The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

They took the cowards way out and put TCU vs BSU because they were afraid of a BCS conference team would lose.

Dec. 19 New Mexico Bowl Mountain West vs. WAC TBD
Dec. 19 St. Petersburg Bowl Big East vs. C-USA Rutgers vs. UCF
Dec. 20 R&L Carriers New Orleans Bowl C-USA vs. Sun Belt No. 1 Southern Miss vs. Middle Tennessee
Dec. 22 MAACO Las Vegas Bowl Mountain West No. 1 vs. Pac-10 No. 4 TBD
Dec. 23 Poinsettia Bowl Mountain West vs. Pac-10 TBD
Dec. 24 Sheraton Hawaii Bowl C-USA vs. WAC SMU (accepted) vs. TBD
Dec. 26 Emerald Bowl ACC No. 7 vs. Pac-10 No. 5 Boston College vs. USC
Dec. 26 Meineke Car Care Bowl ACC No. 6 vs. Big East North Carolina vs. Pitt
Dec. 26 Little Caesars Pizza Bowl Big Ten No. 7 vs. MAC TBD
Dec. 27 Music City Bowl ACC vs. SEC Clemson vs. Kentucky
Dec. 28 Independence Bowl Big 12 No. 7 vs. SEC No. 8 Texas A&M vs. Georgia
Dec. 29 Champs Sports Bowl ACC No. 4 vs. Big Ten No. 4 or 5 Miami vs. Wisconsin
Dec. 30 EagleBank Bowl ACC No. 8 vs. Army or C-USA Temple vs. Army or UCLA
Dec. 30 Pacific Life Holiday Bowl Big 12 No. 3 vs. Pac-10 No. 2 Nebraska vs. Arizona
Dec. 30 Roady's Humanitarian Bowl Mountain West vs. WAC TBD
Dec. 30 Texas Bowl Big 12 vs. Navy or C-USA TBD vs. Navy (accepted)
Dec. 31 Armed Forces Bowl Mountain West vs. C-USA TBD
Dec. 31 Brut Sun Bowl Pac-10 No. 3 vs. Big East/Big 12/Notre Dame TBD
Dec. 31 Insight Bowl Big Ten No. 6 vs. Big 12 No. 6 TBD
Dec. 31 Chick-fil-A Bowl ACC No. 2 vs. SEC Virginia Tech vs. Tennessee
Jan. 1 Outback Bowl Big Ten No. 3 vs. SEC TBD
Jan. 1 Capital One Bowl Big Ten No. 2 vs. SEC No. 2 Penn State vs. LSU
Jan. 1 Gator Bowl ACC No. 3 vs. Big East/Big 12/Notre Dame Florida State vs. West Virginia
Jan. 2 AutoZone Liberty Bowl C-USA No. 1 vs. SEC No. 6 TBD
Jan. 2 International Bowl Big East vs. MAC No. 4 or 5 TBD
Jan. 2 AT&T Cotton Bowl Big 12 No. 2 vs. SEC TBD
Jan. 2 Papajohns.com Bowl Big East vs. SEC UConn vs. South Carolina
Jan. 2 Valero Alamo Bowl Big Ten No. 4 or 5 vs. Big 12 No. 4 TBD
Jan. 6 GMAC Bowl ACC vs. MAC Central Michigan vs. Troy
Jan. 1 Rose Bowl BCS - Big Ten vs. Pac-10 champion Ohio State vs. Oregon
Jan. 1 Sugar Bowl BCS - SEC champion** Cincinnati vs. Florida
Jan. 4 Fiesta Bowl BCS - Big 12 champion** Boise State vs. TCU
Jan. 5 Orange Bowl BCS - ACC champion** Iowa vs. Georgia Tech
Jan. 7 BCS National Championship BCS No. 1 vs. BCS No. 2 Alabama vs. Texas

There is no way to do it right.  When you have 4 undefeated teams, choosing 2 is outright stupid.  Someone is going to get hosed.  The BCS totally sucks.

If five unbeatens don't make the case for a playoff system, what will?

And I don't mean figuratively.  I mean literally.  Teams like TCU and Boise St. are being robbed out of the opportunity to raise millions of dollars, not to mention tons of interest in their programs, tuition, notoriety, etc..  This screams of anti-trust.  In my eyes, it's flat out illegal and the BCS should get their pants sued off.  There's no reason that Alabama or Texas have any claim to the championship game over these other teams, other than we're pretty sure that they're better.  But with this kind of money on the line, that's just not good enough.  Anti-trust is a real thing, and it's apparent here.

