for a National Championship, aren't you more willing to consider them?

The mid-level and lower tier bowls will have MORE TALENT available to them.  Instead of going to Oklahoma and being the third running back, you can go to Troy University, and have a shot at the National Championship, while being the FEATURE running back.  If you don't make the tournament, there's still the bowls.  Oklahoma is thinned out, and the mid-majors have more talent - making for BETTER BOWL GAMES.

6.  Taking the second solution you proposed, you've got a list that includes 9 teams - meaning 4 get left out.  Those four ALL have losses, ALL lost their conference.  Take whichever 5 you want.  It's not like the remaining 4 can complain.  They *HAD* their chance - in their conference.  They blew it.  How is that less fair than not giving a chance to a team who *DIDN'T* blow it in any form or fashion this year (Boise State)?

Yes, Conference champions get an automatic berth.  No undefeated team gets left out for the potential of winning the whole thing.

7.  Boise State's game would fade into history as irrelevant.

And the reason that it isn't going to is because of what?  The fact that they went undefeated, but didn't win the National Championship?  The reason their game is relevant now - IF IT IS, which I'd dispute - is because people believe that Boise State is getting robbed.  That's like saying, "The robbery is only memorable because a murder was committed during its course," and failing to recognize that robbery alone is still a crime.

And my argument is that Boise State's game is *STILL* irrelevant.  What were they playing for, exactly?  Their win was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.  It did not impact the top-level standings in any form or fashion.

8.  Boise State played a cupcake schedule.  Wouldn't everyone else go undefeated?

Boise State played a cupcake schedule...but won every game, including the game against the NON-cupcake.  Either they're good enough to beat good teams, and will in the tournament, or they're not, and they won't.  If they're pretenders, then I want to see them exposed.  If they're good enough to beat the top-level teams when the National Championship is on the line, then I say reward them.

They're in the conference they're in.  Yes, they won a weak conference.  But they *WON* the conference.

9.  Underdogs don't win big in basketball - they won't in football, either.

As I recall, last year, Pittsburgh, the lowest seed, won the SuperBowl.  A few years ago, in pro basketball, Detroit, the representative from the LEASTern conference beat the heck out of the Lakers.  New York knocked off Miami in 1999, and went to the NBA finals as an 8 seed.  #6 Houston won the NBA championship in 1995.

Sports teaches us that the possible *IS* possible.  Look at your own statement:  "it seldom if ever happen in basketball, so it would be nearly never in college football."  Even you leave open the possibility.  Only a greed-based system like the current bowl system keeps the possible from being possible.

10)  Death of the Bowls and the tradition behind them.

"The Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, as well as Cotton Bowl, Gator Bowl, Peach Bowl, Holiday Bowl."

Don't you mean the Rose Bowl presented by Citi, the Fed-Ex Orange Bowl, the AllState Sugar Bowl, the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, as well as the AT&T Cotton Bowl, the Toyota Gator Bowl, the Chick-Fil-A Bowl, and the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl?

Given that last year, it was the Nokia Sugar Bowl and the Chick-Fil-A Peach Bowl, I think we're already well on the way of tossing out "tradition."  Unless, of course, we're going to consider such "traditions" as specific advertisers at the Super Bowl.

I don't consider blatant commercialism "tradition."  If I did, I'd have to start making stops at McDonald's every year when they bring out "Monopoly."  After all, it's a tradition.

I can't agree with you on this one, Ziggy.  Part of the reason we compete is to see just how far we can go.  Either re-divide Division 1, or give all the participants a fighting chance at the start of the year.

[Wolverine]

Just wanted to say that you wouldn't have to kill the major bowls.  I've said this for YEARS, and believe it is still entirely plausible:

The MAJOR bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, ect) would be a part of the tournament!  Think about it.  Prior to this year's creation of the new BCS National Championship Game, the title contest had rotated between the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta on a yearly basis!

So in a tournament, the major bowl games host the tournament quarters, semis and title game.

Jeez ... not that hard.

[rickortreat]

8.  Boise State played a cupcake schedule.  Wouldn't everyone else go undefeated?

Boise State played a cupcake schedule...but won every game, including the game against the NON-cupcake.  Either they're good enough to beat good teams, and will in the tournament, or they're not, and they won't.  If they're pretenders, then I want to see them exposed.  If they're good enough to beat the top-level teams when the National Championship is on the line, then I say reward them.

They're in the conference they're in.  Yes, they won a weak conference.  But they *WON* the conference.


What do you think Boise State would do if they had to play a Big Ten schedule?  Wisconsin and Michigan are better teams than Boise State, but get overlooked because they lost games beating each other up.

A team that gets through the Big Ten undefeated has to be a good team, even if they get whacked by Florida in the Championship.

Under the current system Boise State fans can cry they were robbed.  In a real playoff format they'd be exposed long before they got to a game that mattered.

It's the conferences that have destroyed College Football.  For years Penn State got screwed out of the national title decided between the winner of the Big Ten and The Pac Ten.  Penn State's price to get into the Rose Bowl, joining and winning the Big Ten.

