And that’s why the new FBS “Playoff” is little more than a minor tweak to the old system with a sticker on it that says “Playoff”. But it’s a big first step and it won’t be too many years before the fans (and excluded schools from the Top 4) will be clamoring for expansion to 8 schools.

There are still many questions to be answered. What we know thus far:

The Playoff Skinny:
You have (2) semi-final games to be played each year at one of (6) bowl games in rotation, with the winners playing in a championship. As it is now, there is simply a #1 vs #2 game in the championship, so it is a huge change that (4) teams will get to decide on the field who is the champion, rather than just (2) teams.

Participant Selection:
A committee will decide who the 4 schools to participate are. There is a list of criteria that was announced last night, but with no weighing system, no specifics given, it is still a blind process. What we can expect to see though is that the committee will at some point omit a Coaches/AP poll school ranked #3 or #4 from a non-power conference (Big East, Mountain West, CUSA, Sun Belt, MAC) claiming that strength of schedule was a top criteria. Based on overall membership, that means that the SEC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big 12 will have an advantage. The ACC is right there with that group, with the others left behind. So if you are a school in the Big East, Mountain West, CUSA, Sun Belt or MAC, you will likely need to go undefeated in order to be considered for even spot #4.

Championship Game Location:
The championship game will be sold to the highest bidder, and outside of the current bowl system. That’s not to say that a single city would be excluded from having a semi-final game and the championship, since in the end, it will come down to the semi-final rotation and the championship game bidding. But it is probable that the powers-that-be will try to work things out so that if there were a year that say, Los Angeles were to win a bid for the championship, that the Rose Bowl would not be a semi-final game that year.

Semi-Final Bowl Rotation:
For the bowl rotation, there will be (6) bowls in the mix for the (2) semi-final games. The Rose Bowl (currently #1 Pac-12 vs #1 Big Ten) and the new Champions Bowl (#1 SEC vs #1 Big 12) are in. The Fiesta, Sugar, Orange are all likely in the rotation as well. The Champions Bowl still doesn’t have a location, so that will throw a wrench to some of the plans. The Cotton Bowl would be expected to be the likely #6 bowl in the rotation. However, if the Champions Bowl were to be player at Dallas Cowboys Stadium, it would likely just replace the Cotton Bowl. The same could be said about the Sugar Bowl, if the SEC and Big 12 opted to have the game in New Orleans.

In other words, it’s unlikely that a single city would have (2) Bowls in the rotation. This might open it up for some other options like Chic-fil-A Bowl in Atlanta, the Champs Sports Bowl in Orlando, Outback Bowl in Tampa, Holiday Bowl in San Diego, etc to enter the mix.

Bowl Relevance:
Just when you were starting to get used to seeing oddities like TCU in the Rose Bowl and Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl, there will be a return to some of the tradition that had existed for decades. For instance, in a year when the Rose Bowl is not a semi-final game, the game will feature the Pac-12 #1 vs. the Big Ten #1. When either or both conferences send teams to the semi-finals, the conferences will still control the bowl participants. This means that if #1 USC and #2 Ohio St. are in the “playoffs”, then Pac-12 runner-up Oregon would likely play Big Ten runner-up Nebraska in the Rose Bowl. The same system would be in place for the Champions Bowl, where you could see the #2 SEC school play the #2 Big 12 school if both conferences send members to the playoff.

You will also likely see the current BCS bowls align with conferences, just as the non-BCS bowls have. For instance, the Orange Bowl will lock up the ACC, taking their champion in years when the ACC does not send a playoff team. The Sugar Bowl could even go as far as locking up the SEC runner up in their own bowl deal, if the SEC decided to do so. What is left to determine will be what happens to some of the other bowls like the Fiesta, which would be wise to try to line-up a good game such as the Pac-12 and Big 12 runner-up schools. They could always aim for the #1 Mountain West or Big East school. At this point, there is much work to do by the conferences and the bowls to determine their alignments.

For the lesser bowls, things will remain the same. You’ll still see the MAC champion headed to a bowl you’ve possibly never hear of. But the student athletes from all the bowl schools will still get the full bowl experience. And at the end, the winners of the two semi-final games will play for a championship.

What is yet to be known will be just how the bowls select all their participants. We can hypothesize that the Sugar Bowl would try to lock-up the SEC #2 school. But there could always be a free-for-all with the bowls leaving spots open to chose schools to fill the spots. So in a year when Hawaii finishes with a single loss, they could be rewarded with a higher profile bowl, rather than having to be slotted into whatever bowl the Mountain West partners with for their #1 school.

