I know that's a bad name but I had to get it some attention. It looks like the "daddy" (Holiday, Citrus, Gator, and Cotton) bowls are challenging the "grandddaddy" bowls in interest. Read on:

http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2504614

It sounds like more of a rebellious child naturally breaking away from overbearing parents, but I think it's good to get some more teams in on meaningful postseason action.

This is good for I-A football. 8 more teams get heightened postseason attention, as well as classic bowls having a survival plan. But I really think this will evolve (ssslllooowwwlllyyy) into a playoff of some sorts eventually. At least it's something to cheer about in the immediate future.

Interesting. I wonder if a tug of war could develop: The BCS conferences trying to stick together in telling the bowls that they won't participate unless they're guaranteed exclusivity (ie: no non-BCS teams.) I can't blame them, as no one likes to work with an unclear budget. I'm also surprised that the Cotton and Citrus (CapitalOne) bowls are among this group, as I'd figured their ties to the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 would make it hard for them to get better draws. Would UGA fans really want to travel to San Diego? (Don't know; I'm seriously asking.)

BYUfan, your joke about calling this BCS Jr. may actually be on the money. BCS Lite? Tier II? I could see the BCS conferences conceding that if the concept of allowing for flexible match-ups makes for more money that they could easily extend this to their 2nd and 3rd best teams. As I said, I think it will come down to exclusivity.

I'm thinking of Boise State having a potential to be drafted, but probably offer no more than 15,000 fans to the Holiday Bowl, if that, and even less for anything further away. Boise may average close to their 30,000 capacity, but a lot of that crowd are newbies to Boise (hand being raised as guilty on that count) who have other allegiances.

BYU can take advantage of this proposal, though we may remember another old Lavell Edwards quote about what they spend when traveling. I'm not sure there are ANY other non-BCS schools actually "threatening" to take away second-tier bowl dollars.

The conferences have more control than they did 10 years ago and they like that. But this is really a good thing for everyone and long as the conferences get some committments on minimum participation (i.e. these 4 bowls can't all match SEC and Big 10 teams).

What has happened with the tie-ins is that the same teams are going to the same bowls all the time. For example, with the Big 12, Texas has been to either the Cotton or the Holiday Bowl for the last 6 years. There's some alumni fatigue with these sites. The Big 10 and SEC probably have some of the same issues with the Citrus (and the Outback which is not part of this group-I know Georgia fans were anxious to not go back to Tampa-and would probably love to go to San Diego-if it were once in 10 or 15 years).

The BCS (making these seem significantly less important) combined with the tie-ins are really hurting the next level of bowls.