If Tony Barnhart became the college football czar, here is how he would set up a four-team playoff for the national championship.

THE RULES

• The top four teams in the final BCS Standings would advance to the national championship playoffs.

• One semifinal would be played in a designated BCS bowl on the night of Jan. 1; the second semifinal would be played on the night of Jan. 2.

• In fairness to the fans and the players of the two teams that advance, the national championship game would not be played until the second Saturday after Jan. 1. Example: If Jan. 1 fell on a Tuesday, as it did last season, the national championship game would be played on Saturday, Jan. 12. This will give fans enough time to make their travel plans and give the players time to recover from a tough semifinal game. If Jan. 1 falls on a Saturday, the national championship game would be played on Jan. 15.

• In order to maintain the current 10 BCS slots and continue the current access rules for the five Coalition conferences, an additional bowl must be added to the rotation. Since we're in Atlanta, let's add the Chick-fil-A Bowl to the mix. But we recognize that if the BCS adds a fifth bowl, the Cotton Bowl and Jerry Jones' $1.1 billion stadium in Dallas will compete very hard for that slot.

• Concessions will be made to the Rose Bowl, Big Ten, and Pac-10 in order to gain their participation. The Big Ten and Pac-10 will send their champions to the playoff if they finish in the top four. If not, one or both of those champions will play in the Rose Bowl.

• The national championship game will be on a five-bowl rotation (Sugar, Orange, Fiesta, Rose, and Chick-fil-A). The semifinal games, however, will rotate among four bowls because the Rose, by choice, will not participate at that level of the playoff.

THE GAMES

Using the final BCS standings of Dec. 2 and last season's dates.

NATIONAL SEMIFINAL 1, JAN. 1

Fiesta Bowl: No. 1 Ohio State (Big Ten champ) vs. No. 4 Oklahoma (Big 12 champ)

NATIONAL SEMIFINAL 2, JAN. 2

Orange Bowl: No. 2 LSU (SEC champ) vs. No. 3 Virginia Tech (ACC champ)

OTHER BCS BOWLS

Jan. 1 Sugar Bowl: No. 10 Hawaii (Coalition at-large) vs. No. 5 Georgia (at-large)

Jan. 1 Rose Bowl: No. 7 USC (Pac-10 champ) vs. No. 13 Illinois (at-large)

Jan. 3 Chick-fil-A Bowl: No. 9 West Virginia (Big East champ) vs. No. 6 Missouri (at-large)

BCS NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP

New Orleans, Saturday Jan. 12

Ohio State-Oklahoma winner vs. LSU-Virginia Tech winner

WHAT IF THERE HAD BEEN A FOUR-TEAM PLAYOFF?

Only four times in 10 years (1998, 1999, 2002, 2005) has the BCS championship game been played without a major controversy. A four-team playoff would not have solved all of the complaints raised by fans over the years, but it would have addressed some of the more highly publicized criticisms of the system while also providing some compelling match-ups. Based on the final BCS standings at the time, these would have been the semifinal match ups in a four-team playoff.

2007

Comment: After No. 1 Missouri and No. 2 West Virginia both lost on championship Saturday, No. 3 Ohio State jumped to No. 1. No. 7 LSU jumped all the way to No. 2 after winning the SEC championship. A four-team playoff would not have helped Georgia (10-2), which dropped from No. 4 to No. 5 in the final standings. It also would have created a rematch of a regular season game (LSU vs. Virginia Tech).

2006

Comment: When No. 2 USC lost on championship Saturday, Florida jumped from No. 4 over Michigan to the No. 2 spot in the Final BCS Standings. Michigan's only loss was in a close game to Ohio State (42-39) so the Wolverines thought they deserved a rematch. LSU thought it had the best team in the country at the end of the season. With a four-team playoff, both LSU and Michigan would have gotten their chance.

2005<

Comment: USC and Texas were clearly the best two teams in the country in 2005. With a four-team playoff, we might have missed one of the best college football games ever played (Texas over USC 41-38 in the Rose Bowl).

2004

Comment: Auburn, the SEC champ, was shut out of a chance to play for the national title. A four-team playoff would have given the Tigers their shot. Texas' only loss was to Oklahoma (12-0) but the Longhorns finished strong and beat Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

2003

Comment: USC was ranked No. 1 in both human polls (AP, coaches) but finished No. 3 in the BCS Standings. As a result, college football had split national champions: LSU (BCS) and USC (AP). A four-team playoff would have avoided that.

2002

No. 1 Miami (12-0) vs. No. 4 USC (10-2)

No. 2 Ohio State (12-0) vs. No. 3 Georgia (12-1)

Comment: Miami and Ohio State played a great double overtime game for the national championship. A playoff would have given Georgia, the SEC champion, a shot. USC, under quarterback Carson Palmer, the Heisman Trophy winner, was a great team by the end of this season.

2001

Comment: Nebraska made the BCS championship game despite losing its last regular season game to Colorado 62-36. Oregon, the Pac-10 champ that was ranked No. 2 in the human polls, was locked out. The result was the worst BCS championship game ever. Miami led Nebraska 34-0 at halftime of the Rose Bowl. This year screamed for a playoff.

2000

Comment: Miami was ranked No. 2 in the human polls and had beaten Florida State (27-24) in their head-to-head match-up during the regular season. But the BCS formula put FSU into the championship game against Oklahoma and left Miami at No. 3. A rematch in the semifinals would have been compelling.

