"What's that? Playoffs? Don't talk about...playoffs?  You kidding me? Playoffs?"

--Jim Mora


"Playoffs are the games played following the regular season."

--Captain Obvious


First, Fliedermaus brings you a modest proposal for a college football playoff system. 

1. Coaches' and AP polls begin ranking 35 instead of 25 teams.

Why? My drift will become apparent soon enough. But in the meantime, this is America and bigger is better. 


2. A 32-Team Playoff 

Teams will be seeded by a selection committee (similar to NCAA basketball), that takes strength of schedule into account (can't stress that enough...Boise State) and there will be four brackets (again, similar to NCAA basketball). Each conference is guaranteed at least one spot in the playoff and the rest will be filled out via average ranking in two polls. If there is a tie, strength of schedule can be used as tie-breaker or first week of playoffs can be between #32 and #33 who will play for last playoff spot.


3. First Two Rounds- Higher Seeded Team Hosts

And splits the gate receipts 60/40 with visiting team. Why 60/40? Because the home team should get more but the visiting team should also get a cut. 70/30 would also be acceptable.


4.  Last rounds (8 teams to Championship Game) will be hosted at current BCS Bowl Sites

8 Teams remaining (4 games) at current BCS Bowl Sites. Then two games at two BCS Bowl sites. Then final game at BCS Bowl Site (the last two rounds will see rotating BCS Bowl Sites). That means BCS Bowl Sites will be hosting at least two post-season games most of the time. 


5. Every Playoff Game will be Sponsored. The More You Pay, the Better Game You get to Sponsor

Self-explanatory. There will still be conference/team paydays based upon the sponsorship money. 


And Now, the Arguments:

1. But the BCS Already Gives Us a Championship Game

Not really, the BCS gives us #1 vs. #2, which is all it ever promised. Back before the BCS, when people wanted to see #1 vs. #2 (or #1 vs. #1 if the AP and Coaches' Polls were different) it might have been logically assumed that the formula for matching up those two teams would be a simple average of the two major polls. Now look at what we have. The Harris Poll? Jeff Sagarin's computer?  Screw Jeff Sagarin and his stupid computer. Come to think of it, screw all the computer polls. 


2. But Bowl Games are Tradition

You know what else is traditional? Having a Big 8, a Southwest Conference, a 10-team Pac 10 (or an 8-team Pac 8 for that matter), a 10-team Big 10; having the Big 10 and Pac 10 champions meet in the Rose Bowl. Not having 35 freakin' bowl games a year. Having the SEC champion play in the Sugar Bowl. Having the Big 8 champion play in the Orange Bowl. Having the SWC champion play in the Cotton Bowl, etc, etc, etc. College Football has had little difficulty casting aside tradition when it's convenient or profitable, I see no reason why tradition should halt progress here.


3. But That's Too-Long of a Season for Players!

My uncle played college baseball. He played "Fall Ball" so basically, he played baseball nearly the entire year except for a couple of winter months. If baseball players can do it, football players can do it. 


4. But I Like the Old, Pre-BCS Way of Doing Things

So do I, but the BCS has opened Pandora's Box, it's a crossing of the Rubicon for college football. It's any other cliche I can come up with. Basically, I'm saying there's no going back, there's no putting the toothpaste back in the tube (cliche #3!). The trajectory leads us to a playoff system, not back to the old system. 


5. But 35 Bowl Games is a lot of Football, the Fans Must Like It

I have little doubt of that. But a 32-team playoff would have 31 games over six weeks (or, if people like a play and you're in game for the last spot, 32 games over 7 weeks), and every single one of them would be more meaningful than a bowl game between two 6-6 teams. If they want to have a few bowls for teams that don't make the playoffs (the football equivalent to the NIT tournament), that's fine, knock yourselves out. 


6. But Some Teams will NEVER Make the Playoffs

Welcome to the Baltimore Orioles' world. That's just too bad. I feel terrible about that. I will say this: If anyone bemoans the culture of 'giving a trophy' to everyone; of not keeping score in kids games because they might feel bad if they lose, then you should be dead-set against mediocre (and that's being generous) teams playing any post-season games. Let's look at a hypothetical example (but it happens every year). Say Ole Miss goes 2-6 in SEC conference play (which would put them at or near the bottom of the conference standings), but thanks to 4 cupcake OOC games, they're 6-6. Do they really deserve a post-season game?  I say no. I say, it's the equivalent of giving the losers a trophy they didn't earn. It's the equivalent of not keeping score in a kids' soccer game. And in anticipation of a rebuttal, I realize that not every conference champion will be playoff-worthy (*cough* Sun Belt), but allowing every conference a slot is designed to get them to go along with it and hush claims that mid-majors are getting shut out. 


7. But Under the Current System, Every Game is a Playoff

That one never gets old. The idea behind it is that if say, Ole Miss has sewn up a playoff spot, they'll rest starters and drop a game at the end, like NFL teams do when they've sewn up playoff spots. This still isn't the NFL though. Is a team like Ole Miss really going to risk seeding (and therefore the possibility of hosting an extra playoff game), risk recruits and risk irritating alumni by dropping a game at the end?  No, no they won't. That's the great thing about the NCAA, they'll still try to win every single game no matter what (for many teams, the last game of the season is against a major rival). When you consider that recruits are watching, the powerful alumni at many big schools and that seeding will be changed if a team loses, then anyone can see that teams won't drop games because they've made it into the playoffs. 


8.  But a Playoff Won't Stop the Arguments

I realize that, but I differentiate between "big" and "small" arguments. If one year (and this will happen eventually) there are 4 BCS conference teams unbeaten at the end of the season, deciding who gets into the BCS title game is a "big" argument in my opinion. Under a 32-team playoff, a 7-5 Ole Miss (my favorite example) team that's upset they didn't make the playoffs even though they were ranked #30 because room had to be made for the Sun Belt champion is a "small" argument. I can handle small arguments, it's the big ones I'd rather avoid. 


Conclusion:

If you like the old system, I have no argument with you, except that 35 bowl games is ridiculous. If we went back to the old system, and shaved off at least 10 of those games, I'd be perfectly fine with that. But the BCS system was a major step towards a playoff system and I doubt we'll be going back.  I've seen many reasonable 16 and 8-team playoff scenarios, but I went with 32 because the sheer number of games comes pretty close to matching the current number of bowl games and it's so inclusive that it's easier to dismiss teams that gripe because they didn't get in.  There are other caveats. For example, a mid-major conference (or any conference) champion would have to have a winning record to get in (sorry 2010 Seattle Seahawks).  And so on. The problem with the BCS system as I see it, is that the current arguments are all too often "big" ones and although the BCS has for the most part, been lucky, eventually the luck will run out and at the end of a season, we're going to have 4-5 major conference undefeated teams or 4-5 major conference 1-loss teams that all look pretty good and the BCS will be in a position to choose only two of them. A 32-team playoff means no more 2003 LSU/USC arguments; no more 2004 Auburns; no more yearly Boise State/other mid-major debate. It would finally mean that the focus can be almost entirely on the game and less on the mechanics of post-season play. It will not end all arguments, just the big ones.