BCS Evolution: FanPosts

1966 - Why Alabama should have 17 national championships

2010-01-12T00:37:09Z

[The following is from an e-mail correspondence triggered by my previous post on the Alabama National Championship Claims, reproduced (and edited) with permission by Andrew McIntosh.]

Ben, before you make it sound as though the Alabama Crimson Tide have always been given the unfair advantage in their claim to 13 National Titles, I think you need to look into the 1966 season and explain why Alabama was not awarded the title for that year.

Secondly, if you think every undefeated team deserves a title, that says nothing about the strength of schedule. There is a reason Alabama has scheduled strong, top 10 teams for the seasons opening game (Clemson 2008 & Virginia Tech 2009) and will face Penn State in Sep of this year; the strength of schedule does matter.

As an Alabama fan, I am tired of the poor press this year's team has received concerning everything from title claims to how Texas would have won had Colt McCoy stayed in the game. Look Colt McCoy is a great player and I think Texas could have beaten Alabama had Colt played a complete game of flag football, but this is not a sandlot game of grabbing flags, this is a game where teams must man up, protect their QB and play to the best of their ability for 60 minutes straight.

Alabama proved in the last 3.02 minutes of that game ( 1 forced fumble, 2 interceptions and 2 offensive rushing touchdowns against the nations #1 rush defense) how dominant they really are. Boise St. is a great team and I wish they had a chance to play Alabama, but until they play a schedule tougher than this years #83/120 compared to Alabama's #5/120 toughest schedule please be respectful of those who have clearly earned the right to be called - The National Champion.

Blessings, Andy

utesfan100: Excellent notes! I wish you had posted this as a comment - or even a fan post!

Ben, feel free to post these comments as you see fit.

Another afterthought is, that if we apply your (undeafed + untied season = national championship) then Alabama is one short if you take the conservative judgment of Alabama having only 8 national titles, for they have earned 9 undeafted, untied seasons.

Regardless of how many titles someone wants to give 'Bama, most fans should be looking forward rather than looking back as I beleive our future is bright with Nick Saban and if Saban chooses to stay until retirement (as he has expressed a desire to) then I beleive 'Bama has a few titles ahead of them and I sincerely hope, they will be given the opportunity to play a good Boise State team to earn those titles.

Blessings, Andy.

[Editor's note: The NCAA references 17 shares of the national title for Alabama, including 1966. It also references Utah's share in 2008, Missouri and USC's share in 2007, Oklahoma's share in 2003, USC's share in 2002 and Miami's share in 2000 above and beyond the BCS and AP champions since 1998]

Bill Hancock Is a Tool; The BCS Must Go ASAP

2010-01-07T21:46:27Z

By Brad James (the new Bradfather)

PASADENA, Calif. (AP)—Tonight in southern California, computers have decided Texas and Alabama are worthy to play for an immaterial “national championship” because Division I-A college football believes they’re too good to determine a title the way all sports do.

I say this because college football at the I-A level is NOT a sport, regardless of what BCS spin doctors say. It is a beauty pageant, but unlike Miss Universe, the contestants would look horrendous in bathing suits. No scintillating Miss Italys or Miss Australias, I regret to inform you.

Right now, the biggest tool in the world has to be BCS executive director Bill Hancock. My brethren at playoffpac.com (please, visit this site and if you have money to give, donate!) have lampooned Hancock’s interview with Dan Patrick several weeks ago wherein NBC’s NFL halftime and Football Night in America host grilled Hancock on what you tell an unbeaten team (Texas Christian, Boise State, Cincinnati were all unbeaten and kept out of the “national championship” game) that didn’t get to play for a title.

Hancock’s asinine response is, “not everyone can play for a title. You had a great season.” Anyone who has a brain and loves sports has what my copy editor professor at Southern Utah University called their “B.S. meter” go off wildly. The way to rectify this is simply a playoff.

Playoffs are more indigenous to collegiate football than BCS apologists would have you believe. Speaking of Southern Utah University, they play in a division of college football I refuse to call anything but I-AA, although the preferred title by BCS bigwigs is Football Championship Subdivision. Incidentally, playoffs also occur in Divisions II and III of the NCAA. What is the reason for their reticence in having one at the highest level, where competition is clearly the best in collegiate spheres?

Quite aptly, this title is a reflection of what actually exists in this level of Division I football, a playoff. While ESPN buffoons such as Mark May and (Lispin’) Lou Holtz were having nonsensical arguments about who would play for a mythical championship, a real one was unfolding in I-AA.

On December 18, an exciting playoff was culminated when Villanova edged Montana at Chattanooga, Tenn. This was a majestic conclusion to exciting playoff games, such as Villanova and William & Mary and Montana and Appalachian State which saw the Mountaineers only lose to the Grizzlies on the final play of regulation.

All of these games were rife with meaning and intensity and for several years now, at the I-A level of college football, I have rightfully deduced that the emperor has no clothes. I am no longer bewitched nor hoodwinked by the fraudulent specter of the Sun Bowl, even if it does occur in my old stomping grounds of El Paso, Texas or the Orange Bowl or any other bowl that does not have “Super” in front of it.

Furthermore, the BCS consists of the most despicable criminals this country has ever seen, rife with agendas that do not have the best interests of the athletes themselves.

Hancock says a playoff will hurt the athletes’ ability to graduate and increase injuries.

Just so Hancock knows, I have heard these arguments before. An assistant coach at Arizona State University (a member of the Pac-10, one of the conferences whose rear end the BCS kisses) told me that when he coached at then I-AA Idaho, the playoff got everybody banged up, but the kids seemed to want one.

As to a playoff getting everybody “banged up,” as one who played football myself, I know injuries can occur at any time in any situation. There is no empirical evidence suggesting that playoffs create more injuries.

As for the academic argument, Montana’s Brandon Fisher (the son of the longest-tenured NFL head coach, Jeff Fisher of the Tennessee Titans) sported a 4.0 GPA, even though playoffs were occurring right through Finals. Again, I adroitly eradicate another nonsensical argument.

The federal government is already angry at the BCS for their illegal cartel and if this argument is the best they can do, they’ll go the way of VCR’s anyday now. As for me, this day cannot come soon enough. In any case, I tip my hat to the only Division I football champions for the 2009 season, the Villanova Wildcats!

My plan for a fair playoff!

2010-01-04T21:14:58Z

Everybody get's in a conf.

Everybody play's each team in there conf. once.

The one team with the most conf. wins after 12 games (each conf. must have no more then 12 teams. If less they have bye's.)

You don't have to have conf champ games doing this since each team plays each other. If by some small chance there is a tie and the win over the other team does not brake the tie the tied teams would have an extra game. This would be rare.

