The Fair College Football playoff proposal.

Read the previous two posts before this one.
This proposal isn't anything radical or anything that hasn't been done/talked about before in college sports. It's been proposed by Dan Wetzel of Yahoo Sports(back when there were 11 conferences before  WAC football folded).
It's based on the format of the NCAA basketball tournament(with out the horrible conference tournaments, but that's a completely different issue). I believe it would solve a lot of the problems and decrease complaints. (As well as being a lot more exciting and fairly profitable)

Here it is:
10 Automatic Bids(1 for winner of each FBS conference: Big Ten, SEC, ACC, B12, AAC, P12, Mtn West, MAC, Sun Belt, C-USA).
6: At-large bids( determined by a selection committee)
Rest of teams(6+ wins) get meaningless exhibitions (bowl games).(Ultimately, they're meaningless(no chance at championship) but it's still good for mediocre programs to make a bowl game)
Committee seeds each team from 1(best) to 16(worst). 1 plays 16. 2 plays 15. 3 plays 14 and so on. (Typical 16 team bracket, like a region in the NCAA basketball tourney. Winner of 1v16 plays 8v9 winner, winner of 2v15 plays 7v10 winner, Winner of 3v14 plays 6v11 winner and so on. )
No weekly rankings by a committee.
Optional: Top 5 seeds play home games in first round( reward for being top 5 team). Middle seeds play neutral site. After first round, rest of games are neutral site. Semifinal games can be bowl games like it is in current system.
Optional: Remove conference championship games(so conference champ game loser doesn't get punished for losing when it comes to at-large bids. The leagues themselves will determine tie breakers)

My defense of this proposal:
For giving automatic bids to non Power-5 conferences: I have two reasons for this. (1) It erases all doubt for an undefeated mid-major that may be the best in the country but can not prove it. They will have their shot at it all. (2) Also, it's for the sake of fairness. If you win an FBS conference, you should have a shot at it all. Why should these teams be in the FBS if they don't have a chance at winning the FBS? Makes no sense. You might as well drop non-Power 5 teams to the FCS and make an 8 team playoff.
For at-large selected by the committee: I think it's important to decrease the power of a committee(by not allowing them to decide which of the top teams get into the playoffs but make it by winning conference championships) but I still think that committees have some use.  I think they would be good for selecting the fringe playoff teams, and if they screw up it's not as big of a deal. Also if a committee seeds the teams, it makes it less likely that a team(that's already assured a bid) will lose on purpose to get a particular matchup(like it's been done in the NBA)

