You've got to be kidding me. Just because we disagree on the exact format doesn't mean we wouldn't all end up rallying behind what eventually gets put forward.

Who would participate?
Let's go with 16.

How many automatic qualifiers?
11. One per conference.

What would be the criteria to qualify?
Win your division, and use the BCS formula for the wildcards.

What would be the criteria for seedings?
Again, BCS can handle that. Make a judgment call on whoever the BCS doesn't handle.

Where would the games be played?
Higher seed, except for a neutral-site final.

When would the games be played?
The four weeks after the regular season ends.

There. Done. Bubble teams left out would be pissed, but they all had at least one fair shot at getting in (their conference). The undefeateds would pretty much be guaranteed their shot. And as for seeding, if you think you were seeded too low, go out on the field and prove it.

Oh, and also, I think we can ALL agree that a team being angry over not getting to go to the playoffs because they think they're one of the 16 best teams in America is a damn sight better than a team being angry over not getting to go to the playoffs because they think they're the BEST team in America.

But.. but.. but everyone wouldn't be happy! Unlike now, where no one is happy except the people raking in the cash every year.

B...b...but think of the corporate sponsorship money and the perennial crap teams that seem to always get a bowl game!

/I'm looking at you, Notre Dame!

Gosling: You've got to be kidding me. Just because we disagree on the exact format doesn't mean we wouldn't all end up rallying behind what eventually gets put forward.

Who would participate?
Let's go with 16.

How many automatic qualifiers?
11. One per conference.

What would be the criteria to qualify?
Win your division, and use the BCS formula for the wildcards.

What would be the criteria for seedings?
Again, BCS can handle that. Make a judgment call on whoever the BCS doesn't handle.

Where would the games be played?
Higher seed, except for a neutral-site final.

When would the games be played?
The four weeks after the regular season ends.

There. Done. Bubble teams left out would be pissed, but they all had at least one fair shot at getting in (their conference). The undefeateds would pretty much be guaranteed their shot. And as for seeding, if you think you were seeded too low, go out on the field and prove it.

Please put this on a website.

I think 3/4 of college football fans would back this as written.

I was going to say that there was no way this site was real, given the content's poor quality and writing, the fact that it says it was created by the "BCS group" and not the Bowl Championship Series, that it has no BCS copyright, and that the link for "Created by" is in Comic Sans, and goes to a shiatty site for a "company" that sells "basic site templates" for under $2000.

But then I whoised it, and it was registered by HDMK, which appears to be the PR firm the BCS hired recently.

Therefore, this appears to be the most utterly incompetent piece of PR work I have ever seen.

Our local looniversity has been to the FCS/I-AA playoffs every year for something like 17 years straight and I sure as hell wouldn't trade it for some cruddy bowl game. We get some great games against teams we'd never see in the regular season and most of the biatching is over what team should have been the last at large pick for the tournament rather than who should be playing for the championship. I can't remember anyone ever disputing that the winner deserved to be the national champion. Saturday can't get here soon enough.

mehtajr: Therefore, this appears to be the most utterly incompetent piece of PR work I have ever seen.

I checked the web design company, loved this little blurb in their rates section "Priority Rates (where your project takes priority over my current projects)". My current projects? My? After all this talk about a design team? *facepalm*

Also on the PR front, yeah it's awful. Then again, it's the BCS. So it's expected.

The one point they'd need to address they of course don't address, is why would Div 1A be different from Div 3, 2 and 1-AA when it comes to play offs? All the other NCAA divisions do play offs for football. And it works. Time to stop treating Div 1-A like a precious little snowflake.

We already have a Two Team Playoff.


Speak the truth, BCS assmins.

WhyteRaven74: mehtajr: Therefore, this appears to be the most utterly incompetent piece of PR work I have ever seen.

I checked the web design company, loved this little blurb in their rates section "Priority Rates (where your project takes priority over my current projects)". My current projects? My? After all this talk about a design team? *facepalm*

Also on the PR front, yeah it's awful. Then again, it's the BCS. So it's expected.

