Non BCS Team That Call For a Playoff Smart Thinking?

   Over the past couple of seasons we have heard the outcry from the Non-Big 6 coaches, commissioners, and so on wanting a playoff to "equal out" the chances of winning a BCS National Championship. What most of these people calling for a playoff don't realize is that their best chances probably lie with the current format, and I will tell you why. These Non- Big 6 teams have a far better shot of making the BCS title game in its current format than running a guantlet in an eight team playoff, which seems to be the most popular format those who are calling for a playoff to have.

     Think about it. I will break this down a little further:

1. No one likes how the championship teams are chosen now what makes anyone think their wouldn't be further outrage with the selection process for an 8 team playoff. You know the Big 6 conferences would have six of the eight slots virtually automatically. So that would leave 2 spots for fight for among the other 114 teams in the FBS.

2. What makes any of the people calling for a playoff think a 2nd place team from one of the Big 6 conference wouldn't get the other 2 slots in most years?

3. Corporate sponsership. The greenbacks are what runs sports period does anyone really think that either one corporate sponser is going to put forth the money to either sponser an entire playoff series or enough money to pay out for just the championship game the recoup the money that would be lost by not having the current bowl games? I can't forsee some major corporate sponsor jumping up for joy to sponser the FBS First Round playoff game. I'm a realist though I know the corporate sponsers would line up for the chance at the championship game sponsorship but as for the rest of the playoff's I just can't see much money being brought in.

4. Do all the games get played at neutral locations throughout the entire series or does the first round get played at the home stadiums of the higher seeded teams?

Now lets think about this from a competitive standpoint. I'll start with last year. Lets just say we put the top 8 teams in the country into a playoff format seeded according to the rankings. We then have matchups that look like this for the first round:

1.Oklahoma vs. 8. Penn St. Game 1

2.Florida vs. 7. Texas Tech Game 2

3.Texas vs. 6. Utah Game 3

4.Alabama vs. 5. USC. Game 4

Now looking at the potential matchups the second round game if in a traditional tournament format would have put the winner of Game 1 vs. the winner of Game 4, and the winner of Game 3 vs. the winner of Game 2. with the winners of these 2 games moving forward to the championship game. Now some of those matchups in the first round look very interesting can any Utah fan actually believe that the Utes as good as they were last year would have beat Texas in the first game then went on to beat the Florida/TT winner, and followed that up with a win against Alabama/USC/Oklahoma/Penn St? 

See difference in Utah and the other 7 teams is depth. As Utah has proven to the world twice now in BCS bowls that starter for starter they could hang with the big boys, but running that guantlet starters are going to have to be replaced in games whether due to injury or fatigue. Which of those teams does anyone think would be less equiped to replace players as they go down? The answer is Utah. The rest of the teams on that list staples in the top 10 which means when guys go down there is always someone to fill the hole with little drop off. So until one of these Non Big 6 teams prove they can make it into consideration for BCS bowls on an annual basis and not just once every 3 or 4 years a playoff will not be neccessary in college football.

Going undefeated once every 4 years doesn't mean you were robbed out of consideration for a National Championship game when the other 3 years your not within sniffing distance of BCS. This is my first article written for B/R so hopefully I will have started some insightful discussion and not just ridicule, but all opinions are welcome.