Common Criticisms and my responses for them:
Criticism 1: "The first round would be boring, it there would be a lot of meaningless blowouts. Weak mid-majors should not be in the playoff. You really think the MAC champion or the Sun Belt champion has a chance at winning it all?".
Response: This may be true but not necessarily true. Of course, not all matchups would be between non-Power 5 and Power 5. The middle seeded matchups will likely be entertaining matchups between top 10 teams. Also for the matchups between the non-power 5 and the power 5 teams, there could be an unexpected close game or even an upset which adds a lot of intrigue. Of course, the chances of an upset(or even a close game,depending on what mid-major teams you are dealing with) are fairly low( probably why it's called an upset). But even then there's a benefit. Like the NCAA basketball tournament, you can reward the top teams by giving them seemingly weaker opponents in the first round. Top 5 teams should be rewarded for being top 5 teams. Non top 5 teams will have to battle it out against good opponents in the first round.
Criticism 2: "What about school? These are STUDENT-athletes. You can't have them playing all these games."
Response: Same could be said about college basketball during the NCAA tourney. Shoot, you have teams who play games in the middle of the week during the school year for all NCAA sports. The games are played on Saturdays, the playoff will mostly take place during winter break. Also the FCS(as well as Division II and III) has been doing a 24 team playoff(I think DIII is 32 teams but i may be wrong) for quite sometime with no major complaints. A 16 team playoff shouldn't be so bad.
Criticism 3: "Football is a dangerous sport. More games=more injuries"
Response: I would understand that if I was proposing to extend the regular season for every FBS team but in the case of the playoff it's only for 16 of 128 FBS schools. Also it's already being done in FCS, DII and DIII, where there are worse athletes, less medical support and less depth. Also the teams that make it far in the playoff will likely have more depth, better athletes and more money(and better medical support) than most FBS teams. Also, most athletes would love to play more football and don't fear of the chance of injury(they aren't idiots, they know what they signed up for).
Criticism 4: "The college football regular season is the best regular season in sports. Every week of the season is almost like a playoff itself and has great importance. With a bigger playoff, you decrease the importance of the regular season."
Response: I agree with the first sentence and not much else. The regular season itself is still very important even with a 16 team playoff. Every conference game matters in the conference title race and every game matters if you want to get an at-large bid. Like the NCAA basketball tourney(bubble teams), one loss against a horrible team or 1 win against a great team could be the difference between getting an at-large spot and getting left out. So in that sense, the regular season would not be diminished and would still be very important. Also, the college football regular season has never been like an elimination game/playoff(except for arguably the last week). It's a common myth perpetuated by the media. Sometimes teams lose early in the year and get a shot at a title. Other times teams win all season long and don't get that chance.
Criticism 5:"Automatic bids allow for teams to tank/rest their key players at the end of the season. Suppose Oregon locks up the PAC-12 with two games left. They'll just rest their best players for the last 2 games because they know they'll make the playoff regardless."
Response: This is actually a decent critique but it's still is not a strong one. Most conference championship races are fairly close, where a late(or early) slip up can cost you the conference title or the tiebreaker. But even when considering the situation of Oregon(in the Criticism,not real life), there would still be a strong reason for Oregon not to rest their key players in the earlier proposed format. Let's say that Oregon is 9-1(fictional scenario), ranked as the unanimous number 1 team in the country and has already locked up the PAC-12 title with two games to play. If they make the choice of seriously playing and winning the final two games, then they'll mostly likely be chosen as the number 1 overall team in the playoff, with a matchup against Sun Belt champions Arkansas State. If they rest their best players, they risk losing the final two games. If that happens, then they go 9-3. While they still make the playoff, they're given the 10 seed and are given a matchup with SEC runner up LSU. Obviously then, Oregon still has reason to continue taking games seriously. In one scenario, they get to breeze by with a seemingly assured win over what should be an easy team. In the other, they face a formidable foe in a coin toss type of game, which potentially means a first round exit.
Criticism 6: "Giving an automatic berth to a other 5 champion is nothing more than a handout to an undeserving team. Don't put the number 20 team in over the number 8 team just because you want to be 'fair' "
Response: If a team wins their conference championship, it's not a handout. They've earned it on the field by winning. Also who determines the rankings? The media, who is admittedly(perhaps justifiably) biased against the other 5(non power) conferences. So in a true rankings system(like the angel scenario in my previous post), that "number 20" team could(key word is could noting the possibility) actually be the number 5 team and that "number 8" team could actually be the number 17 team. 
Criticism 7: "Automatic berths would sooner or later give an undeserving team an automatic bid. If the ACC has a down year and the winner finishes 8-4 and gets a bid over a 10-2 team who's obviously better. That's something that I just don't want in College football."
Response: This kind of similar to the last 2 criticism but sort of combines them to make a stronger argument. But not strong enough. First off, the "10-2 team who's obviously better" will likely get an at-large bid. If it doesn't, it's the price that's paid for not winning a conference crown. You're at the mercy of the selection committee(though if a 10-2 team is "obviously better" than the ACC champ they'll probably get an at-large bid). Also, when a conference has a "down year" it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a bid. Perhaps that was a very competitive conference with multiple strong teams. So strong that even the best team from that conference couldn't escape with less than 4 wins.(sort of like the flaw of parity response)
Criticism 8: "16 teams? Shoot, there should be a 64 team playoff! You know what... why not a 128 team playoff, LOL" (and other sarcastic arguments like this one)
Response: Argument by sarcasm/mockery, is almost always weak (unless it brings up good points, some satire and sarcasm can be strong). We can make fun of just about anything, including things that are smart or logical. For example: "HAHA. These idiots think that there are little things called "cells" that make up our entire bodies. What idiots, HAHA". Anything can be mocked, mockery is not a good form of argument(especially if you don't bring up any points to support it). But I'll humor those who use this kind of argument. Why not a 128 team playoff? Because you are giving the absolute worst teams in the country a chance at a national championship. Why not a 64 team playoff? Because you are giving too many mediocre 6-6 and 7-5 teams a chance at the national championship. Why not a 32 team playoff? Because you are giving too many fringe top 25 teams(most of whom that didn't win their conference) a chance at the national championship.(Counter argument would refer to the NCAA basketball tournament but D-1 NCAA basketball has over 300 teams, top 25 means more in college hoops). 16 is the best option. 
Criticism 10: "A 16 team format means 4 extra games for the 2 teams in the championship. Something most schools would have to cut their regular season to accomplish otherwise you have them playing a 16 game schedule. Obviously that would be too many"
Response: "This criticism is mostly correct(it makes no false statements). But what it fails to mention is that in the current system, the 2 teams in the title game will likely play 15 games(12 reg season. conf champ. playoff semi and then the final). Also the FCS title game participants play 15 games. 1 extra game(from 15 to 16) for 2 teams won't really change much(if you remove conf champs game, like I proposed)."
Criticism 11: "The NCAA is not going to make this kind of radical change, regardless of whether it's right or wrong."
Response: "Not really a real criticism of this format being right or wrong. Obviously, I have no control of the NCAA, so it's not really relevant. I'm just proposal something that would improve the game and makes a lot of sense."

