As you know, 'concise' isn't exactly in my vocabulary. So, we're pulling a Simmons and doing this in two parts. Second one will post after lunch- more Friday work avoidance!!

For the record, I'm not a proponent of playoffs. I actually liked the way things used to be with conference bowl tie-ins and such; arguing about who was #1 back in the day was a part of the enjoyment of the game, in my opinion.

But, since you asked me, if we were going to have a playoff this is what it should look like. Unlike some people, I'm not going to tell you what won't work- I'm taking a flier on what would ooze awesomeness. Caution is advised; some items may shift during the duration of this posting.

A lot of this is based on the bowl history series I did back on the old site. It might not be a bad idea to give it a look-see if you haven't already:

• Bowl Crap: The history of the modern bowl phenomenon and the "national championship" issue.

• Bowling for Dollars: The economic realities of the bowls; who benefits from these games?

• Bowl Movement: What does it mean to be the "champion"? How is this determined? Is it important?

For those of you who didn't want to tear a tendon in your clicking finger, let me sum up the relevant parts for this discussion: The old bowl system (PreCS) was flawed in it's ability to create a national champion, since it didn't exist for that purpose. The original purpose was money; tourism, money for sponsors, etc. It will be impossible to lose this system and start from scratch because of the "tradition", the money, and the fact that the NCAA has been told in federal court that they cannot legislate post-season activity.

So- on to the philosophical guidelines and overarching principals.

We have to keep money in mind; both for the sponsors and for the institutions. As such, a lengthy playoff won't work- most schools don't have the resources for a long post season like they do at other levels of NCAA Football, and the fans (true fans, not rich boosters or hangers on like you see at the Super Bowl) don't have the funds for travel to multiple sites.

Second, we need to keep the bowls around and use them as best as possible. They do have great tradition, and (as a mid-western guy) provide ideal vacation spots in January. But, we should also seek to remove the home field advantages that occur, as best as possible. This means that, while the bowls would still be an important part of this discussion, conference ties would need to be dissolves (and yes, I'm looking at you Pasadena).

I’ll see Rob’s great idea and raise it. A third major change would be the end of the pre-season poll. Other people have said this much better than I could (Heisenberg principal? Wow...), and even point out that the BCS numbers use the Harris poll which does not release rankings until late September, after teams have actually played. Pre-season AP polling impacts national opinion, and takes away from the "win it on the field" idea that a playoff would allegedly correct.

Fourth major change: schools would need to go back to only playing 11 games a season. Again, this hits the pocketbook; most institutions have used the extra games to schedule cupcakes at home for the ticket revenue (which is funny when it backfires). This would help address one of the major criticisms of playoffs- the season would run too long. Wiht 11 reScheduling changes should also be made to ensure that seasons start and end at the same time, and that schools only have one bye week a year (unlike some folks).To be honest, I think that this recommendation would be the one that most programs would balk at; especially since it hits every program equally.

Final change: Conferences. There would need to be six 12 team conferences, meaning that the Big T1e1n, Big East, and Pac-10 would need to add members. These could chose to do so from the smaller conferences (WAC, Conference USA, etc.) around them. As a corollary, major independents would need to join a conference. While this would kill Notre Dame (who would finish in the middle of the Big 10 most years), it would level the playing field and give us a chance to compare similar schedules. These conferences would need to add a championship game as well; if that means scheduling like the Big 12 and SEC does (east/west, north/south), so be it.

Yes, I know that this screws with tradition and schedules that are set for 20 years- you wanted me to be creative; here you go. Talonk gets even more creative- I'm trying to minimize a huge switcheroo.

The Big 12, SEC, and ACC are already good, so here's how we could tweak the PAC 10, the Big T1e1n, and the Big lEast.

To me, the PAC 12 is easy: Add BYU and Utah, and you've got two really good divisions:

Clouds- Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, BYU, Utah

Sun- Southern Cal, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State

The Big T1e2n gets a bit more complicated: Ntre Ame is the logical addition, but there are problems. The Irish are not interested in joining a conference, and would never win the Big Ten. Just being honest. Second, all Big Ten teams are part of the Association of American Universities; an elite group of research institutions. For the record, the Big Ten is the only conference to have all of its members be a part of this group. So, no Notre Dame.

With all the expansion discussion coming out of the winter meetings, I continued to hear two schools mentioned: Texas and Missouri. To be honest, I also heard about Nebraska, but I’m not having them in the same conference as the Buckeyes, if only for the sake of my marriage. I’ve also heard about UConn, but don’t think their basketball first program would work well in this football first (basketball close second) conference.

While Texas would be an amazing addition, I just don’t see them leaving the Big 12 and their dominance. Plus, there are rivalries with Oklahoma and aTm to be considered. Missouri has a better case (and a good website), as well as a regional rivalry with Iowa and Illinois. If either team jumps ship, look to see TCU added to the Big 12 and a shuffle of sorts (wouldn’t it be great to have Oklahoma and Nebraska play every year again?).

Personally, I think the answer may lie to our east at the University of Pittsburgh.  They help create a natural rival for Penn State, they are an AAU school, and there’s enough tradition in their program to let them stand tall with the rest of the conference. Just for giggles and the purposes of this discussion, let’s welcome the Panthers into the fold.

So, what would our divisions look like? For the sake of rivalries and splitting up the traditional powers, let's go with this:

Hayes- Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Iowa

Paterno- Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Penn State, Pittsburgh

It looks a little heavy on the one side with Mich1gAAn, Ohio State, and Iowa; but how is that different than the SEC East (Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee) or Big 12 South (Texas, Oklahoma, and TTU if they're good again)? Remember, every team has it's ups and downs- Nebraska was supposed to dominate the Big 12 North, yet they struggled under poor coaching (sounds familiar) until recently.

The Big lEast is even more confusing, mostly because I don't care. They need to add five teams to replace Pitt and get to 12, so let's look at their basketball conference to add Notre Dame (no AAU requirements for the Big lEast). Adding Army and Navy would make ND’s schedule easier to explain, and let’s look to Conference USA to add Marshall and East Carolina into the mix. Their divisions would be:

Rivers- WVa, Marshall, Syracuse, UConn, Cincinnati, Louisville

Oceans- Notre Dame, South Florida, Army, Navy, Rutgers, ECU

And yes, I know that South Bend isn't near an ocean. You've got better names, let me know and I'll change it- I wanted to allow them to play the service academies, and keep the conferences relatively balanced.

So that's what we've got so far.  After lunch, we'll talk about the specifics of a year end playoff, and walk through how this would have played out for the last three seasons.