(05-01-2010 09:11 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Keep in mind that the B10 has been the biggest opponent of a "plus one" BCS playoff championship game, and has until now been content not to have a conference championship game. Seems far fetched to think they would push the envelope.

The Big Ten is against a SEEDED "plus one", as that was the only thing that was officially proposed. If an UNSEEDED "plus one" was proposed (where the BCS bowls would have their traditional matchups such as Big Ten-Pac-10 in the Rose Bowl) and then the national championship matchup determined thereafter, I think that could be sold to the Big Ten university presidents.

Remember that Jim Delany works for the presidents. There are quotes from him being open to a plus-one or playoff in the past, but when the feedback from his bosses (the presidents) came back negative, he has since taken a hardline stance against it. Now, he is very persuasive if he can show how it adds value. Delany was very much at the head of the table in creating the BCS and bringing the Rose Bowl into the fold - that alone was an extremely tough sell to the presidents. This expansion process is another example - I would've said 4 months ago that the Big Ten's presidents would be too conservative to have a 3 or 5 team expansion, but with the success of the Big Ten Network, I think that these presidents believe that Delany walks on water. He now has the credibility to sell anything at this point to the university presidents. If plus one proponents can get Delany on board (and I think that he wants to see it happen deep down inside), then he can change the mindset of the Big Ten. The fact that the BCS exists today instead of the old Bowl Alliance without the Rose Bowl is evidence of how Delany (who is ruthlessly aggressive) can move mountains with the university presidents that are very slow and measured by nature.

Let's also not forget that if the Big Ten really does go up to 16 teams, it will effectively have veto power over future of the college football postseason. The conference will end up shaping whatever postseason format we'll have for the next couple of decades.

9 Regular Season Conference Games+Championship game:

Week 1-2: One rotating random from rotating pod
Weeks 3,4,5: One permanent from each pod
Weeks 6,7,8: Pod Games
Week 9: Pod A vs Pod B, Pod C vs Pod D. Pod Winners vs Pod Winners, other games determined by who didn't play who, home field rotated seasonally.
Championship Game

I don't like how they break up the divisions. I suggest...

Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota

Northwestern, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State

Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Illinois

Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Rutgers

A four team playoff to decide a conference championship is just plain stupid. The two teams that lose the games will only lower their rankings and likely end up in a less desirable bowl.

(05-01-2010 08:48 PM)wvufanfrommd Wrote:  A four team playoff to decide a conference championship is just plain stupid. The two teams that lose the games will only lower their rankings and likely end up in a less desirable bowl.

I agree. It also means more chances of an undefeated team losing a game and not playing for the national title.

Think about how it works out now with just 2 teams now. In the SEC things usually seems to work out OK, but what about the Big 12? Half the time, the north champion is the 3rd or 4th (or worse) team in the conference in the regular season, but they get the chance to play for the crown and BCS bid anyway. There has been some years where the team from the south already beat the north team and has a better record, but that essentially makes no difference.

This would be a lot worse with 4 team pods. With such small divisions, you could easily have more than one team with a not so good regular season record making the tournament. Give them two good games/match-ups at the end though and they are conference champions anyway.