Playoffs on Television:
One of the big reasons for this change to a playoff is the opportunity to make more money. First you have the championship site being awarded to the highest bidder. But the same can happen with the television rights. You could have the semi-final games on one network with the championship on another. Think of the NFL model where Fox might have the Super Bowl while CBS still have an AFC championship game. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future, where (1) semi-final game could be sold to CBS, (1) semi-final game sold to Fox, and the championship game sold to ABC/ESPN. The prices will jump even further if NBC enters the mix.

Revenue Distribution:
It’s still a secret, or unknown. As of last night, there was no set plan as to who makes what, if higher seeded schools get a bigger revenue cut, etc.

Saying Goodbye to the BCS and Automatic Qualifiers:
With the creation of the (3) playoff games and the return of the rest of the bowls to the traditional system, it means the end of the conference AQ. So no more years when a #32 BCS ranked Uconn school from the Big East takes a spot in a big-money BCS bowl over a #6 or #7 school.

Instinct is to think this would be a benefit for what are now “non-BCS” conferences: if you win your conference, have strong numbers, you will be considered…unlike how it is now, where a Mountain West school must have a perfect season just to sneak into an at-large spot in a BCS bowl.

But the selection committee will ultimately decide who gets in. And there will be many years where the committee will make strong arguments that a second (1) loss SEC school would deserve to be included over an undefeated Mountain West, Big East, CUSA, Sun Belt of MAC school. So unless you have a killer OOC schedule, if you are in one of these current non-BCS conferences, you better go undefeated to be considered. Because a single loss and you’re done…since the committee would almost certainly take a 2-loss SEC school like Florida over a 1 loss Florida International from CUSA.

Sorry, Mountain West, No Can Do:
With the big announcement of a playoff yesterday, there was another piece of news slipped into the mix. The Mountain West received final word that it’s BCS exemption had been denied, meaning that the Mountain West will no get an AQ for the final (2) years of the BCS contract. With the Big East television contract expected to be much higher than the Mountain West deal, it means that Boise St. will likely officially announce their departure from the MWC to join the Big East for football only. It means BCS access for Boise St. in the Big East next year and more TV revenue in future years with the only negatives being their membership in the WAC, an unstable conference, for non-football sports…and of course the increased football travel costs.

Playoff Effect on Conference Realignment:
The quick answer: nobody knows.  It would seem that with all access being equal, that stability would be on the horizon. But with such access for all, it also puts a premium on the individual conference television contracts. So if the SEC can make millions more per school by adding a Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Virginia Tech, NC State or other school from the ACC or Big 12, what’s to stop them. In the case of the Oklahoma and OSU, it’s the Big 12 TV rights waiver that would be a deterrent, as those schools would love many millions in joining the SEC now, versus the ease that Texas A&M and Missouri had. You also have the Big 12 now at 10, losing out on millions on dollars in revenue from now having a championship game. So perhaps the Big 12 makes a larger push to expand with schools like Louisville or BYU. Or maybe the look to the ACC with schools like Florida St., Clemson, Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh or others.

In the lower conferences, with that same access existing, it would seem that it would open the doors for some regional stability. The Mountain West appears poised to hold two spots open for Boise St. and San Diego St. to return one day rather than adding New Mexico St. and Idaho to get to 12. And until the Boise St./SDSU to Big East experiment has some recorded data, there’s no reason to think either school would change their plans. Mountain West fans hope that is an incorrect assessment.

We’ll have to wait an see how the playoff works itself out. Because right now, it would appear that the only ways for a conference to generate more revenue (a primary driver) would be:

1) To expand into new markets to increase their television contract value
2) To expand to 12 (MWC, Sun Belt, Big 12) to have a championship game
3) To bring in schools that will improve a conferences chances of getting a school selected to the playoff.

We can cross of #3 for the Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and likely the Big 12 unless Notre Dame joined. When you look at the available candidates, there seem to be no options for the Big East to improve after adding Boise St. So that leaves the Mountain West, CUSA, Sun Belt and MAC. If a school goes on a run of finishing with a strong record in one of those conferences, they might gain enough appeal to be invited to another conference. For instance, if UTSA becomes an FBS power, the Mountain West and CUSA would likely come calling. But it would appear that movement at the FBS level will be minimal for now when the motive if to improve the chances or getting a playoff bid.

