Ok, I can't just tell you I sent an idea in to the head honchos and not let you in on what I said can I?  Basically I sent in one NCAA rule change that I had coincidentally researched and finished last week.  I had the rule change drafted in the format of the published proposals for consideration this year, all I needed to do was polish the presentation.

I was planning on adding this as a solid addition to my business plan I expect to be converting into a more media guide format for release in mid January.  The move by the Big 12 close to this issue encouraged me to push this rule change now.

In fact I prepared two versions.

Version 1 allowed all teams with a record better than 10-2 to participate in a second bowl game.

Version 2 expanded Version 1 to allow for the formation of a tournament that:

• Required certification by the same NCAA body that oversees the bowl certification process
• Allowed all undefeated teams to participate, if any teams with a loss participate
• Did not expand the current postseason window
• Did not bracket teams such that they would have more than 16 games total
• Did not bracket teams such that they would have more than two neutral site games
• Allowed all participants the ability to play two postseason games.

I also presented an outline of how Version 1 could be implemented effectively, described after the jump.

A picture is worth a thousand word.  Compare my artistic ability below with those of the SB Nation team that designed my logo and the look and feel of this site.

Not all of the words represented by that picture are nice.  I think we can all be grateful for the work they do to make this site visually tolerable.

15-16 teams typically finish 10-2 or better.  This design depends on 12 or more qualifying each year by placing them into the First Round Games.  The winners advance up and the losers advance down.  Some room is left for teams to be directly selected for the second round games to allow for historical tie-ins.  The qualifying teams not selected would be free to negotiate two bowl arrangements on their own.

For high paying New Year's Eve and New Year's Day bowls it might be in their best interest to maintain their conference tie-ins with expected nine win teams from the top conferences in their historic timeslots. Other bowls would consider the ability to host these first round games as an improvement over their current lot. They would be vacating their current conference tie-ins, potentially improving the tie-ins for all remaining bowls as the available tie-ins trickle down.

It would be highly desirable for each of the first round games be regionally tied to one of the BCS bowls and work with this BCS bowl in making selections.  It might be prudent to generate two new semi-final games under the BCS banner and generate four new bowls after the existing bowls are promoted to fill the gaps made by other bowls filling in as opening round games.

A possible selection process for this design is as follows:

Upon the conclusion of the regular season:

1. The top four eligible teams would be seeded in the semifinal games.
   1. No conference will have more than two teams participate in the semifinals.
   2. Teams from the same conference will not play each other in the semifinals.
2. The BCS bowls select two teams for direct participation.
   1. The top two ranked conferences with BCS bowl tie-ins not qualifying for a second bowl would be selected, if needed.
   2. The top ranked conferences with BCS bowl tie-ins would be selected and cleared to negotiate an early bowl game outside the four First Round Games.
3. The four First Round Games select among the remaining teams qualified to play a second bowl, but no conference may have more than three teams selected for a semifinal game, First Round Game or direct participation in a BCS bowl unless no other qualifying teams remain.
4. The remaining bowls make selections, allowing up to four New Year's Eve or latter bowls to save a spot for later selection.

After the first round games:

1. The semifinal winners would advance to the National Championship Game.
2. BCS bowls make selections among the semifinal losers, direct participants and first round winners.
   1. Any conference champions are assigned to their historic tie-in.
   2. If a champion is not available from a traditional tie-in and another team from that conference is available the bowl will have the option to take that team or to make a selection according to the champion lost.
   3. Selections are made in order of the ranking of the champion lost by bowls losing or yielding their traditional tie-ins.
   4. Remaining selections are made by a prearranged order.
3. The bowls leaving a spot open select among teams losing the first round games in payout order.

Version 1 Highlights:

In addition to only requiring one NCAA rule change this design has the following properties:

• Respect the academic success of the students to a level better than what is required of FCS and Division II tournament participants.
• Enhance the student athlete's bowl experience by allowing more than one trip if a high enough level of success is achieved and providing a meaningful tiered design to the bowls.
• Not require any changes to the existing postseason time frame.
• Enhance the value of the regular season by giving an attainable and financially rewarding goal for all institutions each year and providing significant tiers for teams near the top to strive to maintain late in the season.
• Restore the value of the bowl tradition by establishing clear tier distinctions and reestablishing the traditional New Year's Day bowls as a celebration of elite college football.
• Increase the consensus of the championship process by including more institutions.
• Improve the financial strength to college football as a whole by adding the revenue from six new games between top 20 teams and allowing highly successful teams not selected to reap the rewards of an additional bowl game.
• Improve the financial success of the bowl games by allowing the existing bowls to upgrade their current tie-in agreements and improve the tier design of the bowls.
• Improve the financial success of proven championship contenders, who are the institutions most likely to fill these newly created bowl spots.

Version 2 Highlights:

The tournament restrictions of the second design are intended to allow the NCAA to be proactive in setting bounds for any discussion of proposed idea for the 2014 season. These rules would guide market forces to design qualifying structures for consideration by the same NCAA body that governs and certifies the existing bowls. This would allow the NCAA to maintain a voice in any design without requiring a full rule change to approve a design that meets these standards.

In addition to the goals of the design above, the restrictions on the tournament aim to:

• Respect the health of the players due to extra games by keeping the total number of games permitted equal to that allowed by an FCS champion.
• Establish NCAA oversight by requiring any tournament to be certified by the Championships/Sports Management Cabinet.
• Improve equitable access to all teams by allowing all undefeated teams before any teams with a loss are invited.
• Allow institutions participating in a tournament to keep promises to their players that if they end better than 10-2 they will get to play in two bowl games.
• Respect the travel costs of fans by limiting the number of neutral site venues to two per institution.

My original design complies with all these requirements but is far too long and detailed for a single post.