Whenever the ardent college football fan dreams of March Madness for a Christmas present, the end result is the same. Frankly, I think it might just be better if the BCS played Jim Mora Sr. over and over again saying:

"Playoffs? Don't talk to me about… playoffs! You kidding me? Playoffs? "

Every year we have the same discussion and that seems to be the result. We get reasons thrown about by people in the system, or in the know and they always ring hollow. And after each and every BCS disaster, we get yet another tweak which is supposed to fix the system permanently. Except it never works, so we end up back where we started, demanding that elusive tournament.

This year the pollsters got slick. They knew full well that they were headed towards another cataclysm once Missouri and West Virginia lost. The number three team Ohio State was fine. But number four, Georgia, was idle because they did not make their conference title game. Despite this the pollsters felt content to rank them above LSU and Virginia Tech last week. Then for some reason, Ohio State not playing for two weeks was fine, but Georgia not playing for one, wasn't. Both LSU and Va Tech vaulted Georgia and LSU will play for the title.

Of course this was just to save face. Everyone knew what kind of mess they'd be in if Georgia made the title game over a team in their conference with an equivalent record. So despite the fact LSU struggled with an okay Tennessee team and Va Tech played an overrated BC team, they both passed Georgia. One game makes that much of a difference now? Wait, then why didn't USC pass them too? Because it wasn't a conference title game?

I'm not saying Georgia is that deserving. I'm just pointing out the blatant flaws in this system. It is still far too subjective for anyone's liking. We're all using different methods to evaluate teams and frankly, they could be as ludicrous as saying "I like LSU's team colors more than USC's" and nothing could be done to stop this. The red flag should have been earlier this year when a voter said he would vote for South Florida over LSU because the latter had been good for 100 years. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the crop of people deciding who gets to play for a title. They don't even know about the schools they are or aren't voting for!

Despite all the tweaks they've tried to implement over the years, it still cannot escape that fact. This mishmash of rules combined with personal opinion is not working because the field is not big enough. Two teams is not an adequate way to get the opinions of hundreds of people, especially when those people are not necessarily well informed or certainly biased.

The simple course is to have a playoff. Subjectivity still exists, but it removes some of it. By putting all the conferences in, it emphasizes the regular season guaranteeing teams spots no matter how they get there. But the subjectivity still exists in picking the at large teams, so it's a better compromise than the one we have now. Just for kicks, here's how my system would look this year:

1. OSU(Big 10) v. 16. Central Michigan (MAC)

2. LSU(SEC) v. 15. Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)

3. Va Tech(ACC) v. 14. UCF (C-USA)

4. OU(Big 12) v. 13. BYU (M-West)

5. USC (Pac-10) v. 12. Florida (At Large)

6. West Virginia(Big East) v 11. Ar. State (At large)

7. Georgia (At Large) v 10. Hawaii (WAC)

8. Missouri(At Large) v. 9. Kansas(At Large)

So you have the current BCS conference winners guaranteed a home game. The mid majors would have to play on the road throughout. It would also give non conference winners a chance, but that would be leave them subject to a system that would be set up similar to the BCS. Makes a lot of sense right?

Sadly it won't happen if the powers that be have their way. Who are the powers that be?

Conventional wisdom says there are two things preventing a playoff, the bowl system and the major conferences.

Ironically, I honestly do not believe the bowl system is holding much up. Sure, the Rose Bowl loves to whine about its tradition. But really how much can four bowls hold things up? And that's all we'd be changing, if that. None of the non BCS games mean a lick. Then again, none of the BCS games mean anything either, unless the BCS system breaks.

No the problem is not the bowls, it's the major conferences.

Here's the thing; no one benefits more from the current setup more than the main BCS conferences. They are guaranteed the big pot from the bowl games because they get automatic admittance to the games. You can't score higher than 100% entry. Doesn't matter if you are a Pittsburgh team that is coming from a beaten down Big East, a Florida State team that tripped it's way to an ACC championship with three losses or an Oklahoma that emerges from a Big XII living off hype more than substance. You have that spot, and that guarantees you big money.

The BCS system was only changed to allow the likes of Boise State and Hawaii after the mid major conferences threatened to sue for anti trust violations. They claimed the BCS conferences were denying them a piece of the pie. So an extra game was added and the mid majors were guaranteed a spot if they finished in the top 12. It appeased the smaller schools some.

Of course then Boise State beat Oklahoma in a memorable game last season. Now if Hawaii somehow manages to beat Georgia this year, all hell could break loose.

You see, there is still a check on cutting the mid majors out of the pie. College football is a game built off reputation. It's a sport that's success is only partially shown by what you do on the field. In fact, the high rank of schools like Texas and Michigan would lead you to believe what you do on the field means far less than what you wear on the field. If those schools were even the weaker sisters of their own conference, they would not have sniffed the top 25. You can forget what would have been the case if they were mid majors.

Another check is the reluctance to schedule mid majors on the schedule. If the sport is built on rep more than actual play, then how does one change it's rep? By playing name opponents and winning. Nothing did more to save the Big East as a major conference more than West Virginia's win over Georgia in the 2006 Sugar Bowl. Boise State helped the mid majors immensely with their win over the Sooners last year.

But the mid majors do not get that chance on a regular basis. Hawaii's schedule is garbage, but unlike teams like Kansas, it is known they tried to schedule some big dogs. Few teams want to fly out to Hawaii, which is understandable. On the other hand, they've offered to come to other team's houses and play. The most famous tale is of this year and Hawaii offering to play in the Big House. Michigan canceled on them, scheduled 1-AA Appalachian State and the rest, as they say, is history.