If this gains any sort of following/popularity(doubtful that it does), I encourage you to find more criticisms so I can respond to those as well.(I'll keep adding to the list, so keep them coming)

How this format solves the flaw of  "the possibility that the best team that is undefeated and postseason eligible not getting a shot at a title": Obviously, it would a allow ALL FBS conference champions to have a chance at winning it all. I can only see one scenario where this flaw would exist with this format: an independent FBS team that goes unbeaten by playing a ridiculously soft schedule. Chances are such team would not get an at-large bid. My response would be that none of the current independent teams (BYU, Army, Navy, Notre Dame) play schedules that are ridiculously soft. Navy(which is moving to the AAC in football soon) and Notre Dame usually play pretty challenging schedules.

Sample College Football Playoff(using 2014 season excluding Conference championship games)
Automatic Bids: Alabama(SEC), Baylor(B12 tiebreaker;Baylor beat TCU ), Ohio State(B10), Oregon(P12),  Florida State(ACC), Memphis (AAC, tie breaker;Memphis beat Cincy and UCF has the worse loss(to UCONN)), Boise State(Mtn West), Northern Illinois(MAC), Georgia Southern(Sun Belt, I'm pretending they are postseason eligible), Marshall(C-USA).
At-Large Bids(trying to think like committee): TCU, Arizona, Michigan State, Mississippi State, Georgia Tech, Ole Miss(3 losses but SEC team(SEC bias is real and we all know it) with wins over Boise, Bama, Memphis and Miss St; all teams in field)
Snubs(aka potential complainers with sort of decent argument): Wisconsin (Response: Lost to 7 loss Northwestern), Missouri(Response: lost to 8 loss Indiana at home LOL)
Seedings/ First round Matchups(trying to seed/rank them like the committee):
1.Alabama vs 16.Georgia Southern
2.Oregon vs 15.Northern Illinois
3.Florida State vs 14.Marshall
4.Ohio State vs 13.Memphis
5.Baylor vs 12.Boise State
6.TCU vs 11.Mississippi (hey it's like the real bowl life game(2014) but not pointless)
7.Mississippi State vs 10.Georgia Tech (hey it's like the real life bowl game(2014) but not pointless)
8.Arizona vs 9.Michigan State

My comments: To me, it already looks better than what the four team playoff offers. Sure Bama and Oregon would/should kill NIU and GSouthern and that's the reward you get for being number 1 and 2. But Marshall and Memphis could be dangerous. Ohio State and Florida State are both beneficiaries of being big fish in small ponds(B10 and ACC weakest of power conferences). Memphis nearly beat UCLA @ UCLA and hung for 3 qtrs with Ole Miss. Is it likely that Memphis could beat Ohio State? No but it's possible. 6-6 Va Tech did it. Florida State has played close games with mediocre teams all season and Marshall has an explosive offense. Anything could happen. Boise is used to playing spoiler and Baylor lost their BCS bowl game to UCF last season. The other 3 middle games are really intriguing matchups between great teams from all over the country. And that's just the first round, the following round would deliver even better matchups. And what if one of the non power teams pull and upset? Could there be a "Cinderella" kind of run?(If Boise managed to upset Baylor and then Ohio State) . It would all be very awesome, just like the basketball tourney. 

