Although it is difficult to answer this question with any level of confidence, there is a sense that pro-playoff sentiment is currently rising.
Check out this excerpt from a recent op-ed by Michael Wilbon in the Washington Post:
There is reason to believe, though, that the tide has turned in college football. Ten years ago it seemed a majority of people who follow the sport — maybe as high as 75 percent — favored sticking with the traditional bowl system. Anecdotal evidence now suggests 75 percent of people who identify themselves as football fans now favor some kind of college football playoff.
And Wednesday a House subcommittee on commerce, trade and consumer protection passed a bill aimed at bringing down the BCS.
If the bill becomes law it would prevent the BCS from calling its game a "national championship game" unless it was the result of a playoff system.
Okay, you're asking what good that does?
Plenty. One, it's symbolic. It puts The Cartel on notice that somebody its size is watching. Two, it says people in general are fed up with the BCS's arrogance and sense of entitlement. No, the matching of TCU and Boise State was not part of The Cartel's plan. There was a draft order of the BCS bowls and the Fiesta made its selections.
The Fiesta, mind you, was the biggest rebel in modern college football history, having elbowed its way into a New Year's Day slot when the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Cotton didn't want any piece of the Fiesta. The Fiesta is the last entity to beat The Cartel at its own game, back in the late 1980s when it matched Penn State and Miami and was the first game to go prime time on a separate night from the others.
Still, if there's a presumption out there that the fix was in to keep TCU or Boise State away from Florida in the Sugar Bowl or away from Georgia Tech in the Orange it's merited because the BCS has done everything possible to actively and intentionally exclude the Mountain West and the WAC and MAC and others from the party.
If restraint of trade is involved — and there are those who make the case that it is, what with millions of dollars being paid out for reaching these games — then Congress ought to be involved. We're talking about American higher education here, or at least the front porch of those institutions.
Also worth reading is a recent piece in USA Today:
College football lacks a playoff for one reason: Creating one would threaten revenue streams that go to entrenched interests.
An eight-game playoff could undermine the advantage that six major conferences have in dominating television revenues and bowl game appearances. Teams like Boise State and Texas Christian University, overperforming outsiders from non-BCS conferences, would be greatly helped having a clear path to the top.
A playoff would almost certainly devalue the bowls that have sprouted up over the years. Even if the four major bowls — Rose, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange — were incorporated into a playoff, as many people say would be necessary to overcome opposition, the math works against their interests. An eight-team playoff would involve seven games. A four-team playoff would mean three games. Neither is ideal for maintaining the primacy of a four-member club.
Ultimately, the distorting role of bowls and the exclusivity of the major conferences violate the spirit of competition. It is impossible to find a champion when some worthy competitors — including three of this year's five undefeated teams — have no way of winning their way to a title game. It is also a problem when bowl organizations see college football's role as providing them a living.
The powers that be in college football will not cede their position without a fight. They will not yield to reason or public sentiment.
For these reasons, we'll take the meddling of Congress. It might not be ideal. But for sports fans, it's all we've got.