Ironic that the best comments against a playoff here were aimed at me because there is no one on this board more opposed than I am to a playoff. The comment of mine that was being replied to was made in the belief that this thing is going to be rammed down our throat.
I hope you didn't take it personally. I spend most of my energy on the topic rather than properly interpreting individual opinions. I usually just take a tidbit and run with it, so I hope no one here takes it too personally. I tried to specify I was directing my thoughts at the statement and not you personally, and I guess you took it in stride since you didn't call me any names.
Now, off I go...
Personally, I do think we are seeing some bias against Alabama and the SEC. Is it all aimed specifically at Alabama and the SEC? Of course not, but it is there. There's no getting around the fact that the NCAA didn't like Bear Bryant (the feeling was mutual) and doesn't like Alabama. They've never missed a chance to hammer Alabama. There's no getting around the fact that every time Alabama excels, there seems to be forces out there trying to make it more difficult. Alabama isn't a very big state, it isn't a very popular state, and it isn't the base for any major media outlets. There have rarely been national advocates for Alabama. The same can be said for the SEC to a lesser extent. The SEC is the blue collar worker of the college football world. They got what they have through a work ethic, and they excel. A lot of people don't like these "lesser" institutions showing them up. Alabama and the SEC stand for excellence, in the traditional American spirit. Dirty, sweaty, and perhaps a little crass but excellent none the less. This has to drive a lot of members of the media and the stodgy university types crazy. They want inclusion, they want their own form of elitism, and it simply doesn't mesh with SEC dominance. If they could, I'm sure they would pass the championship trophy around amongst themselves, Notre Dame one year, then Ohio St., then USC... and we're ruining that.
We can't discount ESPN's role. ESPN has been the main entity reporting lower bowl ratings, yet they were the reason for lower bowl ratings. Simply moving from broadcast to cable should produce at least a 20% drop in ratings, which is in keeping with what we're seeing. Of course attendance drops as well when ESPN has the bowls spread out and played at odd times on odd days. I can't say if ESPN is intentionally killing off the bowls, or if they're just trying to drain them for every last penny. It's certainly not in their interest to have the games seen by the most possible people (or else they would be on ABC) and it's certainly no concern of theirs that people actually show up to the stadiums. What I do find highly questionable is that the same entity that is constantly telling us ratings are lower and we need a change, can't see fit to ask their bosses why the choice was made to move away from broadcast or even ask their reaction to the ratings. It seems like poor reporting in the least and perhaps more sinister than that.
Shortly before the Big 10 suggestion for a plus one came out, I was close to posting my own proposal. I'm not sure if it was a moment of weakness. I suppose part of it was: here's what I could stomach. Mine was close to what the Big 10 said (and I probably tossed it into a thread about that proposal). 1 should get a bye, 2 a home game against 3. This way, everyone gets due respect for their position. 1 is rewarded, 2 plays at home and 3 should be happy to be there.
I have to back off of even that. If we're being pushed in a direction we have to ask why. If we're being mislead, we have to question why they feel the need to mislead us. The more I look the more I see the AP's agenda in this. The more I see ESPN's agenda. I know the NCAA's agenda, I know the lesser conference's agenda. I'm not completely sure about Slive, considering the scholarship things I am not sure I can trust him. There is no avoiding the fact that we're being pushed in a direction that started a long time ago. The championship matchup between Alabama and Miami was a good thing. The BCS title game has been a good thing. However, bit by bit we're losing something and I'd hope more and more of us start to realize we want to get off this ride. A plus one will just be the next stop, it won't be the end, even the plus one will probably have something slipped in to undermine the process. Perhaps it will allow the top two teams like the BCS does, but if it's a non-conference champ they won't be allowed in if they are 3 or 4. It won't end there though, and let's be clear, a plus one will put the bowl games on life support.
The title came should be renamed, retain the same basic criteria for selection, and the rest of the bowl games should operate separately. No more BCS, just an agreement to release the top 2 teams to play in the game. It should probably be opened up to bidding, so any (off campus) site can host it. I have other ideas for how to make college football better, but for this issue in isolation that's how I believe it should be handled. Clean the slate, give us 1 vs 2 and let stop telling the bowl games who they can and can't have.