While we're waiting around for 4 weeks for the next college football game of any consequence...

Rose Bowl Regional:
16 Florida State vs 1 USC @ San Diego
12 Va Tech vs 5 Texas @ San Antonio or Houston

Fiesta Bowl Regional:
13 Iowa vs 4 Cal @ San Jose or San Francisco
9 Louisville vs 8 Boise St. @ Las Vegas

Sugar Bowl Regional:
15 Tennessee vs 2 Oklahoma @ Dallas
11 :lsug: vs 5 Utah @ Boise or Seattle

Orange Bowl Regional:
14 Michigan vs 3 Auburn @ Memphis/Nashville/Orlando/Tampa/Jacksonville
10 Miami vs 7 Georgia @ Atlanta/Jacksonville/Nashville

Week 2 games (Regional finals) to be played at regional BCS bowl sites. Week 3 and 4(National Semifinals and Finals) games to be played at predetermined site(s) which were bidded on earlier....like the Super Bowl and Final Four is done so schools know 5-8 years in advance of where they would be playing. Can you imagine the TV revenue??? Can the networks imagine the advertising revenue??? And don't hand me no crap about how these guys need time to study and all that. If Div 1AA, Div II, Div III football players can do it with their schools' limited resources, Div 1A can do it, too.

Good Idea. If 1-aa can do it so can 1-a

All other divisions have 16 team playoffs, i.e., they take 4 weeks to play out, and they work fine.

A 24-team or 32-team playoff is the way to go ... but

NCAA Div-1A Presidents, Telecommunications Companies (Big Networks) and the NCAA won't budge ... because the Bowl "bidness" is just too big now

... your "BS" idea about a 16-team playoff and regionals (at only four sites) eliminates dozens (over 2 dozen bowl cities exist now) of bowl sites and cities that enjoy prosperity from their annual bowls

... and it ain't EVER GONNA HAPPEN, END OF STORY ... people need to WIN

... like Orlando and the Capital One Bowl ... 25 years old ... YOUR WAY AND THEY HAVE TO JUST SUCK ON IT :dis:

No, no, no, no, no

Now if you're gonna make the damned thing work ... you'd have to spread the wealth

... and it cannot be done to satisfy everyone currently "winning" with the present system, but almost

Now ... just a thought/fantasy that could put most folks in a "WIN WIN" position

IF ... you'd "86" the Division Championships and finish all FB the weekend of Thanksgiving ...

this would cause some discord and financial loss to Conference Championship towns like Mylanta ... but they could be compensated for it ... with a little research and hard work

You could allow a Top 24 or 32 to play in a variety of current bowl cities to spread the wealth ... The 32 team scenario is even better because even more $$$ is generated

Imagine a 24-game scenario ... Just imagine

It's the week after Thanksgiving (December 2)

... 16 "wild-card" teams (#9 -#24 BCS ranking) meet in 8 games in 8 different cities where small bowls are usually held ... regional considerations are made

... the Top 8 (BCS ranking get a bye week)

Smaller schools would eat this up because they'd get a reasonable chance to make it, especially if 32 teams get in ... it's a "Win Win" remember

December 9th (Week #2 of the Playoffs)

These Final 16 would meet in 8 selected games (regionals where current bowls exist ... not just the 4 BCS "prized plum" towns) in 8 selected cities ... could be announced as early as Sunday after Thanksgiving ... These remaining Top 16 teams meet in 8 cities ... and there are 8 winners

Now comes exam week ... remember the NCAA Presidents chief complaint for playoffs ... exam week ... There are no games on December 16th ... PERIOD ... No more excuses ... everybody wins

CUE IN THE FINAL 8 WINNERS FOR 4 GAMES ON DEC 23rd ... Cities are chosen with special considerations for BCS Bowl cities with an alternating schedule ... similar to the current system ... Palatable to the networks ... everybody wins ... THE FOUR GAMES PRODUCE 4 WINNERS

CUE IN THE FINAL 4 WINNERS FOR 2 GAMES ON DEC 30th ... Cities are chosen with special considerations for BCS Bowl cities with alternating schedule ... similar to the current system... Palatable to the networks ... everybody wins ... THE TWO GAMES PRODUCE 2 WINNERS

Now comes the Big Decision ... to skip another week ... or not

Play the National Championship game on January 6th or January 13th ...

~F~O~O~D~ ~F~O~R~ ~T~H~O~U~G~H~T~

Just try to poke holes in my scenario ... WHO LOSES ... Tell me :hihi:

The National Champion could play as many as 17 games if they came via "wildcard week" ...

Granted, that is a lot ... but if that's too many, schools can elimate a 12 game regular season schedule and opt for 11 or even 10 and maybe even start the season a week earlier ... AND POSSIBLY START PLAYOFFS THANKSGIVING WEEKEND ... this is the only snare I can envision ... the greater number of games ... and thus injuries, etc.

