Some preliminary thoughts, Billmac...
I like that you have developed a system that attempts to keep the regular season important and which also encourages teams to schedule good games in the effort of obtaining a higher rank even if they fail to win their conference - in other words you have kept the benefits of a polling system. How did you arrive at a team which is a conference champ has to be BCS top 12? What happens to a BCS conf. champ who is 13, are they eligible as an at large? If so, what are the consequences of that in the "bigger" picture? Isn't it possible that a game like the SEC Championship game becomes meaningless, then? Both teams are "in" so what does it matter who wins the SEC? Obviously seed, but it seems to me that just makes teams play an extra game that can't do anything but hurt them (Realizing of course that this is a decision conferences can make on their own, money over risk)
I wouldn't welcome a playoff that automatically qualifies a BCS conference champion. Not when things are so cyclical, and to be frank, certain conferences have absolutely stunk in recent years. Ohio State is on the bubble this year although they'd qualify. The teams should meet a minimum criteria, other than simply winning a conference. If the ACC sucks, and the winner has 4 losses, just giving them an automatic bid is a bad idea. It rewards an average season, and quite frankly, allows your 1985 Villanova scenario to exist. Reward the teams that have played the best football and have put together a solid resume. A conference champion that can't crack the BCS Top 12 shouldn't be invited. As it stands today, if Pitt were to beat Cincinnati, I don't think the Big East would be represented, as Cincinnati would get killed in the computers and slide in the coaches and Harris pools significantly. Oregon State would be cutting it close if they were to beat Oregon tomorrow night. If a conference can't qualify their champion, it opens the seeds up to deserving conference runner-ups and sub-division schools. And let's be honest, a sub-division school will have a very hard time cracking the top 12 unless they're undefeated, which should be the criteria for a school playing a weaker schedule.
I think you've minimized the amount of bickering we'll hear from bubble teams, but I think we're agreed that we'll have that regardless of system.
Likewise, I think you're asking too much of most fans in terms of travel. I might go to the Rose Bowl, but I don't know if I can go to both the Capital One Bowl and the Rose Bowl if that's where Ohio State is playing. Seems to me, it would have to be more like these preseason basketball tournaments or the NIT where the early rounds are played at the schools sites for the fans of the schools to enjoy the benefit, though the NCAA tournament is able to fill arenas just because it's an "event" (Though, the ACC cant seem to do it for their football championship... so..)
A college playoff will not succeed without home games. I don't even think a 4 team playoff would succeed attendance-wise, without a home game. Fans don't have the money or vacation time to travel consecutive or 3 weekends. There are so many benefits to having an opening round game at a home field though. You're rewarding the best teams, giving them an added game for revenue, and ensuring a sold-out crowd. Home geography is the best benefit though. No more can teams from the Midwest and Northeast complain of the current advantage Southern teams enjoy come Bowl Season. If you want a home game, go undefeated and get a top 4 seed. An 8 team playoff with neutral site games is asking for empty upper-bowls and diluting what college football so great, which is the passion and pagentry.
There is also a potential problem as it concerns how these dollars are spread out. You say that "conferences would agree, if they can't field a conference champion in the Top 12, they don't have an invite to the party." and I'm not so sure they would be as willing as you assume. I don't know how well the Presidents are going to like the Big XII getting dollars for 3 or 4 teams (last year, I didn't look it up...) while the ACC gets jack squat.
On the other hand, it does put pressure on conferences to have a "Strong" brand of football played in that conference - it's an incentive to improve and I do like that. I just don't know that the powers that be will take that risk in the face of a guarantee like they have now.
That said, also - I'm not sure I agree that Nebraska has "zero" argument if they win the Big XII beating Texas. I mean, the whole tournament itself authorizes that a subjectively - or even objectively - worse team gets to move on if it wins, so why not Nebraska? I mean, I do agree with you that Nebraska should not be in the conversation.... I just don't think that goes as smoothly as you're implying in practice.
