Maybe...

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5763731

You speak of the 64 schools that dominate the BCS such that no playoff system could be adopted.  It seems to me that this is exactly the type of combination in restraint of trade that the Anti-Trust laws are designed to prevent.  I don't think that the Anti-Trust laws should (or can) be used to force the adoption of a playoff system.  They may, however, be able to force an expansion of programs eligible to participate.

The more interesting question, to me anyway, is whether such suits may lead to the finding that the NCAA and its member institutions are engaged in a "trade or business".  If so, you can kiss the tax-exempt status of the NCAA and its sports programs goodbye.

This would have some major implications for inter-collegiate athletics in general, but in particular for the traditional Div I football powerhouses.  If the court cases rule against the NCAA and the BCS both from an Anti-trust and tax perspective, I foresee the rise of "minor league" football such as we see in baseball and the dimunition of college football programs to what we see at the Division II or III levels. 

Personally, I do not see this as a bad thing, but I have to think of programs such as Akron who just spent megabucks to build a new stadium.  I'm not sure whether it was financed by bonds or not, but if it was the drop in attendance (such as it is) and debt service could wipe out the program.  Perhaps the school could lease the stadium to the new Akron minor league football team/

College football is a $2 billion per year industry.  If such a blatant cartel were operating in any other line of business, it would have been broken up years ago.  Given the vast numbers of people that are affiliated in one way or another with college football (as players, coaches, fans, etc.), this is hardly a trivial matter.  Just because it is sports doesn't mean it isn't important. 

I disagree, for a couple reasons.  First, I strongly suspect that the BCS would cave pretty quickly if the Department of Justice actually filed suit.  A strong case can be made that the current system does violate antitrust law, and a federal antitrust suit brought by the United States government would be a P.R. and political disaster for a BCS organization that is already hated.  Plus there would be a lot of risk involved for the primary BCS officials, from triple damages to possible jail time.  That doesn't necessarily mean they would immediately institute a playoff, but I suspect we'd quickly see significant changes for the better to the BCS.

Second, even if no charges are filed that doesn't mean it was a waste of money.  The reason we have an antitrust division in the DOJ is to investigate potential antitrust violations.  Not every investigation leads to an indictment, just as not every police investigation leads to an arrest.  But that doesn't mean there isn't value in going through the exercise to make sure that no laws are being broken.  The DOJ wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't investigate a cartel this blatant.

You're out of touch, JCW.  A recent Sports Illustrated poll showed that 90% of college football fans in total oppose the BCS.  We focus here on its unfair implications for mid-majors, but many of the major conference fans hate it as well, because unless their team is one of the two picked for the title game they lose a chance to play for a national title.  Almost every year there is significant controversy regarding the picks for the title game, and anyone left on the outside looking in is going to be displeased.  Auburn in 2003, USC in 2004, Oregon and Colorado in 2001, Cincinnati last year. 

The system is a joke, and needs to be replaced.  It has destroyed interest in lower tier bowl games, and is destructive to the regular season because it renders 90%+ of all games played irrelevant to the national title race (i.e., those played by almost all non-BCS schools, and most games between BCS teams with 1 or more losses).  A 16-game playoff would substantially improve college football.  11 automatic bids, 5 at-large bids.  If you are 3rd place in the SEC, you'll likely get an at-large, or if not only have your self to blame for losing multiple games throughout the year.  By including the Sun Belts and MACs of the world, you maintain the significance of the regular season by giving the top 2 or 3 seeds much easier first round games than they'd get as a 6th seed having to play, say, the 2nd place Big XII team.  Just imagine how much more interest there would be in the Iowa-Ohio State game in a couple weeks if it were effectively a potential elimination game for an at-large playoff bid, rather than a game deciding which of those teams will finish in a 3-way tie for the Big 10 lead.

College football is the only team sport in the world that doesn't have a playoff tournament.  Last year 3 teams (UC, Boise, and TCU) were eliminated from national title consideration without losing a regular season game.  Such a system is indefensible.

Not nearly as much as the BCS is stacked against them.

Does anyone not see this for what it is?  This is simply stripped down, a money grab.  Another party wants part of the cash, and is using the anti-trust arguement to try and pry their way to the front of the buffet line.  A play-off will probably generate more revenue, less expenses and be more exclusive.  If the BCS has killed smaller Bowls, a Play-off will eliminate them entirely.  No one knows how any 16 spots will be divided, but I assure you the SEC, Big10, Pac10, Big12, Big East will take the spots at the table and the vast lions share of the cash.  Much like the NCAA Tournament, MAC and lower tier basketball schools do not reap the windfalls of that tournament and the deck is stacked against them for any real success.  Can't wait to see a 12-0 MAC team get the last seed, and get the prize of going to Alabama to take on the #1 team in the Country while a 9-10 win team from the SEC gets a mid-level seed and has a real chance at a few wins.

You are assuming that the revenues will be divided equally to arrive at your 3 million dollar figure.  I do agree 100% with what you are saying though.

Once again, we are assuming that we will have an automatic seat at this table, and will reap equal rewards.  Until a system is in place there are no guarantees of who actually has a seat at the table.  If the system is a 16 team system, once again, I will state I have a hard time believing that the 2nd and 3rd teams in the BCS will be left at home for a MAC or a Sun Belt team.

Have to agree with Flomo and OUPride on this.

If a playoff system is in response to possible litigation, then I think the BCS surely would include all 11 conference champs plus five at large teams. 

Such a system would be about the best we could hope for in the MAC and Sun Belt. 

Like I have said you guys are speculating that we would even have a seat at this table.  Want to end some of the problem real quick, enforce the attendance rule, show "real" accounting and ticket reconciliation and pare off all of the dead weight,  then you legitimately can exclude the MAC, Sun Belt and other undesirables are cast by the wayside.  Everyone is saying play-off, play-off, play-off but in reality we have no idea what system lies in the future, and the grass is not always greener. 

As for the BCS being so evil, I challenge one person to show us how the BCS  has hurt teams in comparison to the system it replaced.  The major conferences had all the good bowls so tied up that Boise State had to create their own and pay themselves to play in it.  The Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, Rose would never entertain the likes of a Mountain West, and the MAC was relegated to the Rasin and the Silver Bowls.