College Football 4-Team Playoff: What You Need to Know from A-Z

The college football world will say goodbye to the BCS in two years. In its place will be a playoff system that will eliminate a lot of the issues surrounding the BCS.

The BCS took the bowl system and found a good way to crown a champion. This playoff seems like it will be a great way to crown a champion.

There is some skepticism surrounding the playoff, but there is a lot of hope. From A to Z, here's everything you need to know about the playoff system.

A: AQ Status

The big conferences that previously earned spots in bowl games simply by meeting a long list of requirements will no longer have those spots reserved for them. (h/t cbssports.com)

The playoff system is open to everyone—all you have to do is meet the criteria of one single selection committee. It doesn't matter what conference you are in. There will be no more 2011-style Boise State snubs. (Boise was seventh in the pre-bowl 2011 BCS rankings, but the 2012 Sugar Bowl was played between the then-No. 11 and No. 13 teams.)

The death of the AQ moniker ushers in the era of the free-for-all. Potential ticket sales will not affect whether or not you make the cut. It will all be based on what happens on the field.

B: B1G—What It Means for the Conference

The B1G and its commissioner, Jim Delany were all for a four-team playoff from the beginning of the discussions at the end of last season.

Delany's favorite model consisted of four conference champions in a battle royale for the crystal football (as long as they finished within the top six spots in the rankings). That will not be the case.

There will be a selection committee in charge of picking the four teams that will participate in the playoffs each year. (Their criteria will be covered at length in the next slide.)

It will not be a "conference champions only" model, but under certain circumstances, championships will be given extra weight.

With strength of schedule still being involved, this means that the B1G will have to schedule tougher out-of-conference games until it has proved that it's strong enough to stand on its own.

This also means that their conference champion is likely going to have to achieve no worse than a one-loss season to get in, which is consistent with the national champions for most of the BCS era.

As good as this may sound, the fact of the matter is that the B1G hasn't had a team finish in the top four of a pre-bowl BCS ranking since 2007. To make matters worse for the midwestern traditional powerhouses, in the last 14 years they have only put a team in the top four six times. (The Big XII is 10/14 and the SEC is 11/14, sometimes with two teams from either one or both of those conferences.)

C: Criteria—How Do You Get In?

It is not yet known exactly what requirements need to be met for inclusion in the playoff, but the four major factors are as follows (via ESPN.com):

1) Win-loss record

2) Strength of schedule

3) Head-to-head results

4) Whether or not a team is a conference champion

Now, that list is both reassuring and frightening.

On one hand, those are all the factors that should be considered. On the other hand, if they are ranked in the wrong order, this system could be worse than the BCS.

As of right now, the plan is to use strength of schedule, head-to-head and conference champion status as tie-breakers.

If it stays that way, we are all fine.

D: Dates

When will the playoffs happen?

The semifinals will be played on "Dec 31 and/or Jan 1" with a championship game to follow on "the first Monday that is at least six days after the semifinals."

So basically the postseason doesn't change all that much. Every important game happens on the Christmas break from school or work except for the title game.

E: End to the Controversy?

According to a 2007 Gallup poll, 85 percent of college football fans supported changing from the BCS to a playoff.

So, now that 85 percent of fans have what they want, we can stop hearing all the controversy, right? We can all sit back and just watch the games now, okay? Probably not.

There will be fans of the perennial fifth-ranked team that will scream for an eight-team format. There will be fans who scream against the eight-team format. (Yours truly will be one of those.)

There will never be an end to controversy, unless the entire FBS goes to a year-round schedule with games every three days. (Shoot, even then someone would point out that X team is better than they were 359 days ago and should get another shot at Y team.)

F: Fears

One of the biggest fears associated with the selection process is that the committee will simply read printouts of teams' schedules, win-loss records, etc. and not actually watch the games themselves.

As Michael Felder pointed out on June 26th, you have to have knowledgeable people evaluate real footage. It doesn't matter whether they watch the game live, or a replay throughout the week.

The bottom line is that this system will not be accepted by the fans unless everyone involved is watching every game played by every team in the Top 25 every week.

G: Growth Concern

This four-team model is the right size to determine a true champion. Honestly speaking, anyone outside the consensus four best teams has no legitimate claim to compete for the national title.

The concern here is that this gets out of control in the future. This time it's four teams and the fifth-place team will complain. Next contract it's eight and the ninth team whines. Then it's 16, but a conference champion finishes 17th.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. The closer you draw it to the top, the more legitimate your national champion is.

