Can a College Football Playoff System Really Work?

IT IS OUR TIME...We, the paying customers and true enthusiasts of the game of college football, deserve what we overwhelmingly want... A PLAYOFF FOR COLLEGE FOOTBALL

Over a five-year period leading up to December 2006, dozens of constraints, preferences, and considerations were collected by a) discussing the topic with hundreds of fellow college football enthusiasts, b) listening to radio and TV discussions on proposals and c) researching the rationale and factors that where part of the decision process that gave us the current BCS system.

As a result, www.collegefootballsolution.com was developed to aid in discussing and soliciting further inputs on the matter, with intent to advance the dialogue in support of a potential playoff.

There are many ways to skin this cat, so I realize that folks have dozens of ways to implement a playoff.

The things that I think are fundamental, whether we like it or not, are the preservation of the major traditions of college football, keeping the BCS ranking system as-is (it is refined very well for selection of 6-10 teams, just not enough for selection of only two teams), the retention of the current conference championship games for the SEC, Big-12 and ACC, and the retention of the BCS sponsorship arrangements and contractual agreements.

These are some of the fundamental ingredients, but there are others.

An opinion evolved that the first step in marrying the traditions with the BCS was to start with the traditional New Year's Day events, namely the Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, etc....Indeed, the current BCS system retains aspects of this already. It can be further compliant with this tradition.

As such, the system proposed retains the Big 10 v. Pac 10 in the Rose Bowl, the SEC in the Sugar Bowl, the Big 12 in the Fiesta Bowl and the ACC in the Orange Bowl.

From that framework, an eight-team field can be developed. Also from that framework, the eight-team field MUST began on New Year's or New Year's Eve to keep things synchronized.

The semi-finals and finals therefore will occur post New Year's Day, however ONLY four TEAMS must do so out of the 120 FBS teams competing for the championship.

What was deemed "non-starters," or "insufficiently practical" solution ingredients?

First, a truly-seeded basketball style playoff was deemed a non-starter. Part of the reason is that the Rose Bowl tradition will not be workable in such a system, and additionally a truly-seeded tourney is problematic with respect to venues and due to fan- and-team based logistical considerations (among other reasons).

Secondly, a "PLUS-ONE" system was deemed as insufficient progress towards creating a universally acceptable solution.

What would have happened in 2004, 2005 or 2007? Would we have had a more clear champion or not? That is debatable, so I respect those who feel that this would represent sufficient progress.

There are several years when this system would not have been sufficient to refine the short list of candidates, and others when it would have been sufficient. On balance, the fans would still be left un-necessarily frustrated too many years.

Also, in any given year, there tends to be 4-8 teams that have CREDIBLE cases to being the best in the country, so the "PLUS-ONE" plan does not appear to be a good solution. Some will disagree. If so, I defer to recent national media public opinionpoll, which showed decisive favor for an eight-team playoff over a "PLUS-ONE" style approach.

Thirdly, inclusion of all 11 conference champions into the solution was deemed not a viable solution for logistical reasons, and since history shows that the lower conference teams are highly unlikely to be competitive with the top-tier teams (they could, however vie for anywhere from 1-4 "play-In" games in the system being proposed). Additionally, the BCS championship games are not going away due to their money-making capability, so the introduction of the 11 champions required unworkable changes to the existing framework and/or requires true-seeding, which has already been addressed. 

As such I do wish to ensure that 1 or more (theoretically as many as 4) of the stronger non-BCS teams, such as a Boise State a couple of years ago, a TCU a few years back and possibly others, have an entry pathway into the tourney. As long as it is on merit, not theory. The proposal creates a play-in option the same weekend as the conference championships, so all 120 teams can have an opportunity to prove they are the best if they a) schedule a difficult enough of teams and b) put up an impressive record against such competition.

Wouldn't that be awesome if all 120 teams had a merit based entry possibility into the big game? Low likelihood - yes. But at least it would have a finite possibility, whereas that is not the case now. In any given year, a Central Michigan or Louisiana-Monroe waltzes into venues such as Michigan Stadium or Tiger Stadium, giving them an opportunity to make their case. Thus, the proposal chosen provides these teams sufficient opportunity to prove they are the best in the land. These teams need to schedule and execute!

As far as making the regular season less important, that just does not make sens to me, because teams will still need to win all or most of their games to be in a posture to make the championship field - just as they do now! That aspect is retained completely in this solution, so no worries there. This argument simply is not an issue with this proposal.

Neither are the BCS contracts an issue with this proposal, since the BCS formulation and participants can be equally worked into the framework for the proposed plan, and more money would result for all without question. I have no doubt that is the case.

The solution that results is shown in the www.collegefootballsolution.com, so please review it and advocate it !

I think you will find it logistically-satisfactory and would work EVERY year to give us a true national champion.

I could write forever on this. Instead, I request that you all 1) review the solution and 2) spread the website to as many as you can!

Thank you all.

Brian