The one point they'd need to address they of course don't address, is why would Div 1A be different from Div 3, 2 and 1-AA when it comes to play offs? All the other NCAA divisions do play offs for football. And it works. Time to stop treating Div 1-A like a precious little snowflake.

The animation at the top of the page is a travesty. Whoever did that should be embarrassed.

Gosling: You've got to be kidding me. Just because we disagree on the exact format doesn't mean we wouldn't all end up rallying behind what eventually gets put forward.

Who would participate?
Let's go with 16.

How many automatic qualifiers?
11. One per conference.

What would be the criteria to qualify?
Win your division, and use the BCS formula for the wildcards.

What would be the criteria for seedings?
Again, BCS can handle that. Make a judgment call on whoever the BCS doesn't handle.

Where would the games be played?
Higher seed, except for a neutral-site final.

When would the games be played?
The four weeks after the regular season ends.

There. Done. Bubble teams left out would be pissed, but they all had at least one fair shot at getting in (their conference). The undefeateds would pretty much be guaranteed their shot. And as for seeding, if you think you were seeded too low, go out on the field and prove it.

I think an 8 team series would be more manageable in terms of scheduling. You could get rid of one of the non-conference games and move the conference scheduling a week back, then play the final four when the bowl games are being played and have the NC at the same time as it is every year.

16 for a playoff doesn't seem like a lot of teams compared to how many play in the various Bowl games. Fewer teams overall would be competing in a playoff.

So what happens to the money that is normally divvyed up as a result of attending a Bowl game? In a playoff, would you keep giving money to the winning conferences? Conferences that win (statistically, it's going to be mainly BCS conferences) will keep receiving money because they get to go on to the next round in the playoff.

A playoff may actually hurt the non-BCS teams because even though they'll have a guaranteed spot in the playoffs, it will result in overall lower representation due to a smaller number of teams participating.

This isn't satire? I read "If BCS Not Completely Broken, Don't Fix It" and immediately assumed this was a joke.

PowerSlacker: We already have a Two Team Playoff.


Speak the truth, BCS assmins.



Not sure if serious.....

tortilla burger: 16 for a playoff doesn't seem like a lot of teams compared to how many play in the various Bowl games. Fewer teams overall would be competing in a playoff.

So what happens to the money that is normally divvyed up as a result of attending a Bowl game? In a playoff, would you keep giving money to the winning conferences? Conferences that win (statistically, it's going to be mainly BCS conferences) will keep receiving money because they get to go on to the next round in the playoff.

A playoff may actually hurt the non-BCS teams because even though they'll have a guaranteed spot in the playoffs, it will result in overall lower representation due to a smaller number of teams participating.

*psst* the folks in favor of such a system probably back the teams most likely to benefit monetarily from such a system.

Personally I gave up caring who the "national champion" is. It's pretty meaningless. Schedule interesting and exciting games where I can watch some soon-to-be-pros lighting it up.

I recently friended The BCS on Facebook just so I can leave snarky comments on all their updates. I suggest you all do the same.

/also, I'm not above stealing comments people make on Fark and putting them on there.

GoodyearPimp: tortilla burger: 16 for a playoff doesn't seem like a lot of teams compared to how many play in the various Bowl games. Fewer teams overall would be competing in a playoff.

So what happens to the money that is normally divvyed up as a result of attending a Bowl game? In a playoff, would you keep giving money to the winning conferences? Conferences that win (statistically, it's going to be mainly BCS conferences) will keep receiving money because they get to go on to the next round in the playoff.

A playoff may actually hurt the non-BCS teams because even though they'll have a guaranteed spot in the playoffs, it will result in overall lower representation due to a smaller number of teams participating.

*psst* the folks in favor of such a system probably back the teams most likely to benefit monetarily from such a system.

Personally I gave up caring who the "national champion" is. It's pretty meaningless. Schedule interesting and exciting games where I can watch some soon-to-be-pros lighting it up.

I follow college football for the beer too

16 teams, automatic qualifiers for each conference. Determine 5 wild card teams from computer rankings, determine seeding by human polls.

Eliminate one regular season game and the bye.

Round of 16 game at higher seed on first Saturday of December.