H: How Many Teams Are Involved?

This has been answered in the headline and in almost every other slide. Just in case you missed it: the college football playoff system currently in place, set to begin in 2014, involves four teams.

I: Implementation

Will the transition from the BCS system be smooth?

The answer is most likely a "no." Does the BCS ranking system cease to exist? Does the selection committee post their rankings every week? Is the AP poll the Zeus of all polls again?

There are a metric ton of reasons that this will not simply be a smooth-as-silk transition from one system to another.

The BCS added one game to the entire college football landscape. That game was the game that every fan wanted to see at the time: the top two teams face each other for the title every year.

This system uses two bowls that already exist for the semifinals each year. It's going to be a rougher transition than back in 1998.

J: Jumping

How high can a conference champion jump?

Is it possible for the 10th-ranked Wisconsin squad to jump into the playoffs? Is the entry point at the sixth position?

Furthermore, how high can they jump? Understandably, a conference champion with one loss at fifth place should probably jump over a one-loss fourth-ranked team that didn't win its conference.

What about a second-ranked conference runner-up with one loss and a fifth-ranked one-loss conference champion? Yes, conference championship status should be a factor.

As of right now, according to Jim Delany, "At the one-through-four level, champions, strength of schedule and head-to-head matter as tiebreakers."

We don't know how much of a factor it is yet. This is a potential pitfall for the system. If it stays as Delany says it is, then it's perfectly reasonable.

K: K, so Now What?

What do we do as fans? As college football fans, we have debated the validity of the BCS, the accuracy of the BCS and the perceived prejudice of the BCS since 1998.

It's been a long time since the BCS was regarded as the solution as opposed to the problem. As writers, we await the first BCS rankings release following the Week 7 games.

As fans, we wait for the BCS to do something like put a rematch up for the title game. As a fan base, we have used a ton of energy to debate whether X champion was really the best team in college football that year.

All this raises the question, "What are we going to spend all that energy on?"

L: Location of the Title Game

The semifinals are going to be played in the respective bowls, whichever those may be, but where will the big one be played? In any city that wants it. They just have to pay the most.

The highest-bidding city will host the title game in each year. This means that the NFL no longer has a monopoly on being the sport with the ability to annoy you by using the phrase "frozen tundra" ad nauseam.

M: Money

How much more money will this bring to college football and who will get it?

The current system pays college football approximately $155M per year. Conservative estimators have the playoffs earning around $300M, while others have them projected around $500M.

This is important: nobody has agreed either on specific amounts of money or on how it should be split.

So, as we delve further into this proposed system, we are learning exactly how little it is that we actually know.

N: Notre Dame

The Irish haven't finished in the top four since 1993. This is dangerous ground for the Irish.

The Irish may be looking to have a new Notre Dame rule that basically says "if we finish in the top four, we can't be forced out by a lower-ranking conference champion." (Anyone who supports the top-four format, regardless of conference championship status, would think that's a fair rule.)

Notre Dame will likely have specific representation on the selection committee. They had representation in the proceedings leading to the playoff, so there's no reason to believe that they will be shut out of the playoff selection process.

However, if the committee doesn't see fit to authorize a new Notre Dame rule, the Irish will be taking a much bigger risk in the future than they have been in the BCS era by not being affiliated with a conference.

If the third-ranked team is not a conference champion, Notre Dame is fourth, a conference champion is fifth and they each have one loss, Notre Dame could be the one that gets pushed out via a tie-breaker.

Given their strength of schedule, that's a low risk. It's also a risk the Irish have surely taken into consideration throughout these discussions, but it's a risk nonetheless.

O: Other Bowl Games

With the semifinal games being rotated amongst six bowls at a rate of two per year, things are going to change. Here are a few of those changes:

1) Two bowls each year will not honor their traditional affiliations, as they will be a part of the playoffs.

2) The Rose Bowl expects to host the B1G and Pac-12 champions in years that it doesn't host a semifinal event.

There is a conflict here that bears mentioning: What happens when the Rose Bowl doesn't host a playoff game and the B1G and/or Pac-12 champion is in the playoffs?

Are they just going to host a rematch? If so, on what day would they host it?

The likeliest solution is that the next best teams from those two conferences will appear in the Rose Bowl.

The bottom line is this: the bowl system will have some minor changes. Teams will get displaced to the next best bowl all across the board whenever circumstances call for it.

