Why a 'plus-one' was shot down; post-Perrilloux LSU and more

Fortunately, the College Football Mailbag does not have to apply to the NCAA to be granted a sixth year of eligibility. Even if it did, that first year, when I was pretty much flying by the seat of my pants, could probably qualify as a redshirt season. And in hindsight, I'm fairly certain I wrote the entire 2005 season with a misdiagnosed shoulder injury.

Cincinnati 's Ben Mauk still has a far better case, but fortunately, the only people the Mailbag needs to appeal to is you, the readers. Based on the steady stream of e-mails I've been receiving over the past month, it seems most of you were welcoming its return. So away we go ...

Normally I open the first Mailbag of the season with a bunch of rules (keep your questions short, don't be generic, blah, blah, blah), but most of you get the drill by now. Besides, I'm already making an exception to one of my cardinal rules -- the one about no BCS talk until at least October -- because this is the first chance you've had to chime in on last week's news that the "plus-one" cause is officially dead. Not surprisingly, plenty of you had things to say about it.

I don't get it! How can anyone think the BCS as it stands "is in good health?" At least a four-team playoff would be a start. It seems like the university presidents influenced the commissioners, which I also cannot comprehend. There is a lot of money to made. -- Tom Hart, Mountville, Pa.

Steroids in baseball is stupid. No playoff system in [Division I-A] football because of a few power controllers is beyond ridiculous. We hear about steroids every hour. How come the public doesn't hear about the rediculosity of not determining a college football champion in the same manner that all champions are determined? -- Bolup Unrands, Atlanta

For pure amusement's sake, I actually took the time to Google the world "rediculosity" -- only to find out that it is in fact a word (unofficially). Damnit. Luke Winn would have known that.

I certainly understand why fans were frustrated with last week's decision -- I myself was very much in favor of moving to a plus-one. And while I am not a full-on playoff guy, I respect those who are.

What drives me absolutely bonkers, however, is that no matter how many articles (or books) have written about this subject, no matter how detailed an explanation we provide, there is still a large segment of the public that continues to make blanket assumptions about what's best for the sport without taking the time to truly digest the issues behind this "rediculosity."

Believe me, it's not about the money (the commissioners know full well a playoff would generate infinitely more revenue than the current system). And despite what some presidents would have you believe, it's not about academics (if it was, they wouldn't hold a tournament in other sports). Quite simply, college football's leaders universally believe that the regular season is more important than the postseason.

When the commissioners spoke last week of the BCS' "good health," they did so in the context that it's been an immeasurable boon to the season as a whole, as evidenced by rising attendance and TV ratings. If there's one thing the commissioners made abundantly clear last week, it's their belief that a gripping, 12-week regular season with an often-unsatisfying finish is still preferable to a fool-proof postseason that risks devaluing the 12 weeks before it.