BCS eliminates 8 & 16 team proposals, recommends 4-team playoff without AQ conferences.

I don't know why anyone would listen to the BCS either.

Wanna give a little of an explanation behind why you think that's the case?  It would have to be a crazy scenario for that to even be possible, and it would likely mean the top teams from the other conferences just sucked.  But the point is, it could be an All BIg Ten or Pac-12 final four just as easily.

That will always happen.  Hell, they even have a whole show dedicated to who gets left out of the NCAA tourney - I remember because this was Michigan a couple years when I was in college or just after.  So no doubt that debate will happen, with bitching from that fanbase.

But it will be different.  There will likely not be a team who many think is the #1 team getting left out.  There will not be an undefeated Auburn or #1 ranked USC left out.  Almost never is there a situation where the 5th team has a legitimate argument as the top team in the country. 

If you get left out of a top 4, you likely don't have a good excuse.  It clearly means you didn't go undefeated (in a major conference) and it likely means you either have 2 losses, or you just didn't play anyone.  In either case, you don't have an argument as the best team in college football. 

The only solution is scrap the regular season and go to a 120 team playoff.  Fair is fair.

go back and read it again, see if that helps

How about a two-man sack race held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned?

I'm sure the Big Ten is not in favor of conference champions only, considering they are probably the next most likely conference to have multiple teams outside of the SEC (Big 12 being very close).  The Pac-12 probably doesn't care because USC will always get a shot when they're good and most years the conference didn't have a viable second option anyway.

Not really.  First of all, they're probably getting more money out of it, but there will still be some bowl system in place outside of the 4-team playoff.  And BSU and TCU were in situations in their old conferences where they played in a bowl no one cared about unless they ran the table and got a BCS bid.  Now, when Boise or TCU goes 10-2, they'll play in a bowl that I've actually heard of, and if they win their league without going undefeated, they'll play in a very good bowl (likely a current BCS bowl, or similar). 

Getting into the Big 12 was a dream come true for TCU. The Big East's worldwide expansion looks crazier now. It barely made sense when there was a chance of keeping their AQ status.

Now you'll never play in anything bigger than the Las Vegas Bowl.

I don't know about that - I can think of at least a few scenarios where a non-AQ would have gotten into a four team playoff in the last decade or so, specifically the year TCU made the Rose Bowl. With the old BCS, the non-AQs were never, ever, ever going to get into the National Championship game. Now, they may never, ever, ever get to play in the Rose Bowl again, but I'm pretty sure they are willing to trade that for a realistic shot at getting into the playoff if they run the table.

Agreed, 8 is perfect. Not sure why the big wigs are resisting the inevitable.

I may be wrong, but I think the BCS is technically the conferences themselves, they just happen to work with the bowls.  And if I'm wrong, since the conferences hold all the power, it can easily be arranged that the BCS be renamed as the bowls are cut out.

The conferences run the BCS, so the conferences have decided to do this. 

I think it's fine, personally. I'd prefer home sites over bowl sites but I'm not going to shout down a playoff over it. I might prefer the pre-BCS system to this but whatever. Baby steps 

...it probably responds like this when you ask it a question:

If this were to be the case, I would rather have homes sites for the semis and a BCS / neutral (i.e., bid) site for the championship game. I rather liked that idea if only because it allows for some meaningful postseason play in areas that have never seen it but would benefit economically from it.

I also like the idea of getting rid of the AQ / non-AQ distinction, although with the interstellar reach of the Big East, I am pretty sure the Democratic Order Of Planets will have to convene in Weehauken to discuss the implications.

It seems like a step in the right direction, though not a complete solution certainly.It seems that the problem that the BCS was supposed to solve is only now starting to be solved, although it will never stop the complaining of fanbases who are "on  the bubble", if you will - the great thing about a change like this is that it could at least  control, if it is well-conceived, some of the old arguments as to why Team X is not in Bowl Y and whatnot. 

It's like Jacob from Lost.

Technically, the NCAA has to sanciton whatever format they come up with, but since the 5 major conferences hold a majority of FBS teams, they can push through any playoff proposal if the current BCS conferences less the Big East are unanimous.  It's close though and if there are presidents categorically opposed to any form of a playoff (not out of the question), the big conferences may have to grease the wheels a bit.  Maybe just requiring participants to be conference champions is enough to get the Big East.  Maybe assure a minimum yearly payment to all FBS members.  Whatever they do, I'm sure they won't go to the NCAA until it's clear they have the votes.