Its Bowl Season...

[goonys evil twin]

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

 

A 16-team field would be absurd. There is no reason why teams that couldn't finish in the top 10 need to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to contend for the title. It's not feasible at all, since it would mean the end of the bowl system and suck money out of the system.

[Guest]

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

 

A 16-team field would be absurd. There is no reason why teams that couldn't finish in the top 10 need to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to contend for the title. It's not feasible at all, since it would mean the end of the bowl system and suck money out of the system.

 

There is also no reason to preserve the BCS rankings. You could easily got with 10 teams and play two play-in games.

[soccer10k]

The one question I have is how does Boise State get these better opponents to schedule in order to break into the top 4? Top programs are going to want to have nothing to do with Boise for good reason. If Boise beats them, that's obviously bad news for a team like USC. If USC beats Boise, then Boise gets discredited because they have a loss and no good wins, and that of course doesn't make USC look good either. So there's absolutely no reason for a good team to put Boise on their schedule, and Boise then will never get a good game and will never get into the top 4. Their only chance is something like this year but a little better, for a team who was thought to be bad (Oregon State) turns out to be decent or even better.

 

I'm tired of this argument. The BCS teams will schedule the smaller conference teams if they want games. Look at Fresno State's OOC schedule for the past few years:

 

2000: at Ohio St., at UCLA, vs Cal

2001: at Colorado, vs Oregon St., at Wisconsin, at Colorado St., vs Utah St.

2002: at Wisconsin, vs San Diego St., at Oregon, at Oregon St., vs Colorado St.

2003: at Tennessee, vs Oregon St., at Oklahoma, vs Portland St., at Colorado St.

2004: at Washington, at Kansas St., vs Portland St.

2005: vs Weber St., at Oregon, vs Toledo, at USC

2006: vs Oregon, at Washington, vs Colorado St., at LSU

 

Over these seven years Fresno State went 7-12 against teams from the six major conferences. They have not only beat some of these teams but gotten some of them to travel to Fresno to play. In 2001, they went 5-0 in their OOC schedule with David Carr and yet teams continued to schedule them. They gave USC all they could handle last year but in the next two years they play a home and away with Kansas State, at Oregon and vs Wisconsin.

 

I don't think it's the unwillingness of major conference teams to schedule them but rather the small conference teams not wanting to play tough OOC schedules.

[CuseCubFan69]

I've heard too much already of "If there was an 8-team playoff, Boise State would have gotten its deserving chance." (not just from here, I mean from sports pundits and radio hosts and weblogs and everything)

 

Really?

 

Think about it for a minute. The "Big Six" conferences would never, ever allow a playoff that they didn't get an automatic spot in. That puts Ohio State, Florida, Louisville, USC, Oklahoma, and Wake Forest in. After that, they'd likely choose from the top available BCS teams. That puts Michigan and LSU in, easy. Boise State is still left out in the cold.

 

Would Boise State have a valid argument? Absolutely. But they'd have to argue that either they were more deserving than LSU, or more deserving than any ACC team. I'm not sure either of those arguments fly before any NCAA playoff committee. Fair? Depends on your definition.

 

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

 

You could use the bowls as a play in for some teams too if they went to 12 like the NFL and the wildcard..

 

to your first post, the conferences determine their champion however they want. if a 7-5 team gets in, so be it. the 12-0 team probably was not that great.

 

I think you could have a play in too.

 

did y'all read the article on jim delaney?

 

Yes. I think I saw a 666 on his head in that picture they had.

[soccer10k]

I agree. It's going to take an 8-team playoff field to handle all problems. If an eight team field is done, then I think, while there will be some gripes, most everyone with a claim to the title will have a shot at it.

 

So long as the 8 team field is the actual Top 8 in the BCS (with no conference tie-ins) I'm all for it. But if a #21 ranked F$U gets in from the ACC, or Wisconsin gets the boot for being the 3rd Big Ten team, I wouldn't be happy.

 

This is my problem with an 8 team playoff. Just like with the BCS, there is no way all the major conferences would agree to an 8 team playoff without their conference champions getting an automatic bid. There is no way you get a playoff with the top 8 ranked BCS teams. It won't happen.

