To confuse matters more, a lot of the "new BCS" discussion revolved around a recommendation by former SEC head Roy Kramer, to do a 4-team "playoff",
and each of the 4 HAD to be a conference champion. (I bring this up to show that Alabama and Arkansas would not have been part of the mix for 2011-12).

If I were a betting man (and I certainly wouldn't bet on the outcome of this, since it will depend on politics and not logic), the winning format will be the "PLUS 1".
Main reasons:

1) There has been recent talk about the confereneces gaining control of the bowls.
I think this would allow the (more than 4) conferences to set up their own affilations for the bowl pairing (much as exists today).
The Rose can take the PAC and B1G Champion. Sugar = SEC + ? Orange = ACC + ? Cotton (maybe) = Big XII + ? Fiesta = MWCUSA + ? Big East floats.
Then a selection committee does a ranking of the 5 winners (and anyone else) and seeds the top 2 into a NCG at a Neutral Site that is bid upon (or maybe rotates).

2) I see a zillion issues that weren't likely to be resolved
a) With a 4-team seeded bracket (2 semi-fianls and a final), how do you distribute money ?
What is the basis for splitting up money for this tournament by conference ?
In the above, each conference would get money similar to now, based on participation for the "bowl" portion of the tournament.
The NCG money could be split based on some combination of: who played in the NCG, who palyed in all the "feeder" bowls, other pre-determined method.
b) A 4-team seeded bracket will almost always involve 4 of the 5 "big 5" champs.
At least one Big 5 Champ gets left out, and there will likely appear to be no "inclusion" opportunity for the other conferences / independents.
That last part tends to smack of anti-trust, and you'll see lots of threats of legal action.

As they say, the devil is in the details, and the easiest "THERE" in the how do we get from "HERE" to "THERE" is the "PLUS 1".

Contrary to popular belief, this isn't just about the Pac-12, Big Ten and Rose Bowl.

It's clear that the powers that be won't agree to anything more than 2 rounds of a postseason. All of us might disagree with that cap, but it is what it is.

However, the difficulty is accommodating everyone's interests with only 4 spots. What this "4 Team Plus" proposal does is expand the number of spots from 4 to 6 without expanding the length of the postseason AND instead of having 4 spots where 2 of them might be taken by the Big Ten and Pac-12 champs, there are now 4 spots that don't take those teams into account at all. This opens up access significantly without, once again, expanding this to a multitiered 8-team or more playoff.

So, think of it from the ACC's perspective. Are they better off with a "4 Team Plus" or the straight 4-team playoff? What about the Big East? Notre Dame? Even the non-AQ conferences?

As soon as people started wanting a conference champ requirement where it was possible for a #10 Wisconsin team to get into a playoff over a #2 Alabama and/or #4 Stanford team, this opened the door back up to unseeded plus-one proposals again. That's why this option is now on the table (and it's not just about the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Rose Bowl).

frank...

I now see the logic in the "4 team plus" model, even if it does muddy the waters with a "choose 2 of 3 winners for the championship game" dilemma.

It continues to give access to the have-nots.

I'm sorry, "4 team plus" is crap. It doesn't give any more access to the championship game than a simple playoff with the 3 highest rated conference champions and the next highest rated team. Having the next highest rated team gives access to all. It gives access to all conference champions, gives access to the 2nd best team in all conferences, as well as, access to Notre Dame, BYU and all other independents. "4 team plus" is about bowl politics and big conference shenanigans.

I personally agree as I'd want a straight 4-team playoff if I were running things. However, I'm just saying that this isn't just a proposal to placate the Big Ten, Pac-12 and Rose Bowl unlike the knee-jerk reaction I've seen from the media and Twitter. Remember that it was actually the Big Ten that brought up arguably the most "progressive" plus-one proposal with a 4-team playoff with the semifinals at campus sites. The immediate assumption is that this "4 team plus" is a Jim Delany idea, but dig deeper and you see that there are a lot more people outside of the Big Ten and Pac-12 that might want this. Outside of maybe the SEC (who is admittedly the next most importantly player in all of this besides the Big Ten), who is actually disadvantaged by this proposal?

