BOWL PLAYOFF PROPOSAL: THE 4+ SYSTEM

The NCAA says it will be considering 60+ methods for determining a football champion via playoff games. My recommendation for the BCS is a 4-team playoff using the top 4-ranked teams, plus a "play-in" game (or two) in case there's an undefeated team (or two) that didn't rank top-4. The "play-in" games, if there are any, would be played the week before.

So, let's say at the end of the football season (after conference championship games and before bowl games), Alabama is ranked # USC #2, Ohio State #3, Texas #4, Boise State #5, and Utah State #6. And suppose both Boise State and Utah are unbeaten. Boise State would play Ohio State and Utah would play Texas in "play-in" games. The Ohio/Boise winner would then play USC, and the Texas/Utah winner would play Alabama. The winners of these two games would play for the championship.

So basically, the "play-in" games would enable an undefeated team to replace (by beating) the 3rd- or 4th-ranked teams in the 4-team playoff.

The "play-in" game(s) would be played at the home site of the higher ranked team(s) or at another site of their choosing that's available on short notice, or tentatively.

"Play-in" games would not be bowl games, although, as a consolation prize, one (or two) of the lesser bowls would have an arrangement where they take the loser(s) of the "play-in" game(s). But the two semifinal games of the playoff would be major bowl games, as would the championship game, determined on a rotating basis.

Any play-in games would take place around Christmas. The semifinals would be played around New Year's, and the championship around a week later. There are probably some good, juicy names out there already for what to call these three games--oh, how about Bowl Championship Series!

Of course, it's theoretically possible that some year there'd be 3 or 4 or even more undefeated teams ranked below #4. Draw the line at the top four of these, and put them up against #1 through #4--lowest ranked vs. highest ranked and so on, in such a way that "play-in" slot essentially morphs morer or less into a quarterfinals round. And the #1-ranked team gets the lone bye if there are exactly 3 unbeatens ranked below #4.

ADDRESSING OBJECTIONS
Possible objections to this system include: A) it decreases the # of official BCS games from 5 to 3. But most fans by now probably attach little importance to any hoopla surrounding the 4 BCS games that are extraneous to determining the national championship. If they do, they are delusional. And they could treat the play-ins like a sort of quasi-bowl game.

Possible objection B): a minor conference team would be financial setback for major bowl organizers, and compel fans of "play-in" game teams to book travel plans on short notice for their bowl games. But minor conference champs who become Cinderella stories would likely attract a larger national following, and airlines might offer special discounts to fans to travel to the bowl game location.

ADDITIONAL POSSIBLE FEATURES
Avoid potentially somewhat disputable national champ game matches/results by preventing intra-conference meetings in championship game if the teams have already played that season (including their conference championship game). The results of these games tend to be either redundant or contradictory. So if there are two teams from the same conference ranked anywhere from #1 through #4, and they've already played each other, they would be matched up in a semifinal. No need to worry about 3+ teams from the same conference ranked in the top4--it's not going to happen.

A possible additional feature: make the championship game team selection involve fan participation to an extent. The highest-seeded team to emerge victorious from the semifinal games and any (other) undefeated team would be automatically invited to the championship game. But a semifinal winner from the #2 vs. #3 bracket, provided they had no "play-in" game win on their resume, could be vetoed by a fan vote. Maybe the won a poorly played game. The potential replacement could be any winner of another major bowl game which had not lost during the season to the prospective title game opponent (including conference champ games).

The vote could be done by phone a la American Idol, although it should be made a bit difficult to pull off a veto. Make the phone call a yea/nay for the team under review, then, if nay, branch it to multiple-choice for the other major bowl winners. To make a change, at this point, at least 2/3 of the votes would have to be against that team under review, and a majority of the other-team votes would have to be for one particular team. If the vote result is 2/3 nay but not a majority for any one potential replacement, have a subsequent runoff between the original team under review and the top two vote-getting options (all treated equally), with the highest vote-getter obtaining the championship game invitation.

This "Barabbasic" feature would bring back the importance of multiple bowl games, as an impressive winner of such would conceivably have a chance at playing for the championship--if voted-in by the fans. It harkens back to the pre-BCS era when there was excitement in the air as the victors of the major bowls each chanted "we're #1", and then the AP & UPI polls decided the next day.

The improvement is that with this system, yes the fans may play a role, and yes the polls do play a role in setting things up,, but the final result is decided on the field in a championship game.