BCS Playoffs: What an 8-Team College Football Tournament Would Look Like

We do this every year. We—by we, I mean fans and writers who obsess over college football—dream of a day when the BCS shifts from four independent exhibition games and one hand-picked, made-for-TV national championship game to a real, bona fide playoff system.

Every year it gets more and more frustrating to imagine what the playoffs could look like. How incredible would a semifinal between Oklahoma State and Alabama be, knowing the victor would get to play the winner of LSU and Stanford?

Yes, there would still be just as much debate with a playoff system as there is now, only the debate would actually mean something. How many of us derided the BCS system for snubbing Boise State for the likes of Virginia Tech and Michigan (or, for that matter, automatic qualifiers like Clemson and West Virginia)?

But what did it matter, really? So Boise State played in a nothing bowl game a few days before Christmas instead of a something bowl game a few days after New Year.

In the grand scheme of things, neither game really means much.

Imagine then, if Boise State were in line for the seventh seed in a playoff tournament, hoping to face Alabama in the first round? Suddenly, the debate about getting snubbed out of the BCS means a lot more.

Before we focus on how the BCS playoffs structure would look on paper (I offer four different models), it's important to point out that there is no logical reason for playoffs not to happen, other than the BCS bowl coalitions feel it would make their individual games less meaningful (which it won't) and somehow less profitable (again, it won't).

The BCS is college football collusion, plain and simple. Something needs to be done.

Years ago, we were fed the line about not playing during finals, but all the playoff games would be held after finals ended. We were fed the line about not wanting a season as long as the NFL, but the NCAA recently extended the regular season from 11 games to 12 and if we include a conference title game and a bowl game, the top teams are already playing 14 games each season.

It's complete hypocrisy. 

So...what would that imaginary playoffs look like this year? Let's find out.

THE TOP EIGHT IN BCS RANKINGS

The first line of the BCS promotional propaganda reads, "The Bowl Championship Series was established to determine the national champion for college football while maintaining and enhancing the bowl system that's nearly 100 years old."

The long-stated goal of the BCS system is to find the two best teams in the country, meaning the BCS system isn't really set up to figure out anything more than one versus two. Does that mean the third best team in the BCS isn't actually better than the 13th? The rankings have to mean something, don't they?

That is seriously debatable, especially when you look at what teams made the BCS this year. Because of antiquated rules precluding conferences from having more than two BCS teams in a given year, Arkansas isn't one of the 10 BCS teams despite finishing the season ranked sixth.

Boise State finished seventh and Kansas State finished eighth, but those two teams were left out in favor of Michigan and Virginia Tech because the Sugar Bowl brass thought those schools would be a bigger draw.

You'll notice the above bracket is set up as chalk, meaning that the top seed is chosen to win each game. The point of this exercise is not to determine if Oklahoma State's wide receivers could outplay Alabama's secondary, but more to illustrate how awesome it would be for us to get a chance to see that on the field.

So, in one regard, we'll admit that the BCS probably picked the best two teams in the country to play for the National Championship. In another regard, the system is denying us six amazing games before we get there.

The top-eight rankings would create amazing playoff matchups. Kansas State would get a shot at LSU, and Stanford and Oregon would get the rematch everyone wanted to see in the Pac-12 title game.

Oklahoma State would get to play Arkansas in an effort to quiet the SEC backers who think their conference is so darn dominant—honestly, SEC fans, who did Arkansas beat other than South Carolina, who in turn didn't beat anyone other than Clemson and Georgia and only faced two ranked teams at the time the games were played.

Boise State would get the test their fans have always wanted, playing against Alabama to see if they truly belong with the best teams in the country.

The semifinals could see LSU play Stanford and Alabama play Oklahoma State, two games that could have easily been national title games this season. Then we'd get the game that was already hand-picked for us...if everything went according to plan, which it almost never does.

THE AUTOMATIC QUALIFIERS

There is one huge problem with holding BCS playoffs with the top-eight teams in the final rankings: There isn't a Big Ten team in sight. There is no way the Big Ten would ever approve of a system where they weren't guaranteed a spot, especially if that came with the thought the SEC would get three slots and the Pac-12 and Big 12 would each get two.

