Jon
The CPA
But I still see it work great in NCAA basketball. There's plenty of no-namers in the tournament, and sometimes one or two of them become a dark horse and it actually becomes semi-interesting.
That's because they take 33 teams into the tournament, counting wild card spots. There's room for no name teams. Even if a football tournament took 16 teams, about half of the conference champions would not be more worthy than the top 16 from the BCS.
The argument that it'll take too long to complete a tournament with that many teams is not a good one, if it means the NCAA can make more money from it.
Not necessarily. More football = less time/energy to devote to basketball.