For reason #2, you have a few players:
The Big 12 could decide that the championship game money and new markets to improve their TV contract are reason enough to expand. If they cannot get Notre Dame or an ACC school to budge, that leaves the Big East and Mountain West, where you could see programs like Louisville as well as even Houston and Memphis become candidates if they prove to be successful in the Big East. BYU is also an option, currently an independent.

The Mountain West could eventually give up on a Boise St. or SDSU return, and opt to expand to 12. You have New Mexico St. and Idaho already pleading to join. In time, you could see Sun Belt schools like Texas St. make a push if they are successful. Even CUSA schools like North Texas and UTSA could become options if the Mountain West does prove to be the more successful conference. The Sun Belt could expand to 12 with FCS options like Appalachian St., Georgia Southern or even perhaps Jacksonville St. or JMU. They also always have Idaho and New Mexico St. as football-only options.

For Reason #1, there are endless options. The SEC could expand to 16 or 18 with ACC schools. The ACC could expand to 16 with Big East members like UConn and Rutgers. The Big East could expand again in the west or even look east with schools like ECU or UMass for football only. The Pac-12 would appear locked in at 12, since Texas/Texas Tech/Oklahoma/OSU were the only candidates that brought real revenue projections to the conference. The Big Ten seems set at 12 after years of sitting at 11. But what if they decide to tinker with a southern push with schools like Maryland and Virginia? It’s highly doubtful now though to even consider that.

But for now, it does seem that the strategy will be for the conferences to sit and wait, to see what happens with the new playoff system. If   conferences are being left out for different reasons (like, say, Big 12 being punished for not having a championship game), it will take time to recognize the trends. But as long as the lure of big television money is out there, the lower conferences should always be on guard.

One item that will likely make it’s way to the agenda will be the possible elimination of the conference automatic qualifiers. In recent years, there have been instances where conferences within the BCS, The Big East and the ACC, have had AQ teams not ranked in the Top 25. With the AQ elimination, it would open the door for more worthy schools to grab those spots when the conference winner from a BCS conference is not ranked high enough. The move would be met with joy by all current non-BCS conferences, who would prefer a straight “win to get in” system where the top 10 ranked schools in the BCS rankings are awarded the 10 total BCS spots.

One other interesting bit from the meetings will be if the BCS opts to add a 6th game. The Cotton Bowl, to be held at the Cowboys stadium in Arlington, TX, is considered the top option for a 6th game. In adding a 6th game, a few paths could be explored. You would likely see the same-host format that now exists, scrapped, in which a stadium hosts one of the 4 bowls one week and the BCS Championship the next week. If this happened, the Cotton would likely serve as the Big 12 BCS tie-in bowl, with the Fiesta only claiming the Big 12 when the Cotton bowl served as the championship game. A 6th BCS bowl would also open the door for more total or at-large BCS bids.

For years, fans of college football have clamored for a playoff at the highest level of the NCAA sport. Instead, the school presidents have opposed it in favor of the BCS system. And while some school presidents on the outside of the BCS have made some noise, and even government officials such as Utah Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, no major changes have been made.

Sure, there were some minor tweaks to the BCS, where schools could gain access to the BCS based on their BCS computer ranking. This has enabled schools like Utah, Hawaii, Boise St. and TCU, all whom were outside the 6 BCS conferences, to crash the party.

There’s been another big public push for a playoff of late, thanks to the book “Death to the BCS” by Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter and Jeff Passan. Even more recently, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has proposed a system in which he would work to fund that would create a national playoff system.

The age old argument in favor of a playoff system has been that it would decide a true national champion, decided on the field. The same “pro-playoff” camp will argue that if the NCAA can get a multi-billion dollar deal for it’s basketball playoff tournament, that for an even more popular sport like football, they’d certainly be able to make more money than they are now in the BCS.

The “anti-playoff” camp has always been quick to denounce a playoff saying that it would keep the students away from classes, the primary reason for attending a university. Of course “pro-playoff” people will point to the FCS level of football (I-AA) and the lower divisions like Division 2 and Division 3 and say that if they can have a playoff, why not in FBS? It’s worth noting that conferences in FCS such as the Ivy League do not participate in the FCS playoffs. And for many schools in BCS conferences, despite the big money in their athletics, they more closely associate themselves with the Ivy League than say, the Big Sky Conference in FCS.