 

The BCS rankings are completely ridiculous. The conference champs should get in. Wisconsin and Michigan don't get in unless they win the Big 10. Same for LSU or Cal or whoever else. Why is that so difficult? If you can't win your conference, you can't win the national championship. Makes sense to me.

 

So you want to give a team like last year's 8-4 (before the bowl game loss) Florida State a shot at the title because they won the ACC over a team that goes 10-2 but doesn't win their conference but finishes top 5 in the BCS (2006 LSU, 2005 OSU)? FSU didn't deserve a shot at the title last year.

[bukie]

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

 

A 16-team field would be absurd. There is no reason why teams that couldn't finish in the top 10 need to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to contend for the title. It's not feasible at all, since it would mean the end of the bowl system and suck money out of the system.

 

There's no logical reason, but the teams from Big 6 conferences not about to go without an automatic bid to any playoff that exists. Sure, it sucks, but an 8 team playoff wouldn't include any Boise State. A 10 or 12 team playoff would, likely, but then you're already stuck with a 4th week of playoff games, which is no different from a 16-team playoff, and then every conference could be represented.

[soccer10k]

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

 

A 16-team field would be absurd. There is no reason why teams that couldn't finish in the top 10 need to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to contend for the title. It's not feasible at all, since it would mean the end of the bowl system and suck money out of the system.

 

There is also no reason to preserve the BCS rankings. You could easily got with 10 teams and play two play-in games.

 

How do you pick the ten teams? If you get rid of the BCS and use the polls, which do you use? If multiple polls are used, what if they differ?

[goonys evil twin]

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

 

A 16-team field would be absurd. There is no reason why teams that couldn't finish in the top 10 need to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to contend for the title. It's not feasible at all, since it would mean the end of the bowl system and suck money out of the system.

 

There is also no reason to preserve the BCS rankings. You could easily got with 10 teams and play two play-in games.

 

No, you couldn't. Besides, what's the point of making it easier to get in on the action? The way you win the college national championship is by playing a tough schedule and winning all the games. If you lose one, you better hope everybody else lost one as well. Complain about the BCS rankings all you want, they still do a better job of judging the best teams in the nation than just giving all conf champs a shot would.

[soccer10k]

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

 

A 16-team field would be absurd. There is no reason why teams that couldn't finish in the top 10 need to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to contend for the title. It's not feasible at all, since it would mean the end of the bowl system and suck money out of the system.

 

There's no logical reason, but the teams from Big 6 conferences not about to go without an automatic bid to any playoff that exists. Sure, it sucks, but an 8 team playoff wouldn't include any Boise State. A 10 or 12 team playoff would, likely, but then you're already stuck with a 4th week of playoff games, which is no different from a 16-team playoff, and then every conference could be represented.

 

An 8 team playoff could include a Boise State if they finish in the top 8 of the final BCS standings. Utah made a BCS game when there were only 4 games.

[goonys evil twin]

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

 

A 16-team field would be absurd. There is no reason why teams that couldn't finish in the top 10 need to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to contend for the title. It's not feasible at all, since it would mean the end of the bowl system and suck money out of the system.

 

There's no logical reason, but the teams from Big 6 conferences not about to go without an automatic bid to any playoff that exists. Sure, it sucks, but an 8 team playoff wouldn't include any Boise State. A 10 or 12 team playoff would, likely, but then you're already stuck with a 4th week of playoff games, which is no different from a 16-team playoff, and then every conference could be represented.

 

But why should every conference be represented? And why do we have to design a system that gets Boise State a shot? They made their weak OOC schedule. It's their own fault. If they scheduled a tougher one, and still went undefeated, they'd be ranked higher. But if they scheduled a tougher one, they probably wouldn't be undefeated.

[TruffleShuffle]

I agree. It's going to take an 8-team playoff field to handle all problems. If an eight team field is done, then I think, while there will be some gripes, most everyone with a claim to the title will have a shot at it.

 

So long as the 8 team field is the actual Top 8 in the BCS (with no conference tie-ins) I'm all for it. But if a #21 ranked F$U gets in from the ACC, or Wisconsin gets the boot for being the 3rd Big Ten team, I wouldn't be happy.

