Just point out a couple of things…

Pac-10 has 10 teams. They can actually count, unlike our good friends to the east. So while the Big 10 could add just one team, the Pac-10 will need two to get to your 12 teams.

And while I think it makes sense to have ND in the Big 10, they are, as I recall, already a member of the Big East in all other sports except football. So I think they go there instead.

I understand the non-conference tie-ins, and maybe that would work with the “point system”, but I’m for including the conference champions and using the point system to determine the at-larges. I definitely agree that each conference should have a championship game (and most do, except notably Pac and Big 10’s). There are 11 conferences, leaving 5 at-larges (or more with your lowered school/conference count) to be picked with your point system, or BCS, or selection committee like basketball.

I don’t know if they’ll ever drop the number of 1-A (or FBS, whatever) schools. I think they should cap it somewhere, and if someone wants in, they’re going to have to replace a bad-performing school. It’s a dream. :-)

The arguments against an eight team, division I football playoff seem to be:
1. A playoff would diminish the importance of the regular season.
2. The tradition of the bowls would seem less important.
3. The bowl games wouldn’t make as much money with a playoff in place.
4. The season would be too long for the players.
5. With only eight teams, an argument could be made that some deserving teams were left out.
6. In order to make the playoffs, many teams would schedule weak non-conference teams.

There are other reasons that factor into the argument against a playoff, but these seem to top the list.

Back in the day when the national champion was determined by polls, we knew there would be arguments. We knew going in to the season that ambiguity would exist at the end of the season, but we agreed to live by these rules. It was unsettling at times. It was disappointing at times. To this day, people continue to debate whether or not this team or that team was the better one. Part of me misses the good ole days. Part of me misses the days of passionately defending why one’s team truly deserved to be crowned the best in the land. There is a certain charm to the old system. It’s part of the history and pageantry of college football; crisp fall days, marching bands, passionate fans and 1:00 p.m. kickoffs.

The BCS saw an opportunity to make a buck by pretending to bring legitimacy to the national champion of Division I college football. It has in effect turned Division I college football into a cynical, money-driven, and biased marketing event. True, the past system was as subjective as it could be, but at least we weren’t being misled into believing that the intent of the game is to bring the two best teams in the nation together to play in an over-hyped, commercialized, and hand-picked championship game. I argue that the BCS has taken the beautiful tradition of college football and irreparably damaged it.

Admittedly, I’m nostalgic about the way college football used to be, but I’m not as naïve as I may seem. I know that college football has been a big business even before the BSC stepped in to take their share of the pie. What disturbs me, though, is that we are pretending to determine a national champion that is "decided on the field", but we all know how far from the truth that actually is.

So we all understand our dilemma and I suggest we do one of two things. Either we go back to the days before the BSC, enjoy the fun of the bowl season and simply accept the fact that there will always be a debate about who is the team most deserving of being named the national champion, or, if validating our national champion is more important, we need to take a serious look at a 16-team playoff format. That’s right, 16 teams, not 8.

Before we explore this, I’d like to address the concerns against a playoff that I listed at the beginning.