The potential playoff revenue issue is further supported by many since it would only be a 12-16 team playoff…the best of the best…unlike the basketball tournament in which with so many automatic bids from lower Division 1 conferences, means there are a number of games that are quite unbalanced. There’s a reason why no #16 seed had ever beaten a #1 seed and why it’s such a shocker when a #2 or #3 seed loses in basketball.

In football, with the best of the best, you’d instead have a more even playing field with even a #16 versus a #1 seed. This year, according to the BCS rankings, that would be #1 Auburn versus #16 Alabama. That’s a much more attractive match-up than say in the NCAA Basketball Tournament game with #1 Duke versus #16 Prairie View A&M.

But with all the issues that seem to support a playoff system, there are a number of reasons why the BCS has been favored….including an issue that nobody seems to talk about.

The school presidents at the majority of the BCS conference schools favor the BCS for the obvious reason: money. Students missing classes is hardly the primary factor when so many millions of dollars are in play. But the BCS system better compensates the BCS school members. And to those school presidents, it’s a reward for their tougher conference schedules and a rationale for the large financial investments they make in their programs.

If you’re Ohio St. and you know you have to play the likes of Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Iowa and Penn St. each year, while a MAC school has a much lower quality schedule, it hardly seems fair to them that the MAC would be equally rewarded. And when looking at the WAC, even with Boise St. having such a good run the past decade, they’ve had a conference schedule that included schools like San Jose St., Idaho, New Mexico St., and LA Tech. If you’re USC, Texas, Florida or Ohio St. playing in a tough Pac-10, Big 12, SEC or Big Ten, one can see why these schools feel they should be better compensated.

So when it comes to a playoff, the obvious necessity for the BCS conferences would be for the revenue distribution to be favored to them. If they were making more money than in the BCS and a larger portion of the total revenue shared, then it would be in the best interest of the current BCS conference schools.

But there is still one larger problem that people rarely discuss.

And that problem is simply this: while the public says they want a playoff, is the market really there for the number of games that would comprise a 16 team playoff?  15 total games involving only 16 total schools? Games that unlike Bowls which leave a month for planning, would be decided only a week in advance.

Those in favor of a playoff just assume that there would be the market; that a schools fans would wait in line for days just for the chance to see their school in the National Championship Playoffs. But is that really the case?

Mark Cuban mentioned in his initial proposal for a playoff, that the system would have the higher seeded schools having home field advantage. It is unknown if this would mean that the the second round and semi-finals would be on-campus or at a neutral site. We can assume that for a championship game, that it would be treated like the Super Bowl, held at a predetermined neutral location.

The alternative would be to have all games at neutral sites, much like in college basketball, similar to the bowl system now. And of course there could be a system in place where just the 1st round games were on campus while the quarter, semi and finals were held at neutral sites.

But any way you look at it, there is still that question: is the ticket purchasing interest really there?

Because based on the information we have now, that might not be the case.

Fans of FCS (I-AA football) schools and many in the media covering these schools have a large amount of pride with a playoff system. Fans of these schools will even go as far as claiming they have the better system over FBS (I-A football) because they have a playoff.

Everyone is entitled to pride in their school and the system their school participates in. But perhaps it’s time we look at the numbers that really matter: attendance.

The University of Delaware has for years been a dominant force in FCS college football. They’ve won championships, been a regular playoff participant, and this year, have already advanced to the FCS Semi-Finals where they will host another legend in the level, Georgia Southern.

But what has made Delaware such a envy to other FCS schools has been their tremendous fan support. Most years, Delaware will average between 20,000 and 30,000 per game attendance each year. This year, they continued the trend with an average of 20,684. These home games included games such as against Maine, a school located 600 miles away, along with URI, a school downgrading in football in 2013. Delaware also hosted Duquesne, a limited scholarship program in Pittsburgh, as well as games against it’s conference foes Villanova and Towson and Division 2, West Chester. Yet with the home schedule, Delaware averaged 20,684 fans.

And then the playoffs started.

Delaware’s first game was against a nearby school, Lehigh, just 80 miles away. With all the regular support at Delaware, the excitement of hosting a playoff game, and the opponent being just a couple hours drive away, one would assume that Delaware would have been selling more tickets than usual. It’s the playoffs, it’s to determine a true national championship, and there are only so many schools good enough to make the tournament….so it should sellout, right?

