Didn't catch this article when it came out, but found a few quotes interesting about the continued opposition to a play-off (although most talk continues to be pointing toward at least a +1). It is just one guy talking, but kind of highlights the perspective that those in charge don't necessarily see the "undisputed national champion" as a top priority for the sport.
http://eye-on-collegefootball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/24156338/34358799
"I'm still not enamored with expanding the number of BCS games," said Nebraska channcellor Harvey Perlman. "I'm not in favor of a playoff, I have yet to hear a good reason why we would want one. I've spent a lot of time over the last several years as to why a playoff is bad. I'd like to hear one why it would be good and what it would accomplish. The only one I ever hear is that it would give us an undisputed national champion."
"I think (a playoff) would undermine the regular season or add games or undermine the bowls," Perlman said. "We don't need it. We have a regular season that is as much of a playoff as anything that could be constructed artificially. Why would you want it? Football isn't basketball."
There has been talk that the Cotton Bowl, thanks to Jerry Jones' money and the largess of Cowboys Stadium, would be in play as a fifth BCS bowl come 2014. Perlman doesn't believe that will be the case, with a more likely scenario of the BCS evolving into a #1 vs. #2 matchup and the rest of the bowls reverting back to conference tie-ins. That scenario is one that many think Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany would be supportive of.
I still believe that the +1 under that circumstance isn't going to please the general fanbase. One of the driving arguments is that teams like TCU and Boise have previously been left out and I don't think that will change. We've already seen votes sway late in the season away from those teams that essentially ensured they wouldn't end up in the top two. I would expect the same thing to happen if there were four teams involved - voters would vote accordingly to bump those types of teams down to the fifth spot while a 1-loss SEC team (for example) locks up a second spot in the top four.
Aside from that, the whole idea of going back to conference tie-ins for the major (BCS) bowls is a huge step backward for those same mid-major teams, including Boise State despite their move to a "BCS" conference. I highly doubt the Big East is going to lock up a tie-in to a big enough bowl that would ever help its champion gain consideration for a title game. There won't be a Boise-Oklahoma or TCU-Wisconsin opportunity to give voters/computers one last push for the underdog. Boise will end up playing the new Conference USA/MWC champion in a crappy bowl for $15 million less than what they've been playing BCS bowls and still be no closer to playing for a national title.
Careful what you wish for, guys.