Take the ten conf. champs (yes we would have to drop the 11th conf and combine that conf. teams with the ten others.) and those ten teams play it off using "warm" bowls sites. Part of the agreement to host a playoff bowl game is to cover travel expense for team.

All other teams that finish 700 or more get picked for all the other bowl games just like we do now. Yes some bowl sites (ones with field turf) may get to host more then one game. (a playoff game and normal bowl game)

There are no wild cards, you can't win your conf. then you can't play for the title. That makes the regular season very important. Why, you have to win your conf. Look at how many coaches say the goal is to win the conf.

If you think it is unfair to see a one loss Florida team not get to play for the title over a 2 loss TCU then........Oh wait Florida has one loss and not in the title game.

For those of you that think a 2 loss team should not play for a title.....LSU 2 loss's and one the BCS title.

Yes the conf. are very uneven as far a strength goes but it is that way now because of the BCS. If this type of system is put in place over the years I think you would see a lot of teams jumping conf. But the more strong teams you have the more teams go to the other bowls games which means more money for your conf. so maybe not.

I have been debating this issue and plan on a BBS and so far no one has been able to say something that would not make it work or be fair.

To BCS liveblog or not to BCS liveblog ... That is the question.

2009-12-30T22:35:04Z

As you can see I have been timing my bowl previews so the bowls stay on the front page until the game ends, while maintaining my two weekly series, keeping up with BCS News and maintaining the Bowl Challenge Cup Standings.

The joys of scheduled posting. The BCS Bowl previews will appear at the following times:

Rose Bowl: December 31st 8:30 ET
Sugar Bowl: December 31st 11:00 ET
Fiesta Bowl: January 2nd 7:00 ET
Orange Bowl: January 2nd 7:15 ET
NCG: January 3rd 2AM ET

Each of these will have a poll where you will be able to express your desire to participate in a live blog here. If ten people have expressed an interest in participating an hour before kickoff I will set one up.

Except for the Orange Bowl. I will be taking the 5th off, and pleading the fifth as to the real reasons. For now I will hide behind the alibi that it is the BCS bowl with the lowest ranked teams.

Bowl Predictions

2009-12-19T05:36:01Z

I know our fearless leader here at BCS Evolution is providing a full preview of each bowl game, with voting open on each one.

However, This season, I have been picking all the games over on the OSU blog, We Will Always Have Tempe (my season record was 573-201 (74.03%).

Unfortunately, Sam at WWAHT is stepping down from his duties, and another OSU blog will be taking over as of Jan 1, smack dab in the middle of the Bowl season. So I have decided to post all my picks here, so they don't get lost in the shuffle (utesfan, if this isnt ok, please let me know)

On to the picks:

New Mexico: Fresno St over Wyoming
St Petersburg: Rutgers over UCF
New Orleans: Southern Miss over Middle Tennessee St
Las Vegas: Oregon St over BYU
Poinsettia: Utah over California
Hawaii: Nevada over SMU
Little Caesars Pizza: Ohio U over Marshall
Meinecke Car Care: Pitt over NC
Emerald: USC over Boston College
Music City: Clemson over Kentucky
Independence: Texas A&M over Georgia
EagleBank: Temple over UCLA
Champs Sports: Wisconsin over Miami Fl
Humanitarian: Bowling Green over Idaho

Texas: Navy over Missouri
Holiday: Nebraska over Arizona
Armed Forces: Houston over Air Force
Sun: Stanford over Oklahoma
Insight: Minnesota over Iowa St
Chick-fil-A: VA Tech over Tennessee
Outback: Northwestern over Auburn
Capitol One: Penn St over LSU
Gator: West Virgina over Florida St
PapaJohns: South Carolina over UConn
Alamo: Texas Tech over Mich St
Cotton: Okla St over Ole Miss
Liberty: Arkansas over East Carolina
International: Northern Illinois over South Florida
GMAC: Central Michigan over Troy

Rose: Oregon over Ohio St
Sugar: Florida over Cincnnati
Fiesta: TCU over Boise St
Orange: GA Tech over Iowa
National Championship: Texas over Alabama

Adding a 12 will hurt Big 10 in BCS?

2009-12-16T04:48:50Z

Does anyone else think that adding an additional team will hurt the Big 10's chances in the BCS? They've seemingly sent 2 teams fairly consistently, If this year's top 2 teams, Iowa and Ohio State, matched up (again) in a championship game, would both of them have made a BCS game?

Anyways, if you'd care to take a look at the campuses/venues/traditions that you could be traveling to over the next few years, here's a recap of my fall traveling "big 10 country" from the average joe perspective:

www.THEbig10tour.com

Drew

FBS Realignment ?

2009-12-15T22:40:15Z

With the announcement that the Big 10/11 will be looking to expand to 12 teams, just how will this affect the rest of the FBS landscape?

The easiest solution for all of FBS is if Notre Dame joins. This would not affect any currrent football situations, but would force the Big East to look for a 16th member for basketball becasue I can't see the Big 10 agreeing to Notre Dame joining for football only.

Other likely scenarios:

1. Missouri - With Mizzou seceding from the Big 12, I suspect that Arkansas jumps at the chance to re-establish a connection with the Texas schools. This would force the SEC to siphon another team from somewhere, and that most likely would be the ACC. If I had to guess, it might be Miami, but I don't think it would be any of the original 10 ACC schools. This would in turn force the ACC to raid the Big East, nabbing South Florida or Louisville. Or the SEC could bypass the ACC and try and scoop up West Virginia. This would leave the Big East scrambling to invite an 8th team. Hilariously, it might be forced to take Temple back. (Does anyone know if the Big East drops to 7 teams, would they lose their BCS distinction? - This would benefit the MWC greatly)

2. Pitt - The second most likely team overall, it would cause less movement because the Big 12, SEC, and ACC would be left intact. But the Big East would need to pull in an 8th team. Or would they go for 2-3 teams to make a 9 or 10 team conference?

3. Nebraska, Iowa St - same as Missouri.

4. Other Big East teams such as Rutgers, Syracuse - same as Pitt.

5. Teams that would not qualify academically: West Virginia, Cincinnati, Kentucky, Louisville.

Other options if Missouri move into the Big 10, would be for the Big 12 to pull in TCU, Houston or even Utah.

If one thing happens out of this, is that I hope the MAC drops back down to 12 teams or less, the Big East expands to at least 9 teams. I could even see C-USA getting cannabilized somewhat with East Carolina being gobbled up.

Thoughts?