But there's safety in numbers and guaranteed  quality opponents.  For a school like Indiana it's a big time in the town when Michigan or Penn State comes to play. There's a huge amount of money made internally by the conferences and the large schools.

Get rid of the conferences and then you could have a real national championship with every team getting paired up with another and you could eliminate the pretenders very quickly - but you could never get some of the schools dependent on the conferences to agree to that.

[ziggy]

Wow.  I couldn't disagree more, Ziggy.

1)  Fewer big-time non-conference games.

     Given that my proposal is to make the conference champions the participants of the tournament, non-conference games don't work against you.  In fact, if you can win them, they work BIG TIME in your favor *IF* you lose your conference.  Besides - you're going to have to go through the tough teams in the tournament if you want to be the champion.  Either you prepare against teams like that, or you're quickly going to be toast come tournament time.

I am not 100% in support of the BCS as it is set up, I would look to see some mods, but look at the situation today.  Florida got in over Michigan, because of their strength of schedule.  If USC had beat UCLA they would have gone because they played and beat Arkansas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame,  If you have only 2 slots available then you have to do something to stand out so you can get in to the final game.  
If you have more eligible teams then there is less incentive to play a tough schedule, and risk not getting into the final.  Say what you want about preparing yourself by playing good teams, BUT YOU CAN'T WIN IT IF YOU DON'T PLAY IN IT.  Don't talk about the NCAA BBall tourney, because 65 teams get in, and all the teams play 30 games, and you can lose 6-9 times and get in.  In football lose more than once under your proposal and you are out.  Play one tough conference game, and a cupcake non-conference game and you have a great shot of getting in, much better than someone who played a USC schedule and lost twice.

2)  Conference Championship games unnecessary.  

     Couldn't disagree more.  Only one team from your conference is guaranteed a spot.  The rest have to fend for themselves against the competition.  If you're playing a cupcake schedule, and don't even go up against your own conference champion, why would you be selected to the tournament?  Heck - mandate having a conference champion to allow access to ANY team from the conference to the tournament.  No Big 12 Champion?  No Big 12 representatives.

You can have a Conference Champ without a conference championship game.  You can determine that through tie breakers, head to head, and on and on.  Lets say you have a 12-0 team, and an 11-1 team.  The 12-0 team gets in, and there are still slots available, so the 11-1 gets in as well.  Play a Conference championship game and now you have a 13-0 team and an 11-2 team.  Good probability only 1 team gets in.  So how do you increase your odds of 2 teams in the tourney?  No Conf Champ game.

3)  Doesn't stop the bickering - just moves it to the less relevant.

Agreed - which is what SHOULD happen.  We don't argue whether or not a team that missed the NCAA basketball tournament is worthy of being the national champion - we argue whether or not they should have had AN OPPORTUNITY as opposed to some other team.  As it stands in football - as of today, I recognize a national champion that lost, while a team that never lost never had the opportunity to even get to the championship game.  The current argument isn't about opportunity for something irrelevant - it's about opportunity for AN UNDEFEATED TEAM.  There's no question that a Boise State should or shouldn't be in the tournament...obviously, they should.

Ok fine Joe, Boise State didn't get a chance to play for a title after going 13-0, while Florida did with one loss.  Can't argue that.  At the same time BSU knew what the standard was and they didn't play a tough enough schedule to get the opportunity, so who's fault is that?  It isn't the BCS it is Boise State's.  Your point is you want to be the magnanamous one, and assure that a team like BSU gets to play for a title, but you are willing to allow an obviously better team, who played a tougher schedule not to play for a championship.  This is where your argument above about playing tough non-conference games doesn't hold water.  INFERIOR TEAMS CAN GET IN BY PLAYING CUPCAKES, SO LETS PLAY CUPCAKES.  The difference between you and me is you want to convince the world that you are fair when you really aren't.  I am under no such illusion.

4)  Not enough mid-majors.

Disagreed, because I won't follow this format.  See 6 below.

5)  Mid-majors no longer have mid-level and lower tier bowls to play in.

Mid-majors are already getting screwed.  After all - they've just had an undefeated team, and it's not playing for a national championship.  Why would you, as a graduating high-school athlete, go to a mid-major college, knowing that you've got no opportunity to play for a national championship?  Now, assuming you *ARE* a talented player, if a Boise State creates a tradition of excellence, and *IS* competing for a National Championship, aren't you more willing to consider them?

The mid-level and lower tier bowls will have MORE TALENT available to them.  Instead of going to Oklahoma and being the third running back, you can go to Troy University, and have a shot at the National Championship, while being the FEATURE running back.  If you don't make the tournament, there's still the bowls.  Oklahoma is thinned out, and the mid-majors have more talent - making for BETTER BOWL GAMES.

Come on Joe.  You are a good talented HS stud.  You have the choice between USC and BSU, which do you choose today?  USC.  OK we switch to your playoff system, and in 5 years after we give BSU time to really take advantage of this and recruit big time talent, where do you go USC or BSU?  USC.  Why???  Because BSU will have got wiped off the field almost every year that is why.  So now have a chance to play for a title, but you really don't because you are not a national caliber team.  Nothing changes, EXCEPT now we have fewer good meaningful games against the best teams, you will now have more Troy State vs LSU, and BYU vs USC blowouts.  Are BSU, Troy, MTennS, CMichU, UNewMex going to now be able to afford new stadiums, new indoor practice facilities, lots of alumni money to build a great program?  Of course not.  Nothing will change, and we get fewer good games, and we will create a welfare state for the mid-majors to appease our own guilt at their being left out from a minisule chance to win a national title game once every decade.