The Flaw(s) of the College Football Postseason, including the current College football playoff

If you haven't already, read the introduction first.

When the new college football playoff was first announced, I was overjoyed. Finally the ridiculous, extremely flawed BCS system was dead and more deserving teams were getting a shot at the national championship. I was a bit puzzled at the selection committee(why did it have to exist. What makes it different/better from the media members voting) and the weekly College Football Playing rankings(which are completely unnecessary in my opinion) but even then, I was excited. But my excitement quickly faded as the first season of the college football playoff went by. Week after week, it got more and more clear to me that while there are 4 teams given the shot at the crown instead of 2, not much has really changed.
By the end of the season where the committee released their final rankings, it was clear. There were three teams that were comfortably into the playoff: undefeated defending national champion and winner of 3 consecutive ACC titles Florida State(13-0), SEC champion Alabama(12-1) and PAC-12 champion Oregon(12-1). There was only one truly contested spot remaining. And there were three real contenders for that last spot: Big-12 champion Baylor(11-1), Big-12 "co-champion" TCU(11-1) and Big Ten champion Ohio State(12-1). Most would agree that the Big-12 was a stronger conference(especially the upper half), than the Big Ten(the conference of my Fighting Illini(6-6)). Baylor played the pretty much the same schedule as TCU,though TCU beat a decent Big Ten team(Minnesota(8-4, including a loss to my Illini)). Baylor managed to defeat TCU. And while some try to minimize that game(It was a home game for Baylor, it was only by 3 points, etc.), a win is a win. If the games on the field don't count, then why play them at all? Baylor should go in ahead of TCU. Baylor's only loss was on the road to a fellow B12 foe, West Virginia(7-5). Ohio State was far and away the best team in the lowly Big Ten and dominated the rest of the conference. They did somehow lose a home game against Virginia Tech(6-6) a mediocre team from the worst of the power conferences, the ACC and they lost it by 14 points. This would appear to make it clear the Baylor was to be the 4th team in the playoff.
Unfortunately for Baylor, two things sunk them: (1) The B12 commissioner oddly refusing to name them the sole B12 champion by virtue of their tie-breaking win against TCU. The committee was emphasizing conference champions and a co-champion isn't a champion. The commissioner hurt his own conference by making such a strange decision. The second reason is a bit more political.(2) The team selected instead of Baylor was Ohio State. If you know anything about the history of college football, you'd know that Ohio State is a traditional college football powerhouse. Baylor, on the other hand, has only recently found success. Before that, Baylor was a doormat in the Big 12 and one of the worst programs in the country. Ohio State has a much larger and more influential fan base than Baylor. The media will tend the emphasize Ohio State's successes more than Baylor's successes. Also the backgrounds of committee members suggest that they are far more likely to support Ohio State than Baylor regardless of the facts.
The Ohio State/Baylor situation, the Marshall(12-1) situation(until they lost to Western KY(7-5, including a loss to my Illini)) as well as other situations made me realize some serious flaws with the new college football playoff system.
For one thing, the College Football Playoff Rankings are made by the committee, which can allow them to manipulate the rankings in order to confirm biases. For example, Wisconsin lost their final game 59-0, a top 25 team doesn't lose to anyone 59-0. Yet somehow they're 18. Minnesota is an 8-4 team with no notable wins(perhaps Nebraska) and a loss to Illinois(I love my Illini but no top 25 team would lose to Illinois), yet they are at 25, while a Oklahoma(8-4) team from a better conference is unranked.  Is it a coincidence that that Wisc and Minnesota are teams Ohio State has beaten and Baylor is a team Oklahoma has beaten, giving Ohio State 3 top 25 wins, while Baylor only has 2? Maybe. But the possibility alone is a huge flaw, in my opinion.
But this kind of flaw(the flaw of incompetence or bias) always exists when who gets a shot at the title is determined solely by a group of people as opposed to by the team's results, like it is in the other major sports.