In any case, I appreciate your effort to come up with a plan that addresses the concerns I have about a playoff and if more playoff proponents authored these sorts of ideas, I think it would go a long way towards obtaining the objective. It bugs me when people think "playoffs are better" and don't think it through, and I applaud you for thinking it through.
I was trying to lay out this season in regards to Nebraska to give an example. The better example would have been Oregon State if they beat Oregon. Oregon State currently ranks #16 in the BCS. A win over Oregon may get themto twelve, but I think they'd move to #13, leaving the Pac 10 without a team. If a playoff comes into existance, I agree with an earlier point that was stated...all conferences develop a championship game, or no conferences have them.
Again, I'd have to also look at how this plan would play out in other years to get a better idea for how it might work over all and not just to provide something this season. There may be hidden costs to teams which would be revealed in a deeper analysis. It may actually create too many rematches for my liking... (again, if head to head matters on some "let's settle this" level, then I don't know why Oklahoma has to play Texas Tech again after blowing them out 65 - 21 or whatever it was) But, as it is - on the surface - I suppose this is at least one 8 bracket plan I could "get used to" in theory.
I just randomly decided to try my playoff on the 2007 season and pulled BCS standings from December 2nd. That was a crazy season, so I thought it'd be an interesting look with some blurbs in regards to the teams...
(1) Ohio State vs. (8) West Virginia (coming off a very bad loss to Pitt but remains in Top 12 so they qualify. West Virginia was #9 in BCS and Big East winner. Ohio State backdoored themselves into the title game after Pitt upset WVU and Oklahoma beat Missouri. WVU went on to rock Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. Ohio State lost soundly to LSU.)
(2) LSU vs. (7) USC - (LSU was SEC champion, USC won the PAC-10. LSU and USC's BCS ranking on December 2nd reflect their seedings. LSU was #2 in BCS and USC was #7. USC went on to crush Big 10 substitute Illinois in Rose Bowl. LSU won the championship against Ohio State)
(3) Virginia Tech vs. (6) Missouri - (Virginia Tech had a solid season and finished #3 in the BCS rankings. Virginia Tech ended up losing in the Orange Bowl to Kansas. Missouri went on to crush Arkansas in the Cotton Bowl.)
(4) Oklahoma vs. (5) Georgia (Many thought Georgia deserved a shot over LSU and Ohio State and they went on to rail Hawaii in the Sugar Bowl. Georgia had the label as the hottest team in the country, many opining if there were to be a playoff, Georgia would meet USC. Oklahoma went on to get spanked by WVU.)
A few sidenotes that poke a hole in my playoff argument
- Even in my scenario, Hawaii, a 12-0 team, got left out. No sub-division teams would have qualified. It looks like the coaches and Harris Poll voters got this one right, as they were #10 in both, and #10 in the BCS. Hawaii got rolled in embarrassing fashion by Georgia in a agme that should have been called by the second quarter to protect Hawaii's players. No doubt though, in an 8 team playoff, an undefeated Hawaii would have been screaming from the roof-top for not being invited.
- Kansas would be the last BCS conference team out and would have been crying from the outside as well. Kansas finished the regular season at #8 in the BCS, ahead of West Virginia which would have qualified as the Big East Champion, and qualifier for being in the BCS top 12. Kansas went on to beat Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl.
In a hectic season, I would have liked a playoff. LSU lost to Kentucky and Arkansas. Ohio State had a bad home loss to Illinois. USC lost to a 40 point underdog in Stanford and at the time #5 Oregon. USC was also rolling by late November and laid out the Illini in Pasadena.
The fact remains Hawaii got left out, and that would be an omission, IMO. At the same time, currently Boise State and TCU would both qualify this year, which I agree with.
I'm going to pull some other seasons just to get a feel....
I would be interested to see how it would work out in year's gone by to get a better picture of how it would work over time and not just this one season (As I say, my problem with the BCS is the constant attempts to "fix" it... I'd hate to agree to a Playoff system that has hidden problems that weren't examined before hand)
