ESPN Independents and Others Blog

Posted by ESPN.com's Graham Watson

Earlier this week, I asked everyone to chime in about a possible playoff system. And before I post some of the answers from the mailbag, I wanted to give you my take.

I believe that before we can start talking playoffs -- among just the non-BCS or involving 16 (or whatever number) Top 25 schools -- we need to see some sort of consistency. I don't want to say this year is an aberration, but it's definitely unique. I think the teams of the non-BCS have to show they can play at a high level on a consistent basis before we throw the whole system in a tizzy.

With that said, if I had to pick an alternative, I'm with Fresno State coach Pat Hill when it comes to a playoff. I would love to see the non-BCS teams square off for the BCS spot. I think that would eliminate most of the bickering about weak conferences and send the best of the best from the non-BCS.

Now if you're looking for me to give you a model, I don't know that I have a perfect scenario. My idea is to take the five winners of the non-BCS conferences and three at-large teams picked based on records, nonconference records, common opponents and other tiebreakers.

I'm picking eight teams because you can't extend the season too much. It would give the winner a disadvantage in preparing for its BCS game. So maybe cut a week off the regular season and eliminate the conference championship games.

So that's my modest take. Obviously, it would need some of the kinks worked out, but it's a preliminary model of a highly unlikely scenario.

I think the hope is to have some of the non-BCS conferences awarded automatic bids when the BCS system is retooled in a few years.

Here's what some other readers suggested:

Ric in New Jersey writes: The beauty of March Madness is looking to see who is going to have the huge upset and which "Cinderella Team" will make it to the Sweet 16 or Final Four. That is lost in college football. No team actually makes it out as the true champion because the system does not allow it. I know this has been proposed before, but a 32 team tournament system over a five week period can help end the controversy. Money, being the prime issue as always, can still be spread around as Bowls rotate to host the final 4 rounds giving a total of 15 "Money Bowl" games. The National Championship Game can still be a sponsored bowl (i.e. Rose, Orange, etc) but the date for the game will rotate so all major bowls have a shot at hosting the championship game. Schedules can be made out years in advance. there is no less interest in the Sweet 16 than in the Final Four in basketball and the same will be said for football. If you can fill a stadium in September for a non-conference mismatch, you will fill a bowl game leading up to a potential national championship! The only issue I see is the fear from "Big Name" schools that a Ball State or Utah will have a shot at "their" money and title. If they are that good...let 'em prove it!

---

Chris from Tulsa writes: Responding to your BCS question: If I remember correctly you said earlier this season that the BCS was going to be looked at, and possibly reworked to hopefully fix some of the problems. If that is the case, I think it would be more fair for all teams if a bowl tie in for any conference was taken out for the BCS bowls. That was the smaller schools (Tulsa, Ball St., TCU, Utah, Boise, ect.) would have as fair a chance as the bigger schools such as Ohio State, USC, LSU. Every year a team who is highly over rated gets into a BCS bowl, who doesn't belong there (Florida State this year, Wake Forrest two years ago). If the BCS comittee decides that the system is fine as it is (lets hope they don't) the "non-BCS" should not do a playoff because that is one extra game they would have to play, meaning there is a possibility that players get hurt, and not having as much time to prepare for the team they play in the bowl. So fix the BCS so its more fair, but don't do a non bcs only playoff.

---

Greg from Fort Worth writes: I don't think there should be a playoff. Instead I believe that if there are two teams at the end of the season from non BCS schools ranked in the top 12 (or top 16 and ranked above the highest ranked team from a BCS conference)they should face off against each other in a do or die game at a neutral site that determines the "BCS buster." This is exactly like a conference championship game where the winner (regardless of how badly they may be ranked in the BCS poll) gets invited to a BCS bowl. If only one or no teams are ranked in the top 12 (top 16) at the end of the season then there is no need for the one game championship.

---

Alex from England writes: So aside from the BCS going Bye-bye and us having a top 16 teams play-off. What I think would work, is just completely getting rid of the "automatic" births. Keep the BCS, let those final polls decide. Obviously top 2 would got to the NCG, but as for 4-10, have those final teams play each other. It doesn't matter what conference they're in, just what their ranking is. Whether it's a "Big Six" or "mid-major". Sure it doesn't fix the current system to decide who the NC is, but it leaves no question to as who gets to play in the BCS games.

---

Steve from Salt Lake City: Thanks first for all of you efforts. I would reformat the question. First priority would be to get rid of BCS or change BCS so that we could have a complete playoff system from all conferences. I know it is long shot, but short term decisions need to keep this in mind. I think that the non-BCS conferences should build their own play-off system independent of the BCS. Make it as big and eventful as possible. Allow top team to play in BCS game if invited for the money (unless money for playoff gets bigger). Choose top team from each non-BCS conference (5) and 3 at-large for from same and independents (don't include NorteDame). Reconfigure 7 bowls for this playoff with championship on New Years day. This might force the BCS hand at a playoff.

---

Jeremy from Boise writes: NO WAY should the non-BCS teams have a playoff to see who plays in a BCS bowl. I think that would be lowering all those schools and admitting they don't belong with the BCS conferences. The only fair thing is to have a playoff involving all of FBS.

---

Al from Salt Lake City writes: A Playoff will never happen, there?s too much money involved. Instead I have several ideas. First, we just add another conference, and bowl game. Second, take the six BCS conferences and every year have the worst one replaced with the best non-bcs conference. The decision could be made sometime through the season, for the current season, or at the end of the year, effecting the next season. Third is a variation of the first two, instead of six BCS conferences, have only five with all the other conferences eligible for the final spot. Or add another bowl game and have the 7th conference the random conference. The winner of the final spot would be determined by the usual ranking systems.

---

Brandon from Laie, Hawaii writes: I think the BCS should be like the European soccer tournament system. For example the MWC owned the PAC-10 This year. So next year the MWC gets the PAC-10s BCS spot. If the PAC-10 wants it back then they have to beat the MWC to claim it back for the following year. I believe in this way the non conference games will mean a lot more for both teams, we will see much better matchups in the BCS. We will see teams who deserve to be there. We will see much better College football period!

---

Matt from Muncie writes: Being a Ball State student and recognizing that the BCS is going to keep us from going to a major bowl, it would be easy to think that I would believe that the BCS is a joke. However, the BCS creates a week by week playoff system known as the regular season. Obviously, one loss teams get in sometimes and there are undefeated teams that don't get the title "National Champion". However, college football will always stick with the BCS because of the insanely wild media attention that it receives as a result of the constant debating about who is the best and who has the strongest schedule. If a playoff is installed, that debate would only last for a couple weeks prior to playoff assignments. College football will never accept this, period.