I hear alot of seeming nonsense like:
- "It'll get in the way of finals"
- "It will make the season too long"
- "It will increase the chance for injury"
- "It will destroy the import of the regular season",
- "It will kill off the time-honored bowls"
- etc, etc.

None of these are valid, and every one can be soundly counterargued:

- "It'll get in the way of finals"
Not if you adjust the regular season, and split the playoff so that it has a multiple-week break between rounds that would fall in the finals timeframe. Divs. I-AA, II, and III seem to manage playoffs with no problems -- for over 25 years.

- "It will make the season too long"
Seeing how certain teams already play 14-15 games some years, added to the fact that less than 10% of all I-A teams would even play over 13-14 games, this is not much of an argument. They can just limit the reg. season if it's really a prob.

- "It will increase the chance for injury"
Players are probably more likely to get injured goofing off on the holiday break between the reg. season and the bowls. Ok, so this is somewhat of a valid argument, but still irrelevant. If the playoff is post-season play, that means there will be no more games afterwards. What are we trying to preserve the healthy players for again? Players came to the school to play a physical and somewhat dangerous sport, injuries come with the territory.

- "It will destroy the import of the regular season",
Bull, Bull, bull. Only 3-4 teams are playing for the NC every year, under the current model, after week 4 or 5. So the current model would have less interesting reg. seasons, for the other 110+ teams, than that of a playoff model that included 8-16 teams.

- "It will kill off the time-honored bowls"
Good riddance. Time to move on. I see no reason why using bowls or other selected venues -- similar to the D-I hoops model -- for a playoff would have less effect on local CoC's and tourism bureaus than the current bowls do. More people will be watching playoffs than bowls anyway. Why must bowl heads dictate the direction the sport of college football? They aren't nearly as indispensable to the sport as they think they are.

My guess:

The only reason I can see is that the presidents are afraid -- yes afraid -- to make too much money off college football. More money would increase professionalistic pressures from certain groups, and most presidents want to keep college sports amateur from a player standpoint. This is the conclusion I've come to from hearing interviews from the likes of Pres. Brand and others. Pres. Brand, on an ESPN special forum about professionalization aired around Final Four time, was asked about it, and he gave an answer to the effect (paraphrased): "Most schools don't have the funds to pay players -- only a handful of I-A schools break even".

Well, a playoff payoff has been estimated in the billions -- much more than the bowl system grosses. I think there would be many who would say, "Hey, these schools are getting all this cash. Why don't they pay the players that are earning it for them?" This exists now, how much more so with manifold increases in revenue subsequent to a I-A playoff? If I were a college president opposing NCAA professionalism, I'd likely do what I could to prevent a playoff as well. But as a fan of the sport with other interests, I am all for playoffs in I-A football.

The travel industry makes money off the bowls.

They ALSO make money off of season games. College football, after all, far and away leads among American sports fans in terms of people traveling distances to games. As such, there's got to be strong connections between colleges and this industry.

They don't want to break up the party.

The colleges, however, would break up the party at the first sign of something TRULY more lucrative. $300 million spread out to NCAA institutions per year isn't close to enough money to do that. This would take billions, and I don't think the sponsors who might be interested can justify throwing that much money on the table when they don't know where the return will come from. Some of that IS Oklahoma (arbitrary choice; substitute a similarly successful school at your leisure) wanting to see more money from the new system than from the current system... and the other schools in BCS conferences, in the end, will support that line of reasoning because they think they're on the doorstep of knocking off Oklahoma and grabbing more than their share of the funds forthcoming.

Well, at least that's my observation.

Two reasons come to mind for me:

1) While a playoff might mean more money overall, it would redistribute that in a way that would threaten the existing power base. Right now the overwhelming majority of BCS revenues flows to the schools within the "BCS" conferences. They won't say it, but the heads of those schools don't want a system whereby the likes of Tulane and San Jose State recieves the same cut of the rewards as Oklahoma and Michigan. And face it, the only thing more unlikely than a playoff is a playoff with a payout structure that is as imbalanced as the BCS system.

2) Fear of how the playoffs would be managed. At a minimum I suspect 16 teams would be involved, once the NCAA and all parties bickered for a balance to needs for inclusion, etc. Yet what would that do the bowls? How long until there's pressure to expand the playoffs? Trying to scatter the bowls to maximize air time would be frsutrating, and possibly cause more interference with the NFL calendar, which the college folks don't want to do for obvious reasons. And established powers don't like the idea of too many games on the road (and coordinating neutral sites could become a nightmare) or being the victim of potential upsets.

I don't think it's a fear of a playoff as much as it is a fear of those in control losing that control.

I could not have said it better. It's not just about the money. It's about power.

If it hasn't been introduced by anyone already (other than myself), I'm gonna throw in the Gonzaga rule. A playoff is the ONLY way that someone like Utah (that's undefeated Utah) will have a legitimate shot at a national championship. After all, you don't hear Gonzaga complaining about not having a shot at the men's basketball championship.

Bump a conference, bump a ranking, PLAYOFF!!

So, you want to know the real reason. ??? A good place to start looking for answers is on the Bowlmageddon thread in the General Section of this board. The the discussion centers around the fact that basically EVERY team with a winning record can go to a bowl. Bowls make the Alumni happy, the coaches happy, and therefore the AD's and college presidents happy.
A playoff would destroy the bowls. Every year you get 56 schools that are happy to be in a bowl, and another couple of dozen that think that they will be next year. A football playoff cannot have 56 teams. Majority rules.

FBfan

P.S. As I have stated before; My statements of the matter of a playoff are designed to be informative. (I hope.) They are not intended to endorse either position.