The original system of each bowl being truly independent except for some (not all) of the major conferences' champion tie-in (e.g. SEC to Sugar) was superior to what replaced it. Which was the dumb BcS where the five major conferences and one mid-major got bids to these "big" bowls, with the other mid-majors having a theoretical shot that never actually happened. That would be hard to make something worse, but they have with this unneeded "playoff". An extra game in basketball season.
I would much prefer a return to the original system. Alabama, the only undefeated team plays the best available (Clemson) in the Sugar Bowl, pollsters pick the Tide as National Champion. Simple.
But that is not going to happen. As predicted, the playoffs will grow (I-AA was originally 4, now it is 24). So this seems to make sense:
- Eight teams, the "power five" conference champions, the best of the "group of five" conference champions, and two "wild cards" which anybody could get, including Notre Dame, et al. This saves these conference championship games, which everybody now ignores.
- Do not let conferences (Big 2, Little 8 or Sun Belt) with less than 12 members play a conference title game, rather allow them to play 13 regular season games.
- Teams can play down only ONE level. Meaning P5 can schedule non-conference G5, but not I-AA; G5 can play I-AA but not DII, so on.
- Rest of the bowls are like an NIT, will full freedom to make matchups of regional interest.