Bowling for a Better Regular Season

2009-12-11T03:59:57Z

I'm not that in favor of a football playoff for the following reasons:

With the current bowl scenarios, it places a greater emphasis on the regular season. This is my main point. I like having each week be something special during the regular season. This way a 2-loss team cannot make a run at the championship.
With the basketball tournament, teams can play more games in a shorter amount of time. The teams are smaller and can travel easier. Football travel takes more planning and involves more people.
How many teams would be involved? What criteria would be used for the national playoffs? Would the other bowls still get to invite teams not in consideration for the national championship? This year, would the top ten teams be invited? I don't see how Iowa should be involved in a playoff. I would think you would need to invite each conference winner, or at least each major conference winner. Or should it just be whoever is in the top 8 of the BCS rankings? What would work one year may not be applicable the next.

Looking at match-ups, working within the parameters of the BCS

2009-12-11T03:36:42Z

The BCS national championship is set with the SEC's Alabama (#1) taking on the Big Twelve's Texas (#2). The Rose Bowl was also set with the Pac 10's champion Oregon (#7) taking on the Big Ten's champion Ohio State (#8). The Orange Bowl's relationship with the ACC champion meant that Georgia Tech (#9) was slotted for that Bowl. That left any of the other teams in the top 14 of the latest BCS rankings who also had 9 wins or more available for the remaining at-large selections. The Sugar Bowl's relationship with the SEC and the fact that they had the first selection since the SEC's champion, Alabama, is in the National Championship game, meant that they were guaranteed to select Florida (#5) for their bowl game.
The Big East's champion, Cincinnati (#3) was an automatic qualifier (AQ) for a BCS bowl game. TCU (#4), not from a BCS conference, was an automatic qualifier because they were the highest ranked non-BCS team. Boise State (#6), also not from a BCS conference, was available for an at-large selection, but not guaranteed a BCS bowl game. The remaining at-large selections available were the Big Ten's Iowa (#10) and Penn State (#13), the ACC's Virginia Tech (#11), and BYU (#14) who is also from a non-BCS conference. The SEC's LSU (#12) could no longer qualify due to the rule that no more than two teams may go to a BCS bowl. This means that there were four spots left to fill with seven available teams, two of which were guaranteed a BCS Bowl game.
Here is how the selection process did go for the remaining bowl slots:
1) The Sugar Bowl picked Florida
2) The Fiesta Bowl (since they have a relationship with the Big Twelve and Texas is in the BCS National Championship game with no other qualified Big Twelve teams), selected automatic qualifier Texas Christian University.
* Note: The BCS organizers set a different selection order for the conferences each year. This year it was Orange, Fiesta, Sugar
3) The Orange Bowl selected an at-large team, Iowa.
4) The Fiesta Bowl selected Boise State
5) The Sugar was forced to select Cincinnati because they were the last remaining automatically qualified team.

Here are some other ways the Bowl selection process could have gone after the Sugar Bowl had selected Florida:
1) The Fiesta Bowl selects TCU (since they are a high-ranking team from that general area)
2) The Orange Bowl selects Iowa
3) The Fiesta Bowl selects Cincinnati
4) The Sugar Bowl selects Boise State
With this format #1 plays #2, #3 plays #4, #5 plays #6, #7 plays #8, and #9 plays #10. It would allow TCU to take on a higher-ranking BCS opponent and if the writers so decide, declar them the national champion. It would also allow Boise State a shot at Florida and if they won, put them in the discussion for the AP championship. However, this scenario is predicated on the Sugar Bowl selecting Boise State, who they would not have to select and could have iced them out of the BCS games all together.
Another way this could have gone:
1) The Fiesta Bowl selects Cincinnati (who is the highest BCS ranking team)
2) The Orange Bowl selects Iowa
3) The Fiesta Bowl selects Boise State
4) This would have forced the Sugar Bowl to select TCU as the last remaining automatically qualified team, and forcing a match-up that every would like to see between Florida and TCU.

Cincinnati and TCU had to be selected somewhere, but Boise State and Iowa did not have to be selected. However, it would have been a shame to leave out Boise State, and kudos to the Fiesta Bowl for making sure they got into a BCS bowl. After that, Iowa was the highest ranking team left on the board and I don't know that you could make a good case for Virginia Tech, Penn State or BYU. Once Iowa was selected, Penn State could no longer qualify for either of the two remaining slots due to the BCS rule that no more than two teams from a conference may be selected for the BCS bowl games.

It is one thing to say that there should be a playoff or that certain match-ups are desired, but it is another thing to aim for some good football within the parameters of the current system. So with that, I would like to present how I would have liked the selections to go.

1) The Fiesta Bowl selects TCU. This is a non-BCS team from a BCS area of the country. They are undefeated and have a good claim toward being considered for the championship. They would have been foolish not to select them with their first pick.
2) The Orange Bowl selects Cincinnati. This is key here. Cincinnati is undefeated and ranked higher. I like Georgia Tech matching up with Cincinnati better than I do Iowa. I'm not really interested in the Orange Bowl with their current teams.
3) The Fiesta Bowl selects Iowa. If Iowa had not been selected by the Orange Bowl, I'm thinking the Fiesta Bowl would have given stronger consideration to Iowa here. The claim they gave that Cincinatti would not travel as well to Arizona doesn't hold with Iowa. This would have pitted TCU against a BCS conference team, even though Iowa was not the Big Ten champion.
4) The Sugar Bowl selects Boise State. Boise State has defeated some BCS conference teams this year, but Florida is pretty formidable. If Boise State could somehow beat Florida, they too would have the right to be considered in the national champion discussion since they'd be undefeated. If Florida soundly defeats Boise State, then that would validate the BCS conferences' claim that the smaller conferences and teams don't deserve to be held in as high a regard as the the BCS conference teams in terms of the national championship.

These match-ups along with the BCS National Championship game and the Rose Bowl would have been more interesting to me. That said, I do like having Florida and Cincinnati squaring off as it would show if Cincinnati deserves to be that highly ranked and if Florida shouldn't be third or even second in the final rankings. If Cincinnati wins, shouldn't they be in the consideration for being declared the AP national champion? The Orange Bowl and Fiesta Bowl really do not have my interest at the moment. The Fiesta Bowl winner just ends up being the champion of the consolation bracket in my mind.

If I was King/Altenate Solution Playoffs for 2009 season

2009-12-10T20:24:58Z

Now that the regular season has completed (sans Army/Navy), here is what my proposal would have looked like had my playoffs been instituted.