Round of 8 game at regional site between Christmas and New Years. (Cities with domed stadiums, Seattle, Glendale, Houston, New York (soon), etc.) Determine location by highest seed plays closest like Division I Men's Basketball. Reseed as in the NFL so that top seed plays lowest seed remaining.

Round of 4 games early January as "Bowl" games on Thursday and Friday. Reseed as in the NFL so that top seed plays lowest seed remaining.

Championship game a little more than one week later at rotating site on Monday night.

Obvious post using dollar signs in place of the letter s.

Gosling: You've got to be kidding me. Just because we disagree on the exact format doesn't mean we wouldn't all end up rallying behind what eventually gets put forward.

Who would participate?
Let's go with 16.

How many automatic qualifiers?
11. One per conference.

What would be the criteria to qualify?
Win your division, and use the BCS formula for the wildcards.

What would be the criteria for seedings?
Again, BCS can handle that. Make a judgment call on whoever the BCS doesn't handle.

Where would the games be played?
Higher seed, except for a neutral-site final.

When would the games be played?
The four weeks after the regular season ends.

There. Done. Bubble teams left out would be pissed, but they all had at least one fair shot at getting in (their conference). The undefeateds would pretty much be guaranteed their shot. And as for seeding, if you think you were seeded too low, go out on the field and prove it.

12 Automatic bids. The University of Football at Notre Dame has to get one, too.

Also...

NCAA Division (formerly) 1-AA, now FCS has a 16 team playoff and will be transitioning to a 20 team playoff next year. Most conferences get an automatic bid and then at large bids are given to the teams deemed most deserving. I'd rather have the teams arguing over if they should get a wild card rather than having an argument that they should be in the title game...

DIVISION 1-AA has already used the playoff system for years!

What I want to know is who exactly is in this BCS group and why are they putting so much effort into defending the bowl system? We always hear that it is school presidents who are driving the bowl system, but I can't imagine that they would go through the trouble of putting up a website and a twitter page.

If we could figure who the power brokers were in the set up, we could start putting real pressure on specific people to change. Until people who are driving the BCS system are specifically identified though, it is going to be hard to effect change.

Lost Thought 00: Gosling: You've got to be kidding me. Just because we disagree on the exact format doesn't mean we wouldn't all end up rallying behind what eventually gets put forward.

Who would participate?
Let's go with 16.

How many automatic qualifiers?
11. One per conference.

What would be the criteria to qualify?
Win your division, and use the BCS formula for the wildcards.

What would be the criteria for seedings?
Again, BCS can handle that. Make a judgment call on whoever the BCS doesn't handle.

Where would the games be played?
Higher seed, except for a neutral-site final.

When would the games be played?
The four weeks after the regular season ends.

There. Done. Bubble teams left out would be pissed, but they all had at least one fair shot at getting in (their conference). The undefeateds would pretty much be guaranteed their shot. And as for seeding, if you think you were seeded too low, go out on the field and prove it.

12 Automatic bids. The University of Football at Notre Dame has to get one, too.

Notre Dame can qualify for an at-large. Or join a conference.

From the website:

Is the current BCS system successful?

"Yes, since its inception in 1998, the BCS has delivered a matchup between the two top teams every year."


FALSE. 2003 did not.

8 teams
Big East, ACC, Big 12, SEC, Pac 10, Big 10, and 2 at-larges
2 at-large teams
Two highest left in BCS
To avoid screwjob: highest undefeated non-BCS school is a lock

Tourney:
12 game season instead of 13; drop the 1-AA school game crap
3 games: 2 weeks apart; first is right after conference championship; semis is Jan 1st; finals is a week later
Quarters is home field advantage; semis and finals rotate amongst major bowls (year after you host the title game, you host no playoff game).

That's all I got. Something like this year could result in Boise getting screwed to force someone else in (which is funny because the pollsters would try to force Oregon in). All other arguments would be invalid as you could have won your conference (for the big 6 or been the best non-conference winner). For non-BCS, you have a shot, just have the harder route of must be undefeated, plus you'll get the lower seed due to the pollsters hoping you lose.

tortilla burger: 16 for a playoff doesn't seem like a lot of teams compared to how many play in the various Bowl games. Fewer teams overall would be competing in a playoff. So what happens to the money that is normally divvyed up as a result of attending a Bowl game?

