1 - Honestly, if you start the playoffs that late, you don't need to get rid of any games.

2 - There are (unless I'm having a brainfart here) six BCS conferences, and the conference championships would basically serve as elimination games in most cases.  I don't think it's fair to have these games unless every conference has these games, but you could make that same case now.  So for as little change as possible...keep 'em.

3 - Since a) there's no need, and b) there's really no fair way to determine which bowls would get eliminated, keep 'em all.

4 - Set up a rotation.  Have the quarters take place in the four BCS bowls, the semis in two of the BCS sites, and the finals in another.  So basically you'd have...

Year One
Semis: Rose & Orange
Finals: Fiesta

Year Two
Semis: Sugar & Rose
Finals: Orange

Year Three
Semis: Fiesta & Sugar
Finals: Rose

Et cetera.

5 - I actually wouldn't mind this option either, but it would totally negate the rotation I just spent 20 seconds typing up, so screw it.

6 - I say any non-BCS champion with a BCS ranking of 15 or higher gets in.  No specific requirement that they be undefeated, though it's pretty hard for a non-BCS team to make it that high without being undefeated.  Any remaining at-large bids go to the team(s) with the highest BCS rankings.  Teams are seeded by their BCS ranking.

So 2006 would have looked like this...

#1 seed: Ohio State
#2 seed: Florida
#3 seed: Michigan
#4 seed: USC
#5 seed: Louisville
#6 seed: Boise State
#7 seed: Oklahoma
#8 seed: Wake Forest

Rose: Ohio State vs Wake Forest
Orange: USC vs Louisville
Fiesta: Michigan vs Boise State
Sugar: Florida vs Oklahoma

That would have presumably led to semis of OSU/USC and Boise/UF and finals of USC/UF.  Not too bad.

There's no hypocrisy.  The NCAA has nothing to do with bowl games.  They're all independent events.

I made my position on this pretty clear in the last roundtable.  I'd have eight teams, with only one per conference.  If we're playing for a national championship, it's not too much to ask that they be conference champs, especially when there are so few bids at stake.  Some teams (like Michigan last year) can look stronger than they are because of conference competition, only to get exposed in a bowl game.  Play the first round in December.  Play the semis and the finals in early January.

I don't have a problem with keeping conference championship games, and in the era of the mega-conference, they might almost be a necessity.  For instance, you could have a scenario in the Big 12 where you have one team from each division finish 12-0.  It would suck to be the team left out of the playoffs because of a tiebreaker.

As for the bowls, I don't understand why it matters at all.  What's going to change?  As it is now, the bowls are events for the schools and fans, and they have no bearing on the national championship.  They have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

I'd take the six BCS champs, and the next two highest BCS-rated league champs or independents.  Last year, it would have looked like this:

1. Ohio State (Big 10)

2. Florida (SEC)

3. Southern Cal (Pac 10)

4. Louisville (Big East)

5. Boise State (non-BCS league)

6. Oklahoma (Big 12)

7. Notre Dame (independent)

8. Wake Forest (ACC)

This year (tentatively) it would look like this:

1. Ohio State (Big 10)

2. Boston College (ACC)

3. LSU (SEC)

4. Arizona State (Pac 10)

5. Oklahoma (Big 12)

6. West Virginia (Big East)

7. Hawaii (non-BCS league)

8. Boise State (non-BCS league)

I know you didn't ask for my opinion, but I found this interesting...

Maybe I'm in the (vast) minority here, but I don't really have a problem with having games on the weekend(s) of finals week(s).  Tests during the regular season are already rescheduled around travel, why can't a final be?  I'm as pro-education as they come (both my parents are public school teachers), but I don't have a big problem with playing the weekend of finals week.

So here's what we do, in my scenario (using this year's dates):
December 1: Conference championship games
December 8: Opening round of the 8-team playoff
December 15: Second round of 8-team playoff
January 1: Championship game
--This avoids the "Christmas" weekend and gives the teams a week off before the title game, similar to the NFl.

