A "Plus One" benefits no one. The arguments just shift from which the top two teams should be to which the top four should be.

The only objectively "unbiased" major college football play-off possible is one that pits all six of the BCS conference champions against one another along with four at large bids, with automatic qualification for "have not" conference champions who finish top 12 or Notre Dame if it finishes top 10.

Until then, I'll keep the Rose Bowl thanks.

The Rose Bowl is the only BCS game with nearly universal independent appeal. It's the crown jewel of bowl games and always has been for the history of the game and the pageantry of the parade.

It's not as if we've been making it there enough to yawn about it. The one recent season we would've gone to it, we were jobbed out of the Rose Bowl and into the Fiesta. The RB rocks, and you know it, the other conferences know it, and no legitimate NC game could take place without two of the most powerful conferences in the sport.

The Deseret moron says that if the BCS fractured that Big Ten and Pac Ten recruiting would suffer for it.  He's apparently not from these parts. Kids like to play near home and the RB is still THE GOAL for the teams of the two conferences whenever one of them is not in the hunt for the MNC. Why? Because it is the biggest deal in all of CFB outside of the current NC game when that game is not in the RB. If the BCS fractured, it'd be an easy readjustment to play in the "best" bowl game rather than the sports world version of American Idol as produced by Fox.

In my view, what would happen in a "Plus One" is that teams would stop playing tough out of conference games in lame attempts to finish in the top four via the "Kansas Model." it's simply easier to manipulate your way into two extra spots than into the top two. Last year, the Big 12 were media darlings going into "Dr. Pepper season" due to Okie and Kansas. Turned out to largely be a mirage. Okie sucked and Kansas wasn't all that. tOSU got to back into the game.

In a "Plus One" system, they'd have all still sucked and until ALL of the conference champs can square off for a shot at the big one, expanding the excrement filled system to picking the "Top Four" teams would lead to even greater injustices on a more regular basis than has the current BCS model. It's only in retrospect you find out who the pretenders were, and as last year amply demonstrated, you can just as easily have four as two.

And yes, I say this even though the Ducks would have faced Miami for all of the marbles in a "Plus One" scenario in 2001.

Alas, it turns out that the Big XII, Big East, and Notre Dame joined the Pac-10, and the Big Ten in wanting no further discussions on the topic through the end of the current contract.

I guess we'll be seeing some fans converting to the No Fun League now, for their usually mostly meaningless last three weeks of each regular season.

That said, I'd like to respond to what Canard said above.

You do realize that college football is the only major sport that does not end its season in some sort of tournament?  It has nothing to do with the NFL.  This is a horrible argument.  I (an many others) are fans in spite of the bowl system, not because of it.

I also think that it's pretty bad argument to say that picking the top 4 is not any easier than picking the top 2.  It won't always be easier, but many times it will be.  There will always be people on the outside looking in, but the more you let in, the less of an argument the fringe teams have.  4 teams is not ideal in my mind, but is much better than 2.  I think that a 4 or 6 team system would also put a lot more emphasis on winning your conference, which could HELP non-conference schedules, as if you win your conference, you'd have a great shot of going to the playoff, regardless.  The BCS system HURTS out of conference games.

Also, Pac-10 fans that are so gung-ho about the RB, are like SEC fans in general.  Yes, the Rose Bowl holds lots of tradition, and memories, etc. But it's not this heavenly thing you and others make it out to be.  I would completely disagree that recruiting would not be hurt by a BCS fracture.  If the Pac 10 and Big 10 were shut out, recruiting would be hurt, especially for Oregon, as they recruit nationally.  I think it's also sitting in the past to say that the Rose Bowl is THE goal.  The Rose Bowl is a goal.  To say that it is THE GOAL for even a decent minority of the players would be stretching it.  Try being USC and telling players they couldn't play for a National Title.  Give me a break.  The assertions made here were ridiculous.  Some west coast recuits play for a Rose Bowl.  But outside of that (and many recruits come from elsewhere for many Pac 10 schools), the Rose Bowl means very little in comparison to a national title.

Honestly, in my opinion, the Rose Bowl in and of itself means nothing.  The Rose Bowl is just a game, and the only reason people like it is because of "tradition" and the "pageantry of the parade."  Are you frickin kidding me?  A parade?  This type of argument again shows why the Rose Bowl can throw football under the bus.

Lastly, your arguments against a top 4 system, or any playoff system, are convoluted and contradictory.  As I said above, any true playoff would HELP out of conference games.

Lastly, your dig about a meaningless NFL season.  Yes, that is the case for a 32 team league where 14 teams get into the playoffs.  Even in a top 8 or 16 in college football, that is out of 119 teams in Division 1-A, or taking just BCS schools, over 60.  Because this percentage would be so low, games would take on MORE IMPORTANCE.  For every game that loses importance, 3 gain importance.

I get tired of the same old anti-playoff arguments that can't hold any semblance of water.  There are arguments against a playoff, but these weren't them.