 

This is my problem with an 8 team playoff. Just like with the BCS, there is no way all the major conferences would agree to an 8 team playoff without their conference champions getting an automatic bid. There is no way you get a playoff with the top 8 ranked BCS teams. It won't happen.

 

The BCS rankings are completely ridiculous. The conference champs should get in. Wisconsin and Michigan don't get in unless they win the Big 10. Same for LSU or Cal or whoever else. Why is that so difficult? If you can't win your conference, you can't win the national championship. Makes sense to me.

 

Why don't we make this a rule for college basketball too?

[Guest]

So, essentially, to "appease" all possible angles, you'd need a 16-team playoff. Which is completely feasible, if there wasn't a month long break in between the season and the playoffs.

 

A 16-team field would be absurd. There is no reason why teams that couldn't finish in the top 10 need to get a 2nd or 3rd chance to contend for the title. It's not feasible at all, since it would mean the end of the bowl system and suck money out of the system.

 

There is also no reason to preserve the BCS rankings. You could easily got with 10 teams and play two play-in games.

 

No, you couldn't. Besides, what's the point of making it easier to get in on the action? The way you win the college national championship is by playing a tough schedule and winning all the games. If you lose one, you better hope everybody else lost one as well. Complain about the BCS rankings all you want, they still do a better job of judging the best teams in the nation than just giving all conf champs a shot would.

 

Every team has a shot if you use conference championships. Your argument is ludicrous. How can you schedule years in advance and know how tough that schedule will be? How do you judge schedules? Why couldn't you invite 10 conference champs? You provide no argument. Your argument that the bowl system is destroyed is likewise baseless. How is it destroyed? Even Delaney admits a playoff would generate more money, not less. Trying to evaluate teams schedule strength is completely stupid. especially since teams are locked into 8 or 9 games a year in their conference. Your proposed system is so tangled up in itself that there is no logical basis. If you invite conference champs, then everyone has a shot to win. If you don't play well enough to win your championship, then too bad for you.

[bukie]

But why should every conference be represented? And why do we have to design a system that gets Boise State a shot? They made their weak OOC schedule. It's their own fault. If they scheduled a tougher one, and still went undefeated, they'd be ranked higher. But if they scheduled a tougher one, they probably wouldn't be undefeated.

 

There doesn't have to be a system designed for Boise State. It's just all I've heard and read today on major sports sites that if there were an 8 team playoff like there should be, Boise State would have a shot. This isn't true.

 

Also, as someone mentioned earlier, an 8-team playoff that includes Big 6 conference winners doesn't necessarily exclude a team outside the Big 6 conferences, as Utah would have qualified in that year.

[Guest]

I agree. It's going to take an 8-team playoff field to handle all problems. If an eight team field is done, then I think, while there will be some gripes, most everyone with a claim to the title will have a shot at it.

 

So long as the 8 team field is the actual Top 8 in the BCS (with no conference tie-ins) I'm all for it. But if a #21 ranked F$U gets in from the ACC, or Wisconsin gets the boot for being the 3rd Big Ten team, I wouldn't be happy.

 

This is my problem with an 8 team playoff. Just like with the BCS, there is no way all the major conferences would agree to an 8 team playoff without their conference champions getting an automatic bid. There is no way you get a playoff with the top 8 ranked BCS teams. It won't happen.

 

The BCS rankings are completely ridiculous. The conference champs should get in. Wisconsin and Michigan don't get in unless they win the Big 10. Same for LSU or Cal or whoever else. Why is that so difficult? If you can't win your conference, you can't win the national championship. Makes sense to me.

 

Why don't we make this a rule for college basketball too?

 

because there is already a tournament that works very well and everybody likes? I don't see your point at all.

[goonys evil twin]

did y'all read the article on jim delaney?

 

Yes. I think I saw a 666 on his head in that picture they had.

 

People like to whine about Delaney and the Big Ten, but don't pretend for a second all these other conferences aren't doing the same thing, looking out for their best interest. People bitch about the Big Ten only making decisions based on money, but all the conferences that decided to start-up conf champ games are doing the same thing. Boise State chose to schedule a weak OOC schedule, and you can be certain that choice involved money.

