I do enjoy your questions but allow me to add some clarity…

Let me preface this by saying I think that #1 and #4 are basically the same question and would be solved with a simple removal of the Coaches’ Poll. The Coaches’ Poll comes out in the preseason, compared to the Harris Poll coming out after the fifth week.

Therefore to answer #1, the computer polls already take into account strength of schedule on a massive scale. The problem lies within predetermined values placed on teams b/c of who they are (logo on jersey). Case and point this season, I think TCU had a legitimate gripe considering Texas played absolutely nobody other than Oklahoma and Nebraska. But since Texas started higher in the Coaches’ Poll and has the tradition factor they get the nod. Removing the Coaches’ Poll and replacing it with another Harris type poll or even another computer poll would eliminate biases and make the playing field way more even.

Now to answer #4, removing the Coaches’ Poll removes the idea that teams “start” at a certain point. Rankings would actually MATTER at this point, given that they’d be coming out six weeks into the season. Teams have now had time to show who they are and their opponents have too. This gives a great feel for just how good their schedules are and how good each team is at this point. Smaller schools have the same chance to prove themselves as any other at this point. My main argument when looking to make payouts equal to rankings was Ball State in 2008. They finished #22 in the nation which should’ve put them in the Gator Bowl to collect $2.5M. Instead they were shoved in the GMAC bowl against unranked Tulsa to grab only $750K!! Yes I know they lost but that’s besides the point. They should be rewarded for their work on the field, if they’re good enough to finish 12-1 and get ranked #22 then they should be place in the appropriate game.

On to your #3 question about Notre Dame, of course I hate the fact that there’s a Notre Dame rule in the BCS (4. Notre Dame will have an automatic berth if it is in the top eight of the final BCS Standings.). Which is why my #1 change would be to make sure every team joins a conference. The playing field needs to be leveled so at least the foundation of the system is the same, and that each team is judged on the same criteria. Notre Dame join the Big East already, geez!

And now for your main question, how do I justify selecting certain teams over others? (without sounding like an idiot). The fact is that for teams like Boise State, TCU, Utah, and Cincinnati they have to go undefeated just to be CONSIDERED in the conversation. That’s all they’ve earned at that point. Their schedules are usually so horrendous that going undefeated is their only option. That’s how I justify it! No one is guaranteed anything, having a good regular season allows EVERY team the opportunity to stand at college football’s pearly gates and get judged. There are far more factors than just wins and losses. Great you went undefeated Boise, who’d you play? The Broncos are favored in 98% of their games every season. Put Ohio State, Alabama, etc in that schedule and they’d breeze through it. I justify it the same way the playoff lovers would justify it to the last man out of the playoff, “sorry, someone had to be left out (shrug).” People forget that these teams are judged on criteria it isn’t just random, going undefeated against crappy opponents is not equal to losing one game in a tough, relentless schedule.

Fact remains there’s no solution that allows any team to play EVERY other team. Thus we’ll NEVER truly know who the best is. At the end of the day and team can win on any given saturday, but only the best can do it consistently. So why give Cinderella a shot at the title when we already know it’s an unrealistic chance? Seems like a waste of time and energy to give some mediocre team the opportunity to rise up.

A playoff is like The Bachelor to me!! It’s an unrealistic environment! Girls get to go on all these cool dates and get put in these crazy romantic settings, of course they’ll think they’re in love. And then after the show when it comes to “real” life they realize they’re not right for each other. In a playoff of course teams will get up and get hot in a pressure filled situation. They think they have a chance if they can just scheme their opponent up enough. But when it comes down to the regular season (‘real" life) they’re just mediocre and can’t get it done when it really counts.

First off, I wanted to thank Mail for allowing me to present my ideas here. I am pretty sure that my idea is one of a million out there and therefore has little shot of ever being achieved. But I do feel it is the most fair way to institute a playoff in my opinion.

Before I answer, I will note that due to my work schedule this week, I will be unable to critique yours or Rob’s posts. Although I have commented on some of Rob’s ideas in my post already, and did comment on yours as well Mail.

And on to the responses, I will be breaking them into separate ones below …..

For teams that play in conferences with championship games (ACC/SEC/Big 12), they are already playing 13 games in a season. If one of these teams goes to the championship game, they’d play five more for a total of twenty. How would you work to minimize any impact on academics? Would this settle the debate of being the “best” or just “the last team standing”?

This math is incorrect. All FBS schools have 12 games. Teams that travel to Hawaii are also allotted a 13th game. So if a team that plays in a conference of 12 or more, scheduled at Hawaii and played in their conference championship game, they would have played in 14 games. If they survived to the final, they would play 18 games, not 20. And this would only be for one school. The odds of the opponent playing in the Championship game also playing at Hawaii and in a conference championship game are very miniscule.