Wrong. Instead, Delaware had a playoff attendance against a nearby opponent, of only 13,669.

So perhaps it was just an anomaly.

But then after winning it’s first playoff game against Lehigh, Delaware got to host a 2nd game in the next round against one of the best in FCS, New Hampshire. The result: only 8770 in attendance.

But we know that this attendance issue isn’t limited to just Delaware.

Appalachian St. is another FCS powerhouse. After multiple FCS Championships and an upset win over FBS Michigan a few years ago, Appalachian St., along with schools like Delaware and Montana has been an FCS power.

This season, Appalachian St. averaged 29,450 in attendance against the likes of Jacksonville, North Carolina Central, Elon, Citadel, Wofford and Furman. Hardly household names to the rest of the country, but primarily conference rivals of Appalachian St.

Yet for the playoffs, Appalachian St. had only 13,332 in attendance against Western Illinois. In it’s 2nd playoff game this year, against last years national champion Villanova, the attendance was only 15,706.

That’s quite a drop.

And last year, you had Villanova win the FCS National Championship. This same Villanova program, that has been extended an invitation to join the BCS in the Big East conference, had only 4771 in attendance in it’s home national semifinal game last year against conference foe William & Mary.

The numbers don’t lie: people say they want a playoff system, but in a level that has a playoff system, those fans don’t actually have the level of interest to actually attend the games. And we’re not talking about some lower level schools that got lucky and advanced. We’re talking about programs like Delaware and Appalachian St. that average more in attendance than a number of FBS schools.

The reality is that the college football playoff system seems great on paper to the fans, but it creates a higher level of inconvenience to the fans than the current bowl system.

In FCS each summer, alumni, students and fans can plan their schedules to attend games on campus, making their arrangements months in advance. But when the playoffs start, the schedule and location of the games are unknown even a single week before. Passionate fans might change their schedules or have the spontaneity to attend a game. But that is a limited number of fans.

For basketball, many of the seats sold to neutral site games are sold to people living in that area. They are sold months in advance and the fans are buying tickets to an event, not knowing who the participants will be. Each school then has it’s allotment of tickets to sell, resulting in a what appears to be a balanced fan base…depending on the location.

When it comes to a proposed FBS football playoff, there would exist the same inconvenience for fans not having the necessary time to plan. Perhaps it means finding a babysitter, or moving a work schedule around. There are always things that come up. Because with the bowl system, the fans have a month to plan a trip. For some fans, it means a cross country trip from Pennsylvania or Ohio to get to the Rose Bowl in Los Angeles. For others fans in the SEC or ACC, it’s a convenient nearby trip to either Miami or New Orleans. Not are convenient as a trip to a nearby campus for a home game, that we know. But as we’ve seen in life, it’s often easier to plan a trip on the other side of the world with a months notice than it is to rearrange a set weekend schedule to do something just a few miles away.

It’s doubtful that the attendance drop would be as drastic in an FBS playoff as it is with even powerful FCS schools like Delaware and Appalachian St. At the top, schools like Texas, USC and Ohio St. would likely do fine based on the population of their communities. Schools that traditionally have attendance figures over 100,000 per game like Michigan, Tennessee, Penn St., etc would also likely do fine. But would there be a drop in attendance at all? Perhaps.

The assumption that all fans in favor of a playoff have is that a playoff system would be exactly on par with the NFL, where there is a huge demand for tickets to a showcase event. But what if an FBS playoffs were even a small step down from that and more similar to the FCS playoffs? If there were an average attendance drop in FCS regular season versus playoff games of 35%, is it a stretch to think that maybe the FBS attendance drop would be 5% or even 10%?

While the bowl system has more flaws than one can count, the one advantage it has is in the convenience it provides for the participating schools fan bases. In most cases, a fan of a school will have at least a month to finalize their travel plans. At the time of this article, UConn has sold roughly 4,000 tickets to it’s BCS game this year, the Fiesta Bowl. That number will grow. But how many people would travel for 4 road games in the playoffs each year? Very few. And those road tickets sold do make a significant part of many attendance figures. Fans need to look no further than watching an Ohio St. at Michigan game and seeing the number of red shirts in the crowd. And those road warriors are usually planning their trip to a rivals field with much advanced time…it’s rarely a spur of the moment decision.

