Yes, because the 4 most deserving teams are always so obvious.

what is blatantly obvious to one is anything but to another...

the simple solution is this...take each teams record, write it on a piece of paper, but do not include the team name or conference. all of the records get turned in, they collate based solely on records, no care in the world who the team is or the conference they are from...and the best 4 play.

next year, when 3 pansy-playing schools that went undefeated but were slaughtered in the playoffs by a 1-loss school that actually played tough opponents, we'll come up with yet another simple solution.

repeat annually...

Is it obvious that the 4 best teams are always conference champions?

Consider:

- FSU finishes regular season undefeated, loses to Duke in ACCC. Miss St has one loss to Bama, who wins out and goes to SECC. Is it obvious that Duke should be in over Miss St?

- 1 loss tOSU/MSU lose B10C to 2 loss Nebraska/Minn/Wisc. Bama and Ole Miss win out, sending OM to SECC. Is it obvious that 2 loss Big10 champ should be in over 1 loss Bama?

If fairness is the issue, I'd argue that guaranteeing a conference a spot is less fair than consistently applying agreed upon criteria to rank them.

What are you talking about?!?! This is great!

Exactly. No matter what they system, there will be bickering over how it needs to be improved, or how "unfair" it is.

Under the CURRENT system, i'd give a 1 loss SEC runner-up precedence over a 2 loss (or worse) champ from the Big 10 or ACC. I just think we need a more precise system. The bottom line to me should be: if you can't win your conference, then you obviously aren't the best team in the country. Since conferences rarely play enough meaningful games between each other (yes, they play, but how do you gauge the importance of the #3 team from the SEC playing the #6 team from the Pac-12, etc.), valuing a conference's strength this year should come down to....if this conference champ can beat that conference champ, then that conference was better. Again, there will always be some measure of unfairness or inequality, but i think we have enough history to say that the 60 or so schools that belong to the "group of 5" (not the Power 5), should get 1 (not more) representative.

FSU last year is a good example. It was pretty obvious to most that the ACC wasn't that good...but FSU sure was. If Marshall, Boise State, Bowling Green, etc. can run the table in their conference and are the most impressive of their group, we can all sit here all day and say "well, they didn't play anybody", but you can only play and beat whoever is on your schedule. There's no perfect solution, but i think there's a BETTER solution than this 4 team playoff.

But that bickering would go down dramatically in an 8 team playoff.

9 team playoff

But again....what history? Why only 1? You began by arguing a fair system and equality and disparity.....and that the system should not be based on prior history. Your system still serves the potential for grave injustice.....by that reckoning, why not have the the "other group of 5" play a playoff of their own to determine 1 sole representative.....then have the "power 5" have their own playoff to determine 1 sole representative......now you have 2 reps and a championship game.

The bickering would decrease even more in a 16 team playoff.

Again, i know that my system (like every system ever devised) rests on some assumptions. One of those assumptions is that perenially, the best team in the country either resides in one of the Power 5 conferences or is a high-profile independent like Notre Dame.

You can argue for the teams outside of the Power 5 to be treated exactly as the teams inside the Power 5 are if you want...you can maybe even make good arguments for it. It just will never happen. I'm trying to work within the framework we currently have and what might actually occur. Treating those outside the Power 5 as if they are equal to the Power 5 will never happen.

I'm not exactly arguing for equal treatment per se.....My original "system" actually calls for these teams to not only win the conference title, but also must be ranked in the top 25. That provides just a touch more "fairness and equality" to the system you've proposed. And I guess that you could argue the point that those other teams could vie for one of the at large bids.....but I still make the argument that 8 is not the right number (though better than 4 by far).

I'd be ok with a 16 team system i suppose, i just don't think it will ever happen. 8 is very do-able and much more objective than the current 4 team system IMHO.

So, then, the ACC was the best conference last year? And if FSU wins again this year, even though the ACC is worse this year than last year, then the ACC will be proven to be the best conference this year?

That can't what be you're trying to say, but I can't make anything else out of it.

I really don't ultimately care who the "best" conference is (only SEC fans seem to want some sort of trophy for that). I'm saying you can't devalue an entire big 5 conference based on perceived weakness without more verifiable data. FSU is proof of that.

Finally - we reach 100% agreement!!! 8 teams is much - MUCH - better than 4 (which IMHO is really no better than 2). I guess I'm so hung up on 16 just for the "Cinderella season" And the fact that occasionally the #2 or even #3 team in these power conferences still have legitimate claim over some of the other teams....and occasionally 2 or more schools from the next five conferences will have legitimate claims everywhere except on paper. I know that realistically 16 won't happen next year, and probably not even in the next decade - but it's still a direction I'd like to see college football move toward........and an 8 team system would be a great stepping-stone in that direction.

anything less than a 32 team playoff structure will be unacceptable. a 64 team system would be a marginal improvement, but to truly seperate the wheat from the chaff, there should be a 128 team playoff system, which means that any team that survives this, plus the regular season, will have played a minimum of 20 games.

a much better solution is that regardless of what your record is, when the season ends, every single team in D1 football is entered into a lottery style playoff system, names are drawn and opponents selected at random. with 245 D1 schools fielding teams, the playoff system will take a minimum of 8 games to resolve, although one lucky team will play one less because the odd number of teams means 1 person gets a bye...

essentially, you now have 2 college football seasons, one for conference played in the fall, another for championship status played in the spring.

Easy now.....not all of us SEC fans are created equal! hahahaha

You might want to double-check your statement there Happy. The next closest "perfect bracket" would be a 256 team bracket, or the next lowest is 128. Either way, 245 won't work. At minimum, 11 teams will have a bye (not 1), and probaby more...as the schematics of this type of tournament would be torturous to try to develop. 32 teams would be doable....though I feel like 32 becomes too many. My favorite number, as stated before, is 16. 12 is also a good number, and I could live with 8....somehow I just don't think 245 is anywhere near realistic.

Actually, there's only 126 schools (this number may have changed) with football teams in the top division. The rest are in the other divisions.

Per wikipedia (so it must be true) - For the 2012-13 school year, Division I contains 340 of the NCAA's 1,066 member institutions, with 126 in FBS, 122 in FCS, and 98 in NFS (non football school)

So the FCS can have a playoff with 24 teams, but the FBS, or whatever it is now, can only have 4. Makes perfect sense.

HA! point taken. In either case, 126 would still be an unwieldy number of teams...and still not a realistic number

If college football players truly want paid, they should wait until these play-off games are just about to kick-off, and then walk-off the field. That would get someone's attention.

Sorry, I was responding to the post where you suggested the criteria for judging the best conference, and I said I was confused about what you meant. Now, on one hand you say it's obvious that the ACC sucks, but then on the other we shouldn't devalue it's members based on perceptions without verifiable data? Having trouble wrapping my head around that.

You say FSU is proof. Proof that a team should be judged on its individual merits, and not those of its conference? I'm all for that, and it's actually what I've been arguing, but it works both ways - if you're not going to penalize a team for having an easy road through a suck conference, you shouldn't penalize a team for traveling a tougher road through a solid conference. You have to analyze both using consistent and relevant criteria. That's true whether it's 4 teams, or ___ teams.

Not important, but curious. You didn't answer this directly earlier. ACC champ is 1 loss Duke, Miss St is SECW runnerup with 1 loss. Other 3 playoff spots are filled. Who gets #4? Why? I'll hang up and listen.