(06-03-2013 09:24 AM)bitcruncher Wrote: I'm not in favor of a playoff where at large teams outnumber conference champions. If we do that, why not just start the season with a playoff, and forget the regular season altogether? The teams knocked out of the playoff can then fill their schedule out by playing games to determine the conference pecking order...
I agree. It's one thing with a 4-team playoff, where it was simply too convoluted to try to have any conference champ requirements with a field that small. I actually agreed with the SEC on that setup. However, I think the "moral authority" switches over to granting autobids in an 8-team playoff. You can even use the bowls to do this (and yes, I get it that many people here would wish bowls would die a violent death, but the power 5 wants CONTROL over anything else and the bowls allow them to that better than any other mechanism). The quarterfinals could be pretty simple:
Rose Bowl: Big Ten champ vs. Pac-12 champ
Sugar Bowl: SEC champ vs. at-large
Orange/Peach Bowl: ACC champ vs. at-large
Cotton/Fiesta Bowl: Big 12 champ vs. at-large
Heck, even give a guaranteed spot to the best Gang of Five conference champ to placate that side of the equation. While it isn't a purely-seeded affair in the quarterfinals (and I've always been someone that thinks that's an overrated concern outside as long as #1 isn't facing #2 in round 1), it keeps the tradition/power conference control of the bowls, distributes the power champs among 4 different games, gives one Gang of Five champ a shot at the title, is a fairly easy next step to implement (a gradual change from the new system as opposed to a radical leap), and will make gazillions of dollars because *everyone* would love watching these games.
Anyone can create a playoff system that he or she *personally* likes. Those typically are about as likely as finding real unicorns or Big Foot. However, the real challenge is finding a playoff system that the 5 power conferences like... and maybe more specifically, the system that the Big Ten and SEC would be willing to pass. Show me why *they* would continue to have more power and money *compared* than everyone else (not just "more money for everyone" equality, which is irrelevant), and you might actually have something viable on the table.