The potential attendance issue is worth factoring into a playoff system because it is a real risk. If next week they announced a playoff system, the novelty would be quite high. But would it be enough to remain so that every year, you’d have all 15 games sold out when the people attending only have 1 week notice? The benefit of the NFL is that is takes place in metropolitan areas. So in addition to the regular attendees of seasonal games, you have another demographic to attend the playoffs. And in most cases, you’re talking about cities with 1-5 million people, versus college towns where the attendees are often driving from hundreds of miles away.

The risk is that the novelty could wear off with a playoff system and the attendance figures drop as they have on many FCS football campuses. And even as a TV product, a full stadium is always desired.

But the reality is that this risk will need to be put aside is a playoff system is to ever come to be. And for many fans, it’s a risk much worth taking.

Update: for Delaware’s home national semifinal game versus Georgia Southern the attendance was 10,317, half of their regular season average.

In a recent interview, Rachel Newman-Baker, the NCAA director of agents, gambling and amateurism activities, was very direct in her response to Montana: “”that was an administrative oversight and it won’t be repeated”.

If you read between the lines, it looks like the NCAA might come down hard on Delaware. They won’t need to go public with a decision until next fall when they know if Delaware or Delaware St. has the regular season success to play in the postseason.

But it will be interesting if a top seed Delaware team is forced to play on the road or a neutral site while the other top seeds get the benefit of home games.

http://espn.go.com/broadband/player.swf?mediaId=

More…

BCSBash.com

BCS coordinator John Swofford is among the witnesses invited to Friday’s hearing.

Several lawmakers are pushing bills on the BCS. Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, for example, has sponsored legislation that would prevent the NCAA from calling a college football game a “national championship” unless it results from a playoff system.

Barton is the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Friday’s hearing will be held in that committee’s commerce, trade and consumer protection subcommittee.

President Barack Obama has said he would prefer an eight-team playoff system.”

One thing here: the NCAA already has a National Championship for football. The winner of the FCS Division playoffs gets that title. The winner of the FBS Division (via the BCS bowls) is called the “BCS Champion”.

A buttoned-up BCS finished its last day of meetings Wednesday in the city that will host the championship game in early 2010. Only BCS coordinator John Swofford emerged briefly to speak to reporters a day after the group heard a case for changing to an eight-team playoff from the current single-game championship format.

It’s unlikely that the MWC’s proposal will bring about any major changes to the BCS’s format, despite pressure from the major-college conferences largely left out of the big-money bowls, as well as legislators and government officials including President Barack Obama.

Read More…

The MWC presented the BCS with a proposal Wednesday to create an eight-team playoff system that would allow greater access to the national championship game to teams outside the six most powerful leagues.

Commissioner Craig Thompson and four university leaders from the MWC announced details on a conference call and the entire 2½-page proposal was posted on the league’s Web site.

“I will put this as bluntly as a I can,” said Tom Buchanan, University of Wyoming president and chairman of the MWC board of directors. “We all believe that change is needed. The current system is not fair and somebody needs to stand up and say that and ask for dialogue amongst all the parties involved.

“Our goal is to find a system that is best for college football.”

The next BCS meeting is scheduled for April in Pasadena, Calif.

“I would strongly suggest this will be a conversation topic,” Thompson said.

Thompson would not speculate how the proposal will be received, but the chances of it being met with anything other than a resounding ‘No thank you’ from the commissioners of the six automatic qualifying conferences seems remote — at best.

The Bowl Championship Series last summer shot down a proposal brought by Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive that would have created a four-team playoff.

Read More

Before the close of Friday’s session, three U.S. Congressmen will cross-sponsor each other’s attempts to bring change to college football’s controversial postseason selection system.

Congressmen Gary Miller (R-California), Joe Barton (R-Texas), and Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) will call for a set of combined hearings in an effort to enact a playoff in college football.

“Every one of the 120 FBS (Football Bowl Subdivision) schools should have the ability to compete on the gridiron and earn a position in the national championship game,” BCSReform.org — a Web site devoted to ending the current BCS system — said in a statement, “regardless of how large or small the school is or from which conference the eventual teams are from. If a playoff format determines that two teams from the same conference should compete for the national title, they should have the ability to do so. BCSReform.org supports all legislative efforts that are aimed towards finally bringing about college football playoffs.”

Congressman Miller’s bill (H.R. 599) calls for and end to federal funding to FBS schools that do not participate in a playoff system and says it is the responsibility of the schools to develop and implement the playoffs.

Read More…