1999

Comment: Florida State and Virginia Tech were the only two undefeated teams, but Nebraska had a compelling case to be in the mix. The Cornhuskers (11-1) only lost one game (24-20 at Texas) but then avenged that loss by beating the Longhorns (22-6) in the Big 12 championship game.

1998

Comment: Florida State jumped from No. 4 to the BCS title game when No. 2 UCLA and No. 3 Kansas State both lost on championship Saturday. Kansas State's only loss was in double-overtime (36-33 to Texas A&M). Ohio State's only loss was to Michigan State (28-24).

THREE REASONS WHY THE FOUR-TEAM PLAYOFF WILL WORK

1. It uses the current bowl structure that has been approved by the presidents. Only two teams will play an additional game, which is a reasonable sacrifice to make to improve the system. It is the least invasive method of making real change.

2. While it doesn't address all of the problems of the current system, putting four teams in a playoff instead of just two teams is a fairer system. No. 5 will not be happy, but this system addresses most of the extreme problems the BCS has experienced the past 10 years. (12-0 Auburn being left out in 2004).

3. It would make most of the big bowls relevant to the championship. In the current system the vast majority of the interest is in just one game. This way three of the five BCS games would have a director impact on the national championship.

THREE REASONS WHY THE FOUR-TEAM PLAYOFF WON'T WORK

1. It's not fair to the players. Players in conferences with championship games already play as many as 14 games in a season. It would also take away from the "bowl experience" for the players. Bowls are supposed to be fun. But if a bowl game is a playoff semifinal, the experience will be totally different for the players.

2. It will devalue the regular season. The reason college football has the best regular season of any sport is the weekly tension of knowing that one loss can knock a team out of the race for the national championship. Schools have invested millions in facility improvements and count on full stadiums during the regular season. Example: The West Virginia-Pittsburgh game on Dec. 1 drew huge ratings because West Virginia had to win to get into the BCS championship game. That drama would be lost with a playoff.

3. The bowl system, which has contributed millions to college football, would eventually be damaged. Every playoff in the history of college athletics has grown and this would be no different. Once the playoff grows to eight or more teams, the early rounds of the playoffs would be held on campus as is the case with the lower divisions of college football.

SHOULD COLLEGE FOOTBALL GO TO A FOUR-TEAM PLAYOFF?
"We see this meeting as a check point and certainly not the final meeting on the matter. We will present our particular model and others may present a differing model. We hope there is a thorough and frank discussion. The issue we have raised when it comes to the BCS has been 'are two teams enough?' We understand that every conference will have to make its own decision about where we proceed from here." — Mike Slive, SEC commissioner

"Our position has not changed. We believe in the bowl system. We believe in the regular season. We believe that No. 1 and No. 2 should play for the national championship within the context of the bowl system. That was our position when we first joined the BCS (in 1998). I hope we can keep going with what we have. I don't want us to splinter. But I want us to be realistic about what we're investigating."— Jim Delany, Big Ten commissioner

"We certainly know what it is like to get burned by the current system. A four-team playoff wouldn't solve all the problems but it would give you a greater chance of being fair to the teams who deserve a chance. I know our people would like to see a change." — Tommy Tuberville, head coach, Auburn

"There are some real concerns that have to be addressed. It's not just the logistics of travel for large groups of fans, but the interest and ability of the fans to do that. It's not like the NCAA tournament where you move hundreds of fans. If we do this, do the games become more corporate, like the Super Bowl? Would we lose the college atmosphere? I look forward to the discussion but these are questions that would have to be addressed."— Dan Beebe, Big 12 commissioner

"There is no doubt in my mind that it would hurt the bowl system. And why do we need it? College football has never been more popular than it is right now. And the fact is that only about 20 percent of the schools would be in position to be in the playoffs on a yearly basis. About 60 percent of the schools are like us, sort of in the middle. And 20 percent of the schools have no shot. I just don't think you change the system for that." — Joe Tiller, head coach, Purdue

"People are tired of seeing the system get bashed every year. And I've told our people that this kind of change would lessen some of the criticism and probably give us more money. But how do you get there? I'm very big on unintended consequences. What could be the unintended consequences of something like this? That's a discussion we have to have," — Mike Tranghese, Big East commissioner

"If they go to this [four-team playoff] you will eventually have a NFL style playoff where the early rounds are played on the campuses of the highest seeded teams. That's just a fact. And then you will say good-bye to a bowl system that has supported college football for almost 100 years. If this happens, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer." — Mitch Dorger, executive director, Rose Bowl

"I'm not in favor of a playoff, and our presidents voted that way last summer. The fact is that the fans and the media have not studied the complexity of the process. We had an incredibly difficult time getting our schools to go along with the current BCS. The best thing the BCS could do is to stay with the current format another four years. Then spend that time and undertake a more broad-based look at the future of postseason football." — Tom Hansen, Pac-10 commissioner

"The advent of the BCS gave the commissioners a lot of power in the football world and in the NCAA. I don't think you can do anything [toward creating a playoff] unless you can convince the commissioners. It's a matter of self-interest in this particular area." — Charles Young, former UCLA chancellor and Florida president and chairman of a 1994 NCAA committee that studied a playoff but failed to reach consensus.