Honestly, does the TelephoneOnMyDesk.com Bowl vs. two 6-6 teams really generate that much net revenue, or are they just counting the beans from that bowl game's marginal revenue while completely ignoring diminishing returns due to market saturation? The lower-tier bowl games have all the relevance of a "good jorb!" gold star given to a retard for winning a Fark Politics thread.

You can have it both ways, anyway. Bowls are associated with physical stadiums; a 16-team playoff is just a format. If we keep some semblance of the bowl tier system and add some field neutrality, I can put together a playoff schedule in an hour. For example, if Florida and Texas are still alive, they can meet in Pasadena. Boise State and Ohio State could meet at Miami Gardens. The big programs and bowls are concentrated in the southeast, but it's still possible to force teams to leave their backyard beyond driving distance. None of this UCLA playing in the Rose Bowl or Miami playing in the Orange Bowl crap that made those games an absolute farce in the 80's. It's not "like" a home game; it is a damn home game.

And honestly, the playoffs would tie up only the 16 best teams. For what it's worth, if everyone is so damn greedily obsessed with marginal revenue, they can still watch Notre Dame play the MAC champion in the TelephoneOnMyDesk.com Bowl.

...the brackets grew to accommodate more teams. And grew and grew and grew. It is known as "bracket creep." by the NCAA division of wonks inventing words for shiat.

Igotnothing2: From the website:

Is the current BCS system successful?

"Yes, since its inception in 1998, the BCS has delivered a matchup between the two top teams every year."


FALSE. 2003 did not.

It's actually only delivered the game between the best two teams twice. Every other year (save 2003), there were huge debates about which two teams belonged in the game.

The BCS has been an absolute failure in almost every possible way.

oschesar: If we could figure who the power brokers were in the set up, we could start putting real pressure on specific people to change. Until people who are driving the BCS system are specifically identified though, it is going to be hard to effect change.

Unfortunately, if I had the resources to identify regressive ideologues and apply direct pressure to them, I would fix real-world problems with it.

Gosling: There. Done. Bubble teams left out would be pissed, but they all had at least one fair shot at getting in (their conference). The undefeateds would pretty much be guaranteed their shot. And as for seeding, if you think you were seeded too low, go out on the field and prove it.

Your playoff system matches mine exactly, only I would have a selection committee seed the teams and pick the five at-large bids.

Doesn't it ruin the regular season?
No. In fact, it places an even larger premium on winning one's conference. All 11 conference championships are more meaningful, because you now have a shot at the national championship. As opposed to now, when you are only given a shot if you go undefeated in your "Big Six" conference.

Furthermore, if you don't win your conference, you now need an at-large bid. If the selection committee puts a large enough emphasis on out-of-conference results, teams like Florida won't be playing Charleston Southern and Florida International in the same season. Such a schedule would eliminate them. You would need quality wins against quality teams. Non-conference games just got a lot more interesting.

Why should the Sun Belt champion get in over the 4th place SEC team?
No one is arguing that Troy is a better team than LSU. But, it ensures each team has a legitimate chance at the championship. Also, it helps maintains the importance of the regular season. No one thinks a 4th-place SEC team deserves a shot at the title. That's not why we want a playoff. We want every team to have a chance to win it on the field, not in a popularity contest.

What about the tradition of the bowls?
Oh, yes. The "Capital One Bowl" and "Chick-Fil-A Bowl" just scream tradition. They are pure money grabs.

Besides, only one bowl currently matters with regard to the "championship." The other 33 games are "meaningless." So, what's the change? With a playoff, you have the same thing. Fourteen playoff games, one championship game, and 26 bowl games. (Removing eight bowl games for the 16 playoff teams.)

The Rose Bowl could still match up the top Pac-10 and Big Ten teams that did not go to the playoffs. The Sugar Bowl could still take the top SEC team that did not make the tournament.

I love how a group whose system eliminates all but two teams from having a shot at the final, regardless of their record, considers it a weakness that an 8 team playoff might have trouble deciding which 8 teams to pick.