Sue the BCS.  It's the old way to kill it.

Apparently Congress is already working on that

USF if one of the teams in the International Bowl, if you want to update your list.  :D

I actually think the Boise/TCU game is an attractive matchup.

Are we really surprised by this?

Sure if you want to save the BCS's asses. These two teams should be squaring off against major BCS teams and not each other. Could you imagine the even bigger questions if these two teams played other teams and finished undefeated along with the winner of the NC game?

I agree with the OP.  It's incredibly corrupt to place TCU and Boise State against each other.  I'm stunned that they would be this bold about it.  (Although honestly, I'm not sure which would be worse; TCU vs. Boise State or TCU vs. Ga.Tech and Boise State vs. Iowa.)

Quite simply, it should have been Cincy (3) vs. TCU(4) and Florida(5) vs. Boise State(6).

Bama vs TCU

I don't think you understand my position. This will be a good game. I was hoping Texas went down so TCU got their shot, but it didn't happen. You are upset these guys are not playing traditional powers. I get it. But honestly these two teams make up a very good football game.

If Texas lost then Cincinnati was getting into the championship game. They passed TCU in the rankings.....

But at the time of the game I didn't know that.

there are too many bowl games.

I read an article earlier this season on CBS Sportsline about Boise State, and how they have problems getting early fall (pre-conference) games against "big name schools". They've offered to go anywhere in the country to play, and no schools take them up on it, because they are worried about getting beat by a non-BCS school.

A playoff system is needed. No doubt. Jim Mora should be in charge of it.

I"m shocked that FSU is in the Gator Bowl with a 6-6 record.  They should've gone to Boise with that record.... or the Emerald Bowl. 

Bingo...There's your Problem...too many Bowl games...I just love threads that drop F- bombs in the title.... ;)

Bobby put the word out and petitioned to keep them in Florida for his last game. Now you get to feel the WVU rath.

Not to side with the BCS, but does anyone know who TCU and Boise State even played?

I see TCU playing teams like: Virginia, Texas State, Southern Methodist, Air Force, Colorado State, UNLV, San Diego State, Wyoming, and New Mexico.  Combined records: 43-64.  9 of their 12 games were against creampuffs (Division II or weak Division I programs).  Would TCU be a great team playing even in the Big 10 or ACC?

I have some sympathy for TCU and Boise State, but they need to schedule stronger teams (just because you go 12-0 beating up on weak teams doesn't mean you're great team).

* I say this having done marginal research.  I could be totally off.

I think some of this is just about rooting for the little guy. There is no mention of Cincinnati in this thread and they are undefeated and ahead of both these teams.

With Boise State, the answer is "anyone with the balls to accept their challenge." Boise State has tried for the last 3-4 years to get any of the big dogs to put them on the schedule, and Boise State has even said "we'll travel to you and play in your stadium," but no one wants to schedule them, for fear of getting their butt kicked.

I agree with Dave...sue the BCS's ass and let's get righteousness back in college football!!

I'm not arguing that either Boise State or TCU are better than Texas or Oklahoma.

Even allowing that argument to happen legitimizes the BCS.  I'm arguing that it doesn't matter if they're better.  Who is better is not something that's decided by conversation, even if the resulting answer is the correct one.  These small schools don't have the opportunity to just join a different NCAA where they can go make their money.  They're stuck with this one.  ...and within this one, they have won all of their games, but are still denied that opportunity.  It's a monopoly that needs oversight from the Federal Government.

Word. I commented on this in the other BCS thread. I read an article about it earlier this season.

They actually had a segment on ESPN's College Football show earlier in the year where they talked to Boise State's coach, AD, some of the players...and they were all really intent on getting some of the big schools to take them on. They tried everyone in the Pac-10, Big-10 and Big-12...even threw an invitation at Notre Dame.

I can see downgrading a team's accomplishments if they don't play anyone of substance...but if a team legitimately TRIES to get the good teams on their schedule, I don't think you can downgrade them at all. I wish we could downgrade some of the teams that turned them down though...

^^^That would be great.  I think teams that play the "8 home, 4 away" game with 4 of the home games being against creampuffs should be downgraded somewhat.  Many, many teams do this.

 UM plays 6 home, 6 away.  USC plays 6 home, 6 away.  Both teams (and others, to be sure) try to schedule tough opponents.  Why don't more teams do this? 

The article I read was most likely the exact same story.

