Here’s a post from the guy who is one of the co-founders of Playoff PAC, in reaction to the BCS game selections. It doesn’t break any new ground in the debate, but it’s worth noting this passage:
… the BCS did nothing to address the system’s greatest defects by selecting Boise State for an at-large spot. For example, the ACC will receive approximately $18.3 million from the BCS this post-season. For accomplishing the same feat – placing one team in a BCS bowl – the Mountain West Conference must divide $9.6 million among its fellow five “non-AQ” conferences. Forcing these teams to live off of table scraps is not good for college football’s long-term health. Unfortunately, Boise State’s historic at-large berth doesn’t mean the BCS has changed its anti-competitive revenue distribution system.
Again, it bears repeating to everyone who insists that there is a logical limit to the size of a playoff because of competition… don’t forget to count the money. Because you’d better believe none of the schools are.
Get The Picture 
To put it another way. There are several attractive logical limits to the size of a playoff, but logic won’t be the determining factor. Economic rationality will be the determining factor, and that’s where the slippery slope starts.
LikeLike
Bingo.
LikeLike
Pop Warner and John Heisman must be rolling over in their graves.
LikeLike
I think this is where the speculation starts.
No sport with a play-off that I’m aware of has extended while offering 27 (about a 3rd of the league making the post-season, like most other leagues) other post-season bowls. If there is such a league, you might have a valid comparison. Otherwise, I think it’s clearly apples and oranges.
LikeLike
No doubt you could have made the same argument about the NCAA basketball tourney and the NIT forty years ago. Hell, go back a few more years, and you’d find plenty of people who would argue that the NIT was more prestigious than the NCAA.
LikeLike