Another flaw is that the current system(as well as the past system) punishes positive parity in a conference. Positive parity(in the way I'm using it) is having a lot of great/elite teams in a conference but none that are dominant over the other. I realized this when observing the the SEC. I tend to root against SEC teams because ESPN's (and other major media outlets) apparent bias which favors teams from that conference. Preseason rankings(which are overvalued in college sports) are filled which SEC teams(even some who had bad seasons the year or lost a lot of key players.). So in my disdain of the SEC, I was imagining scenarios in which the SEC misses out on the (2014-15) playoff. If Missouri(who lost to Indiana LOL) beat Alabama in the conference championship game, then the SEC would likely miss out on the playoff.  Miss St had already loss 2 games and Mississippi lost 3. Sure that would be fun, but would it be the right thing for a conference to be punished for having a lot of strong teams(which lowers those teams records)? Let me try to explain.
Consider this (fictional) scenario:
At the end of one particular year, the selection commitee has determined the playoff. The Four Teams are the only 3 1-loss teams in the country and an unbeaten midmajor which played a strong nonconference schedule: 1.Illinois(I wish), 2.LSU,  3.Stanford and 4.East Carolina. But the thing I want you to focus on is the Big-12 conference. The top four teams in this conference are: Kansas State(10-2,6-2 in conference), Oklahoma(10-2,6-2 in conference), Texas(9-3,5-3 in conference) and TCU(9-3,5-3 in conference). Kansas State(who beat Oklahoma convincingly on the road) wasn't seriously considered as a 4 team playoff candidate because of they're two losses.
Now consider this scenario in addition to the previous one: ( if this ever gets any kind of a following/popularity, please don't go crazy, atheists; it's ok if others have different beliefs than you). Up in heaven there are all kinds of angels and God trusts them allows them to whatever they please. But there's one particular angel who's very relevant. It's the angel who is a huge fan of 21st century American College Football. This angel has the ability to tell who is going to win a game even before it happens(for example, the angel knew that Appalachian State was going to beat Michigan and exactly how it would go down) and can even determine the outcomes of games that would never or could never happen(like a 2011-12 LSU-Oklahoma State title game) and is completely infallible. This angel comes down from heaven and informs you that he has run 100% accurate simulations of every team in the FBS for this particular season in games against all of the other teams in the FBS and has recorded the win-loss record of all these games(of course most of these which would not happen). Based on this, the angel reveals that the top five teams are: Kansas State(126-2), Oklahoma(126-2), Texas(125-3), TCU(125-3) and Illinois(120-8). Also in these rankings it shows that 8 of the 10 B12 teams were in the top 15. So it appears that none of the best teams in the country were even given a chance at the national championship. This appears to reveal a huge flaw in the current college football playoff. Of course, TCU and Texas probably can be dismissed because they finished 3rd and 4th in their conference but the fact that the top 2 teams didn't even get a shot in this scenario shows a real flaw in the system. Now it's a weaker flaw as it can be said that it's not necessarily the best team that should win it all but the best team with the best record but that's more a pro argument(because pro teams play more games and get to play more of the teams). Regardless, it exposes a fairly significant flaw that my playoff proposal doesn't have.