Remember that it's not really about the access on-the-field. Instead, it's about the MONEY that related to that access. The power conferences get a guaranteed $20 million-plus per year from the BCS system today. They don't want a system where they'd be getting a large amount in years where they have a top 4 team in a playoff and then getting little or nothing in years where they don't make the playoff. This is where the tension is coming from. Once again, it's not just about the Big Ten and Pac-12 because they're financially flush no matter what and they'll always have some type of Rose Bowl relationship no matter what. It's more about the Big East and, to a lesser extent, the ACC.

Frank -

I think you've hit on a major crux of the matter - revenue distribution.
None of the jouranlists are talking about it, but you can bet it is Topic 1A in these "new BCS" discussions.

Any proposal whereby the Big 5 (or even Delany's "7 founders") aren't guaranteed of coming away with more money than the current set-up isn't going to fly.

So you can't just limit this to 4.

I think you throw in the Cotton Bowl, and let in 10 teams. Maybe you seed 2 as semi-finals (maybe not). If you seed the semi-fianls, those teams must be confernece champions.
BUT the revenue distribution goes across all 10 entrants (which will cover the current AQ conferences and then some).

Then overlay a NC game at the end, based on either rankings after those ten play, or between the winners of the 2 semi-final games.

I honestly don't see a simpler way of resolving this, that is going to be acceptable to the stake-holders.

And that leads back to the problem of more than 2 weeks in a row for a single school. In other words, it has to be some sort of bastard mix of 3 games where the winners of 2 of those 3 games play for the championship. The problem being that if you lock in Pac-12 vs Big Ten, there might be years when, say, a #5 ranked Big Ten school plays a #20 Pac-12 school...meanwhile you have #2 SEC school vs a #3 school and a #1 vs a #4 school...in which case, no matter what happens, the rose Bowl winner is out. So it's moot.

Now, it theory, they COULD do something to make it a straight up 6 school "playoff" versus a +1.

Give #1 and #2 byes. Have 3 vs 6, 4 vs 5, winners move on to semis, then a final. But even with that carrot...having the chance for a conference like the SEC to get TWO schools in the field of 6, has been pushed aside because it means 3 games for some schools, which is too much like a playoff.


I'm all for keeping/returning the Rose Bowl to being Pac-12 vs Big Ten.

But you can have both.

Real simple, scrap the 6 schools, go with a pure +1.

EVERY YEAR make it #1 vs #4, #2 vs #3 with the two winner meeting in the final.

Just go with logic:
* ROTATE the 3 "playoff" games between the Orange, Sugar and Fiesta Bowl. Keep the names as they are, same format as always just slotting in RANKINGS versus conference tie-ins.
* Rose Bowl is always Pac-12 vs Big Ten except...
* When a Pac-12 or Big Ten school is ranked #1-#4, that school is in the semifinal bowls and the Rose Bowl can simply be the next highest Pac-12 or Big Ten school as a replacement
* Keep the other bowls as is, with conference tie ins they opt for.

For revenue split, they can still opt for a Power 5 heavy split where they just add another "BCS" type payout bowl.

Sample year:
Jan 1: Sugar Bowl: #1 vs #4
Jan 1: Fiesta Bowl: #2 vs #3
Jan 8: Orange Bowl: Sugar vs Fiesta winner
Rose Bowl: Big Ten vs Pac-12
Cotton: Top ranked Big 12/SEC/ACC conference school if not in Top 4 vs NEXT Top ranked Big 12/SEC/ACC #1 if not in Top 4

* Note: For Rose Bowl - as a way to get Big Ten and Pac-12 in, it appears the other conferences have some flexibility...so it's not a stretch to think that the 1 bone that the SEC/Big 12 and ACC throw Big Ten/Pac-12 would be that in years in which a Big Ten or Pac-12 school gets into the Top 4, the Rose Bowl gets the #2 from the Big Ten or Pac-12 to fill the spot, versus a team from another conference.