They brought up the fact that a lot of "cream puffs" will only play at a major program if they can  schedule a home and home series. Boise State didn't even want that. They just said "we'll come to you and play you at your home stadium. No return trip required!"

Boise State beat Oregon, who won the Pac-10.
TCU beat Clemson, who finished 2nd in the ACC, as well as beating BYU and Utah (both of whom were ranked No.16 at the time they played TCU).

Since you asked.

For reference, here's a story in the same lin eof thought as what Sunstroke and I both mentioned:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/sports/story/960289.html

WAC boss: Boise State struggling to find opponent for 2011
Several high-profile programs have turned down a chance to play a home game against Boise State in 2011, WAC commissioner Karl Benson said Tuesday.

Boise State - with help from ESPN, Benson said - has been shopping for a game to fill out its 2011 schedule.

Benson isn't sure of the exact number of schools that have said no, but figures it is close to 10. The Broncos aren't asking for any games in Boise in return, he said.

"They're running into a situation where nobody will schedule them, nobody will take them," Benson said.

Boise State athletic director Gene Bleymaier wasn't available for comment.

The Broncos have seven home games and five road games scheduled for 2011, but don't have a Bowl Championship Series-conference opponent. Bleymaier wants to add a BCS road game as the 13th game to fix that hole. The other nonconference opponents in 2011 are Utah, Tulsa and Wyoming in Boise and Toledo on the road.

Benson also said the WAC has hired an Idaho public relations firm to do some research and arrange media interviews to help push Boise State's BCS case. The WAC also hired a public-relations firm to push for Hawaii's inclusion in 2007, he said.

"We're trying to establish a message," Benson said.

I think most teams either have 6 or 7 home games. I don't know anyone of the bigs who have 8.

I am not saying it will not be a good game, but this game saves the BCS's ass. If you put these two teams against two tradition BCS power programs from the "elite" confereces, then there is a very good chance the non BCS schools win and you will have 3-4 undefeated teams at the end of the year. If Bama and Boise St both win and are undefeated, should Bama get the NC because they got to start the season ranked much higher? I say no, and I hope we have a split NC again when the polls are done.
Cut the bowl games in half and have a limited playoff.

Yeah, I see that.  But I also listed 9 games against less than stellar opponents.  Their schedule appears weak compared to what any team aspiring to the NC would have.  I don't know if they'd go undefeated in the Big 10, or Big 12, or even ACC. 


Michigan had 8 at home, 4 away.  So did Ohio State and penn State.  You're right, most teams do the 6-6 or 7-4-1 (the 1 being a neutral site game)

There's the problem...we won't ever know how they'd do if they played a schedule every year that included 3 or 4 of the "BCS big dogs," because the big dogs are cowering in their doghouses, afraid that the scrappy liitle mutt growling outside is gonna kick their ass and steal their bone.

They asked him to do it but he turn them down.  "Playoffs, you want to talk about playoffs?  Don't talk to me about playoffs.  Playoffs?  Are you kidding me?  Playoffs?" 

I hope they never have a schedule with 3-4 Big Dogs because the Big Dogs usually don't even have 3-4 games against other Big Dogs.

More than fixing the BCS system, I'd like for there to be rules put in place regarding home/away schedules and number of cupcakes on your schedule.

http://www.presstelegram.com/sports/ci_13942430

Long story short: the "powerhouse" conferences intentionally select powder-puff non-conference schedules to pad their record, then play internally to manufacture "tough wins" (against in-conference opponents with similarly padded records).

I agree with Brian. Too many bowls.

College teams should play 8 games a year and have a wild card, divisional and championship round to get to the BCS. The playoff games would make it a 9 or 12 game season.

Start the playoffs on January 1 and end everything by Jan 15 or start the college football season a few weeks earlier.

This is very spot on! Eliminate the cupcake games! I'm not interested in seeing UM play Robert Morris College!

^ so don't watch

One cupcake game should be at the beginning of the season.  Kinda like a "tune up game".  Any other non-conference games should be marquee matchups.

How about you have to have a winning record to go to a bowl game? No 6-6 team deserves a bowl.

If you ever wondered why I really hate and utterly detest college football to the point that I can't even watch it, this thread explains why.

If the NFL ever did anything where:

1. A score (other than your record) determines who plays for a Championship, or
2. A league where teams can pick their own schedules

I'd never watch the NFL ever again. Period.

