I recently had an interesting email exchange with Ken Massey, who (1) posts his own college football ranking system online, (2) compiles and posts the Massey Composite Rating, which is a compilation and overall calculation of the rankings of college football teams from the 100+ college football ranking systems that are currently out there, and (3) contributed his ideas and expertise to creating the initial BCS system.

With his permission to pass on our discussion, his initial take is that 4 teams in the playoff is enough, but here’s what he sees as an improved way to get to the playoff:

Scrap the conference championship games and go to something late in the season that he refers to as “dynamic scheduling.”

What is dynamic scheduling?  The last two weeks of the season (e.g., Nov 24 and Dec 1 this year) all 130 FBS Division I teams would be matched up vs 2 opponents of similar caliber over those two weekends.  For example, this year UCF might be dynamically scheduled to play Florida and Notre Dame. 

A computer algorithm would make the match ups to determine the teams of “similar caliber,” based on rankings at that point in the season, and geography.  Pretenders would drop off during these games, and then there is excellent data to select the 4 team playoff bracket.  All 130 games in the last two weeks will be very good match ups, and the high-seeded match ups will be great for TV.

He proposes that each team has one home and one road game in those final two weeks.

The results of those 2 weeks would be highly informative and directly relevant to the playoff selection process, and in addition to the earlier regular season results, would be used to select the 4 teams in the playoff.  And those two flex games at the end of the season would solve “the UCF problem” by allowing schools with good records vs weaker competition an opportunity to prove themselves.

He envisions a season schedule with 13 regular season games, generally following this pattern:

• Weeks 1-2:    Non-conference games,
• Weeks 3-11:  Conference games (with a bye week),
• Week 12:      "Rivalry game" week, or wrap up conference schedules (no conference championship games),
• Weeks 13 and 14:   Dynamic home/away games for all 130 FBS Division I teams (not rematching any teams that have already played), matching teams of similar caliber based on an algorithm looking at the first 12 week’s games,
• And then, as now, bowls and playoff games throughout mid-December and early January with the two-game, first round playoffs, followed by the championship game, as they are now.

There are some details to be worked out -- one I see is the definitive determination of conference champions without a conference championship game -- but he provides a basic approach that, at least to me, addresses many of the problems and concerns with the present playoff system.  But, and this too is important, what would the powers that be within the system say to this approach?

And what says you?