Most likely, the total games a team could play would be 16 or 17 (if they are in a conference with 12 teams). The eight teams that played in the first round and lost, would be playing one additional game than previously. And the teams that play in Round 2, would only be playing an additional 2 games (round one, round two, and then BCS bowl vs just a bowl game).

In regards to academics, my plan has these games being played every other week in December, not weekly, to allow time for finals. Since most schools don’t resume until after the first of the year, the only teams affected by the new semester/quarter would be the two teams that made the final. Since most of these schools are already in practice for all of December anyways, I think this point is moot.

One last point, any additional practice for these schools is in actuality invaluable for them for the following season as well.

Along those lines- a team from a conference without a championship game who loses in the first round of the playoffs will have played 14 games total (12 in season, one playoff, one bowl). For teams who don’t make the playoffs this total is 13. How would you sell these inequities to conference commissioners?

Am not sure why this makes a difference, extra games are good for both the school and conference. My best guess is that the money associated with the playoffs (meaning extra revenue from the TV deals) would be divided among the conferences in the playoffs. The teams that acquire the home games (seeds 1-8 in first, and 1-4 in second) would get to keep most of the income generated locally (with a payout to the visiting team of course). If the conferences balked, the revenue (or a percentage) generated by the home games could go to the conference coffers as well

Many people hold that UW’s success against Southern Cal was due to Ohio State’s physical game against the Trojans the week before- Matt Barkley was out, and Taylor Mays got the Boom lowered on him and was a shadow of himself the rest of the season. I asked earlier about the “last team standing” idea, let me go one step further- Do you really believe that the Sun Belt champion deserves an opportunity (even as a lower ranked team) to play against the number one or number two team in the nation, given the potential for a blowout and injury issues?

As I have discussed before, with the scheduling inequities, how do we know that a 10-2 Central Michigan, a 11-1 Troy, or a 10-2 Houston aren’t just as deserving as a 12-1 Florida? Since most of the non-BCS schools have to schedule tougher OOC teams (for paydays), they will most likely have more losses than BCS schools. Yes, most likely these schools will be a one and done, but there is no fairer way of proving that than by on the field, rather than just by deciding what conference you play in.

Up until 3-4 years ago, most pundits/fans felt that Boise St, Utah, TCU could not play with the BCS schools, I believe that in recent years, this has proven out that they can. In the current system, when Houston wins their conference, at best they get to show their stuff against a mid-tier BCS (#4-5) team in their bowl game. As a reward to their season, why shouldn’t they get to travel to Penn St, USC, etc and play a top notch school? I am willing to bet if you polled some of the players, a lot of them would rather play a meaningful game in the Horseshoe, Swamp, etc, than a meaningless game against Minnesota in Detroit to show their worth.

While having higher seeds host the first two rounds helps with travel issues, it also creates the possibility of continuing the south/west home field advantage issue that exists with the current bowls. Any way to work around that? Also, given that you’re suggesting that small school champions would be lower seeds and need to travel, how do you propose helping programs who may already have budget issues finance up to five travel experiences at the end of the season?

I actually this plays right into the BCS honchos’ favor and is something they’d rather do than neutral site games. More than likely, the top BCS schools will get a majority of the home games. As much as I’d rather see neutral sites, I don’t think it is economically feasible. Plus, if the majority games are at large BCS venues, more $$ is generated than if they play in Boise, TCU, etc. This is why I think this scenario is most likely.

As for the budget issues, that can be solved relatively easily. First, the teams traveling to the higher seed would get a percentage of the gate receipts. And secondly, if a playoff is instituted, the TV deals would need to get reworked. Some of the additional $$ from that deal could be allocated to assist teams traveling in first 2 rounds.

Thanks for bringing these insights to the table.

no. 20 in AP, no. 24 in ESPN

Not because i think its perfect, but because the idea of a playoff is so groin-grabbingly unrealistic.

Big Six athletes are already treated like pieces of meat that exist only for our amusement. Division I football is a big, big machine, and you think you could make it work because thats what they do at the lower levels? Not gonna happen.

Boise/TCU fans can gnash their teeth and tear their clothes all they want. Look what happened to Cincinnati (an allegedly stronger team than those two) at the hands of a team that was beaten handily.

The arguement that some teams dont get a chance is ridiculous. Stop playing in the same conference as St. Mary’s Cooking School for the Blind and we can talk.

Most of what the movement boils down to is more, more more more! We want more football! Billions of dollars are literally squeezed out of 20 year olds, more games are played in a year than ever before… and it isn’t enough! Look at basketball, lets have a 65 team playoff! Look at nascar, how bout they play every Saturday for nine months! Just stop.

Big, big machine…

no blue chip linebacker has ever said, "man… i’m sick of being treated like a piece of meat and playing on live national TV in a full stadium of screaming fans who worship me… this institution only wants me because i make them money!" no walk-on third-string special teams player has ever said that either, i’d imagine.

Maurice Clarett begs to differ.