With that in mind, the BCS could still keep the integrity of its conference champions by placing the automatic qualifiers into an eight-team tournament, filling the other two slots with at-large contestants.

This isn't far from the original BCS model—they have since added another game and two additional BCS schools—and it would give each major conference a shot at the title and a cut of the huge TV contracts, even if they don't have one of the best teams in the country that season.

In this model, LSU would get a rematch with West Virginia, and Alabama would face Clemson. Wisconsin would replace Arkansas, and the other top teams would stay exactly the same. The system would actually work out this year, more out of luck than anything. Had Arkansas finished ahead of Oregon, this system would still have to deal with three of the eight teams coming from the same conference. 

Would this playoffs tournament be as exciting as the one above? Probably. The whole ranking system is subjective anyway, so how do we know if Arkansas is a better team than Wisconsin unless they play on the field? I suppose that's really the point of this exercise.

THE 12- or 16-TEAM PLAYOFF

The last and best option would be to forget an eight-team playoff and go right to a 12- or 16-team tournament. 

The 12-team tournament would be a bit lopsided this season, admittedly. If we took the top-12 ranked teams in the BCS standings, the tournament would look like this:

Byes: 1. LSU, 2. Alabama, 3. Oklahoma State, 4. Stanford

8. Kansas State v 9. South Carolina, winner getting 1. LSU

5. Oregon v 12. Baylor, winner getting 4. Stanford

6. Arkansas v 11. Virginia Tech, winner getting 3. Oklahoma State

7. Boise State v 10. Wisconsin, Winner getting 2. Alabama

The obvious issues that immediately present are giving byes to two teams that didn't win their conference titles and including three Big 12 schools and four SEC schools but only one Big Ten school, one ACC school (and not the conference champion) and no school from the Big East.

It might be fair to some, but it would never happen in a million years.

The 12-team tournament could include the six automatic qualifiers and six at-large teams, giving us Clemson instead of Virginia Tech and West Virginia instead of Baylor this season. Still, that gives the SEC four of the 12 teams in the tournament, two with byes. 

To account for the byes, we could take the four conferences with the best "power rankings" and give their champions automatic byes, putting more importance on actually winning your conference championship and giving credit to those conferences that do well in tough non-conference games.

The 16-team playoff is the best option. Since the BCS has taught us that we only need to figure out who the best two teams are to put on a title game, it really doesn't matter who the other 14 teams in this tournament would be, as long as the top two in the BCS make the field every year.

So, why not make a tournament featuring the conference champions from every conference in America?

There are currently 11 FBS conferences in America, meaning that 11 of the 16 teams would be automatic qualifiers. In fact, I'd go so far as to make 12 automatic qualifiers, giving the 16th seed to the winner of the FCS in lieu of the additional at-large spot. Seeding would go by BCS ranking or team RPI.

This year's 16-team tournament would be:

1. LSU (SEC) v 16. Sam Houston State or North Dakota State (FCS)

8. Wisconsin (Big Ten) v 9. Clemson (ACC)

4. Stanford (at-large) v 13. Arkansas State (Sun Belt)

5. Oregon (Pac 12) v 12. West Virginia (Big East)

3. Oklahoma State (Big 12) v 14. Norther Illinois (MAC)

6. Arkansas (at-large) v 11. Southern Miss (C-USA)

2. Alabama (at-large) v 15. Louisiana Tech (WAC)

7. Boise State (at-large) v 10. TCU (MWC)

Host the first round games at the home field of the better seed, then play the subsequent games at neutral sites.

Who would have the right to complain about hosting a tournament with some of the lower conference champions instead of higher-ranked teams? Kansas State? South Carolina? They would be the only two teams in the BCS Top 10 not in this tournament, and they aren't even in the BCS this year!

Sure, Virginia Tech would hate this, but they had a chance to get in by winning their conference title game. Michigan? They haven't been mentioned at all during this entire conversation, saying more about their inclusion in the current BCS system than exclusion from playoffs.

Any of the tournament scenarios are better than what we have. The 16-team option gives fans of each conference a fighting chance to win the national title. It gives them a seat at the table, which is all those conferences have ever wanted.

Still, with that, it gives nearly all the same teams that made the BCS a chance at something even bigger, and it decides who should play for the National Championship on the field, not left to voters, special interests or big bowl executives.

We can dream for another year.