Those might be enough and if not the renegotiation of the playoffs/BCS bowls will likely force them as I image that B1G/ACC and SEC are all tired of the special arrangement and will force their hand.
Good point. Notre Dame may actually hope the playoffs go to 8. If Notre Dame gets placed in the playoffs with one or more losses, controversy shall be huge. With 5 power five conferences, at least one major conference champion is going to be left out anyway. If it's the Big 12 champion, which also has a loss, that misses inclusion, it may be a bit more justifiable in some folks minds, since it could be compared with Notre Dame who also did not compete in a CCG.
But we know that the ranked poll of 1 -2 -3- and 4, could well show two, or even three, members from the same conference.
The old BCS and the newer power 5 have always brought Notre Dame along in their planning and decision-making. They have consistently gone beyond that, with all the special criteria, access, and financial accommodations afforded to Notre Dame. My impression is that the power 5 conferences have believed it is politically and economically wise to treat Notre Dame with special inclusiveness. Notre Dame does have the extensive fan base, NBC and other media, and bowl interests as clout. And there are influential individual schools interested in maintaining their 'pac' with Notre Dame; and though narrowed now, the conferences that hope Notre Dame will join-up fully with them.
The first thing the power 5 conferences should do is no longer provide Notre Dame a direct seat at the table. Notre Dame is now a member of the ACC, and though ND does not play a full slate of ACC fb, they do have a required rotation agreement for 5 games with the ACC. ND's interests at the table need to be regulated as being voiced through ACC Commissioner Swofford or whomever is a future ACC Commissioner and ND retains sports membership in the ACC. Currently, Swarbrick, an AD representing only one school and certainly tied with the ACC now, sitting at the table with Commissioners Slive, Delany, Scott, Bowlsby, and Swofford, to decide the terms and future shouldn't be called balanced and comprehensive representation nor equity input. On some matters, it is giving the ACC, blatantly, extra input. And somebody such as Scott, for example, may be limited in speaking up about it, because the ADs'/Presidents of Southern Cal and Stanford may jump on his case about it.