LSU won a NC last year in 14 games ... could they have done it in 16 ... Food for thought ... you tell me ... LSU has been a late season hard charger under Saban ... I'm all for a 16-game season ... $$$$$

what if the top 16 (or 8) teams play their playoff (which i am for), and the other bowls- those not affiliated with the playoff- gets to pick from the rest of the 1-A teams?
if my math is right, there would be 15 games played (16 teams). even if each game is a different 'bowl', that would leave 13 bowls for the non-top-16 teams.
and say the top four (sugar, orange, fiesta, rose) take all of those games. that would allow 24 (or 23, because the superdome has another bowl game) other bowl games to be played! granted, those other bowls wouldn't get the big-name schools (they'd be top 16), but they'd have a game.
and should the top four bowls take all of the games for an 8-team playoff, then the Other bowls Still get big-name teams. and the top four should just rotate which got the semis/final games.
the problems with sphincter's dream are a) exams b) holiday Travel season. and i think b) would be too big of a hurdle for even the athletic departments that don't give a rat's about academics.

besides, noone is getting to the root of all this choas: the human polls. no way should people on the west coast rank east coast/southern teams! and same for east coasters ranking the south/west, etc. they don't research; they look at the box score at best. good luck trying to wrestle that right from some of these 'forever and a day' voters for the ap (spew).

MPF

The biggest problem with a 16 game playoff is getting ~30,000 fans to travel for four weekends during the holiday season. In March Madness, you only need about ~5,000 from each team to travel the first weekend, and they get to see three games. Bowls work because more fans can plan their one trip early enough.

One way to solve that is to have the game at a neutral site rather close to to the higher ranked team, regardless of the stadium capacity. So if Utah hosted LSU, the game should be played in Utah, possibly at BYU's campus in Provo. Remember, most of the 1-AA playoffs happen at campus sites. Another way to solve that is to have the first round games played as double headers at the same site. Then only ~15,000 from each team would need to travel that first weekend.

The problem with an 8 team playoff is that the NCAA will never santion a playoff tournament without an automatic bid for all 11 conference champions.

GEAUX TIGERS

Thorny, I had actually not thought about that issue in quite some time. It would be a huge ordeal to follow your team from site to site, or bowl to bowl, throughout the playoffs. Wow, the expenses for a fan are accumulating in my mind as I type this. I could never afford it - but I would pay it. heh Great point though.

The opening weekend for college football season can be moved up a week or two so that the season can end earlier.

The earlier playoff rounds do not necessarily have to be played at bowl sites. If you are doing a 16 team playoff for instance, then why not make being a 1-8 seed more meaningful and give those 8 teams home field advantage in the first round. Usually the top 8 teams will be more derserving than teams 9-16 anyways.

Establish 2 new upper tier bowls that are all involved in the second and third round games (to add to rose, orange, sugar, fiesta). Let the national championship site for each year be bid on, much like the Super Bowl. Could be at a pro stadium, not necessarily a bowl site.

Imagine this scenario for this year with a 16 team playoff:
Nov 27 - Conference Championship Games (and Pac10 USC vs cupcake game)
Dec 11 - Playoffs Round 1 @ home stadiums of top 8 teams
Dec 18 - Playoffs Round 2 @ 4 of the 6 upper tier bowls
Jan 1 - Playoffs Round 3 @ 2 of the 6 upper tier bowls
Jan 15 - Championship game @ determined site.

Obviously there is a lot of tweaking that can be done with the dates.

There is a yearly rotation as to which bowls host which playoff games. For instance, this year it could be:

Second Round: Cotton, Capital One, Sugar, Fiesta
Third Round: Rose, Orange
Champ. game @ Championship site

Next Year:
Second Round: Orange, Cotton, Capital One, Sugar
Third Round: Fiesta, Rose
Champ. game @ Championship site

There would have to be some overall revenue sharing system for the playoffs for any of thsi to work though. The home team can not take all the profit for first round games. The second, third, and championship round games revenue would need to be shared between multiple bowls.

I've read all y'alls scenarios, and while I still like mine best, all of yours' have merit, and I would agree that any scenario that has been posted is better than the way it is now. I'd support any of these ways to make the national championship decided on the field rather than in the polls. I've come to a revelation....in accordance with LSUGradin99....

Yes. Why let the current bowl sites hog up ALL the money? Let everyone bid on these games like the NCAA basketball tournament first/second/regional rounds do. Put more "players in the game" like Ramah said. This is good. The only reason you wouldn't want to have first round games at a teams home stadium is the same reason you don't have first/second round games at a teams home gym in the basketball tournament.....fairness. A team higher ranked should be allowed to play closer to home, but "IN" their home would be too much of an advantage. Not to say that if for instance, LSU was to play a game in this "fantasy" tournament say, in Houston or Shreveport, that they wouldn't have a decided "home crowd advantage", but it would be viewed as a "neutral site".

Now, as far as exams go, moot point. Arrangements can be made for the guys to take tests early or late if they happen to be on the road whenever the final is scheduled. 1AA schools do this....Division II schools do this...and Division III schools do this....and they don't take a week off because of a final exam, either.

The BCS system is horrible at choosing 2 teams to play in one game, but what it would be pretty damned good at would be choosing 16 teams to play in a tournament....IF....IF you put strength of schedule back into the equation.

sphincter.... You missed what I was saying and are far from |in accordance" with me.. heh...

First round at home stadiums of seeds 1-8 is what I meant. It would be perfectly fair. The top 8 teams are more deserving than the bottom 8 teams of the 16 team playoff field. Why not allow them to play at home in the firts round.