As a fan I'm a little more concerned about the fact we could have 2 or 3 undefeated teams with zero chance to win a title than I am about the difficulty of figuring out who the 8th best team actually is.

I was a Poli Sci major TheBigBadCrystallineEntity: n qualify for an at-large. Or join a conference.

Or just give them an automatic pass into the final 16 every season in return for supporting the playoff system. Not like it'd change anything, as long as they don't go under .500 they're going to a bowl anyhow.

Gosling: You've got to be kidding me. Just because we disagree on the exact format doesn't mean we wouldn't all end up rallying behind what eventually gets put forward.

Who would participate?
Let's go with 16.

How many automatic qualifiers?
11. One per conference.

What would be the criteria to qualify?
Win your division, and use the BCS formula for the wildcards.

What would be the criteria for seedings?
Again, BCS can handle that. Make a judgment call on whoever the BCS doesn't handle.

Where would the games be played?
Higher seed, except for a neutral-site final.

When would the games be played?
The four weeks after the regular season ends.

There. Done. Bubble teams left out would be pissed, but they all had at least one fair shot at getting in (their conference). The undefeateds would pretty much be guaranteed their shot. And as for seeding, if you think you were seeded too low, go out on the field and prove it.

Great idea. Will never happen. Until you address the underlying issue of "the bowl system makes a shiat ton of money for people who have little or no interest in working together" a playoff system is a pipe dream. The NCAA, the conferences, the schools, the stadiums, the communities around the stadiums, all benefit tremendously from the current system. Anything that threatens that system is a non-starter of an idea. You have to find a way to make a playoff system work within the existing bowl structure.

The thing that people don't get with a playoff using BCS schools is the logistics of the situation. As someone who's worked in college athletics and is a season ticket holder, the rigmarole of getting people tickets, figuring out the proper allotment for each group of fans, finding places for everyone to stay, etc, is a huge hassle. It wouldn't make much difference if the games were played at the home stadiums of the highest seed or a neutral site: big-time football programs have lots of fans, and getting everything organized for the fans in a week would be nigh impossible. To demonstrate, let's say fans of Chump State know if they win their first playoff game, they will have to go on the road. Fans of Chump State want tickets, hotels, air travel if the next stadium is a certain distance away..and then when their team loses, they end up with a horde of non-refundable expenses. People aren't going to buy that. Playoffs are for set, stable markets where people don't tend to travel to get to the games (professional anything) and for smaller conferences with schools that would fit in the quads of a major university.

mista_tibbs: PowerSlacker: We already have a Two Team Playoff.


Speak the truth, BCS assmins.



Not sure if serious.....

I'm serious. The current system is a Two Team Playoff. If we call it what it is, maybe the playoff system will start including more teams.

Talondel: "the bowl system makes a shiat ton of money for people who have little or no interest in working together" a playoff system is a pipe dream.

You can do the playoffs and the bowls and they can both be successful just like the NIT does just fine despite being second tier to the NCAA Tournament.

Jackdragna: The thing that people don't get with a playoff using BCS schools is the logistics of the situation. As someone who's worked in college athletics and is a season ticket holder, the rigmarole of getting people tickets, figuring out the proper allotment for each group of fans, finding places for everyone to stay, etc, is a huge hassle. It wouldn't make much difference if the games were played at the home stadiums of the highest seed or a neutral site: big-time football programs have lots of fans, and getting everything organized for the fans in a week would be nigh impossible. To demonstrate, let's say fans of Chump State know if they win their first playoff game, they will have to go on the road. Fans of Chump State want tickets, hotels, air travel if the next stadium is a certain distance away..and then when their team loses, they end up with a horde of non-refundable expenses. People aren't going to buy that. Playoffs are for set, stable markets where people don't tend to travel to get to the games (professional anything) and for smaller conferences with schools that would fit in the quads of a major university.

How the hell does the NCAA coordinate a similar nightmare for 65 teams every March then?

12349876: Talondel: "the bowl system makes a shiat ton of money for people who have little or no interest in working together" a playoff system is a pipe dream.

You can do the playoffs and the bowls and they can both be successful just like the NIT does just fine despite being second tier to the NCAA Tournament.

