SBJ article(previously posted in another thread)discussing how tv consultants can help to shape the process in which a final new BCS model is determined later this year.Link at http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Jour ... s/BCS.aspx

It appears that every one of these sources is indicating (probably due to "off-the-record" comments from knowledeable surces in the meetings),
that in 2014 the BCS will be replaced by a 4-team playoff. Sounds like a fine starting-point.

I really like suggestions by former SEC commish. Roy Kramer that the 4 entires to the semi-finals each must be conference champions.
Like many viewers, I hated the LSU-Alabama re-match, since it seemed unfair that LSU had to beat them a second time, and Alabama (although having one loss
(by 3 points to LSU)) HAD THEIR CHANCE and wound up winning neither their conference nor division, while Oregon and Oklahoma State had done both.

Let's say this suggestion gets traction..... well what does "MUST BE CONFERENCE CHAMPION" mean to independents such as Notre Dame, Army, and BYU ?
the writing may be on the wall, that they need to join a conference to be relevant.
Rumor has BYU in continuing discussions with the Big XII... maybe invitations to Louisville and BYU may happen once Neinas's replacement takes office.
Navy is set to join BE FB in 2015. Army acts like they can't compete at that level. Well, what level then ? They want to be FBS.... BE FB is morphing into CUSA FB,
and Army had a very bad experince there.... would they consider the MAC, as Temple's replacement ?
Notre Dame is watching BE replace top 50 schools with CUSA schools.... If BCS AQ's disappear, BE FB champ will NOT be ranked in the top 4 most of the time.
Wouldn't it behoove Notre Dame to play FB in a conference with a legitimate shot at the playoffs ?
Wherever they go, they will pllay 9 conf. games, and have room for 3 OOC games.
In the B1G, Notre Dame can play Michigan, MSU, Purdue in conference, and play USC, Navy, and one other OOC game.
In the ACC, Notre Dame can play Pitt and Boston College in conference, but would lose at least 2 of their 5 big rivals.

The 800 lb. gorilla in the room in these BCS discussions is: HOW DO THEY SPLIT UP THE MONEY ????
Is it solely based on appearance in the 4-game playoff (gonna have some unhappy campers) ?
Will each conference get some share (does WAC FB remain in existence, just to collect BCS money for "exisitng"?) ?

I would like to see:
AQ's done away with....
Big XII adds Louisville and BYU (12)
Boise St. and SDSU re-neg and return to MWC-CUSA.
Big East add from Temple, ECU, Marshall, Army, UMass.
ACC add UConn, Notre Dame (16) and split North-South, undoing "the zipper".
WAC FB teams absorbed into MWC-CUSA and Sun-Belt.
BE BB teams leave BE and form new conference with some A-10 schools.
No new FBS teams without a conference invitation.

Written beautifully.

I'd like to see your "I like to see" list happen. In a 4 team playoff, your have 2 format choices, the top 4 ranked teams, regardless of conference or the top 4 ranked conference champions with 1 exception. Considering the B1G and PAC want to insure their inclusion in the playoff, I think what you will get is the top 4 ranked among the conference champions and Notre Dame.

By the way, if using the conference champion rule this past year, you would have had #1 LSU vs. #10 Wisconsin and #3 Oklahoma State vs #5 Oregon. Other league champions were ACC- #15 Clemson, MWC- #18 TCU, CUSA- #21 Southern Miss, Big East- #23 West Virginia, Sun Belt-Arkansas State, MAC-Northern Illinois and the Notre Dame champion- Notre Dame (8-4).

Excellent points about Notre Dame. I hope the conferences force the Irish into a conference if they want to be a part of the playoffs but don't think that will happen. It's not right that Notre Dame is counted as a conference of 1. The 2014 College Football Playoff selection committee chooses the SEC champion, the Big XII champion, the PAC champion and the last spot goes to the Notre Dame conference champion. Who knows maybe the PAC, B1G or Big XII champion possibly getting locked out of the playoffs by the Notre Dame champion is what it will take to get them to stand up to Notre Dame. One thing for sure they better have it figured out before the playoff proposal is finalized. If not, Notre Dame will always have an unfair advantage in scheduling (if they choose to water it down) and the Irish may never get in a conference.

Article out of Arizona regarding PAC 12 BCS position at http://www.azcentral.com/sports/college ... -plan.html

More questions about Notre dame and the plus 1.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... off-berths

greetings from Switzerland )

CBS blog article discussing yesterday's BCS meeting in Dallas at http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... ny-answers

And the big dilemma - how do you split up the $500 million ?

