[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 95 and 96 of my plan to fix the BCS]

The top teams from the top conferences can find sponsors to promote and sell exhibition games on their own. Any postseason design will need to exceed the revenue these teams and conferences would make on their own or they will not participate.

The Big 10 and PAC 10 have stated that they would rather return to an exclusive deal with the Rose Bowl than participate in an expanded tournament. Without the top teams from the top conferences any tournament would fail to be credible in determining the national championship.

More games generate more revenue and each team you add to a single elimination tournament adds a game. Most tournaments generate enough revenue to exceed the BCS revenue. The question is how the pot gets split.

A look at how several offered designs register after the jump.

Old Bowl System

Conference tie-ins and the marketability of big names make well known teams from prominent conferences better draws than teams with a smaller profile but a stronger performance.

The removal of the highly marketable and financially valuable national championship game would reduce the total revenue being shared.

BCS

Most NCAA tournaments distribute revenue in a manner far more egalitarian than what is observed for other revenue sources for the league in question.

The BCS accounts for roughly 6.1% of the total football revenue and the automatic conferences and at large conferences in aggregate each receive this amount of their total revenue from the BCS.

A Tier Based Plus-One

The proven championship contenders are also the teams most likely to win the number of games qualifying them for a second bowl berth. These conferences would likely also be able to negotiate stronger bowl ties for these teams, adding a double benefit to the historically proven conferences.No games added by this design would be played on a Sunday.

A Flexible Championship System

This design adds more games to the current BCS design while maintaining the same participants to a large degree. This should be expected to increase the revenue from the design roughly proportional to the current system, with some improvements for undefeated teams from at large conferences.

This design does not conflict with the idea of adding a second bowl game for qualifying teams and the benefits that would bring here.

MWC Proposal

With the addition of two more tournament games the top teams would have more revenue to split among themselves.

Enhanced Bowl Season

The Enhanced Bowl Season provides a source quoting Big 10 commissioner Jim Delaunay stating that an NFL style playoff would likely bring the Big 10 three to four times their current BCS revenue.

The numbers in this proposal make a far more conservative estimate.

The Wetzel Plan

Dan Wetzel completely ignores the issue of revenue sharing. Unless the big name conferences make more than they get without the tournament they will not agree. The reduced travel costs and added revenue of the likely home games aids this somewhat.