re: BCS has achieved consensus on 4-team seeded playoff.

I am not a fan of the committee outright. I think you need to have some sort of data involved in the process.

Let's say there are 4 computer polls that rank the teams at years end, but do not reveal their results in order to avoid skewing the human part of the committee. Average the 4 computer polls and come up with a Top 8. Let the committee come up with their Top 8. Average the two, come up with your 4 teams in the playoffs. Perhaps use the computers element to break ties.

As far as the committee goes, I do not think a single media member that would broadcast the playoff match-ups should be allowed on the committee. Again, this is to remove as much financial bias from the equation as possible.

Finally, as far as the "only conference champs" rule goes, I am torn. As much as I believe you should win your conference to win the NC, most conferences still have wasy you can completely avoid playing a certain team. So, hypothetically, UT could lose one game to UF in the East, but still go 11-1, and get passed on for LSU who wins the West and the SECCG, despite never playing one another. As the conferences sit today, I do not think it is feasible.

quote:

---

Use the BCS system to get the top 4 teams, seems fairly simple to me.

---

The current BCS system relies on committees for 2/3rds of its make-up. The Harris poll and the Coaches' poll are both committees.

If anything, an actual committee that had discussions would do a better job of ranking teams than coaches who have a GA fill in the ballot.

quote:

---

The Harris poll and the Coaches' poll are both committees.

---

You can't pay off and collude with 100's of people. You can when it's four old cronies.

quote:

---

I'm not a fan of CCG's, because they can and do cheapen regular seasons (see 2001 SEC for example).

---

All the conferences are moving to this tournament format yet last season and with this committee they are all about the eye test for the national championship.

quote:

---

I think a plus one model works best. That way you have all the traditional bowls which means the regular season is still paramount and you make the bowl games interesting and you have only one more additional game. Decide the two final teams based on a formula released after the bowl games which is similar to the current BCS formula

---

If that had been in place for last season, who would have played in the plus-one game? LSU and Alabama again? They were still #1 and #2, and had split two games. Or would Okie State bump one of them out even though they were ranked lower? And if so, which one? How could they bump Alabama after they just beat LSU? How could LSU be bumped solely on the argument that they had already played Bama even though they were still #2? Wasn't that the same argument that was squarely rejected when used against putting Bama in the NCG? There's no plus-one game in that scenario that makes any sense, except maybe a third game between LSU and Bama, and people would have been going crazy if that had happened.