 

 

This whining sounds to me a lot like all the whining about the cheap tribune not having a high enough payroll. People are motivated by money. Sports is extremely motivated by money. These small conf schools aren't just noble knights fighting against the tyranny of the evil kings of football. If anybody wants to instill change, then it's up to them to make it fiscally sensible.

 

If the NCAA were to go to some drawn out playoff format, not only would they be stepping on the toes of the bowl system that pays much of their bills, not only would they be lessening the importance of every big regular season matchup, but they'd also be going up against the mighty NFL, which now owns Saturdays in December. When and where are these play-in games going to take place? Where will the playoff games play?

 

A major overhaul to a 16-team playoff is completely unfeasible and unrealistic. You'd be asking people to risk massive revenue losses all so we can find a way to get the occasional undefeated mid major conf champ a shot at the title. Most of the time, there isn't much of an argument over who the champion of college football is. Occasionally a team or two will be left in the cold, but almost always there is a pretty good reason for that exclusion. Now, because people want to whine about the 5th, 9th or 16th best team, all that gets thrown out the window? I don't see why the major conference schools, that produce the best college football teams year in and year out, should just hand over their guaranteed streams of income, and a system that already awards the "true champ" the vast majority of the time, just so we can find a way to complain in a few more years why the 17th best team didn't get a shot, and how unfair it is that the 2nd best WAC team is getting passed over by the 4th best SEC team, or why the Big East only got 2 teams in while the Big Ten had 3.

[Derwood]

An 8-team playoff means up to 2 extra games for the 2 teams that get to the championship game. Assuming those teams are from, say, the SEC and Big 12, that would equal a 16 game season for the NC game teams (12 game regular season, conf. champ game, plus 3 playoff games).

 

I think the only way the NCAA would even start to consider this would be to mandate teams going back to an 11 game schedule with a bye week somewhere.

 

Another random thought is the disparity in conferences (those with vs. those without a championship game) makes things a little unfair. Why should Ohio State get into the playoff by winning the regular season while Florida has to play (and win) an extra game? I know this was one argument for the Big 10 finally having a conference tourney in basketball. In other words, in a given year, a Big 10, Pac 10 or Big East team could win the regular season and be in, while an ACC, SEC or Big 12 team could win the regular season but be out because they have to play and win an extra game.

[Andy]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but apparently ND contacted UCLA's d-coordinator DeWayne Walker about joining the coaching staff. He declined, but this might finally signal the end of Rick Minter, the man most responsible besides Ty for the ND defense getting so thoroughly outclassed three times this year.

[Derwood]

Boise St. choosing not to play good OOC teams isn't based on finances. In fact, small conference schools make huge money by playing big conference schools. For example, University of Buffalo is getting paid something like $750,000 by Penn State to come play in Beaver Stadium next year. It's their bowl game (money wise).

[CuseCubFan69]

did y'all read the article on jim delaney?

 

Yes. I think I saw a 666 on his head in that picture they had.

 

People like to whine about Delaney and the Big Ten, but don't pretend for a second all these other conferences aren't doing the same thing, looking out for their best interest. People bitch about the Big Ten only making decisions based on money, but all the conferences that decided to start-up conf champ games are doing the same thing. Boise State chose to schedule a weak OOC schedule, and you can be certain that choice involved money.

 

 

This whining sounds to me a lot like all the whining about the cheap tribune not having a high enough payroll. People are motivated by money. Sports is extremely motivated by money. These small conf schools aren't just noble knights fighting against the tyranny of the evil kings of football. If anybody wants to instill change, then it's up to them to make it fiscally sensible.

 

If the NCAA were to go to some drawn out playoff format, not only would they be stepping on the toes of the bowl system that pays much of their bills, not only would they be lessening the importance of every big regular season matchup, but they'd also be going up against the mighty NFL, which now owns Saturdays in December. When and where are these play-in games going to take place? Where will the playoff games play?