College Football is a complete disaster. I hate all of these crazy conferences, I hate how teams pick their own schedules, and I hate that there aren't any playoffs whatsoever like EVERY OTHER SPORTS LEAGUE IN THE FREAKING WORLD.

The NFL should open up a minor league (like baseball where they have AA and AAA teams) and that would render college football completely irrelevant (like college baseball is completely useless). Then 18 year olds would get drafted out of high school and play in the AA and AAA football teams and get "called up" when they are ready.

I believe if you put more than 5 seconds into considering all aspects of this "minor league," you'd find that it is equal parts ridiculous and impossible.

The answer isn't abolishing college football...the answer is instituting a playoff system and some schedule control within college football.

I think that if you have a playoff, the schedule control thing will take care of itself.

I think it would still require a little institutional manipulating...just to get some big dogs on the Boise State and TCU-types' plates so we can more accurately rank them for a playoff.

I think there's a risk/reward thing with scheduling.  Big games bring in big money, but risk a loss -- but even if you lose, you get props for having a tough schedule.  Cupcakes let you pad your schedule, but if you don't whip them or, God forbid, lose, you're done.

You guys leave out every one of the negatives about playoff scenarios. Based off one plan I saw mentioned here, my top 25 school would have only played nine games this season. How can you punish them by not having them included? Not to mention how poorly a nine game schedule would be for preparing college kids headed to the NFL. They already see a different between their 12-13 game season and the 16 game schedule. Imagine what only 9 games would do.

^^ There are a few answer to your question.

1) ...and the easiest answer -- if you want to play more than 9 games, schedule more than 9 games.
2) The thing that makes the most sense to me is to use the regular bowl system, but have the 4 main bowls be the first round of the 8 team playoffs.  Winners continue to play, loser is out.

^^^ #2 is the simplest answer.  You add 1 extra game to two teams' schedules, and 2 extra games to two teams' schedules.    Everyone else plays the exact same number of games that they do now.

People are not going to be able to travel to bowl games continuously as if they were home games. #2 really isn't an option because I see attendance being an issue of having a playoff system utilizing bowl games.

Completely agree, and I bag on big-time conferences for that too.  (Witness my pointing out Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State's 8-4 home-away scheduling).  I'm no fan of USC, but I admire that they appear to have a "we'll play anyone anywhere" attitude to them.  Miami is the same way.  So is FSU, I think.

I still feel (and hell, I may be deluded here) that the bigtime conference teams are in fact better than most of the small conference teams.  They attract better players anc coaches; it follows that they must be better overall.

Rare for me to disagree with Phish on an issue, but I feel strongly that if a bowl game is also a college football playoff game, you could play it just about anywhere and you'll still sell out the house. You might see a shift in the ratio of "fans of a certain program who traveled to get there" to "college football fans in that local market" within that attendance figure, but the total attendance wouldn't suffer, imo.

I have to agree with Sunstroke on this.  Phish's arguement is the equivalant of saying "the Superbowl won't sell out this year unless the Dolphins, Jax, or Tampa Bay are playing in it."   

You guys are way off. I'm not talking a championship game here. That would sell out. What I am talking is bowl games constituting a first round playoff or even second round. It is very simple to understand those games are not going to have anywhere near as much attendance. How many of you go to see random teams play? How many of you have enough money to see you team travel across the country 2-3 times to see them play? If you don't think attendance will fall off you are just looking at the small picture.

Just think of this since we a re all NFL fans here. Stroke how many times do you travel to San Fran to see a game? How many of you outside Florida travel to Miami to see the Phins? If you do come, how many times do you do it. How many people at a Dolphins game are there to not have any emotional investment in either team? The answer to all of these questions is very few. Now picture it being a college game and they have to play three games in three weeks across the country. As I mentioned in another thread a while back we already have two bowl games played in town and I have never seen either of them in person. They don't sell out even with the team's fans traveling so why would they sell out without them?

Your point here collaborates with my theory of, if you want to go with an 8 team playoff, you should not use the BCS Bowl sites until there are four teams left.  In the first round, the higher seed should get to host the game. 

Two BCS bowl sites can host the semifinals, the third one can host the "consolation" game and the fourth can host the championship. 

Are you joking?  What do you think the existing bowl system is?  By your logic, bowl games now (with top 8, national championship-contender teams!) should have "problems" with attendance.

