If you listen to college presidents, you'll hear them spout the same 10 reasons against a Division I college football playoff every year.

I'm here to tell you that all of these reasons are balderdash and poppycock. Not one of these arguments would stand up in a court of law. And they all serve as a smokescreen for the real reason college presidents don't want a playoff.

I'll get to the real reason in a minute, but first, let's breakdown the arguments against a playoff one-by-one.

1. The season IS the playoff.

Nonsense. How was the season the playoff for Auburn in 2004? The Tigers won every game they played, but they still got the shaft.

The college football season is the shortest sports season in the country (just 12 games). If Major League Baseball can play 162 games and still admit eight teams into the playoffs, then I think four college football teams (out of 119) deserve a chance to prove themselves following a short, 12-game schedule that varies wildly from one conference to another.

2. Thirty-two teams go home a winner with the bowl system.

Glass half full. Glass half empty says that 32 teams go home a loser with the bowl system. A four-team playoff wouldn't end the bowl system anyway. If Miami fans will go to Boise to watch their Hurricanes play Nevada this year, they would go to Boise in a world WITH a playoff, too.

3. A playoff would make college football too commercialized.

Are you kidding me? Excuse me while I dial up the San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl for you. Or perhaps the Gaylord Hotels Music City Bowl presented by Bridgestone. Give me a break.

4. A playoff would ruin the tradition of the bowls.

And indoor plumbing will end the tradition of using outhouses. It's called progress. Besides, as I noted before, the bowls can march forward, virtually untouched, even with a playoff.

5. The teams left out will feel cheated.

Don't know about you, but I'd rather the nation's fifth-best team feel cheated than the third-best team.

6. A playoff would lengthen the season into a second semester and keep the student-athletes out of class longer.

This one really gets my goat (actually, I don't have a goat but if I did ...).

Every other NCAA team sport in every other division ends its season with a tournament or playoff. Are Division I football players so thick-headed that they can't miss as much class as all other athletes on campus?

The "second semester" thing is bogus. Know what college basketball, baseball and hockey have in common? They all stretch over two semesters. And their seasons are all at least one month longer than college football's, with more mid-week games.

7. The debate is good for college football.

Really? I don't see any other professional or amateur sports jumping on the "let's have uninformed voters and computers decide the two-best teams" plan.

This is the equivalent of changing the National Anthem to "Who Let the Dogs Out," listening to the public outcry, and then saying, "must've been a good decision, listen to all the people complaining about it."

8. Fans and parents couldn't afford to follow their teams and children.

A four-team playoff would add only one additional game for two teams. That's not nearly as much travel as the NCAA basketball tournament requires.

9. A playoff would be expensive for the teams involved.

Not if they got a larger chunk of the playoff intake the further they advanced. That happens to be exactly what the NCAA does with its basketball tournament.

10. Players would miss out on great bowl-related activities.

Orange squeezing and pie eating are great fun according to the former players I've spoken with. Bowls, as a whole, are fun. And that's why the bowls would roll right on along in spite of a playoff.

For the four teams in my playoff plan, there would be no silly activities prior to the semifinal games, but the two finalists would enjoy the obligatory steer-ropin's and crawfish-eatin's leading up to the title game.

That means that two teams (the semifinalists that lose) would miss out on the side shows. Now, do you think Michigan players would rather go to the Tournament of Roses Parade or have a shot at the national title this year? I rest my case.

A Simple Plan

The easiest plan for a playoff would involve the top four teams in the country. They would be chosen by a BCS-like formula that keeps the voters, coaches and computer geeks happy.

Every team would have a shot to get in. If three of the top four teams in the country came from one conference, so be it. If a WAC team was ranked in the top four, so be it.

The top four teams would be seeded according to the final poll. The higher seeded teams would host the semi-finals on campus on the third Saturday in December (two weeks after regular season ends).

On-campus games would give college presidents and athletic directors the possibility of hosting an extra game. For Tennessee that would mean nearly an extra $3 million.

This year, LSU would be heading to Columbus to play Ohio State, while Michigan would be heading to The Swamp to play Florida head-to-head.

The winners of the semifinals would meet Jan. 8 at the site of one of the big-four bowls. The playoff championship game would rotate from bowl site to bowl site just as it does now (keeping those chambers of commerce happy).

Meanwhile, the bowls -- all 32 of them -- could move right along as they always have, missing out on just four teams. (They already miss out on two teams in the current system.)

It's Not Going To Happen

This system makes a lot of sense. But it won't happen.

The reason it won't happen is The Great Unsaid. College presidents never mention what I'm about to tell you, but rest assured it is THE reason you don't have a playoff today.

The 65 teams in BCS conferences (plus Notre Dame) share about 90 percent of all the money made from the bowl system. In 2002, BCS schools kept and shared $114 million of the $119 million paid out by the bowls. Tough luck, Utah State.

If a playoff came about, BCS consultant and former TV executive Kevin O'Malley believes it would generate an extra $50 to $60 million on top of that. Sounds good.

But a playoff would need to be sanctioned by the NCAA, to avoid lawsuits from schools that aren't invited to participate. Threats of lawsuits opened the door for smaller schools, like Boise State this year, to get into the BCS bowls.

If the NCAA sanctions a playoff, then money from the playoff would be divided among all 119 Division I schools, not just the 66 of the BCS.

Any way you slice it, even with more cash coming in for a playoff, the actual per-school share would go down for the big-time programs. Tulane and Akron would make tons more money, but Oklahoma, Notre Dame and Tennessee would stand to make less.

That's why you don't have a sensible playoff system. All the other reasons are just a smoke screen.