 

A major overhaul to a 16-team playoff is completely unfeasible and unrealistic. You'd be asking people to risk massive revenue losses all so we can find a way to get the occasional undefeated mid major conf champ a shot at the title. Most of the time, there isn't much of an argument over who the champion of college football is. Occasionally a team or two will be left in the cold, but almost always there is a pretty good reason for that exclusion. Now, because people want to whine about the 5th, 9th or 16th best team, all that gets thrown out the window? I don't see why the major conference schools, that produce the best college football teams year in and year out, should just hand over their guaranteed streams of income, and a system that already awards the "true champ" the vast majority of the time, just so we can find a way to complain in a few more years why the 17th best team didn't get a shot, and how unfair it is that the 2nd best WAC team is getting passed over by the 4th best SEC team, or why the Big East only got 2 teams in while the Big Ten had 3.

 

Of course your happy with the system becuse it benefits the already established leagues like the SEC, Big 10 and 12 which by far would have the most to lose. Let's see....the Rose Bowl Big 10 and PAC 10, Sugar SEC and Orange Big 12. Yeah, I can see why they don't want it changed.

 

I want bowl diversity instead of these tie in's if this is the system they are going to keep for X amount of years. I'm sick of the second best Big East team always going to the Liberty Bowl to face the second best ACC.

 

I see your point about somebody always being left out which is going to happen no matter what system they decide to pick. It's how they pick them that bothers me.

[goonys evil twin]

Every team has a shot if you use conference championships. Your argument is ludicrous. How can you schedule years in advance and know how tough that schedule will be? How do you judge schedules? Why couldn't you invite 10 conference champs? You provide no argument. Your argument that the bowl system is destroyed is likewise baseless. How is it destroyed? Even Delaney admits a playoff would generate more money, not less. Trying to evaluate teams schedule strength is completely stupid.

 

When you schedule an OOC schedule against one Pac 10 team and no other potentially quality opponent, it's pretty easy to evaluate. You obviously don't know much about college football.

 

You could invite 10 conf champs, but there's no good reason to. A 16 team playoff would destory the bowls because there would be no use for the system. A 4 team playoff would easily preserve them, an 8-team playoff might. But a 16 team playoff would eliminate 8 potential bowl game matchups. You would have to start such a tourny no later than mid-December. 8 teams that would otherwise be preparing for games such as the Orange Bowl, Rose Bowl, Fiesta, etc. would be playing games in mid-December. A week later, around Christmas, you'd have 4 more games, then around New Years you'd have 2 games and a week later the champ game. Without knowing who will be available for the bowl games, you can't schedule any of those games. You aren't going to get 20,000 fans to travel with the team to these games, like they do now, with advanced notice for tickets and other transportation options.

 

Tell me one good reason why the WAC winner should automatically get in over an SEC #2, when 9 times out of 10 that SEC #2 is going to be the better team.

[soccer10k]

Boise St. choosing not to play good OOC teams isn't based on finances. In fact, small conference schools make huge money by playing big conference schools. For example, University of Buffalo is getting paid something like $750,000 by Penn State to come play in Beaver Stadium next year. It's their bowl game (money wise).

 

Fresno State paid for a ton of upgrades to the athletic department, and I believe other facets of the school as well, by playing the OOC schedule I provided above for the past few years.

[Derwood]

did y'all read the article on jim delaney?

 

Yes. I think I saw a 666 on his head in that picture they had.

 

People like to whine about Delaney and the Big Ten, but don't pretend for a second all these other conferences aren't doing the same thing, looking out for their best interest. People bitch about the Big Ten only making decisions based on money, but all the conferences that decided to start-up conf champ games are doing the same thing. Boise State chose to schedule a weak OOC schedule, and you can be certain that choice involved money.

 

 

This whining sounds to me a lot like all the whining about the cheap tribune not having a high enough payroll. People are motivated by money. Sports is extremely motivated by money. These small conf schools aren't just noble knights fighting against the tyranny of the evil kings of football. If anybody wants to instill change, then it's up to them to make it fiscally sensible.

 

If the NCAA were to go to some drawn out playoff format, not only would they be stepping on the toes of the bowl system that pays much of their bills, not only would they be lessening the importance of every big regular season matchup, but they'd also be going up against the mighty NFL, which now owns Saturdays in December. When and where are these play-in games going to take place? Where will the playoff games play?

