The BCS goes back to the alliance days which was a power grab and a money grab by certain conferences and it hasn't changed in its intent," Jackson said. "To add another game, will it resolve controversy over who's who and what's what? I really truly doubt it."
The Pac-10 and the Big Ten didn't start the fire.
They were plenty happy before the Bowl Alliance (or whatever it was called back then) came along. They were less happy after it. And they're a little less happy now with the BCS. Here's guessing they'd be content with things going back to the way they were before the other conferences changed the composition of the game. It was a bad move then and heading towards a playoff is an even worse move now.
Does anyone really think 12-team conferences are good for college football? How about conference title games? Schedules are finite. College football simply cannot play a 16-week season like the NFL. Flying in the face of logic, most of the same conferences that pushed us into this Alliance/BCS reality are also the conferences carrying twelve members.
It's obvious that round-robin play (or something close to it) is superior to split divisions (see SEC, Big 12, ACC) and possible repeat matchups in conference title games. Can a team truly be its league champion if it hasn't faced all its league opponents? Do you follow?
The major conferences most associated with sensible conference play (Pac-10, Big Ten, Big East) are the same ones treated as the villains in all of this, Big East excluded. Amazing. We had it right, once ...