First, my goal would have been to shorten the season by one week (either start one week earlier, or eliminate one fo the two byes teams currently employ) and complete all games (including league championship games) by Saturday November 28th. Assuming all results would not hvae changed, and assuming Navy beat Army, and using the BCS standings to seed the teams, here is how the field would have looked:

Sat Dec 5:
16 Troy 9-3 at 1 Alabama 13-0
15 East Carolina 9-4 at 2 Texas 13-0
14 Central Michigan 11-2 at 3 Cincinnati 12-0
13 Penn St 10-2 at 4 TCU 12-0
12 LSU 9-3 at 5 Florida 12-1
11 VA Tech 9-3 at 6 Boise St 13-0
10 Iowa 10-2 at 7 Oregon 10-2
9 GA Tech 11-2 at 8 Ohio St 10-2

All teams losing in first round, are still eligible for non-BCS bowl games.

Assuming no upsets*, Round 2 becomes:
Sat Dec 20
8 Ohio St 11-2 at 1 Alabama 14-0
7 Oregon 11-2 at 2 Texas 14-0
6 Boise St 14-0 at 3 Cincinnati 13-0
5 Florida 13-1 at 4 TCU 13-0

* The lowest seeded team would always play the highest seeded team in each round.

All teams in Round 2 end up in the BCS bowls:

Now assume Bama, Texas, Cincinnati and TCU win:

BCS bowls (semifinals) look like this:

Sugar: 1 Alabama 15-0 vs 4 TCU 14-0
Fiesta: 2 Texas 15-0 vs 3 Cincinnati 14-0

Rose: Ohio St vs Oregon

Orange: Florida vs Boise St

Winner of Sugar meets winner of Fiesta in Title game following week.

For the non-BCS bowl games, here is how they probably would look like with Iowa and GA Tech sliding schools down the scale:

GMAC: Troy 9-3 vs Central Michigan 11-2 (ACC #9 replacement vs MAC #1)

Alamo: Wisconsin 9-3 vs Texas Tech 8-4 (Big 10 #5 vs Big 12 #4)

Liberty: East Carolina 9-4 vs Arkansas 7-5 (CUSA #1 vs SEC #6/7)

Cotton: Okla St 9-3 vs Ole Miss 8-4 (Big12 #2 vs SEC #3/4 [West champ])

PapaJohns: UConn 7-5 vs South Carolina 7-5 (Big East #4 vs SEC #9)

International: South Florida 7-5 vs Northern Illinois 7-5 (BigEast #5 vs MAC #3)

Gator: Florida St 6-6 vs VA Tech 9-3 (ACC #3 vs Big East #2/Notre Dame)

Capitol One: LSU 9-3 vs Penn St 10-2 (SEC #2 vs Big 10 #2)

Outback: Iowa 10-3 vs Auburn 7-5 (Big 10 #3 vs SEC #3/4 [East champ])

Chick-Fil-A: Tennessee 7-5 vs GA Tech 11-3 (SEC #5 vs ACC #2)

Insight: Iowa St 6-6 vs Mich St 6-6 (Big 12 #6 vs Big 10 #6)

Texas: Missouri 8-4 vs Navy 9-4 (Big 12 #8 vs CUSA/Navy)

Sun: Stanford 8-4 vs Oklahoma 7-5 (Pac 10 #3 vs Big 12 #5)

Armed Forces: Air Force 7-5 vs Houston 10-3 (MWC #3 vs CUSA #3)

Holiday: Arizona 8-4 vs Nebraska 9-4 (Pac 10 #2 vs Big 12 #3)

Humanitarian: Idaho 7-5 vs Bowling Green 7-5 (WAC #1 vs MWC #5 replacement)

Champ Sports: West Virginia 9-3 vs Northwestern 8-4 (ACC #4 vs Big 10 #4)

Eaglebank: Boston College 8-4 vs Temple 9-3 (ACC #8 vs Army/CUSA #6 replacement)

Independence: Georgia 7-5 vs Texas A&M 6-6 (SEC #8 vs Big12 #7)

Music City: Miami FL 9-3 vs Kentucky 7-5 (ACC #5 vs SEC #6/7)

Emerald: USC 8-4 vs North Carolina 8-4 (Pac 10 #4 vs ACC #7)

Meinecke: Pitt 9-3 vs Clemson 8-5 (Big East #3 vs ACC #6)

Pizza: Ohio U 9-4 vs Minnesota 6-6 (MAC #2 vs Big 10 #7)

Hawaii: Nevada 8-4 vs SMU 7-5 (WAC #2 vs CUSA #2)

Poinsettia: Utah 9-3 vs California 8-4 (MWC #2 vs Pac 10 #6 replacement)

Las Vegas: BYU 10-2 vs Oregon St 8-4 (MWC #1 vs Pac 10 #5)

New Orleans: Southern Miss 7-5 vs Middle Tenn St 9-3 (CUSA #4 vs Sun Belt #1)

St. Petersburg: Rutgers 8-4 vs UCF 8-4 (Big East #6 vs CUSA #5)

New Mexico: Fresno St 8-4 vs Wyoming 6-6 (WAC #3 vs MWC #4)

Marshall and UCLA, both 6-6 teams, would get removed from a bowl game.

Finding An Equitable Solution To the BCS Dilemma

2009-11-12T19:14:37Z

Often times when I try to sort out an issue, it helps me to write out a list of the "pros" and "cons". I think that using a similar approach to the college football post-season would be beneficial - write out what the opponents of a playoff are concerned about, and what the supporters of a playoff want. By making some shrewd compromises and finding common ground, I think it would be pretty easy to find a solution that makes everyone fairly satisfied. So, here goes. I will provide a brief list for each, and then talk about how to address those issues. Finally I'll make my own proposal for how to solve the issue, and see how it stacks up.

Concerns About A Playoff (Opponents)

Value and novelty of historic bowl games is reduced by a playoff.
It would detract from the players' ability to be a student, running into valuable time needed to study.
(Unstated) There is a lot of money tied up in the BCS, and people who profit off of it don't want a change.
A playoff diminishes the quality of regular season games. They mean less if a team can lose and still compete for the national title.
It would subject players to undue risk. By playing another game or two, they may be jeopardizing their NFL careers.

Support for a Playoff (Proponents)

The BCS National Championship Game may, or may not, feature a match-up between the two most deserving teams. It is based on subjective rankings.
The only fair way to settle things is on the field. Utah went undefeated last year, but Florida was the National Champion. Both beat Alabama convincingly. Both didn't play each other.
The BCS screens certain teams out, but not in an explicit fashion. Strength of schedule and conference are built into some of the computer rankings, as well as some voters minds.
Every other major sport has a tournament or playoff to determine a champion.

Placating The Detractors

One of the most frequent arguments that you hear against a playoff is that it will make the regular season games meaningless, but this just doesn't seem to be the case. College basketball is touted as an example - and admittedly, regular season games in college basketball don't mean a whole lot. However, college basketball also accepts 65 teams into its tournament field, which means that a team could theoretically go close to 0.500 and still make the bracket. However, a college football tournament would likely only accept 16 teams at most, and more than likely less than that. Even assuming a worst-case-scenario with 16 teams in a playoff, that only amounts to 13% of the eligible teams, or about one out of every eight teams.

