I came across this article on Doc Saturday. Having a couple econ degrees, I'm always interested in how professional economists view the BCS. This basically outlines how 20 of them signed a letter to the Fed detailing their issues with the BCS and antitrust law.
The thing I took from this article is that economists, politicians, and writers like Dan Wetzel live in a hypothetical fantasy-world.
I find they want equality but not fairness. As economists, I would think they would stand along the lines of fair free-market principles - that it's most economically fair for schools more people follow (via tv ratings, tickets, bowl attendance) to be compensated more, and those followed less should be compensated less; for-profit bowls allowed to invite the candidates best for their business; etc. - and that, in my opinion, would only further separate the haves and have-nots. Dissolving the BCS doesn't mean a playoff is imminent; If bowls can invite whomever they wish, I believe we'll see even less opportunity for the Boises and Utahs (pre-Pac-12) of the world.
Thoughts? (I hope this doesn't end as a playoff vs. bcs argument, instead as a discussion of economic merit for BCS vs. dissolution)