6.  Taking the second solution you proposed, you've got a list that includes 9 teams - meaning 4 get left out.  Those four ALL have losses, ALL lost their conference.  Take whichever 5 you want.  It's not like the remaining 4 can complain.  They *HAD* their chance - in their conference.  They blew it.  How is that less fair than not giving a chance to a team who *DIDN'T* blow it in any form or fashion this year (Boise State)?

Yes, Conference champions get an automatic berth.  No undefeated team gets left out for the potential of winning the whole thing.

Play tough games you have a greater chance to lose, than if you play cupcakes almost every week.  That doesn't make the team that plays cupcakes better.  You don't get a better sport, you don't get better match ups.  You create a weakkneed liberal nanny state for the mid-majors which helps them with their self esteem, and they are still just as irrelavent as they are today.  

7.  Boise State's game would fade into history as irrelevant.

And the reason that it isn't going to is because of what?  The fact that they went undefeated, but didn't win the National Championship?  The reason their game is relevant now - IF IT IS, which I'd dispute - is because people believe that Boise State is getting robbed.  That's like saying, "The robbery is only memorable because a murder was committed during its course," and failing to recognize that robbery alone is still a crime.

And my argument is that Boise State's game is *STILL* irrelevant.  What were they playing for, exactly?  Their win was COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.  It did not impact the top-level standings in any form or fashion.

You are the one who is saying that what they did at the Fiesta Bowl is irrelevant.  THEY WON THE FIESTA BOWL, and that is relevant.  Ask the fans of BSU if they are proud of what they won.  They won the Fiesta Bowl, and there is nothing wrong with that, and it is fact a tremendous accomplishment.
THis is best opportunity that BSU will get to build their program, and you want to take that away.  You want to relegate them to getting blown out by the big boys year afetr year after year.

8.  Boise State played a cupcake schedule.  Wouldn't everyone else go undefeated?

Boise State played a cupcake schedule...but won every game, including the game against the NON-cupcake.  Either they're good enough to beat good teams, and will in the tournament, or they're not, and they won't.  If they're pretenders, then I want to see them exposed.  If they're good enough to beat the top-level teams when the National Championship is on the line, then I say reward them.

They're in the conference they're in.  Yes, they won a weak conference.  But they *WON* the conference.

Who won the NBDL title last year?  Who won the CBA last year?  Who won the Euro-League title last year?  Who won the Spanish league title last year?  Should all of those teams play the NBA Champ to decide on the "TRUE WORLD CHAMPIONS"?  The best teams should play for the title, not some marginal mid major champ, anymore than the Danish league champ should play for the world championship.

9.  Underdogs don't win big in basketball - they won't in football, either.

As I recall, last year, Pittsburgh, the lowest seed, won the SuperBowl.  A few years ago, in pro basketball, Detroit, the representative from the LEASTern conference beat the heck out of the Lakers.  New York knocked off Miami in 1999, and went to the NBA finals as an 8 seed.  #6 Houston won the NBA championship in 1995.

Sports teaches us that the possible *IS* possible.  Look at your own statement:  "it seldom if ever happen in basketball, so it would be nearly never in college football."  Even you leave open the possibility.  Only a greed-based system like the current bowl system keeps the possible from being possible.

The pros are different than College Joe, the pro system is setup to make it even.  Only one team had a chance to sign Reggie Bush last year, and in college when RB was being recruited everybody could recruit him.  So don't talk about pro-sports when the issue is college football.  When was the last time a mid-major won in the NCAA BBAll tourney?  This is like debating Lloyd in Dumb and Dumber.  My chances are one in a million, BUT HEY YOU ARE TELLING I HAVE A CHANCE.

10)  Death of the Bowls and the tradition behind them.

"The Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl, as well as Cotton Bowl, Gator Bowl, Peach Bowl, Holiday Bowl."

Don't you mean the Rose Bowl presented by Citi, the Fed-Ex Orange Bowl, the AllState Sugar Bowl, the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl, as well as the AT&T Cotton Bowl, the Toyota Gator Bowl, the Chick-Fil-A Bowl, and the Pacific Life Holiday Bowl?

Given that last year, it was the Nokia Sugar Bowl and the Chick-Fil-A Peach Bowl, I think we're already well on the way of tossing out "tradition."  Unless, of course, we're going to consider such "traditions" as specific advertisers at the Super Bowl.

I don't consider blatant commercialism "tradition."  If I did, I'd have to start making stops at McDonald's every year when they bring out "Monopoly."  After all, it's a tradition.

So BSU over OU is really all about Tostito's, not about great football, great energy, great passion, and an opportunity for an underdog to shock the world.  You don't see gutsy football you see chips and salsa.  Well Joe, can't help you there, your loss.