If you structure the playoff format right, regular season games will still have meaning. For instance, if you had to win a conference, or have a maximum number of losses, this would keep the meaning in regular season games alive. Any playoff format that I propose below will need to account for meaningful regular season games. I think some games could wind up having more meaning, especially in conferences that don't have a lot of clout, as teams battle for positioning for a playoff berth.

Imagine if TCU and Utah were duking it out for a playoff spot. Wouldn't that make for a great game?

To talk about a playoff being a bad thing for the players is completely absurd. First, the players want a playoff too, and at a greater margin than the fans. According to the graph I posted at the start, 69% of fans in 2007 wanted a playoff format. Before the 2009 season, ESPN Magazine surveyed 85 FBS players. 75% of those players wanted a playoff in college football. What player wouldn't want to be on a huge stage like a college football playoff game, fighting for a championship on national television? Furthermore, even a 16 team playoff would only have four rounds, and only 8 teams in college football would have to play an "extra game" beyond what they already do. Plus, the ESPN survey suggests that the players are willing to sacrifice playing in an extra game or two.

As far as the money aspect and bowl games go, I think that people could make enormous profits off of a college football playoff. I would argue that most people don't watch meaningless bowl games unless they have some vested interest in the game (like they are a fan of one of the two teams playing), or it just happens to be on TV. A playoff would create so much more meaning and interest. The old bowl games could remain, and in fact could even be embedded in the playoff format. While I do agree that a playoff would diminish the stature of historic bowl games, I think that bowl games are an outdated way of thinking. Still, to address everyone's concerns, I'll have to try and figure out a way to incorporate the historic bowl games into my playoff format.

Avoiding "Over-Doing" The Playoff

Obviously (if you couldn't tell from my tone so far), I am a supporter of a college football playoff. While I agree with a lot of the arguments for a playoff, we need to make sure we propose ideas that are in moderation, and that can gain some popular support.

First, the playoff has to be kept to a reasonable size. I've heard some people say we should just cut the season short and seed all of the teams into a giant tournament. I don't think that this would ever fly, nor would a 64-team or 32-team playoff. While the BCS rankings clearly favor certain teams and certain conferences, they may be useful for selecting "wild card" teams beyond just conference champions. We can address this in my proposal, but there is potential for the actual BCS rankings to still be useful.

While it would be interesting to just take a certain number of the highest ranked teams and let them play, that would almost certainly diminish the meaning of a regular season in college football. The one way that almost seems to guarantee meaningful regular season games would be a conference champion format, in which conference champions are granted a berth in the playoff.

Of course, the argument then is that teams will just schedule "cream puffs" for their non-conference schedule, but I honestly don't see how that's any different than what occurs now. This season, Florida had a joke of a non-conference schedule. Teams that contend year-in and year-out tend to schedule weak opponents for the non-con schedule because they don't want to "get eliminated early". Actually, I think that scheduling better non-conference games would occur more often with a playoff system based around conference champions. If all that matters is your conference record, teams would be more willing to schedule high-profile non-con games to test the grit of their team, get them ready for the conference slate, and prepare them for an eventual playoff game. Imagine a Texas vs. Florida match-up in the Swamp the first week of the season, because neither team would be affected by a loss. Wouldn't that be great?

Constructing The Playoff

There are a few themes that recurred when I was discussing how to compromise: (1) conference champions getting berths is important, (2) no more than 16 teams in a playoff, ideally less, (3) find a way to incorporate high-profile bowl games into the playoff, and maintain their integrity.

People have talked at length about making individual playoff games actually be bowl games that are rotated so that each bowl will have a chance to be the "national championship game". I actually think that the bowl games should be played at the outset of the playoff, and that the winners of those bowl games would "qualify" for the playoff. Think of it like this: some procedure is in place to select a pool of eligible teams (conference champions, ranking, etc.). Once those teams are determined, they are seeded into different BCS Bowls and they play each other. The winners advance, and are re-seeded into a playoff bracket.

Principle: BCS bowl games will be played in Mid December, and the winners will be re-seeded into the final playoff bracket. The playoff games would be played at pre-determined venues, likely large NFL stadiums.

This way, the bowl games still have their clout, and the winners - the truly deserving teams - will advance to the playoff bracket and play for a national championship in addition to their bowl championship.

There are 11 conferences in the FBS and then there are some Independents like Notre Dame and Navy. Eleven conference champions is an awkward number and makes it difficult to seed them properly. Furthermore, there are only four current BCS bowl games, which would tailor itself nicely to an 8-team playoff (well, actually a 4-team playoff with an 8-team qualifying round). Here's how I think you can get around that. Make it a 12 team playoff with bye rounds after the qualifier (similar to the NFL playoffs). You give every conference a shot to have a champion qualify. However, I don't think that conference champions with terrible records should be accepted either.

Principle: Add two bowl games that are prestigious to the ranks of the BCS Bowls. I nominate the Cotton Bowl and the Gator Bowl. This gives a total of 6 BCS Bowls (Rose, Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Cotton, Gator).

Principle: After the 12 teams that were seeded into the BCS Bowls have played, and 6 teams remain, the highest ranked teams should get a bye. This rewards teams for superb performances in the regular season.

Principle: While conference champions should get as many slots as possible (11/12), there should be some sort of "cut off" to determine champions that don't deserve to qualify.

Principle: Remaining teams should be the "best of the rest".

With those core principles, let's set a standard list of rules, and see how it applies to the 2008 season.

The Dishingoutdimes Playoff System

(1) Conference champions shall get an automatic berth to one of six BCS Bowls if they have no more than 2 losses.

(2a) Conference champions shall still qualify if they have more than 2 losses, but are ranked at least 16th in the final regular season BCS standings.

(2b) The highest ranked Independent team (no conference affiliation) can qualify if they have no more than 2 losses and are at least #16 in the final regular season BCS standings.

(3) Remaining spots can be filled by play-in games comprised of conference champions that failed to meet the first two criteria. If there is an even number of teams, those teams will play each other in a play-in game at one of the team's stadium. This pool of ineligible conference champions will be ranked in order of number of losses, and ties will be broken by BCS standings. The highest ranked ineligible champion will be hosting the lowest ranked, and so on. If there are an odd number of teams, the lowest ranked team will be thrown out, and the same procedure will be followed again. If just one conference champion is ineligible, then there shall not be a play-in game. These games will be played in the week immediately following the regular season.

