Hello. I Just wanted to say I find your playoff proposal very intriguing. I particularly like the fact that you don’t fall into thelets-make-some-bowls-playoff-game camp.

To me, a bowl is a terminating event of the season. A team plays in exactly one bowl or zero bowls per season. It really bothered me that some playoff proposals on the internet had teams playing in, say, the Orange bowl and then the Rose bowl. How is it fair that one team got to play in both bowls and other
teams didn’t play in either?

I think the genius behind your idea is that, while it is a playoff, losses don’t end the season, they just mean you’ll face lessor
competition and end up in lesser bowls which is EXACTLY how it should be. Actually, I’m not even sure it’s fair to call it a playoff (I noticed you try to avoid doing this yourself and you refer to them as brackets instead). When people think playoff, they think one and done.

But that’s not how your system works.

I guess just one nitpick with your system. While I agree with you that the non-conference matchups are just so the BCS teams can pad their schedule (while allowing the lower teams to get some cash), sometimes
these games mean more than that to the fans. Take my team, Boston College, for example. Since leaving the Big East, I have missed BC’s yearly matchup with Syracuse. Because of the non-conference slots available during the year, the ADs of both SU and BC were able to schedule a 10 year series between the two schools as part of their OOC
line up.

With your system, you allow for only one of these per year during the bye week. While in theory that would work, I doubt that it would work in practice. Pretty much all coaches are going to tell their ADs not to schedule anything that week as the team can use that week for much needed rest and tune up time. Thus, BC and SU only have
a chance to meet if they end up together in the brackets.

Like I said, not a major flaw, but fans would have to give up some well-liked OOC
matchups in order to accomodate the BCS Busters system.

I wonder how feasible it would be for schools to schedule the games that take place in weeks 9-12. At the beginning of the season, no one knows what the opponents will be or even where they will be played
(home or away). How do we sell tickets for those games? When can we expect the tickets for week 9 to go on sale? They can’t until the results of week 8. I can see alot of resistance from ADs complaining that they cannot be certain of where and against whom the last 4 games will be played. Is one week enough time (between weeks 8 and 9) to
expect fans to buy tickets, make arrangements travel to games, etc?

Who knows? What of the teams that constantly play to competition such that they are always the away team during weeks 9-12? Does that mean that in the BCS busters model, a team may end up only having, say, 4
home games during the year (during weeks 1-8)? From a fans perspective, I can live with that, but I don’t see the ADs going for
it unfortunately.

Anyway, the point of my email was to let you know that I am a supporter of your model and just to point out what I think are a few
weaknesses. Although I understand that no system will be perfect.

However, your system is by far the best that I have seen and it shows that you put alot of time into it. Keep it up!

Alex…

If you think about it, the SUN-BELT Conference has never contended at this level. NEVER! And the only bowl opportunity they have is the New Orleans bowl or possibly on a freak season, the Independence Bowl just due to geography. With the BCSBusters system, they realistically earn as many as 5 bowl berths (I doubt it would ever happen) but during the process they would have access to competitions they rarely receive outside of the SEC. I think this is more than fair given their current predicament and all time 14 - 240 record against BCS schools.

These schools should really be playing down at the D1-AA level along with Montana and Appalachian State. The better teams in the SUN should really try to migrate to the Big-East or C-USA if the were truly serious about advancing in college football.

But I am trying to create access for the teams like Boise State, TCU, Marshall, Tulane, Southern Miss - who have had sterling seasons in the past, have a pedigree of success against the BCS teams, to compete for the best bowl game possible - and if they are undefeated, have access to the Sears Cup. Is there a perfect system no - a traditional playoff format would be a train wreck for college football.

I will simply call it what it is - The SUN has no business at this level, have never even come close to competing for a second tier bowl on a yearly basis and it is ridiculous to even consider these teams as part of the Holiday or BCS Brackets. They get their opportunity, which would be greater than what they currently get with the current system, in the newly created NIT bracket with an opportunity to earn one of five bowl games played over a two day period (Christmas eve and Christmas day) which would kickoff the bowl season. If the SUN expects more - Step up to the plate or go back to DI-AA and win a couple of championships like APPY-State and then try to reorganize with the BCS or C-USA. Is it fair? I guess it depends on your perspective, but for me which has been validated by Utah, Boise State, BYU, Tulane, Marshall and the like, they deserve a shot if they can go undefeated in their conference because these non-BCS teams in the WAC, MWest, C-USA and MAC have a pedigree of success while the SUN has zero history of success. When I think of the drain on the system - I immediately think of the SUN!