Playoffs

I've argued against a playoff system for Div 1 football for quite some time.  Some of the reasons include cost to the fans to travel and watch the games, corporate hacks hogging the seats, a +1 system being more favorable, and the importance of the regular season might be destroyed.  After some careful analysis, I am now reversing course.  While the above would almost certainly occur, the upside to an 8 team playoff outweighs the consequences.  I realize this is a unrealistic dream, but I am presenting the case anyway.

I have three simple reasons for changing my position.  The first reason is the regular season is getting worse each year, especially the non-conference games.  I might be in the minority here, but the last three regular seasons have not been spectacular.  Very few big games are played.  A major reason why the regular season has been mediocre is the traditionally good teams are less willing to schedule big games against other good teams for fear of losing an early game.  There are exceptions every year, but the amount of marquee games in the non-conference schedule is generally low.  The top teams may schedule tougher games if the risk of losing is not as severe.

I'm not delusional though.  I realize another primary reason for scheduling easier games is to get more home games and thus more revenue.  To off set this tendency, I would penalize a FBS program for playing a FCS school.  One possible penalty is not allowing a FBS team to be ranked #1,2 or 3 if they have played a FCS team.  You can still be ranked 4-8, but you cannot be a top seed.  I'll refer to this penalty later when I discuss the playoff format.  

The second reason for changing my position is some of the middle tier programs are getting much better, and they deserve an opportunity to be in the mix for a championship.  The Boise's and Utah's probably would not go undefeated in the top 6 BCS conferences, but most the of the teams in these conferences are not going undefeated either.  Utah and Boise generally try to play tough OOC schedules, and they often win so it is reasonable to give them the opportunity to win the title.  While the middle tiered teams may not play the tough games week to week in conference play that some of the other top teams play, they'll have to beat at least three strong teams to win the title and I can live with that. 

The last reason for changing my position is the top bowl games are now meaningless.  The only game that matters is the championship.  The participants rarely take the bowl game seriously, and the play is generally sloppy.  Most teams like the pre-game festivities more than the actual game.  Having seven meaningful games at the end of the year to determine the champion would be great for the fans, the TV networks, sponsors, the schools and the NCAA. 

Structuring the playoff system is not easy, but it can be accomplished if some compromises are made. I would keep the current BCS rankings system in place.  The top 8 make the playoff field.  If you are not in the top 8, then you've probably done something during the regular season that disqualifies you from consideration, e.g., two losses.  There are no automatic bids.  Seeds are the based on the BCS rankings.  General seeding rules apply, e.g, 1v8, 2v7. 

Incorporating the current BCS bowls is simple.  The Rose, Orange, Fiesta and Sugar will host the Semi-final and championship games with proper rotation.  Realizing that only 3 games are needed for the semi's and title game, one of the big four will host the 4 v 5 seeds quarterfinal game.  This should not be a problem considering the current format of the BCS bowls.  The top three seeds get their quarterfinal game at home.  This is where the consequence for playing a FCS team can hurt a team. 

The playoffs would begin the last week of December and be played in consecutive weeks.  At most, a team would play 16 games during the season.  Considering the other NCAA levels and all the other sports play a lot more than this, 16 games for a maximum of two teams is not unreasonable.  

Is this system perfect.  No.  Some teams will be left out of the mix that may deserve a shot.  Additionally, the upper tier bowls such as the Cotton, Capital One and Gator will lose some flare.  These are small sacrifices for improving the game and for crowning the most deserving champion.  Money will still be made and the sanctity of the bowl system remains in place under my suggestions.  Since the bowls are about money, why not grab the opportunity to make more?