(4) The number of qualified conference champions, in addition to the number of play-in games, shall be subtracted from 12 to determine the number of wild card teams. These wild card teams will be selected in order of BCS ranking in the final regular season standings, with the highest ranked team being the first selected, and so on, until 12 teams are achieved.

(5) Automatic conference champion qualifiers, and wild cards, will be seeded into BCS Bowl games immediately following the regular season based on the final BCS rankings. If teams are unranked, then number of losses will be the tiebreaker. There will be pre-determined matchups, such as #1 vs. #12. These matchups will rotate among the bowls in a 6-year cycle. Play-in winners will be seeded in behind all of the other teams, after their games are finished, and will follow the same procedure as above.

(6) Winners of the bowl games will be re-seeded into a playoff following the week of bowl games. The two teams with the highest final regular season BCS ranking will be rewarded with a bye in the opening playoff round. The winner of the #3 vs. #6 game (played at stadium A) will play the #2 team (also at stadium A), and the winner of the #4 vs. #5 game (played at stadium B) will play the #1 team (also at stadium B).

(7) After two teams remain, they will face off in a national championship game, at a pre-determined venue.

Here's An Example: 2008

Sorry if that seems complicated, but hopefully this example will help clear things up. The season ended on December 6, 2008 and the final BCS rankings were released on December 7, 2008. The following teams were conference champions with 2 or less regular season losses:

Oklahoma (12-1, Big 12), Penn State (11-1, Big 10), Cincinnati (11-2, Big East), Utah (12-0, MWC), Ball State (12-1, MAC), USC (11-1, Pac 10), Florida (12-1, SEC), Boise State (12-0, WAC)

This means that eight teams qualified as conference champions automatically. No independents had two losses or less. There are three conference champions remaining, which is an odd number. Virginia Tech was 9-4 (ACC), Tulsa was 10-3 (CUSA), and Troy was 8-4 (Sun Belt). Since Tulsa has the least number of losses, they will host the play-in game. Virginia Tech was ranked #19 in the final BCS standings, and Troy was unranked, so Virginia Tech will travel to Tulsa.

Virginia Tech plays at Tulsa in a play-in game on December 13, 2008

In the meantime, there are three spots remaining for the playoff. The three highest ranked teams in the BCS standings that aren't conference champions will get these spots. These teams are:

Texas (#3), Alabama (#4), and Texas Tech (#7) qualify.

Seeding begins for the bowl games, which will be played Saturday, December 20, 2008.

Rose Bowl: Oklahoma (#1 BCS) vs. winner of play-in game (Tulsa or Va Tech(#19))
Sugar Bowl: Florida (#2 BCS) vs. Ball State (#22 BCS)
Orange Bowl: Texas (#3 BCS) vs. Cincinnati (#12 BCS)
Fiesta Bowl: Alabama (#4 BCS) vs. Boise State (#9 BCS)
Gator Bowl: USC (#5 BCS) vs. Penn State (#8 BCS)
Cotton Bowl: Utah (#6 BCS) vs. Texas Tech (#7 BCS)

At this point I started flipping a coin to produce a random winner, and illustrate some points. Virginia Tech beats Tulsa in the play-in game, and the winners of the bowl games are: Oklahoma, Ball State (even though that would probably not happen), Cincinnati, Boise State, USC, and Utah. These teams would then be re-seeded based on their BCS rankings:

From highest to lowest: Oklahoma, USC, Utah, Boise State, Cincinnati, Ball State.
1-seed Oklahoma will play the winner of 3-seed Utah vs. 6-seed Ball State in a regional bracket at Stadium A.
2-seed USC will play the winner of 4-seed Boise State vs. 5-seed Cincinnati in a regional bracket at Stadium B.

The 3 vs. 6 and 4 vs. 5 games would be played 10 days after the initial bowl games to allow teams time for travel and preparation. In this case, those quarterfinal games would be played on Tuesday, December 30, 2008. Similarly, the semifinal games would be played another 10 days after the quarterfinals, or on Friday, January 9, 2009. This winds up being only a day later than the national championship game was anyways. The National Championship game would be played on the next Saturday that is a minimum of 7 days in the future. In this case, the national championship game would be played on Saturday, January 17, 2009.

Coin flips again as a random winner generator produce a Utah-Oklahoma semi-final that Oklahoma wins, and a USC-Boise State semi-final that USC wins. The national championship game will be played at Stadium C, and it will feature USC vs. Oklahoma.

Analysis

In the 2008 example, the playoff only extended the season by 9 days, and that extension was only for two teams. It gave opportunities for teams to settle the championship on the field. For the most part, if you were a conference champion, you are given ample opportunity to qualify for the playoff. The worst conference champion will always be left out, unless all conference champions perform at such a high level that none of them have less than 2 losses.

The playoff system places a demand on the regular season and teams to win their conference championships. Every regular season game is therefore important. You can see that usually about 3 or 4 teams will get wild card berths, leaving some margin for error in the regular season. However, losing a conference title to someone else will effectively end national championship hopes for most teams. There is an avenue for Independent teams to automatically qualify as well, without being catered to Notre Dame. If Notre Dame, Navy, or Army can compile a season with only 0, 1 or 2 losses, and be ranked higher than #16, I would say they deserve to be in the playoff.

I tried to incorporate major BCS Bowls into the playoff, giving them far more clout than any of the other meaningless bowl games. The other bowl games could still go on, but they would be consolation prizes for anyone not lucky enough to win a conference, or be nearly perfect (like Texas in 2008).

With that, I think I'm done, although I'll quickly touch on the money aspect of things. I think that you could give BCS-esque payouts to the conferences or Independent teams who have teams qualify for the round of 6. There could be reduced payments for appearing in one of the 6 BCS Bowl games. This would actually help increase parity in college football, as some of the smaller conferences could get huge payouts if they qualify for the playoff.

The scenario presented above was "random". In all likelihood you'll get huge matchups in the playoffs. Imagine a Florida-Texas and Oklahoma-Alabama semi-final round. Imagine all of the hype and viewership for games like that! At the same time, Cinderella teams could still dance their way all the way to the crystal football. Most importantly, this system gives everyone a fair shake without diminishing the regular season or having too large of a field.

Doomsday Scenario

2009-11-04T05:16:54Z

Probably like many others out there, I am cheering for something ridiculous to happen so that the BCS is drawn up differently.

Here is what I think would cause the most chaos:

Texas wins out and gets to be in the championship game.
Iowa loses to Minnesota (okay, that one is just personal).
Cincinnati wins out and finishes undefeated.
TCU wins out and has some impressive wins en route to an undefeated season.
Boise State wins out and finishes undefeated.
Oregon wins out and finishes 11-1.
LSU wins out (beats Alabama and then Florida in the SEC title game).