If there are only 4 participants in a SEEDED 4 -team playoff, and you have 5 power conferences,
somebody will be left out of the money if you only allocate money to the 4 participant schools (to split with their conference).
So that model may not fly....

Which makes me think we may end up with the current 5 or so bowls, followed by a "plus one" involving the #1 and #2 teams
(as ranked after the traditional New Years Games).

In a separate but related issue,Dennis Dodd blog article reporting that NCAA Task Force study will recommend that NCAA turn over responsibility for FBS bowls to the conference commissioners.Unclear just how that would work.Link at http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... owl-system

Dennis Dodd blog article discussing latest FB postseason model at http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... owl-access

It's times like this when I DO wish the Pac-16 came to be. What a mess.

So the 4 team semifinal +1 being discussed, is actually six teams, per the memo. Trying to make sense of it all. Sure, at times when the Rose Bowl is a #1-4 ranked Pac-12 and Big Ten teams, no problems. What about when one/both are lower?

Looks like they are trying to cover all bases, give the Rose Bowl extra attention.



But go back to last summer...

Had the Pac-10 brought in Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, Colorado and Utah for Pac-16, you'd have had the leftover Big 12 schools goto the Big East instead of the CUSA schools joining (or, perhaps, the leftovers would have gone to the MWC, since it had TCU, Boise St., SDSU at the time.

Anyways...
Had the Pac-16 happened, just think of the nice gift wrapped package:
National Semi-Final #1 = Rose Bowl: Pac-16 vs Big Ten
National Semi-Final #2 = Sugar/Orange Bowl (rotate): SEC vs ACC
Final: Rose winner vs Southern winner

Seems pretty fair to me...if I were commish of JUST those 4 conferences . I know it excludes others, that's not the point. But I think we can all give enough credit to the SEC to say that if ranking the 4 BCS conferences (had Pac-16 happened), if the SEC were still the #1 ranked, Pac-16 and Big Ten make a nice battle each year of #2 vs #3, with ACC the usual #4.

_________________


@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.

Only conference commissioners and their political agendas can screw up a simple 4 team playoff this bad. Unbelievable.

Pretty simple folks, top 3 ranked conference champions (covers Boise, MWC/CUSA and Sunbelt) and the next highest rank team (covers other conference champs, conference runners-up and Notre Dame) at neutral sites, separate from the bowls to maximize money. Use the current BCS rating system to choose. No bowl politics or congressional politics involved all 120 schools have a shot.

Last year, we would have had LSU vs. Oregon and Oklahoma State vs. Alabama. Sorry Stanford but at least you were replaced by the PAC champ Oregon. Hard to argue that.

Reading that Dennis Dodd article made my head spin. What a load of crap !!!

If the Rose Bowl wants some "special consideration", recognize that is anice location for a semi-final or final game,
and give them some preferred ddibs on bidding for the hosting rights.

But please don't bastardize the system right off the bat, and make it imcomprehensible....

This does just illustrate all the special interests tied up in the bowl system.
I fail to understand why the conferences / college presidents are so beholden to the bowl system.... kick-backs, anyone ?

When the money is so much better to supersede the bowls, let the marketplace rule !
The bowls are just contrived match-ups for couch potatoes at this point.
Someone noted that ESPN / ABC control 32 of 35 bowls right now, and a lot of the horrible bowls
have payouts on the order of $250,000 - $300,000 per school, and serve only to create programming for a Tuesday afternoon
between Christmas and New Years.

I sure the participants will forever cherish hoisting the trophy to the Beef o' Brady's Bowl or the GoDaddy.com Bowl.
What a joke. This stuff just dilutes the product (college football).
I don't mean to suggest that the Rose Bowl falls into this category, but why do the PAC and Big Ten focus so much only on each other,
rather than the Championshp of College Football as a whole ? I don't get it....

If the Pac-12 and Big Ten want to keep their tradition with the Rose Bowl then let them and have the rest of college football move on. They can be part of the country in rankings and playing during the regular season but when the playoffs come around they just opt out like the Ivy League does with the FCS playoffs.

So what does this mean overall? If the championship game will now include winners of the BCS games, does this mean there will need to be a 5th BCS game? Last season the lineup would have been:

Rose - Oregon vs Wisconsin
Semi-1 (Sugar) - LSU vs Stanford
Semi-2 (Fiesta) - Oklahoma St vs Alabama
Orange - ???

If AQs are kept it would have been West Virginia vs Clemson, if not it was Arkansas vs Boise State. Either way, that's two less teams playing in BCS bowls. I don't think that will fly. I think the Cotton Bowl is about to become a BCS bowl. The question is, do the AQs remain?