Since even you admit that the championship game would sell out, the only games that are even in question are the second round games.  Once again, I find it beyond credulity that a team that makes it to the second round of a national championship playoff would have a problem selling out the game.  One of two things is guaranteed to be the case:

1) the team(s) in the game are perennial-power football factories (e.g. Florida, Texas, USC, etc.) and their fans have no problem traveling anywhere for any game
2) the team(s) in the game are upstart Cinderellas (e.g. Boise State, TCU, Utah) and they will have fans rabid enough to travel for their rare national championship shot

OK, now let's compare apples to apples:

How many Dolphin fans would be willing to travel to watch MIA in an AFC Championship game?

Suddenly your analogy looks a lot different, doesn't it?  You cannot compare a random game (even a bowl game) to a playoff.  It's absurd.

Man you guys don't get what I am saying at all. How would multiple games across the country compare at all to the current sturcture of a single bowl game? Let's get this straight. The scenario we are considering is using the existing Bowl structure to create a playoff. I never said anything about fans not traveling to one game so you are not even on the same topic in part of your post.

Teams would have to play three games at different locations to be a champion by the structure of taking the top 8 teams. No one, I repeat no one on this board is going to travel to three games across the country in three weeks time without hitting the lottery. It is very unlikely anyone you know is going to be able to go to three games across the country in three weeks time. Going to one bowl game is simple. Going to three bowl games is nearly impossible.

Like it or not, attendance will be an issue.

To go with your Dolphisn questions that is a simple answer. Almost all of us are willing to go to an AFC Championship game. The question you need to ask yourself to stay on this topic though is how many are able?

I understood what you were saying...clearly. I just disagree with it. I don't believe attendance would be an issue in a college football playoff system.

To clarify further, I don't think it would if you follow the 1-AA method where there is a home game for one team. Their fans will fill the stadium. Traveling across the country multiple time just isn't feasible though.

Tommy's idea also works.  ...start the playoffs in the week before at the home sites of these stadiums.

Yeah, you might be right, that is why the NCAA Basketball tournament is such a huge bust and considered the worst format in all of college sports if not all of sports in general.  Nobody would travel first to  Kansas city, than to Memphis than to Detriot just to follow Okla thru the rounds.  And minor teams like Morehead state have zero fans in the stands for the game in which everyone knows they are going to be crushed by a powerhouse like Louisville.  It is pretty clear every single March that if there is one college playoff system that is an utter disaster and need of change it is the basketball tournie.  The BCS should do absolutely nothing change their flawless system to emulate that disaster.  In fact I am a strong advocate of scraping the tournament format used by college basketball in favor of the superior bowl system.

/sarcasm off. 

So to clarify:

Right now, today, fans travel to one bowl game without much problem.  Attendance (particularly for top 8 teams) is not an issue.  You do not dispute this.
The championship game will be well-attended regardless of who is in it.  You do not dispute this.

As I just said, the only question is whether or not the TWO semifinal games would be well-attended.  Your claim is that these playoff semifinals simply would not generate enough interest from their respective teams' fans, and generate virtually zero interest from fans of other teams.  This is difficult to believe, to say the least.

Again, using your logic, NFL divisional and conference championship games would have almost no fans of the road team, because who can possibly be able to go to multiple games when their team is on the road?  Super Bowl crowds would be entirely team agnostic, since the fans of two teams in the Super Bowl have already exhausted their travel capabilities, right?

OK and the NCAA tournament provides a person with a poackage of games covering a weekend. They don't just see one game. Please keep on track if you want but this is way out in left field. You are filling a smaller arens with fans from a number of teams. Yea I really see how that compares with a larger stadium and just two teams.

We can argue the individual points, but here's the jist -- attendance wouldn't be a problem -- especially not more than it is now.  I'm sure that colleges would have low priced tickets with busses gassed up and ready to travel, if need be.

My original argument is against three neutral site games. You are using an example of two neutral site games. small difference, but it may make a difference.

In tems of the NFL, yes the visiting team is usually way outnumbered. I can;t believe you would even disput that. The number of fans traveling to see the away team is significantly smaller and that is a given.

The Super Bowl. Yes I would argue that the majority of the crowd is a fan of neither team. There may be some bandwagoners involved and people pulling for one of the teams because that is human nature, but the minority of those in attendance would be actual true fans of either team.

Upper level endzone tickets for the Orange Bowl are currently $95 dollars. You think by cutting the number of bowl games from the number there are now, to only 8 is going to lower the prioce of tickets any? You are smarter than that.

I'm not suggesting that we cut down to only 8 bowl games.  Where are you getting that from?