1. A playoff would diminish the importance of the regular season. I couldn’t disagree more. This year is an example of WHY the regular season is ALREADY diminished. Florida lost to an unrated Old Miss team AT HOME, but is likely going to be playing for the national championship. Don’t even get me started on the 3-way tie in the Big XII South. What do we do with that mess? A playoff acknowledges what we already believe; the teams that are playing better later in the season benefit. A team SHOULD get better as the season progresses. Do we want to crown the best team of September 1st or January 1st? In addition, you have to play well over the course of the season to even be considered in the playoff discussion. The regular season, therefore, is not diminished, but critically important.
2. The tradition of the bowls would seem less important. I agree that this could be a problem, but there are a couple of ways to incorporate the bowls into the playoff format. Either 8 bowl games could be used as "consolation" games, or, my preference is that the top 8 bowl games would simply feature match-ups of the top teams who made the playoffs, but didn’t make it to the NC game.
3. The bowl games wouldn’t make as much money with a playoff in place. Again, another legitimate concern, but why do people go to bowl games now? It certainly isn’t for determining champions or rankings. I suspect that if you are the sort of person that attends bowl games, you will probably continue to attend.
4. The season would be too long for the players. Blah, blah, blah. College basketball, as Joe Paterno argued, goes on forever. With my playoff system, the maximum number of games played would be 15 and that’s ONLY for the final two teams. Right now, if you are in a conference championship game and the NC game or a bowl game, you play 14.
5. With only eight teams, an argument could be made that some deserving teams were left out. I agree. Each year is different, but I would argue that the drop off in quality from teams ranked 8 to 16 is not as drastic as the drop off after the 16th ranked team. In other words, the top 16 teams probably are comparable, but once you get past 16 the quality slips significantly. Regardless of the number of teams, somebody will complain. 16 is more inclusive and eliminates some fringe teams from getting in.
6. In order to make the playoffs, many teams would schedule weak non-conference teams. In order to determine the top 16 teams, a strength-of-schedule element would have to be included in the equation. Teams that choose to schedule the IOWA SCHOOL FOR THE BLIND and OUR LADY OF THE BROKEN ROSARY FOURTH GRADE GIRLS TEAM will put themselves at risk. The hardest part of the whole idea is coming up with a formula that takes into account margin of victory, strength-of-schedule, etc . . . I’ll leave the actually math up to people smarter and better looking than me.

OK . . . now on to the actually proposal. A few concessions need to be made. You’ll see what I mean.

1. All Division I teams schedule 11 regular season games to be played over 13 weeks AND keep a date open for 12th game.
2. Conference championship games are eliminated. Conference champions are determined using the old "poll system", but conference champions have no bearing on the selection to the playoffs. It is simply for bragging rights and tradition.
3. After the 11 regular season games are played, the top 16 teams are determined for the playoffs by using a combination of polls and computers or whatever system is agreed upon.
4. The playoff schedule looks like this: Round 1=Week 14 on THANKSGIVING SATURDAY, Round 2=Week 15 (the current date of the conference championships), Round 3=Week 16 or 18 depending on finals schedules), Final game=Current Date.
5. The "BSC" bowls are expanded to 8: Orange, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta, Cotton, Holiday, Gator and Alamo (suggested bowls . . . obviously keep the current and add 4)
6. The higher seeded team is the host team for Rounds 1-3 (another argument for the importance of the regular season). The Final is played at one of the 8 playoff/bowl sites like it is now. The NC game would rotate from bowl to bowl each year. This year it would be played in the Orange bowl. This eliminates the extra game played in Miami. You get ONE bowl game Miami. Not the Orange and the NC.
7. As teams are knocked out of the playoffs, they are assigned to one of the 7 remaining "BSC bowls." Again, you could have them play in bowl games for "rankings", but my preference is that they simply get to go to a bowl game like they are now. It could be that the lowest two teams that are knocked out (this year) go to the Alamo, the next two highest go to the Gator and so on. This would rotate from year to year so that the Alamo isn’t always stuck with the two worst playoff teams and, once every 8 years, the Alamo would host the NC.
8. That deals with the playoffs and NC, but what about the other teams not in the playoffs. Check back to #1. See that open date??? This is one of the things I think is the coolest parts. Once the 16 playoff teams are announced, a committee schedules a "surprise" opponent for the remaining teams. It is almost like scheduling another bowl game. The date, I suggest Thanksgiving FRIDAY, is already open and everybody knows that they will be playing. Rankings determine which team is home and which is away. The goal is to create interesting match-ups of teams that don’t normally play.
9. All remaining bowl games are intact and the teams that don’t make the playoffs are eligible for these bowl games. A nice payoff at the end of the season.

I think I’ve included all of the main points. Obviously there will be problems to work out, but I think this would make for a really exciting end to the football season.

Comments???

the fact is Disney/ESPN/ABC just signed a contract to televise the BCS until 2013 I believe. So once again money talks and with no regard to the games integrity or the coaches and players, the national champion will be decided by some computer who is heavily influenced by people. Many of whom haven’t played a down and don’t understand the work it takes to get there and without a doubt have bias.