Maybe its the exposure to the Wasatch Mountains that has lead to a similar ideal design as one reader recently posted. In fact, I published this design last year.

The idea is to overlay meta conferences over top the traditional conferences to produce four super conferences, the champions of which play in a final four.

The remaining bowls are used to pair the remaining super conference members against the top outsiders for a spot in next year's super conferences. This would require twelve more bowl slots than we currently use, bowls with meaning.

After the jump I will look at how I would seed the meta conferences.

Continue reading this post »

Last week's question showed strong support for a 3-4 round playoff, with a pure plus one taking second place. The BCS and my preferred flexible design tied for third. The comments leaned strongly for a 16 team playoff.

This week we begin looking at who should be invited to the playoff, specifically what do we do with conference champions.

Do we let them all participate? Do we require all participants to win their conference? Do we through out conference results altogether and use rankings alone? Can some conferences earn a privileged seeding?

A look at these ideas after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

What if the MWC and WAC allowed thier champions to meet during the final Saturday before BCS selection?  Since neither conference holds a conference championship game it should be merely a formality to gain an NCAA exemption to allow such a game.

This is not a new idea by any stretch. The timeliness of brushing off this concept is irresistible.

This game would have featured two teams ranked in the BCS top 25 every year since 2003 and all four at large conference teams.  The winner of this game would most likely earn a BCS berth even under the current rules.

TCU and Boise State would have one last chance to impress voters before the final standings are compiled.

Continue reading this post »

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.

Continue reading this post »

I have posted a design-lite version of what I would like to see.  I occasionally like to day dream that I might actually get a chance one day to implement my plan to find a consensus plan for 2014.  What if this looks like my design, or even a plus-one or eight team tournament?

What if the PAC 10 and BIG 10 decide to stick with the Rose Bowl instead?  What then happens to the consensus plan?

John Swofford has already conceded that a playoff would generate more post-season revenue than the present BCS design.  The BCS has also undermined the current BCS bowls, and with the Rose Bowl gone the Sugar, Orange and Fiesta would not be as alluring as they once were.  If the SEC and ACC convince the Big 12 that a plus-one between them would be financially beneficial, they could invite the other 6 conferences to participate and create a non-championship tournament.  To add spite they could formally invite any PAC 10 or Big 10 teams that would qualify, to point out they are the ones not wanting to play ball.

How would a #1 Rose Bowl participant fair in the polls playing a #10 or lower team while the remainder of the top 5 all play each other with one securing two wins?  How often would the Rose Bowl participants need to lose their #1 spot before they decide to play ball?

Big 10 I call your bluff.  Joe Pa, your welcome.

Continue reading this post »