That and 15 playoff games will generate a shiatload more TV money than the five BCS bowls and top three non-BCS bowls currently generate.

Jackdragna: To demonstrate, let's say fans of Chump State know if they win their first playoff game, they will have to go on the road. Fans of Chump State want tickets, hotels, air travel if the next stadium is a certain distance away..and then when their team loses, they end up with a horde of non-refundable expenses. People aren't going to buy that. Playoffs are for set, stable markets where people don't tend to travel to get to the games (professional anything) and for smaller conferences with schools that would fit in the quads of a major university.

This is why March Madness has always been a horrible failure.

PowerSlacker: Jackdragna: The thing that people don't get with a playoff using BCS schools is the logistics of the situation. As someone who's worked in college athletics and is a season ticket holder, the rigmarole of getting people tickets, figuring out the proper allotment for each group of fans, finding places for everyone to stay, etc, is a huge hassle. It wouldn't make much difference if the games were played at the home stadiums of the highest seed or a neutral site: big-time football programs have lots of fans, and getting everything organized for the fans in a week would be nigh impossible. To demonstrate, let's say fans of Chump State know if they win their first playoff game, they will have to go on the road. Fans of Chump State want tickets, hotels, air travel if the next stadium is a certain distance away..and then when their team loses, they end up with a horde of non-refundable expenses. People aren't going to buy that. Playoffs are for set, stable markets where people don't tend to travel to get to the games (professional anything) and for smaller conferences with schools that would fit in the quads of a major university.

How the hell does the NCAA coordinate a similar nightmare for 65 teams every March then?

College basketball teams don't draw nearly the number of fans pro football franchises do, so numbers aren't a problem. The only tickets that sell well are the final few rounds, and even then, many of the people in attendance aren't diehard fans of the teams. In addition, you have a set number of games in each round scheduled in a fixed location. This could potentially work for football, but considering football teams need a week or so to rest up after a game, you're asking football fans to wait around all that time for the next game (possibly after their team loses) and incur all that expense. Each round of the NCAA tournament consists of only a few games at each site.

dugitman: Jackdragna: To demonstrate, let's say fans of Chump State know if they win their first playoff game, they will have to go on the road. Fans of Chump State want tickets, hotels, air travel if the next stadium is a certain distance away..and then when their team loses, they end up with a horde of non-refundable expenses. People aren't going to buy that. Playoffs are for set, stable markets where people don't tend to travel to get to the games (professional anything) and for smaller conferences with schools that would fit in the quads of a major university.

This is why March Madness has always been a horrible failure.

...and the NFL playoff system. Always a nightmare.

SharkTrager: I love how a group whose system eliminates all but two teams from having a shot at the final, regardless of their record, considers it a weakness that an 8 team playoff might have trouble deciding which 8 teams to pick.

Pretty much.

The system isn't going to change. The bowls will still be sold out, and millions will still tune in to see it. Good luck organizing a boycott large enough to get the sponsors' attention.

Since Citigroup is the sponsor for BCS championship game, does that mean that the bailout cash is paying for this system?

Treygreen13: dugitman: Jackdragna: To demonstrate, let's say fans of Chump State know if they win their first playoff game, they will have to go on the road. Fans of Chump State want tickets, hotels, air travel if the next stadium is a certain distance away..and then when their team loses, they end up with a horde of non-refundable expenses. People aren't going to buy that. Playoffs are for set, stable markets where people don't tend to travel to get to the games (professional anything) and for smaller conferences with schools that would fit in the quads of a major university.

This is why March Madness has always been a horrible failure.

...and the NFL playoff system. Always a nightmare.

Comparing college football to the NFL is ridiculous. An NFL franchise has a huge metropolitan population that can attend the games, with fans who basically have to do nothing special to plan to attend the games. The "road" school in your average college football bowl game is bringing far more fans to the game than the road team in an NFL playoff game.

It's Successful: The BCS is the best format to match up college football's number one and two teams while preserving the heritage and success of the bowl system.

So then why is it the majority of the time that the "two best" teams in college always have at least 3 or more cupcake games against teams that some people have never even heard of?

