There’s a cartel running the postseason of college football’s highest level, forcing upon its disapproving fans a broken system-the BCS-that is more about the consolidation of power than the promotion of premiere football. At least, that’s the argument of Dan Wetzel, Josh Peter and Jeff Passan, whose book, “Death to the BCS,” has rattled the college football world this fall. An investigative look at all of the issues with the BCS (read: they’re numerous), “Death to the BCS” identifies the commissioners of the six major conferences as “the Cartel” who, with the support of athletic directors, complacent school presidents and manipulative bowl directors, “dictate how the sport operates.” The conclusion is this: despite a massive grassroots movement against the BCS, and far superior financial alternatives on the table, the Cartel would rather maintain the status quo and preserve its current reign over the system.

It’s a searing conclusion, but the journalists do not stop there. In tandem with the authors’ review of financial documents and congressional testimonies is another postseason plan: a 16-team playoff, featuring the 11 conference champions and five at-large teams. The Daily spoke with Passan about both facets of the book and how, if the new system detailed by “Death to the BCS” was put in place, Stanford’s season may have ended differently.

The Stanford Daily: For “the Cartel,” as you call it, it’s more about retaining power than making more money. If there’s actually a chance to make more money, doesn’t that in turn lead to more power, even if it’s shared?

Jeff Passan: Well, money doesn’t necessarily equate to power. Power is the ability to control things, and that’s what they have right now, and I think that they’re worried that by sharing the money, that they’re going to somehow translate that into the power that they have now.

If you look at a business, and you’re making out like bandits, and you have a monopoly, essentially, that’s where the BCS is right now. And that’s where these conferences are. If all of a sudden, you can tell them, “you can make significantly more money, but you risk losing what’s most important to you,” they’re probably not going to be too keen on the idea. Business is good for them right now. As long as they can get by without the universities and alumni giving them grief, they are going to go on their merry way.

TSD: There seems to be a dramatic amount of grassroots support for a playoff, and yet, nothing. Even with a proposal such as yours out there, which takes into account all of the things that would appease the BCS powers, is it not a futile effort?

JP: Yes. As we say in the book, there’s a million reasons not to have the BCS, and any one of them, on their individual merits, should be enough. Combine those, and it should be enough for it to implode on itself. But that speaks to the power the people running it right now have over college football. Unfortunately, the university presidents, the people who have the power to do something about this, aren’t educated enough about this. If they really knew what this system was about, really knew the way that it was, there would be no way that they would leave all of that money on the table, when 106 of 120 Division I athletic programs are running budget deficits.

TSD: There’s the idea of the plus-one, or the eight-team bracket as opposed to the 16-team bracket. So, you have one proposal, but would you, or do you believe the public would, be satisfied with any of these alternate ideas?

JP: Any system would be better than the BCS. That being said, our system is designed for specific reasons. One of the things the BCS says is that it has the best regular season in college sports. In order to keep that regular season relevant, you need to make literally every game count, so by designing the playoff like we did, with every conference getting an at-large bid, it incentivizes teams in two ways: first, it says that even though you’re in a small conference, you will at least have a chance to play for a national championship, and second, in a lot of cases, it makes for easier early-round games for those top teams. There’s an incentive to get that No. 1 or No. 2 seed. That, combined with the home playoff games, makes the regular season enormously valuable. The difference between an eight and nine seed is the difference between hosting a home playoff game or going on the road in the first round. You have a situation where you have easier first-round games for the top seeds, and home-field advantage for the top seeds, and I’d say that makes the regular season of paramount importance.

TSD: Stanford finishes No. 4 in the BCS standings, goes 11-1 and does not win its conference. So, under this scenario, Stanford would get an at-large bid and play either a weaker at-large team or play one of the champions from the smaller conferences?

JP: Yes, that’s exactly what would happen. They would play at home, and would be either the No. 4 or No. 5 seed-either them or Wisconsin. And right there, another important delineation. The No. 4 seed gets two home games. The No. 5 seed gets one. You could have an argument on both seeds-Stanford or Wisconsin, Stanford or Wisconsin. Either way, they’re both going to play first-round home games and would get to play each other in the second round if they were both to win.

TSD: You don’t think that trying to decide who got which seed would create some of its own controversies? That were would be unintended consequences?

JP: Oh, sure. We’re not saying that there’s ever going to be a system that’s completely devoid of controversy. There’s going to be controversy here and there, but I’d like to think that you’d put in place a system with an educated selection committee-like the NCAA March Madness basketball selection committees-which has a hand in making a bracket along specified terms. You’re never going to get it 100 percent right, but you’d like to think that it’d be a whole lot closer than it is right now.