I am arguing my stance with four different people and not everyone is on the same page. In order to have a college playoff the last position I was talking against was there was an 8 team playoff which is actually 7 Bowl games (Tommy's scenario actually had the first round being at home fields so there are only three bowl games). Are you suggesting that you keep more teams in the playoff? Are you suggesting you keep what would now be meaningless bowl games since only 8 teams qualify for the real playoff? It is difficult for me to know which points to argue when everyone has a different plan. Maybe attendance wouldn't be an issue with some plans. It definitely is with others. It isn't the only issue that arises from talking playoffs, but it is one.

The fact that a consensus hasn't been reached on how to develop a playoff system is actually the first issue that has to be dealt with. How do you determine who gets in? Where is the cutoff? How do you create a tie breaker?

Your argument is against 3 neutral-site games for a specific team.  I am talking about only the second game of the 3 (the playoff semifinal, of which there will be two individual contests involving four teams).

There is no question that the first neutral-site game will be well-attended; completely meaningless bowls are well-attended now, as is.
There is no question that the national championship (the third game for a given team) will be well-attended.
The only game with potentially questionable attendance is, therefore, the second neutral-site game.

I would like you to cite an example of a national championship semifinal in football, basketball, or baseball that has attendance problems.  The very idea seems completely preposterous.  Again, using your logic, the NCAA Final Four would be held in an empty building, since none of those teams' fans can possibly travel to another game (particularly after having spent multiple days at a regional final).

They are outnumbered because it's already a sellout, not because they are unwilling to attend.

Yes.  The other bowl games would be no less meaningless than they are today.

No.


Yes, sort of, but I would say that the current bowl system is just as meaningless.  You have a "real playoff" system now, but only 2 teams are in it.  You'd just be expanding that field of 2 to 8.

There is an exclusiveness factor here. The first game is well attended because it equates to what is only a one game scenario now. You cannot argue that the prospect of three games does not alter travel perceptions. Maybe not as many people go to game number one because of the other two games. You are looking at this like there is a vacuum or something.

The away team has just as much opportunity on Ticketmaster as the home team. Only the season ticket holders get an early shot.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that number of tickets freely available to the public is NOT simply equal to stadium capacity - number of season ticket holders.

No, I'm not.

Any fans that you lose because this is now one out of a potential three-game trip are more than made up for by the number of fans you gain when the game changes from meaningless bowl game to national championship playoff.

Respectable football programs play in a bowl game every year, and fans still attend the bowl games.  You cannot seriously believe that fans who otherwise would have attended a meaningless bowl game would choose not to go to a playoff game.

I take it you have never been to a Jets @ MIA or NE @ Buff game.  Do me a favor and week 17 go to Dolphin stadium and count the the number of urine colored towels that are waiving in the stands.

Geography is why more locals go to the home games.  As for playoff games it has as much to do with the fact that the season ticket holders have all tickets as much as it does geography.   

I have been to games against those teams and although those transplants are visible they do not outnumber Miami fans.

For what its worth Phish, I see your point and agree with you. It seemed like you were getting gang raped!

Thanks Philly. Part of it may be me not being clear eough. I'm not saying there will be a 50% empty stadium or anything. I'm just saying ticket sales will likely drop. I'm not sure what the organizers would see as normal as far as a drop in sales, but I would expect this would cause soemthing on their radar to go off which means there would be an attendance issue.

It's not an attendance issue.  It's a money issue.

If there is a playoff, then more bowls/conferences will be part of it.  The worst case doomsday scenario is that the NCAA itself would run it (like they do at every other level of every other sport), which means that a hell of a lot of money goes out of the conferences'/big bowls' pocket and gets distributed evenly among the actual competitors/bowls involved.

Which must be avoided at all costs.  I mean, just because the Big 10 or ACC sucks this year, why should they get a cut of the money that's the-same-or-smaller as some no-name conference like the WAC or MWC, just because that conference has a team that's actually good?  Clearly that is un-American and against everything we stand for.  The big conferences are entitled to their money, no matter how crappy their teams are.

I mean, imagine if we had some sort of crazy system where we simply took the top 8 conference champions.  That would mean that 8 conferences would get a cut of the money every year, instead of the 6 that do now (SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac-10, Big East).  And the 8 conferences that did get picked would be picked based on fielding a good team instead of a backroom entitlement!  Such a system would be outrageous if it weren't so absurd.

was just flipping channels to see what bowl games are on and peaked a little closer at the lsu v penn state game. on my info for directv it says it's a "playoff" game. too funny...  ;D