The BCS solution

After hearing about all the debates and discussion going on about the BCS system and how unjust it is and how we need a playoff system, I figured there should be some way everybody can collaborate and find a very good system the FBS can utilize as the playoff. A while back, as I was laying down, my mind began piecing together bits of ideas and requests. I found that my idea kept the tradition of all the BCS bowl games, gives at-large candidates a right into the BCS national championship game, and most importantly, sets forth a minimal number of additional games to be played (which has long been a factor in arguments against a playoff system). I realized that I may have found an excellent solution to the problem. Here's my idea:

Basically, the winner of each of the four BCS bowls go on to face each other in a "final four" and then into a national championship game. But it's not that simple. In my draft, I have two spots in separate bowl games reserved for at-large candidates. The other two bowls will host the top two BCS ranked conference champions on opposite sides of the bracket. The Rose Bowl will feature either the #1 or #2 ranked conf. champ. If the Pac-12 is either #1 or #2, then the other school playing them will be from the Big Ten. If the #1 and #2 teams are neither from the Big Ten or PAC-12 (i.e. any other conference champion) as it was last year with the SEC and Big-12 as #1 and #2 top ranked conference champs respectively, the number #1 team (SEC) would play the higher ranked of Pac-12 and Big Ten champ. The text in italics indicate that if the Big Ten and Pac-12 are both ranked #1 and #2 in the country, the #1 team plays in the Rose Bowl against another automatic-qualifying conference champion and the #2 team plays on the other side of the bracket in the Fiesta Bowl against the Big-12 champ or Sugar or Orange Bowl (Sugar bowl and Orange bowl can alternate bracket positions) . In the Fiesta Bowl, the Big 12 conference champ is guaranteed a spot. They play either the #1 or #2 ranked team or play another conf. champion if they are that #1 or #2 team in the country. As previously mentioned, if when both the Pac-12 and Big Ten conference champs are the top two ranked conference champs, the Big 12 champ plays #2 Big Ten/Pac-12 champ if they are ranked lower than one of the "At-Large" winners or selected team. Otherwise, the Pac-12 champ would play in the Sugar Bowl (as illustrated in the example graphic below) or Orange Bowl against said "At-Large" opponent. The Orange bowl will play host to the ACC conference champion or one of any other automatic-qualifying conference champions remaining from selection. That team will play the winner of a match-up of "At-Large" candidates. The Sugar bowl features the last automatic-qualifying conference champion left (essentially, the lowest ranked conference champion), and they play the winner of another match-up of at-large candidates. The At-Large candidates will simply be the top four BCS ranked teams who are not conference champions. (If desired, the BCS may still wish to impose a 2-team limit per conference. Additionally, up for consideration may be that if 1 or 2 other conference champions rank in the top 25?/top 15?/top 10? of the AP polls (or other polls as determined), they receive the "At-Large winner" spot facing against the last one or two automatic qualifying conference champions)

NOTE/UPDATE: the BIG EAST lost their automatic qualifying spot so there are now only 5 teams who automatically qualify for the BCS/Playoff bowls. Under this new structure, the graphic below would be slightly off in this instance. To adate this dilemma,
1) the last automatic-qualifying conference champ spot could be given to the top ranked "At-Large" candidate with 4 other "At-Large" candidates (ranked #2-#5) taking the place of the two "At-Large" Match-ups,
2) The top two "At-Large" candidates would play in separate bowl games with a "At-Large" qualifying match-up between #3 and #4 to play in another bowl game (no two "At-Large" candidates play either other in a bowl game)
3) Only three "At-Large" candidates are chosen and they play against conference champions (as before, no two "At-Large" candidates play either other in a bowl game)

The format is relatively simple: it's simplistic, it rewards the top BCS teams, keeps bowl game traditions, ends the argument about a consensus national champion, and limits the number of games schools would need to play in a season. In addition, I believe it would also not impose significant monetary damages to the NCAA college football/BCS in revenues made through bowl games. Those elite games can and will still draw in nearly the same, if not greater, number of viewers considering the fact that it will continue matching up good teams. Moreover, a greater audience should be expected since the teams in the bowl game are now playing for more than a single bowl victory, but a chance at the national championship.

I think this is an excellent step to take beyond the four-team playoff format that was designed and approved of earlier this summer. Do have any other suggestion on how we can successfully unite the needs of those pleading for a playoff system and the bowl traditionalists, as well as justice for the non-automatic-qualifying conference powerhouses (i.e. Boise State)?