[Editor's note: This is part of a series examining the real world constraints on any proposed postseason design. For the previous entries is is best to start at the introduction of the series. This is derived from pages 90 and 91 of my plan to fix the BCS]

The TV money is generated from creating high interest matchups. Percieved value is a bigger part of this equation than actual team strength.

Lets look this one simple fact square in the eyes: most of the big name schools that the average fan recognises are members of a handful of conferences. (Let's also look this simple fact in the eyes. the TCU Horned Frogs and Boise St. Broncos garnered more eyes than the ACC champion Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets vs. Big 12 runner up Iowa Hawkeyes in the 2010 BCS Nelson ratings.)

There are teams in big name confrences with bad credentials and recognised teams outside the big name conferences. When you are looking to bet on which confernces are going to have the highest ranked champion you don't pick the confernece with one team running in the front and nothing to back them up if that team falls.

Any design will need to cater to those teams nost likely to participate. Or it will need anti-trust exemptions (as the NCAA requires to be legal).

The champions of the top conferences go to the top bowls. Any tournament is going to be viewed as more prestigious than any bowls that are not part of the tournament.

The field will likely have to be smaller than the number of strong conferences, the top bowls will have to lose their traditional tie-ins or the top bowls woven into the tournament in a way that maintains their tie-ins. Either way, the unique reward of the bowl system will be diminished.

The BCS has already eroded some of this by breaking the traditional tie-ins, especially prior to the addition of the national championship game as a stand alone bowl.

How do several leading options fair in light of the rewards to the top conferences?

Old Bowl System

The primary aim of the bowls was originally to provide a reward for then conference champions. This remains to be the case for the major bowls.

BCS

The BCS excels at guaranteeing the top conferences a berth to one of the highly prestigious BCS bowls. This is a solid reward for a team with a couple of losses in a contentious conference battle in a nationally recognized competitive conference and ending up on top.

A Tier Based Plus-One

This design does not add rewards to the champions of the top conferences but does maintain the existing automatic berths. The potential for conference champions to be demoted to a first round game rather than a BCS bowl is mitigate by allowing three teams from a conference to be eligible.

A Flexible Championship System

The BCS bowls not selected for semifinal consideration are maintained as part of this design to allow all automatic qualifying champions a chance at the tournament or their current BCS bowl tie-in.

The only way an automatic qualifying champion outside the tournament would not get their traditional tie-in by is if the Rose Bowl is selected as a semifinal and the other conference failed to qualify for the tournament. This conference champion would still be guaranteed a berth in one of the remaining BCS bowls. 

MWC Proposal

This design includes metrics to determine the top conferences on a recurring basis. These conferences would have a guaranteed spot in the tournament or in a single side bowl.

Enhanced Bowl Season

This design guarantees eligibility for the champions of the automatic qualifying conferences, recognizing long term success. It also gives the highest ranked champions (or independent in the top 6) a first round bye, recognizing annual performances.

The Wetzel Plan

Dan Wetzel does not provide any means to single out any conferences in any manner a priori. The top conferences would tend to be ranked higher and better seeded, giving some advantage in the tournament.