So, as the changes roll downhill, the ultimate consequence should be that the GoDaddy Bowl will have marginally better teams every year after 2013.

P: Progress

Progress is here. Just like in 1998, when the BCS was implemented, the future is now.

The BCS improved college football by making sure that a 1 vs. 2 match happened every single year, not just by chance. It ensured that the champion from 1998 on would have a more legitimate claim to the throne of college football.

The BCS may have lasted too long, or it may have ended too quickly. Only time will tell us that. What we do know is that, after years of seeing the third-ranked team miss out on opportunity, it will have its chance for the next few years.

The step has been taken. The next few years will certainly tell us whether that step was progressive or not.

Q: Questions

At this point, there are more than a few questions, and this is a short rundown (like the "Fear" slide) of what they are.

1) Who will sit on the selection committee and what are their specific criteria?

2) How much money will there be, and where will it go?

3) To what extent will the current bowl system be disrupted?

There are probably a million different questions rolling around in our heads, but those are the three that could have deal-breaking answers.

If there's not a fair selection committee, the schools may decide to pull back. If there's not a fair split of the proceeds, schools may back out. If there is too much slicing and dicing of the traditional bowl system, some historically significant schools may back out.

An agreement on a proposed playoff is not a guarantee that it will all get smoothly settled. However, these questions surely must have already been raised before the oversight committee even agreed on the playoff system itself.

It's simply a matter of waiting for the rest of the answers to come down as they are determined.

R: Rotation

Who gets a piece of the playoff?

The newly-established Champions Bowl (Big XII/SEC), the Rose Bowl and an as-yet-undetermined ACC bowl are guaranteed to be in the rotation. (via ESPN.com)

We know that the title game will never be in the hands of a bowl under this system. It will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

We know that six bowls will all rotate the hosting of the two semifinal games. We know that the Chick-Fil-A Bowl will enter the bidding contest. (h/t SportsIllustrated.com) Side note: that could be the previously-mentioned ACC bowl.

We know that the selection committee will be in charge of picking the teams that play in the other now-BCS bowls after they've chosen the four teams that will enter the playoffs. (via vanquishthefoe.com)

We also know that the Rose Bowl is leaning toward hosting the semifinals more rarely than the other bowls being considered.

The last thing we really know that relates to the semifinal bowl rotation is that the Citrus Bowl has pulled the trigger on renovations to bring it into contention for hosting semifinal games.

There will be a six-bowl rotation for the pair of semifinal games each year. Three sites have yet to be determined.

S: SEC—What It Means for the Conference

Well, the SEC has a "bad" habit of having a second team sitting in spots that would be considered for the playoff system. (The Big XII does, too, and most of these points can be applied to the Big XII also.)

With the SEC's strength of schedule (which is largely derived from the fact that it has come home with 100 percent of the BCS trophies it has vied for), the teams that finish second in the conference are going to be the biggest fuel for controversy over the next few years.

As the SEC (and Big XII) consistently put two teams in the top four, their runners-up are going to be the most likely to be jumped by lower-ranked conference champions.

While that may not be as big a concern right now (Wisconsin was ranked 10th in the pre-bowl lists this past year as the B1G champion), it could easily be an issue in the near future.

The anti-rematch controversy surrounding this past BCS title game seems to have been the final push that was needed to implement a playoff system. That perceived anti-SEC bias will cast a shadow over every playoff-related decision that comes down from above.

In the meantime, there's no way that a 10th-ranked conference champion would jump over a second-ranked team. The SEC is safe, and should combine with the Big XII to send three of the four teams that make it to the playoffs, at least for the next few years.

T: Time

How long can we expect this four-team model?

The current agreement is for 2014-2025. The four-team limit is good for 12 years, beginning in 2014. It's not clear what parts of the agreement are up for debate during that time, but the four-team limit is non-negotiable for 12 years.

That should give everyone time to come up with every argument against it, so that a "perfect" system can be put in place (again) at that point in time.

U: Unknown

Major unknown at this point in time: how much of the BCS is going away?

Seriously, is it just the BCS title game? Is it the rankings? Is it everything with the brand name attached to it?

The BCS is not all bad. Getting rid of the two-team limit on the field for the national title may be a great thing, but their ranking turned out to be pretty darn correct over the past few years.

Sure, there were some minor discrepancies between teams ranked within two spots of each other (which is why the four-team model is coming), but for the most part (Oklahoma State/Stanford, etc.) they were correct when it came to the top five.