Oregon and LSU would both be 11-1 and Alabama and maybe Florida would fall behind them in the rankings. Does anyone else think that the voters would vault LSU straight to #2 after beating both 'Bama and Florida (LSU is currently #9 in the BCS)? I think they would, I'm not sure what the computers would say. LSU would also have to jump over Oregon (who is currently ranked 8th in the BCS). Oregon only plays teams .500 and above from here on out, so their schedule wouldn't hurt them too much.

So here would be the mess: LSU would jump over a team it is currently behind, plus undefeated teams from Boise State (who beat Oregon), TCU (wins over BYU, Utah, Clemson, Virginia), and Cincinnati. Furthermore, BSU (probably) would get left out of the BCS all together and miss out on BCS money.

Any other good scenarios that could lead to too much controversy?

Alternate solutions

2009-10-27T21:12:53Z

[ Great work! I liked the work here and at We Will Always have Tempe, Don't let my pragmatic critique of this design tell you otherwise. You are on the front page after all! ]

utesfan,

Been lurking the site for a few weeks now, and I like the passion and dedication that you have. Not sure how the fluctuation from year to year (5 teams one year, 7 the next, etc) would really be able to be supported. But there are alternate solutions.

I do not want to cut and paste my Dream Scenario onto your site, because it is a slightly different take on revamping college football altogether, but a lot of the concepts could still apply. But I would love your insight and comments on it nonetheless.

But in my opinion, the BCS can still work in a playoff system, but 8 is not enough, it would require 12 or 16 teams. I believe, that if you win a conference title, that you have the right to play in the tournament. No matter if it would be a North Carolina/Sam Houston State 1 vs 16 seed basketball-type scrimmage.

If only 12 teams are used, the Top 4 from the BCS rankings would get the early bye and 12 would play 5, 11 would play 6, etc. However, if only 12 teams are used, that only allows one at-large team, and we all know that would never fly from the 6 BCS commisioners. So, we are left with a 16 team playoff, with no first round byes, 11 conference champions, and 5 at large berths. [Notre Dame, Army and Navy, can only get an at large by being in BCS Top 16].

Anyways, the BCS formula would be used to qualify the 5 at-large teams, and seed the 1-16 teams. I know the current release only gives the Top 25, but there must be a way to do it to also seed Troy, Central Michigan, Houston, etc. Most likely they would be the 14, 15, 16 seed, but they still need to be slotted correctly. This would also allow, say the SEC Chamionship game loser this year, to still get a #5 seed instead of relegating it to the #12 seed. Also, using the BCS rankings would still also push teams to schedule quality opponents. If Penn St finishes 11-1 and is an at-large, they may end up in the 9-16 range because of their out of conference (OOC) this year, but if they had played Pitt, they might have squeezed into the Top 8 and into a home game (See below).

The one change that would need to be done to accomodate 16 teams would be to start the season one week earlier or to eliminate the byes that most conferences have. Personally I think starting one week earlier, is better because it still gives some flexibility in scheduling, but I will leave that to the powers that be.

The reason to start one week earlier would be to finish all conference games and the conference championship games by the last week in November. I know this would affect the Thanksgiving holiday, but a good many teams already participate in this weekend already. Another option would be to eliminate the conference championship games since the playoff games/bowls would rake in just as much $$, but I seriously doubt those conferences give up that $$ grab.

This would allow the first round of the playoffs to start in the first weekend in December, at the higher seeds home venue (ie similar to early round NIT in basketball). This would also hopefully allow us to see some matchups in the north for once late in the season we normally wouldn't get to see. Can you imagine the intensity of a playoff game in Columbus, Ann Arbor, Morgantown, etc?

Round 2 takes place in the 3rd weekend in December at four bowls to be determined (The locations of the defunct conference chamionship games could also be used). There are existing bowls that weekend already, but I suspect that the Cotton, Gator, etc would love to be able to host one of the four quarterfinal games. My best suggestion would be to spread the 4 around the country (West, Midwest, South, Texas).

Round 3 (semifinals) would take place in 2 of the 4 current BCS bowls on a rotating basis year to year, while the other 2 BCS bowls host the losers from round 2 in consolation matches.

Ideally, the championship game takes place two weeks later at the rotating venue (like the system already taking place), but keeping it one week after is also possible if thats what the BCS wants.

Finally, all the other bowls, still operate as they did before. You can leave the affiliations as they are (minus the four bowls leaving for the quarterfinals). This would also eliminate some of the current 6-6 teams from the bowls, but I don't think that is that bad. If you can't win 7, then you shouldn't qualify anyways. Additionally, teams that get eliminated in Round 1, would still qualify for bowls as before.

I think this scenario is doable, but of course the commisioners will not go for it.

Let me know what you think utesfan.

16 team tourment and how it would work

2009-10-27T18:42:24Z

To start this off this is just a rough draft and feel free to make adjustments with your reply's.

Under my system 16 teams would get bids into the field one for the conference winners, yes even the Sun Belt and MAC, and then what could only be described as "wild card" teams including the independents Notre Dame, Navy and Army getting a WIld Card Berth. Using that selection process there would be two brackets with eight teams in each with No. 1 playing 16 in one bracket and No.2 playing 15 in the other. First round is at the Higher seeded teams field starting in the Second Round you start using Bowl venues second round being in the Cotton Bowl, Gator Bowl, Peach Bowl, Holiday Bowl or some other bowl with the same level of recognition. the Final four play at two current BCS bowl Venues changing the combination of the two every year so it's not the same two bowls each year, so it would be Fiesta and Orange Bowl one year the Orange and Rose another, then Fiesta and Sugar another year. The championship game would be played at on of the current BCS bowl locations that didn't host a third round game so if the Fiesta and Rose bowl held a thrid round game the either the Sugar or Orange bowl would host the National Championship game. As I stated earlier this is just rough draft if you think you can add something to make it better than feel free to say so in your reply's.

