Why would the significance of the smaller bowls be any more diminished than they are now, with the current BCS #1 v. #2 playoff system? With the advent of the BCS system, we already HAVE a playoff system - now it just needs to be modified to allow in more teams - I'd suggest starting with 4 teams, and see how that goes for a few years. It's pretty rare that a team is ranked >4 with a legitimate complaint - most teams that go undefeated the entire year will be ranked pretty highly, unless they have a really, really easy schedule, like Tulane did back in the late 90s when they went undefeated.

I agree, nothing should really change we have more and less significant bowls
every year as it is.
The bottomline is most colleges have their supporters no matter who else
wins or loses.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGrewst9tnM[/media]

Let me star by saying that I am not exactly a fan of the current system. Now with that said, I have been poking holes in my co-workers playoff ideas all day long.
Here's what I don't agree with in yours. "Past the top 8 simply can't compete" (using BCS rankings)
#11 has already beaten #6 (not a very close game)
#16 has already beaten #8 (not a close game)
#24 has already beaten #7 (tried to lose, but held on to win)

"No more than 8 teams needed"
There are currently 14 teams from BCS conferences with 1 loss or fewer (plus unbeaten Boise St.) Please explain to me how would you select the top 8. IMO, on a neutral field, #'s 5 through 15-16 are probably pretty much even.
Now, I can understand taking the 6 "BCS" conference champs, but I haven't heard a goor "fair" way of selecting the following 2. Do you automatically give ND a slot if they only lose 1-2 games? I wouldn't. Do teams like Boise get assured a spot if they finish unbeaten? Take this year for example. Let's just say Auburn had gone unbeaten, and LSU's only loss was by those 4 pts @ Auburn. Now, suppose the Big Ten had no unbeatens, but 2 one-loss teams who hadn't played each other (it was mathematically possible this year). Oh, and Notre Dame loses to only USC (pac-10 champ).

Here's what you're left with

1) Big Ten Champ (whoever won tie-breaker)
2) Big XII champ
3)Big East Champ
4)Pac-10 Champ
5)SEC Champ
6)ACC champ

2 spots remaining, with LSU, Big Ten #2, ND all with nearly identical resumes.
Who gets left out and why?

OK, try to poke some holes in my playoff system...

First rule is this - if you don't win your conference, you don't make the 4-team playoff system, and all conferences need to implement a championship game. My rationale is that this will keep the regular season as an extremely important part of the college game. And anyone who doesn't win their conference can't complain much about not making the playoffs, in my opinion. If you're not in a conference, then now's the time to get into a conference (I'm looking at you, Notre Dame ).

Second rule is this - the BCS rankings, or some variation of it, will still be used to rank the teams, and the top 4 highest-ranked conference champions (see #1) would be in the 3-game playoff system.

Third rule is this - #1 plays #4 in one of the "big" bowls, #2 plays #3 in one of the other "big" bowls, both on New Year's Day, played as a double-header. What a great pair of games those would turn out to be in most years.

Fourth rule - the winners of these two New Year's Day games would meet for the championship, about one week later (probably on the first Saturday that's at least 6-7 days after New Year's Day), in one of the remaining "big" bowls.

The end result will be that the "big" bowls will host 3 huge games, all with championship significance. The remaining "big" bowl that wasn't hosting one of these playoff games could probably host which two teams they'd like to from the remaining teams - probably still a possibly great game.

All other bowls can then pick and choose like they normally do from any of the remaining teams.

What would the end-result be? First, a much better chance of finding the best team, with much less room to legitimately complain about not being able to play for the championship. Sure, a team like Tulane may wind up going undefeated with an extremely easy schedule, and thus possibly not wind up in the top 4, but they'll have a better chance than they do now, and if that scenario happens, it'd be pretty easy to change it up and go to a 6-team playoff, giving the top 2 teams a bye week.

It also makes the conference championship games a pseudo first-round to the playoffs.

It keeps the importance of the regular season, because if you screw up and lose 2-3 games and still somehow sneak into your conference's championship game and win it, you'll possibly/probably not be ranked in the top 4 among all conference champions.

Thoughts? Holes? Enhancements?

Using this year as an example

Ohio St/Michigan winner # 1 seed
Louisville (assuming they winout) # 2 seed
Here's where it gets interesting (everything here down is hypothetical)
Texas (1 loss Big XII champ)
Florida (1 loss SEC champ)
Seems easy to pick the last 2 right?
Well what would you do if one of the ACC teams (Miami, VT, Fla St) won their conference and only had 1 loss? (It didn't happen this year, but you have to prepare for the possibility)
Now don't forget the Cal/USC winner could also be a 1 loss conference champ.
Now, you have 4 teams winning their conferences (with similar resumes) and only 2 slots for them. Who goes, and who gets left out? And Why?

First, has the ACC added in a championship game yet? I know the PAC-10 hasn't. Until they do, they would be excluded from my playoff system, so problem solved!

OK, more seriously, here's how it would work:

Take the conference champs, and the 4 highest ranked teams would be in (using some sort of BCS-like ranking system). That's it. Pretty simple. Can we wind up with 5-6 conference champs all winding up with the same W/L record? Sure, it's always possible. I wonder how often it's actually happened in the past, however.

What I would do would be to say that the 4 team system would be in effect for at least 5 years, because it's an easier thing to implement. Then it would be analyzed, to see if it would be a better system to allow the top 6 conference champs to play, by giving the top 2 teams a bye week. This will mean two more games (3 vs. 6, and 4 vs. 5), and then those games' winners would face #1 and #2 respectively.

First, to answer your question, yes the ACC does have a championship game.
Secondly, how often does it happen?

• '06 = broke it down in my previous post
• '05 = USC & Texas unbeaten WVA & Penn St. 1-loss (2 loss UGA was ranked higher than WVA in the BCS). Under your system WVA would have been left out. We already know the result of their game with UGA (wrong team would have stayed home)
• '04 = AU, USC, Oklahoma unbeaten VA Tech & Michigan each with 2 losses (no 1 loss BCS conf champs). One of these 2 stays home. Do you penalize Mich for losing later in the year (the polls did)
• '03 = Imagine if OU went unbeaten (almost did, K-State threw his year off) USC & LSU 1 loss each who's # 4? 10-2 Fla St., 10-2 Miami (still in Big East at the time) or 10-2 Michigan? Under your system, Miami would have been left out.
• '02 = Miami and Ohio St unbeaten, UGA 1-loss, OU & USC 2-losses. Who stays home? OU or USC?

There is you 5 year stretch to analyze it. Thes are the actual results of the last 4 seasons (5 counting this one). The only game I changed the outcome of is the Big XII champ game from '01. There has been controversy each of your 5 years, because at least one deserving team was left out of the mix. Now that you have analyzed it, what changes would you make?