V: Visibility

This entire selection process had better be transparent. The BCS guarded the programs behind their computer system (with one or two exceptions) like nuclear documents.

That made it impossible to figure out the rankings before they announced them. Some people had issues with that, which was understandable. People wanted to know if there were flaws in the algorithms.

However, when it came to the selection process, the BCS was very clear. They existed for one purpose: to put the top two teams against each other in the national championship game.

When the final pre-bowl rankings were released, everyone knew which two teams would be in the title game. (And controversy lasted a full month, which was great because December has so much college football downtime.)

This selection committee needs to have its procedure plastered all over its homepage. When the final rankings are released after championship weekend, whether they use the AP of some version of what the BCS is now, we had better know what teams are going to the playoffs.

Like it or not, the BCS was up front. The fans do not want smoke 'n' mirrors and some huge "playoff announcement ceremony" halfway through December that will let us in on who will be there.

Should a fifth-ranked conference champion jump over a third-ranked conference runner-up, the fans will want to know exactly how that happened. That way, if it doesn't happen sometime in the future, we know where to take the torches, pitchforks, tar and feathers.

W: Who Watches the Watchmen?

The phrase from the cult classic "Watchmen" is extremely fitting in this scenario.

The selection committee will have extremely specific criteria to follow in its endeavors to pick the playoff-bound teams every year. Those criteria will either be acceptable or unacceptable to the fans of the sport.

Who gets to say whether the criteria are correct? Will they respond to fan groanings if a third-ranked team is jumped by a sixth-ranked conference champion for, say, a third year in a row?

Is this agreement for a specific set of criteria that will remain unchanged for the duration of the initial stage?

Who gets to correct the oversight committee if they get it wrong. Let's be realistic here, even the referees get to use instant replay. Plus, if the referees get it wrong, they answer to superiors.

Will this committee be unassailable, or will it be bound by some semblance of logic, common sense and accountability?

A lot of the details are still undecided or unreleased in this situation, and the world of college football is nervous.

X: X-Pectations

The college football fan is expecting:

1) A true consensus (if not, unanimous) national champion at the end of the season

2) Conference champion status only to be used in the event of a win-loss record and strength of schedule tie with both teams sitting at positions next to each other in the rankings

3) The best four teams, not the most popular teams, to be included in the playoff

Expectations are high down here on the picket line, and we have the wallets. Yes, your great playoff system could be worth up to half a billion dollars.

Never forget: without us, that money is only theoretical.

Hopefully, the expectations are met or exceeded. Until further information is available, skepticism is a shield against disappointment.

Y: YOLO

Hindsight is 20/20 and people absolutely despised the BCS during its twilight years.

However, what if the worst happens:

1) The top four conference champions go as long as they are in the top six

2) Teams are docked SoS points simply for not scheduling outside the super-tough conferences

3) The selection committee is run by administrators and desk workers instead of knowledgeable ex-coaches that saw the game on the field every day

4) Absolutely no one can punish the committee, regardless of its decisions

5) Games still sell out because people want to see their team win no matter what the circumstances

If all five of these things happen, it will be impossible to go back to the BCS format. The people at the top will be making too much money to even consider the thought.

You have to ask yourself, "Are we prepared to lie in the bed we just made for ourselves, even if it's the worst-case scenario?"

Z: Zamboni Principle

The Zamboni machine comes out between periods of hockey games to smooth out the incisions and gouges that naturally occur during a hockey game. This is a new college football system, and it will have its rough patches over the next few years.

Under the current agreement, the four-team model exists until 2025. There is no changing the four-team part of the agreement until after this contract runs out.

When you modify a system, unexpected problems arise. This is true from lawn care to nuclear power distribution. The future is always unsure, no matter how certain we are that the system will work.

In any system, there must be bylaws written in so that improvements can be made. Personally, the four-team aspect should be off-limits for change. That's a perfect number of teams to have at least a consensus national champion every year.

However, when conference champions jump into the playoffs from the sixth spot, there will be fierce debate. Is there room for change?

Is there room in the agreement to change the personnel on the selection committee? Is there room to adjust the weight of each of the criteria involved in selection? Is there room for improvement in any of the aspects of this new system?

Though it looks good on the outside, and the decisions are being made very carefully, will we be stuck with whatever comes in 2014 for 12 solid years?

If there is no room for improvement during the formative years of this system, then it is destined to fail. No system made by humans is perfect on the first try.

After all, you've got to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right?