College Football is More Popular than Ever: Thanks to the BCS, regular-season college football has become a true national sport. And the great traditions and great rivalries continue.

*Attendance has shot up 35 percent since the BCS's inception-from 27.6 million in 1998 to 37.4 million in 2008.

*BCS television ratings regularly surpass the NCAA basketball finals, the NBA playoffs and the World Series. In 2009, 26.8 million viewers watched college football's title game between Oklahoma and Florida; 17.6 million watched the 2009 NCAA basketball championship game between North Carolina and Michigan State. An average of 19.3 million viewers watched each game of the 2009 Yankees-Phillies World Series; game six had a peak audience of 22.3 million viewers. In the NBA, an average of 14 million people watched each game of the 2009 championships between the LA Lakers and the Orlando Magic.

The BCS is there not really for the fans, but for money and TV ratings.

College football is more successful and more popular, more thrilling and more enjoyable than ever. Attendance, TV viewership, fan interest and revenues are at record highs. Any playoff scheme would jeopardize this great success, while threatening the wonderful and unique nature of the bowls. If you think the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) is controversial, wait until you realize how much more contentious a playoff would be.

Ok again, in bold, the Revenues are at record highs. That's what it's all about, everyone's getting paid off of this except for the players, unless they get drafted to the NFL and actually make a name for themselves. And If the BCS wasn't so controversial, why is it that more fans each year come out for a play off system? Generally the only team(s) fans who don't argue against it are the one's who's team makes it to the 4 biggest BCS games in the Nation.

Gosling: You've got to be kidding me. Just because we disagree on the exact format doesn't mean we wouldn't all end up rallying behind what eventually gets put forward.

Who would participate?
Let's go with 16.

How many automatic qualifiers?
11. One per conference.

What would be the criteria to qualify?
Win your division, and use the BCS formula for the wildcards.

What would be the criteria for seedings?
Again, BCS can handle that. Make a judgment call on whoever the BCS doesn't handle.

Where would the games be played?
Higher seed, except for a neutral-site final.

When would the games be played?
The four weeks after the regular season ends.

There. Done. Bubble teams left out would be pissed, but they all had at least one fair shot at getting in (their conference). The undefeateds would pretty much be guaranteed their shot. And as for seeding, if you think you were seeded too low, go out on the field and prove it.

Done in 1.

Shorten the season to 10 games. Play 8 conference. Start playoffs week after Thanksgiving. All teams can then play 1 post season "bowl" of their choosing. Any team with better than 6 wins can still play a traditional bowl. Have the championship game after bowl season. All tourney losers eligible for a bowl.

No, you could still make arguments that #17 shoulda woulda coulda, but you would still be able to say "the NCAA Tournament winner is..."

Treygreen13: The animation at the top of the page is a travesty. Whoever did that should be embarrassed.

Well if they were at all competent, yes. But if you check out the design shops page, you realize competence doesn't appear to be among their qualifications.

Also we can keep all the bowl games we want, have them for the teams that don't make the play offs.

Here's a simple solution that doesn't require much change outside of the final few games.

Who would participate?
Top 8 teams. More than that would add too many more games to the season.

How many automatic qualifiers?
8

What would be the criteria to qualify?
Be top 8 standing in the BCS at the end of the season. Let's face it, if you aren't top 8 at the end of the season you probably won't be in contention for the national championship. Most of the drama occurs between the 1 and 4 position on who is in and who shouldn't be.

What would be the criteria for seedings?
BCS standing. If it's good enough now (in the BCS' eyes) to declare a national champion without having teams ever play each other, even with identical records then I'm sure it'll be fine for a playoff seeding. (1vs8, 2vs7, etc.)

Where would the games be played?
Neutral site for whoever gives you the most money.

When would the games be played?
The first round would be at the same time as the other early bowl games. 2nd round a week later. Championship a week after that.

If you could resolve all that would everyone be satisfied?
As somebody said above, anything is better than using a theoretical ranking system to determine the national championship game.

Just read some of the comments, and now I agree: Who is Bill Hancock, and why are his 2 (TWO!!!) quotes so important on this subject.