As to answers to the rest of the questions...

1 - Do you keep the 12-game schedule, or knock it down a game?
Yeah, keep 12.  More football is never a bad thing.

2 - Do you keep the conference title games (even though not every conference has one)?
I like the CCG, and wish every conference had one.

3 - Do you get rid of any bowl games (if so, how do you determine which ones?)?
No, I don't really have a problem with all the bowl games.  If every mid-sized city (hello, Omaha Bowl!) in the nation wants to try and boost its local economy, so be it.  We all know what is a reward and what is not (i.e. the Holiday Bowl is a reward and the Poinsettia Bowl is not a reward), so who cares if we give some extra practice time to every .500 team in the country?

4 - Do the Quarterfinals take place in the BCS games (i.e. the quarterfinals are played in the Fiesta/Sugar/Rose/Orange Bowls), or are they somehow separate?
Yes, keep those bowls if at all possible.  I know some people will cry that it's impossible to make travel arrangements on that short of notice and that the cost is prohibitive, but the games will still (likely) sell out based on local interest.  Here's a thought: let the Rose Bowl go back to its traditional Big 10/Pac-10 matchup and use the other three majors (Fiesta/Sugar/Orange) as the semifinals and championship game.  As for the first and second-round games, either have them at home sites or give other bowls the option of moving their dates up to be part of the action (tough decision for a bowl like the Cotton: stay at its traditional date and take a less-intriguing matchup, or be part of the biggest games of the season).

5 - Here's the other date option: have the quarterfinals somewhere around December 10, before finals/holiday, with a 3-week break before the semis.  Does that work better?
No, see my previous suggestion.

6 - Assuming BCS conference winners get an automatic bid, what are the rules for the other bids?  How do non-BCS conf champs work their way into the equation?  Highest BCS ranking among non-BCS schools gets in?
Fuck automatic bids.  That doesn't necessarily reward the best.  If the Big East champion sucks ass some year, I don't want them in the final eight.  The best eight teams get to play for the national title.  The Big East champion is still going to at least a decent bowl in that scenario, so they don't have that much to whine about as far as lost revenue.

Crazy enough for you?

To clarify, I actually believe with the above scenario you keep the games on 1/1 no matter what the date....then play the semis roughly a week later (probably better on Wed and Thurs for TV) and move the finals to a weekend obviously.

#1 - I think you need to shorten the season back to 11 games and get rid of where teams have two weeks off...because...

#2 - I would keep the conference championship games.  In first thinking about it, I would have loved to have moved the championship games to that Saturday of Thanksgiving weekeend (imagine THAT spots weekend) but I dont have a calendar handy, so I dont know if that is actually feasible or not.  In the end though, I like these games and think while it could possibly keep some maybe deserving teams out, they are worth it in the scope of the season.

#3 - I dont really get rid of any.  I think you have two options.  Give the higher seed team home field in the quarters, or incorporate the bowls on that level also.  I am leaning towards home field since it will not tax the fans as much.  The rest of those games should still stay and be valued as games that can still propel your program in the future.

#4 - I guess I answered this in the other question....I think one of the complaints about instituting a playoff system would be the taxing of the fans for travel.  I think you can gain even more drama for this set up with the top 4 getting home field.

#5 - The more I have thought about it, the more I like the quarters being before the x-mas break, with the rest being later.  This gives your season nice extension into Dec., but then really amps up the hype for the semis, while allowing the other bowl season plenty of space to still flourish.

#6 - This is where I really struggle...since there are a couple of conferences who have produced BCS worthy teams of late (Utah, Boise State, perhaps Hawaii, TCU has been talked about), but it most years, their best team is not in amongst the top 8...so I would say they are lumped in with the rest, giving them the chance to make it, but also allowing for them to not make it on the back of an automatic bid.