The BCS is obviously a messy solution. But a playoff system simply isn't realistic. There are something around 132 schools playing NCAA Division I football, and Division I football teams only play 12 games. In contrast, basketball teams play around triple the games with a little over double the number of teams - and then go into a 6-round tournament (a tournament with a number of encounters equal to half an entire football system).

At best you could argue that some equivalent of a 'Final Four'-style approach could be used where you run two phases of 'Bowls' with the winners from the top bowls facing each other in the second round. But you'd still see people complaining.

What they need to do is divide Division I up into 5 or 6 leagues or conferences. Everyone has to be a member of one of those conferences if they want to compete for the national title. Yeah, suck it Notre Dame. You're a mediocre program and don't deserve any special consideration.

The problem with BCS right now is that they work backwards, the conference winners go to their respectful bowls unless they advance to the next level.

The winners of each conference should go into a a playoff scheme built around the bowls. So, the winners of PAC-10 and Big-10 go to the Rose Bowl to determine who advances to the next level, not unless they've been selected by some computer poll to advance. Eventually, they get whittled down to two who play in the College Championship Bowl.

The system I hear people clamoring for the most is an 8 team playoff. Maybe 6 BCS conf champs and 2 at large. That would be 3 postseason games for those that make it all the way to the championship. That would be less time (3 weeks) and far fewer games than march madness, so the academics argument BCS backers throw out is bogus.

The rankings would still be used and there would of course still be controversy. But it's much better to have a team with a legit claim at being the 8th best team being left out of the championship picture than a team with a legit claim at #2.