[CarlSpackler]

The vast majority of college football fans want some sort of playoff, and for good reason. Whether it's a team getting screwed by not even getting a shot to play for the title (i.e. Auburn 2004, Penn St. 1994), a team getting to play in the national title game which has no business being there over at least one other team (i.e. Oklahoma 2003, Nebraska 2001, FSU 1993), or a team snaking 1/2 of the national title when clearly the other team should have been the outright national champ (Michigan 1997, Colorado 1990), at least one team is almost always getting screwed. In addition to this, there are also those years where arguably the best team was ranked 3rd or 4th and was left out of the national title game (USC 2002, Nebraska 1999).

First, whatever playoff system is used needs to allow for the continuation of bowl games. With all of the tradition, and more importantly politics and special interests involving the bowl games, they cannot and will not going away. So any playoff system needs to involve the big bowls (Orange, Rose, Fiesta, Sugar) in some manner, while allowing the non-playoff teams to play in the other bowls (think of these as the ncaabb NIT tourney).

Second, what makes college football unique among the major the sports, is that every regular season game means so much. What other major sport has championship implications in games played during the first month of the season? No other reason than this is needed to eliminate any playoff system with more than 8 teams (not to mention that the logistics of any playoff system with more than 8 teams would be virtually impossible since it would mean a total of 4 extra weeks of games). Besides, does anyone really think the #10 ranked team deserves a shot at the national title, let alone the #16 team?

This leaves three options: an 8, 6, or 4 team playoff. I will discuss the 8 and 6 team playoff structure together since they would both take three weeks. The only difference would be with a 6 team playoff the top 2 seeds would get byes in the first round. Originally I favored either of these two playoff structures over all others. The odd team left out, whether it was the #7 or #9 ranked team, wouldn't really have that much room to complain, and it wouldn't be that much different than the #66 team being left out of the ncaabb tourney (remember the last at large berth in the ncaabb tourney is usually a 12 seed and occasionally a 13 seed).

The problem with the 8 or 6 team format is logistics. All of these games could not be played at neutral sites do to logistics. It's a lot to ask a team's fans to travel for two games. Three would be impossible. You would have to play the first round of games the week after the conference championship games. The solution to this of course, would be to give the better seeds home field advantage (a reward for their regular season record). But another problem would arise with this plan -- virtually every college would be on winter break when these games would be played. Starting the regular season a week earlier is not an option, as the 12th regular season game has been approved and is permanent.

So how about moving the first games to New Years at neutral sites (bowl games), and playing the second round the following week at the higher seeds home field? Well, some schools would still be on winter break, and common sense would dictate that if you're going to use teams' home fields for one round it should be the first -- not the second or third. Also, if you did this, by the time you finished playing the last two rounds, you be near the end of January, and halfway through college basketball season. School administrations wouldn't accept this plan because effectively the ncaafb season would be as long as the NFL season.

That leaves the 4 team playoff. It would be college footballs version of the final 4. The same sort of system which is currently used to select the 2 teams which play in the title game could be used to select 4 teams. Sure, the #5 and #6 teams would be pissed, but this would eliminate virtually all of the problems which have existed in the past (not to mention this would appease those weirdos who think all this yearly debate is good for the sport). The first round of the final four would take place over New Years and use the bowls (Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Fiesta). Two of these bowls would get a final four matchup, with #1 vs. #4 and #2 vs. #3. The other two bowls would get to choose the teams they want to play. Then 1 - 2 weeks later, the national championship game would be played at one of the 2 non-final four bowls. The national championship game would be marketed like the Super Bowl and Final Four currently are. It would rotate among these four bowls on a yearly basis.

Here's an example of how all of this would work. Lets say it's the Rose Bowl's turn to have the national championship game, and the Orange and Fiesta Bowl's turn to have the final 4 games. The Orange and Fiesta would host the 2 final 4 games. The Sugar Bowl would have first choice of the teams it wants to host. Then the Rose Bowl would pick the two teams it wants to host. All of the other bowl games would be played, then the Rose and Sugar would be played. The 2 final 4 games (Orange and Fiesta )would follow over the next couple of days, and the national championship game would be held 1 - 2 weeks later at the Rose Bowl. Whichever bowl has the national championship game would still get it's regular bowl game (this is what's going to happen soon anyways).

And that's it. A college football final 4 where the national championship is decided on the field, with no chance of a split title, and no chaos or national title controversy.

The final 4 plan would also be the easiest to sell to all of the schools, because only one extra game would be played and all of the bowl games would remain in place.