I have long wavered back and forth on whether or not there should be a playoff in major college football.

I can see the point of both sides. There are those who feel the season is already too long and takes too much of a toll on the bodies of the players.

I can also see a need to have a real tournament to produce a true national champion.

After once again watching the Bowl Championship Series fail to give us perhaps the best match-up, I am swayed back to the side of national playoff.

After doing a little thinking this week, I have come up with my own plan for a tournament. It uses both a computer and the human element to decide which eight teams will play in the tournament of champions.

Two weeks after the regular season ends with all the conference championship games, the NCAA gets together and uses one or more computers to figure out which are the top six teams in the country based on such things as overall record, quality of schedule based on your opponents’ final records and whether or not they were a conference champion.

Unlike the BCS, my plan would only allow conference champions to be seeded into the top six slots.

A committee, like the NCAA uses in picking its other tournament participants, would select two worthy at-large teams to round out the field of eight.

The Orange, Sugar, Fiesta and Rose bowls would be the sites of the opening round of the tournament. I really don’t care if they want to call themselves that or not. The two semifinal games would be played two weeks later around Jan. 1 with the championship game being rotated among the four bowls a week later.

By using eight teams and the top four bowl sites, that would leave the other 20-plus bowls that are now in existance a chance to continue to draw quality teams and host their events. Sure they might not get an LSU, an Alabama, an Oklahoma or a Wisconsin every year, but they would have plenty of worthy candidates just as they do now.

There would still be plenty of drama and debate to be had. The water cooler talk would continue as always, just like after the basketball pairings are announced by the NCAA.

But at least, by using a computer, emotions would be left out of choosing the top six teams and things that really matter, like strength of schedule, would replace anyone’s “opinion” of who is the best team in the country.

My apologies to the Associated Press and USA Today for not using their polls to decide who should play who. If they still want to recognize a national champion who doesn’t win the tournament, that would be up to them.

It really is time for us to quit pretending that the BCS system works. It’s time for the NCAA to take control of this situation and provide its own national tournament.

At least this way, three games after the regular season comes to a close, we would have a national champion that earned that title on the field by facing more than one opponent, who was “chosen” for them.

If you disagree with me and think you have a better plan, let me know. I would more than be glad to share some of the better ideas with our readers.

On a side note, I heard from a gentleman who pointed out the fact that the Southeastern Conference (SEC) proposed a plus-one game. It would be used if I remember correctly to settle the national championship if there were more than two undefeated teams or something like that.

For the record, I was all for that concept.

Unfortunately, all that got was talk and we are still left with our broken system.

Scott Novak is sports editor for Leader Publications. He can be reached at scott.novak@leaderpub.com