I know some people would choose a 4, 6, or 8 team format or even a return to the BCS, but we all know contraction won't happen. Just curious to see what everyone else's preference is--the current format, or something else. I'm actually fine with what we have now, although I hate the conference championship games because they potentially allow idle teams on that weekend to leapfrog teams who have to play in them. Likewise, if both teams are squarely in the playoff going into a CCG (like Ohio St and Indiana last year) the game means virtually nothing. My ideal format would be: 1) Keep the playoff at 12 teams 2) Give automatic bids (but not guaranteed byes) to at least the P4 regular season champions + possibly the next 1 or 2 highest-ranked non-champs (meaning 4-6 total auto bids). This gives more meaning to winning the conference and/or having a strong overall regular season. 3) Replace the conference championship games with play-in games at the sites of the former conference championship games + additional new sites as needed for the final 6-8 spots. One game would match the top two G6 conference champs. The auto-bid teams mentioned in #2 would of course be idle that weekend. 4) Seeds and bracket are determined following the play-in games 5) The above is essentially an 18, 19 or 20 team playoff depending on how many auto bids there are. I am opposed to the 24 team playoff if it is formatted into a standard 24-team bracket. I think it would be interesting, though, if it were something outside the box, like if all 24 teams were in action on the former conference championship weekend (call it Survival Saturday), with the survivors re-seeded afterward into the standard 12-team bracket. This could also allow for multiple intra-conference matchups to help alleviate the loss of the conference championship games.