But the main flaw of this current postseason system, as well as the old systems is this: there's a possibility that the best team in the country with a perfect record could not be even given a chance to win the national championship.
In the BCS era this flaw was really obvious. In 2004, USC beat Oklahoma in the title game and was considered the national champion. But both Auburn and Utah were unbeaten to finish the season(and won their bowl games) and were never given a chance at the national championship. Either Auburn and Utah could have been the best team in the country and did not lose any games but weren't even given a shot at winning it all. The same could be said about 2006 Boise State, 2008 Utah, 2009 Boise State and 2010 TCU. Undefeated postseason eligible conference champions would not be given a chance at the national title.
Of course, when the new playoff was unveiled. It was supposed to have solved this problem. For example, the playoff in 2004 would have included USC, Oklahoma, Auburn and Utah. In some years Utah, TCU or Boise would have been given their fair shot in the top 4 bracket. But it doesn't really solve the problem. I realized this while observing Marshall before their loss to WKU. Marshall's AD screwed up. They stopped playing the West Va "rivalry" game and didn't schedule any other games with power five conferences. The result was a soft schedule; a week non conference along with the soft C-USA. As Marshall piled up wins, the selection committee refused to even consider them and understandably so; that's a horribly weak schedule. But while I understood that, I thought of something(Remember this was before their loss): what if Marshall was the best team in the country and was just a victim of bad scheduling that was out of the players' control? What if they went unbeaten and were the country's best team but still was not even given the chance to win it all?
Consider this (fictional) scenario:
At the end of the regular season and conference championship games, there are 6 undefeated teams. All six are from different conferences(of course). One from each of the Power 5(let's say LSU, Kansas State, USC, Ohio State and Miami) and one from the AAC(Houston). All six played similar non conference schedules(a good P5 team, a mediocre P5 team/a good mid major, a bad mid major, and an FCS opponent). None of the teams share a common opponent and all of the games won by these unbeatens were by at least 3 touchdowns. It's clear who is the top 6 for this particular season. So who gets into the 4 team playoff? Of course(by general college football logic used by media analysts and college football elites) the mid-major team(Houston) is out and same with the non traditional powerhouse(Kansas State). So it's an easy choice right?
But  in addition also consider the  scenario of the college football fan who is an angel once again:  Now imagine if this angel comes down from heaven to earth to tell you that Houston is the best team in the country in this season; in an elimination game setting (like a national championship game) on a neutral field no team in the entire FBS could even come close to beating Houston, not even the unbeaten Power 5 teams. So in this scenario, not only do two unbeaten postseason eligible teams that could possibly be the best team in the country not get a chance at winning it all, but the unbeaten postseason eligible team that is the best team in the country also was not even given the chance to win the championship. There's no other postseason system in major sports that allows for this possibility. Not in college basketball, not in the NBA or the NFL(though one can argue that the divisions system in the NFL could exclude a possible Super Bowl champion).
This could even apply to the 2014 season, Baylor and TCU both only had 1 loss, same as the teams that made it in(All those near losses for FSU has to count as 1 loss, right? Just Kidding) Who's to say that TCU or Baylor isn't the best team? There's no conclusive evidence showing otherwise. You never really know until teams play each other. The college football playoff has really solved nothing. Like I said before, it's a step in the right direction but still shares similar flaws to the BCS.
That is why I will present a fairly simple college football tournament proposal that will solve these problems in the next post.

Introductory post

College Football is one of the most unique and entertaining sports on the planet. I , like many others, am a huge college football fan. I watch tons of games. I loyally watch  my favorite team, the Illinois Fighting Illini, no matter how good or bad they are( sadly it's usually the latter). I watch the elite teams and follow the national title race and the heisman race. I even follow some of the crappy teams. I watched SMU(1-11) get it's first win of the 2014 season against UConn on it's last game(read CBS Sports' Bottom 25, it makes the worst teams in college football really interesting). I love the different styles of play, the tradition, the fans and the pageantry of the college game. That being said there's one fatal flaw that college football has: it's post season system.
The college football postseason has generally been hugely flawed. It's the only sport where a chance at the national title isn't decided on the field but rather based on the opinions of a group of people. During the pre-BCS era, you just played bowl games after the season was over and then various media members vote on who's the best team(in a top 25 poll) and that team wins the national title. That sounds ridiculous but that's how things were. Then came the BCS and BCS national championship game. A complicated formula, which somehow combined top 25 polls(Coaches Poll and Harris Poll, I believe) and other ranking formulas, determined the 2 best teams and those two teams would compete for the national championship while other teams played in meaningless bowl games(glorified exhibitions). Now starting this season(2014-15), things have changed. College Football was finally going to have a playoff.
Unfortunately, the current college football playoff isn't much better. A committee of various people(a media member, a former player, an air force academy superintendent, the former NCAA vice prez, a good former coach, a terrible former coach,former big east commish, athletic directors who definitely aren't biased, and a politician who happens to be a Stanford fan) will, in their eternal wisdom, select the four best(whatever that means) teams in college football and have them play in the playoff while the rest of the teams play in glorified exhibition games(bowl games). It's a step in the right direction but still has huge flaws that can be easily fixed.
In the next few posts, I will show the fatal flaws in the college football's postseason system, shared by previous systems and the current system. Then I will show my proposal for the college football postseason, one that is fair and logical.
Also if this blog ever gains any sort of following/ popularity, I'll be open to responding to all comments.