Right on the money - if there are 8 teams, number 9 is going to squawk; if there are 12 teams, number 13 is going to squawk, if there are 16 teams, number 17 is going to squawk.

So, you never will get the system to the point where everyone is happy. Never will. Can't do it. Just logically impossible.

But, you can change it froem the way it is now, a system that everyone hates, to a better system, whether it is a 8, 12, or 16 team playoff, that only a few people hate.

Pete, I agree about going back to the old system, because this current one isn't working and a playoff system is just too cumbersome.

Let's face it, given potential revenue boost playoffs would bring the NCAA (see "March Madness"), it's clear that officials view it as an untenable option, probably because it's unrealistic for college teams in the playoffs to be playing 16 or 17 games a year.

Swithing gears, anything to report on the Brian Roberts for Gavin Floyd that Roch's brought up over at MASN? If true, this would qualify as the best offer yet for B-Rob, don't you agree?

I partially agree with Shoreman, mainly for a practical reason: if you want the big conferences to agree to scrap the lucrative BCS and move to a playoff, you have to reward those same big conferences. A 12-team playoff (just like another very popular football playoff system) would mean that all six major conferences send their champions each year and that there is still plenty of room for both the Utahs, Boise States and Texases, Texas Techs and Ohio States of the world. I'd like to see the selection work out like this:

Teams 1-6: current BCS conference champs
Teams 6-12: next six highest ranked teams based on the current (or somewhat modified) BCS ranking system

Byes to teams 1-4: Four highest rated teams
Opening round games: Held at campus sites of teams rated 5-8; played two Saturdays before Christmas (roughly December 11-17)

Second round games: Held among previous season's national championship game host and three locations that can be bid on by existing bowls; played the Saturday before Christmas (roughly December 18-24)

Final Four: Held among rotation of Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl; played on New Year's Day

Championship: Held among rotation of Rose Bowl, Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl and Orange Bowl; played roughly the Friday night before the NFL playoffs begin (in a year like this one it would be held after the NFL playoffs, but so is this year's college championship game)

This keeps the people who have vested interests in the current system happy, makes the fans happy, and allows the rest of the bowl system to remain intact. If the Gator Bowl, the Cotton Bowl, the Outback Bowl, etc, would rather take part in the playoff system, they can bid on those second round games. This would seem to mean more money since it means more games. Hosting the first round games at a campus site would seem to guarantee better attendance, and giving teams 1 through 4 (at least) two weeks notice of the location of their game would help accomplish the same. And if two final four and a championship game can't sell out, well, college football has bigger issues.

Pete,

I do see a fair system ou there, and it does involve conference champions. There are currently 5 conferences with a championship game (ACC, B-12, C-USA, MAC, SEC). The winner of their title games gets a berth. Currently 6 conferences base their champion on the regular season (BEast, B-10, MWC, PAC-10, WAC, Sun Belt). Each of their champions pair off to determine the final 3 playoff berths. The four independent teams would be forced to join a conference, if they wanted to have a shot at the playoffs. The B-10 and PAC-10 would be forced to add teams, if they wanted an automatic berth. In this scenerio the best team (presumably) from each conference goes to the playoffs and no one gets left out (save for Ball State who choked in their title game). A great side-effect would be more open competition between big conference schools and small ones. Right now USC has no reason to schedule Utah in the regular season because a win does not look as good as a win against Notre Dame (despite Utah being a better team) and a loss looks considerably worse. When you don't rely on polls to determine a champ, you don't need to worry about that.

A playoff system isn't cumbersome to anyone, except maybe the outdated bowls.

It's very simple. You invite the 10 or 11 conference champs and take five to six at-large teams.

There's a month between the last games and the bowls anyway. You simply play four weekends in December, or perhaps stretch it into January.

Every other level of college football, I believe, has a 16-team playoff field. It could EASILY be done for Division I-A with absolutely no problems.

What I resent most is that teams like Utah, Boise State, etc. want to use the BCS as a substitute for playing meaningful games during the regular season. Yes, Utah played at Michigan this year and 9 years out of 10 that would be impressive, but the rest of their schedule is nothing like playing 8 games a year in the Big 10, SEC, or Big 12. I suggest having Conf challenge games just like the ACC/Big Ten game in basketball. So Utah, as this years MWC champ, would have a game with OU or USC next year. If they win, then we'll talk about a spot in the BCS championship game. Buffalo wins the MAC, great, send them to Happy Valley next year.

I think that the big problem comes in having a set numbers of teams for a play-off before the beginning of the season. I would minimize the play-off to include only those with really legitimate claim after the bowls are done.

Using this year for example, if Texas wins, then maybe you scedule a 4 team play-off with Texas, Utah, USC, and the winner of Oklahoma/Florida. If Texas loses, then a Utah/USC winner takes on the Oklahoma/Florida winner.

In some years, no additional games may be necessary if the vast majority believes there is an undisputed champion (like the winner of the Texas/USC game in 2006).