My new playoff compromise: we go back to the old bowl tie-ins, and play everything like we did pre-BCS. The dust settles. We THEN play #1 v. #2. So if it ends up that Big 10-Pac 10 is a 1-2 game in the Rose Bowl, so be it. But they won't get out of playing a, say, 1-loss SEC champ who had an impressive victory as #3 against a good team in the Sugar. I don't know, so far I don't see any really big problems with it.

And then you have the fun dynamic of let's say it's 2005 and we want to see Vince Young-Reggie Bush part 2. Sure there'd be horrible controversy, but that's part of the fun, right?

Plus I'd really like getting the old regional ties to the bowls back, I feel like that's a sadly lost part of the big bowls with the BCS.

Better ...

I need to sleep on that a bit and I'm sure I'll catch something glaring that both of us are missing.

But obviously you bring up something like a repeat game which hopefully would be avoided.

Also: some contenders are just going to get more favorable bowl matchups. Let's say Oregon was #3 this year but draws Michigan in the Rose Bowl while LSU is #2 and gets VaTech in the Sugar Bowl. VaTech's a phony contender but within the BCS they're darlings, much moreso than similarly phony Michigan.

Just by virtue of their opponent LSU's in unless Oregon absolutely hammers Michigan and LSU keeps it close with VT. We gotta figure out a way to keep voters smart on this.

But it's interesting and headed more towards the old way which I like without injecting any rounds of games.