The irony is of course, Michigan might have temporarily saved the BCS in taking it on the chin from App. State. Losing to them meant Michigan just proved they weren't that good. If the #5 Wolverines had lost at home to Hawaii, there's a fairly good chance the Rainbow Warriors would be heading to New Orleans a week later than they are scheduled to now. Think about it; Michigan loses to a ranked Hawaii team. That bumps Hawaii up seriously in the polls, while Michigan doesn't drop as far because while Hawaii is not a good loss, they're not an embarrassing one. Hawaii then runs the table while everyone does what they did this year. Suddenly, the Warriors have wins over Michigan (ranked #5 at the time), ranked Boise State and Washington. They'd have a very similar looking schedule to Ohio State, in fact. So how could you deny them a spot in the title game?

You couldn't. And suddenly, the BCS monopoly would be in serious jeopardy, especially if they did the unthinkable and won. Instead, Hawaii has still beaten no one and can be held back because of SOS, even though Kansas, who beat about as impressive a set of opponents, was allowed to rise to #2.

Now I'm not saying Hawaii is that good. I'm just explaining how the system works to keep the small schools down.

And in this, you can see why a playoff does not happen.

Eight teams or sixteen; it does not matter. What you do by having a playoff is open the door for the major conferences to lose guaranteed money. They've worked so hard to prevent this from happening with the BCS, why would they allow a playoff so easily strip it away?

Let's look at the current bowl matchups:

National Title: OSU v. LSU

Sugar: Georgia v. Hawaii

Orange: Va. Tech v. Kansas

Fiesta: OU v. West Virginia

Rose: USC v. Illinois

As you can see, one non BCS school is in there. Now let's break down what a 16 team playoff would look like:

1. OSU(Big 10) v. 16. Central Michigan (MAC)

2. LSU(SEC) v. 15. Florida Atlantic (Sun Belt)

3. Va Tech(ACC) v. 14. UCF (C-USA)

4. OU(Big 12) v. 13. BYU (M-West)

5. USC (Pac-10) v. 12. Florida (At Large)

6. West Virginia(Big East) v 11. Ar. State (At large)

7. Georgia (At Large) v 10. Hawaii (WAC)

8. Missouri(At Large) v. 9. Kansas(At Large)

I'm exceptionally favorable to the BCS schools here. I give them home games automatically if they win their conference AND if they are the high at large against a non BCS school. The most likely scenario here is that all the mid majors go home after the first round with the possible exception of Hawaii if they catch fire.

The problem is that there's also a chance that something crazy happens. For example, what happens if UCF, who had Texas on the ropes, beats Virginia Tech. Then BYU, who beat UCLA handily, beats OU. Then Hawaii also beats Georgia. Suddenly our next round looks like this:

1.OSU v. UCF

2. LSU v. BYU

6. USC v. Hawaii

9. West Va v. Missouri

Then what if BYU and Hawaii win? You have a semi final of:

OSU v. BYU

West Va. /Missouri v. Hawaii

You still likely end up with an all BCS conference title game. However, what you don't have is a BCS monopoly anymore. Let's argue for a moment that the current BCS bowl games become semi final games, or heck, consolation games, you still get BYU and Hawaii in the game. That's a loss of money for the major conferences. Plus if those teams do well on a consistent basis, like say a Gonzaga does in college basketball, then what happens if those mid major conferences start arguing THEY deserve a home game like everyone else? Do you think anyone wants to go to Hawaii and play a playoff game?

And that's the problem. The BCS conferences are pissing away guaranteed money if they go to a playoff system. A playoff system could make more money overall (just think of the ad revenue they'd get- far more than just for the Papa Johns bowl), but it likely would make less guaranteed money for the BCS schools, so they are against it.

Money is really the key to it all. Let's face facts here. The reasons given for a lack of a playoff system are BS.

-Renders the bowls meaningless: Yeah, because everyone I know is getting up for the International Bowl between Rutgers and Ball State. Also, if USC wins the Rose Bowl this year it will give USC the title… of being the fourth team this year to beat Illinois.

-Renders the regular season meaningless: I didn't realize everyone got in. Under the scenario I provided, Illinois, currently in the BCS, doesn't get in. BC doesn't get in. USF doesn't get in. Oregon doesn't get in.Those last three schools were top of the BCS at one point this year and still in the top 25.

Besides, this would entice conferences to play stronger out of conference schedules in a bid to gain a better chance of securing at large bids. It would be in a school's best interest to go hard out of conference because they'd have a fall back if they didn't win their conference.

-College football will have too many games: Didn't stop them from expanding to 12 games not including conference championships a few years back. They also play for two semesters in basketball. Besides, now a days, sports are year round. Springtime practice anyone?

It's pretty simple to disprove these three anti playoff pillars isn't it? Now try looking at the way the BCS favors the major conferences and try to show how a playoff would be in their best interest monetarily.

Look, they won't lose much. In fact, they could gain in the long run. But nothing is guaranteed and they have no reason not to be risk averse.

That is unless people complain loud enough. Or more likely, the small schools threaten to bring legal action against the BCS conferences again. They have to erode the BCS monopoly to the point where it no longer is beneficial to the major conferences to continue in it. If the playoffs look like a better way to stack their deck, then they'll move in that direction.

So that's as good a reason as any to root for Hawaii to play a good game in the Sugar Bowl. The better the mid majors of the world do in their one BCS chance, the better the chances of them pushing for more equity. More equity would force a playoff.

Until then college football will be forever stuck in a Jim Mora-esque purgatory when discussing alternatives to the yearly BCS disaster.