 

A major overhaul to a 16-team playoff is completely unfeasible and unrealistic. You'd be asking people to risk massive revenue losses all so we can find a way to get the occasional undefeated mid major conf champ a shot at the title. Most of the time, there isn't much of an argument over who the champion of college football is. Occasionally a team or two will be left in the cold, but almost always there is a pretty good reason for that exclusion. Now, because people want to whine about the 5th, 9th or 16th best team, all that gets thrown out the window? I don't see why the major conference schools, that produce the best college football teams year in and year out, should just hand over their guaranteed streams of income, and a system that already awards the "true champ" the vast majority of the time, just so we can find a way to complain in a few more years why the 17th best team didn't get a shot, and how unfair it is that the 2nd best WAC team is getting passed over by the 4th best SEC team, or why the Big East only got 2 teams in while the Big Ten had 3.

 

Of course your happy with the system becuse it benefits the already established leagues like the SEC, Big 10 and 12 which by far would have the most to lose. Let's see....the Rose Bowl Big 10 and PAC 10, Sugar SEC and Orange Big 12. Yeah, I can see why they don't want it changed.

 

I want bowl diversity instead of these tie in's if this is the system they are going to keep for X amount of years. I'm sick of the second best Big East team always going to the Liberty Bowl to face the second best ACC.

 

I see your point about somebody always being left out which is going to happen no matter what system they decide to pick. It's how they pick them that bothers me.

 

I can understand how you're sick of the tie-ins, but the alternative is total chaos. With 28 bowl games, how do you propose they haggle over who gets who? Maybe they should keep the tie-ins but rotate them somehow.

[soccer10k]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but apparently ND contacted UCLA's d-coordinator DeWayne Walker about joining the coaching staff. He declined, but this might finally signal the end of Rick Minter, the man most responsible besides Ty for the ND defense getting so thoroughly outclassed three times this year.

 

I was thinking we should start an offseason college football thread for coaching moves, recruiting and players declaring for the NFL draft.

[goonys evil twin]

Of course your happy with the system becuse it benefits the already established leagues like the SEC, Big 10 and 12 which by far would have the most to lose. Let's see....the Rose Bowl Big 10 and PAC 10, Sugar SEC and Orange Big 12. Yeah, I can see why they don't want it changed.

 

I want bowl diversity instead of these tie in's if this is the system they are going to keep for X amount of years. I'm sick of the second best Big East team always going to the Liberty Bowl to face the second best ACC.

 

I see your point about somebody always being left out which is going to happen no matter what system they decide to pick. It's how they pick them that bothers me.

 

Why "of course you're going to be happy"? I didn't go to any D1 school. I have no tie to any D1 school. I enjoy watching the games, that's about it.

 

You're right, they don't want it changed, but why should they, because you do? What makes you and all the little schools so high and mighty that you should be able to have things run the way you want to and they should have to sacrifice for you?

 

Come up with a reasonable system that doesn't take away from them, and you'll start to make sense. But simply saying "I don't like it, change it now" isn't going to make anything happen. The bowl tie-ins for the lesser games are a completely different issue in my opinion.

[Derwood]

One could argue that the bowl system as it is now is pretty pointless out of the financial considerations for the teams. The BCS title game is the only game that means anything at all. Winning any other bowl gets you an ugly trophy, a nice feeling inside, and your school a dumptruck of cash.

 

I think it would be awesome if you took 6 "traditional" bowl games and rotated them through the first 2 rounds of the playoffs, with the new unnamed "BCS Title Game" at the end. For example, next year, we have the Sugar, Cotton, Capital One and Orange Bowls for the first round, the Rose and Fiesta for the semifinals, and the BCS for the finals. All the other bowls would just be your "play for pride" crap games.

 

p.s. I think the fact that over 1/2 of the Division 1-A schools make bowl games (some with .500 records) has done plenty to ruin the integrity of the current bowl system. A playoff can only improve it.

 

p.p.s. The travel situation for fans is definitely a concern, but isn't it the same for the NCAA Basketball tourney? If your team makes the Final Four on a Sunday, can you realistically buy tickets, schedule travel and hotel, etc. to get there by the following Saturday? No. But it's still sold out every year