Poll

would you support this type of Tournment

Yes

9 votes

No

3 votes

This is the dumbest thing I have ever seen

0 votes

12 votes | Poll has closed

THE BCS IS A SYSTEM OF HALF ASSED HALF MEASURES THAT HALF SOLVES THE PROBLEM AND THEREFORE SOLVES NOTHING

2009-10-19T18:10:16Z

How many teams play in BCS Bowls against teams completely out of the top 10? Too many. What are they really playing for? The BCS Bowls are supposed to be meaningful. Unfortunately, the solution solves only the title game. Even that is only half solved. More on that later. Since there was no playoff to arrive at the 2 best teams, therefore, the rest of the games are essentially meaningless because the other teams have no shot to advance. That's like ranking 64 college basketball teams and telling 62 of them to go home. Only Memphis and North Carolina will play in the Final TWO the rest of you can play a few games amongst yourselves and amuse yourselves. This is much less than a half measure. Technically, its a one-fifth measure.

f you have Eight top teams shouldnt you be able to fit them into 10 BCS slots? Apparently not. Since there are a total of FIVE BCS Bowls including the Title Game this creates TWO spots for non top eight teams. Presumably, #'s 9 & 10. But no. This creates more openings still in the actual BCS Bowls. This results in #7 USC playing a meaningless Rose Bowl vs #13 Illinois or a #3 Texas playing a #10 Ohio State. Isn't the whole idea of the BCS that the era of meaningless bowls that only serve as a reward for a good season and basically are meaningfull only to the local chambers of commerce is over?

This measure of separating the BCS bowls from the other bowls is also only a half step. Yes, they're apart from the Cotton Bowls and the Joe'sGarage.com Bowls of the world, but not so much that you can really tell the difference. Not when you end up with the aforementioned #3 vs. #10 matchups. The FULL measure here would be to have the four BCS bowls (minus the title game) set up the subsequent semifinal and final rounds. If you REALLY want to differentiate between the bowls let the other bowls serve as rewards for a good season to the other teams; as consolation for not making the "elite eight", if you will. Had a good season but only managed a #9 ranking? Congratulations, you're in the Cotton Bowl or some other prestigious bowl. Let the other New Years Eve/Day bowls jockey for the "sexy" matchups. Let them take into consideration which team's fan base travels well, conference affiliations, etc. Let the BCS Bowls be TRULY different and serve as a real playoff. Don't let the line between them and the other bowls blur. Sever the traditional conference tie ins and other (old bowl) nonsense. This eliminates the problems of a third top eight or ten team from a given conference being the odd team out.

To be fair these extra slots and the need to fill them with non BCS teams or lower ranked teams are not due to some nefarious conspiracy. They are due to the BCS's own messed up rules. No more limits to the number of teams from one conference. If youre ranked #8 and are the THIRD team from your conference why should you be left out? If you're Wisconsin (2006), why should you go begging after a great season? You've played by the rules of engagement all year and your reward is a #7 ranking why should you have to play in the Capital One Bowl? If you''re #6 Missouri (2007) or #8 Texas Tech (2008) why should you be shut out? These top 8 teams end up in the Cotton Bowl. This is a good bowl to be sure but again they're playing for nothing.

Usually the BCS likes to use these extra slots as charity contributions to the Hawai'i's and Boise States of the college football world. The problem with this is that more and more these so-called BCS Busters are not being so kind as to roll over against their more powerful BCS opponents like Hawaii did in the Sugar Bowl when they played Georgia. They're actually proving themselves worthy opponents and beating the Oklahoma's and Alabama's of the BCS. While BCS officials claim they have been rewarding this success with unprecedented reward and recognition, their system is specifically designed to keep such success at a minimum. They claim credit for giving them a shot (boise st, utah) when the fact is they EARNED their shots.

The idea of some undeserving team unfairly advancing or some lower seed being able to beat the team that the following week that beat the team the lower seed lost to this week is crazy. That is what a playofff is. Thats the point. You CANNOT continue to say, "this lower ranked team beat this other higher ranked team BUT the losing team is still better." That is the BCS biz as usual talking. Ive heard people make this argument before. But. You could argue that the last #1 teams, USC (2005), Ohio St (2006-07), and Oklahoma (2008) were the better teams going into the title game. Just because they lost doesn't mean theyre not #1? I have news for you. Yes it does. In the BCS this playoff mode of thinking ONLY APPLIES for the Title Game. And THAT is not fair. In essence, the playoff mentality only applies to the actual winner of the title game. This is true half measure fashion. If you lose the title game #2 spot is YOURS. You earned it. Why should you fall 2-4 spots because some other team has better Strength of Schedule, better record. They didnt make it to the NCG, YOU did. This is saying, in essence. The National Title Game is a playoff, but only for the actual winner. You? The loser? You get to fall 2-4 slots. To have a NCG loser fall so many slots immediately calls into questions the game itself.

The Selection Committee's job could be made so much simpler if they simply were tasked with allocating the matchups to the Four BCS Bowls. You then trade the one Title Game Bowl for THREE additional matchups in the semifinal and final rounds and the season lasts only one week more than it does now. I dont see a down side here. For example: You let the committee say, "let's put Oklahoma/Penn St in the Sugar Bowl, Texas/Utah in the Fiesta, USC/Alabama in the Rose, and Texas Tech/Florida in the Orange." Done. Or you can have the individual bowl have preassigned matchups, Rose gets 1 vs 8, etc...

Consider the possibilities of the the last FOUR years' brackets.

2005					Possible Bowl Assignment
#1	USC	vs	#8	Miami	Fiesta Bowl
#2	Texas	vs	#7	Georgia	Sugar Bowl
#3	Penn State	vs	#6	Notre Dame	Orange Bowl
#4	Ohio State	vs	#5	Oregon	Rose Bowl

2006					Possible Bowl Assignment
#1	Ohio State	vs	#8	Boise State	Fiesta Bowl
#2	Florida	vs	#7	Wisconsin	Orange Bowl
#3	Michigan	vs	#6	Louisville	Rose Bowl
#4	LSU	vs	#5	USC	Sugar Bowl

2007					Possible Bowl Assignment
#1	Ohio State	vs	# 8	Kansas	Rose Bowl
#2	LSU	vs	# 7	USC	Sugar Bowl
#3	Virginia Tech	vs	# 6	Missouri	Orange Bowl
#4	Oklahoma	vs	# 5	Georgia	Fiesta Bowl

2008					Possible Bowl Assignment
#1	Oklahoma	vs	# 8	Penn State	Sugar Bowl
#2	Florida	vs	# 7	Texas Tech	Fiesta Bowl
#3	Texas	vs	# 6	Utah	Rose Bowl
#4	USC	vs	# 5	Alabama	Orange Bowl

I don't mean to sound like some sort of Agent Mulder-esque conspiracy theorist. This is why I believe the powers that be (BCS, ESPN, etc...) don't want a playoff and in reality don't have a real debate. They simply trot out some guy to say, "we should have a playoff" people talk about it and say, "hmmm, thats an interesting idea" and leave it at that. Or they trot out some new solution so out there it could never be really taken seriously. ESPN this week is running a realignment scenario so byzantine no one would ever take it seriously. It involves almost a complete realignment of teams and conferences.

If someone was to actually lay out the POSSIBILITIES for people to see, they'd actually say, "I'd like to see THAT!"