Sample year:
Sugar: #1 Texas (Big 12) vs #4 Alabama (SEC)
Fiesta: #2 SEC (LSU) vs #3 Big Ten (Ohio St)
Orange: winners of above
Rose: #12 USC (Pac-12) vs #9 Michigan (Big Ten)
Cotton: #11 Florida St (ACC) vs #5 Oklahoma





But nothing like this seems to be on the plate.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Wouldn't a simple 16 team playoff would be easier to do? 11 conference champs plus 5 at large berths? If a team wishes to still play in a bowl game but they win there conference championship their conference loses a auto bid but opens up a at large berth. The bowl system could still be used during the week and the playoffs can be on each Saturday. Each conference champ is seeded by final bcs rank and auto bids are gotten thru BCS. After which the bowls get the next picks.The higher seeded teams host the first two rounds and the semi finals and finals could be picked ahead of time. In this idea everyone wins i think.

_________________
Fan of:
Sun Belt Conference
Summit League
Us National Soccer Team

The 6 team plus 1 format would have likely already failed in 2004 if it was used then when three teams finished undefeated. Under the semifinals plus Rose Bowl the games likely would have been:

Rose Bowl: #1 USC (12-0) vs. #13 Michigan (9-2)
Semifinal A: #2 Oklahoma (12-0) vs. #4 California (10-1)/#8 Virginia Tech (10-2)*
Semifinal B: #3 Auburn (12-0) vs. #5 Texas (10-1)/#6 Utah (12-0)*

Texas and California if they go straight rankings, Virginia Tech and Utah if it has to be conference champions. Texas and Oklahoma wouldn't play each other because they are in the same conference.

If USC, Oklahoma and Auburn had all won imagine the argument that would result who plays for the championship. Does USC hold on to the top spot because they are #1 or do they get jumped by Oklahoma and Auburn because USC had an easier bowl game.

Quick answer: no, not a chance, no way in hell, over the dead bodies of the Power 5 conference, you get the point

The reason for the proposed changes aren't so that the BCS conferences can give away more money, they are so they can create a more "proportional split" in WHO gets the revenue and access. In other words, it's about trying to find ways to make sure #12 ranked ACC schools or #32 ranked Big East champs are not considered equals to the top conferences.

Also, they've made it clear that having 3 weeks of playing for a school is not an option. So that eliminates anything more than 6 schools, where there are 3 games and at the end, the top 2 of 3 winners play in the final.

And lets be real here...11 autobids? It's one thing in basketball where there are 68 total bids...they can afford to throw bones to the also-rans. But at the highest level, even the educated fans realize that the top 4-5 BCS conferences are at a different level than the general FBS tier...especially since the best programs from those conferences have now moved on (leaving MWC, etc).

The only parties that win in a 16 team playoff are those currently left out. The losers are the ones who currently control the revenue who would have to give up more money.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

If the NCAA took control of the playoff and handed out 11 autobids they would be required by NCAA Division I rules to hand out 11 at-large bids as well. There has to be at least as many at-large teams as automatic qualifying teams. This situation came up in the FCS when they wanted to give more conferences an auto spot, they had to expand the bracket to 20. So FBS wouldn't expand to 16 they would end up expanding to at least 22 which would take at least 5 weeks.

and if the NCAA tried to take control, the top conferences (can include BE and CUSA/MWC) would likely leave the NCAA. Too much money for the revenue generators to just roll over



---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?iodg44

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Tony Barnhart piece with comments from Roy Kramer regarding possible BCS changes at http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... es-caution

Brett McMurphy article discussing next week's BCS meeting and possible changes to the BCS format and on revenue distribution at http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... bcs-groups

Teddy Greenstein piece discussing this week's(Tuesday thru Thursday) Florida BCS meetings to discuss probable future BCS changes at http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/co ... 3814.story