Doesn't the TV deal make the conference more stable? Now there is no chance Texas would want to leave. They have no reason to go anywhere.

(02-02-2011 02:55 PM)gcoogs Wrote:  

(02-02-2011 02:49 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  The so-called "Texoma 4" are actually the Texoma 5 (Baylor is included). The SEC would have to go to 16, not 14 members (You're looking at TAMU, Baylor, FSU/WVU, wild card #4 team, Clemson maybe?) to get TAMU and someone else halfway decent (see FSU/WVU). The other 2 could be garbage for all the SEC cares, IMO.

Baylor simply does not have that kind of political clout any more. If they are included, it will be on merit, not political pressure. TAMU will not have to base its decision on the fate of Baylor.

Bingo. I love how many people here are Texas politics "experts". I live in this Great State of Texas and believe me when I say this: Baylor and Texas Tech are losing their influence, especially Texas Tech. You want to know which Texas school has the most millionaires, influence and lawyers outside of UT and A&M? SMU. That's where the future is but that's another topic for another day.

Baylor and Texas Tech are still lucky they can still take advantage of UT and A&M. Do any of you really think UT cares about Baylor? The UT liberal academia despise the fact that Baylor's president is no other than Kenneth "let's impeach Clinton" Starr. And let's not even start how A&M sees Tech. The Aggies see Tech as the poor cousin who won the lottery (Big XII membership) and tries really hard to be like them. Multiple beatings by Tech in football, AT&T Jones Stadium expansion and renovation, brand new United Spirit Arena, exposure in DFW and Houston, etc. is not seen as good news in College Station.

What I'm really trying to say is currently UT and A&M have the "Tech and Baylor problem". It will still be that way in 2, 5, 10 maybe 15 years from now. Once that happens, UT and A&M will be happy to drop BU and Tech like a hot potato and no politician(s) from Central Texas or the Panhandle will save those two. The Panhandle is losing population and with that, it will lose representation and influence in the Legislature. Baylor is not in a big metro area like D-FW, Houston-Galveston, San Antonio, Austin-San Marcos and even El Paso (which is expected to grow to over 1 million in 2020).

So in the future, if there's another conference realignment and UT and A&M want to go separate ways, trust me, they won't have to take Baylor and Tech with them. I can see SMU and even Houston having more political and economic power over the schools in Waco and Lubbock. As for TCU, they already separated themselves from the schools here in Texas not named UT and A&M.

Thanks for the info UTEP, I bet TCU is ecstatic to be in the Big East, a BCS conference with major exposure without the headaches of the Texas Two. That's probably why TCU would likely welcome Houston with open arms a chance to play a BCS Texas school without the political garbage that goes with it.

(02-02-2011 10:48 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Thanks for the info UTEP, I bet TCU is ecstatic to be in the Big East, a BCS conference with major exposure without the headaches of the Texas Two. That's probably why TCU would likely welcome Houston with open arms a chance to play a BCS Texas school without the political garbage that goes with it.

We are just waiting to receive the invitation. Stadium dealings will be wrapped up soon, so that barrier to entry will soon pass.

(02-01-2011 11:39 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(02-01-2011 11:17 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  The Big 12 is not going anywhere and noone from the Big 12 is going to the SEC. Their is a strong chance the Arkansas switches to the Big 12. Before anyone starts saying the the SEC is the richest and Blah Blah Blah. The Big 12 is going to get paid in its upcoming media contract. The Big 12 needs a championship game and if you think that the Big 12,Jerry Jones,and ESPN aren't going to do everything possible to make this happen. Well your mistaken.

I agree with your first statement that the Big 12 isn't going anywhere and they may very well get paid in line with Dan Beebe's numbers (because UT and OU are 2 of the biggest football brands out there).

However, I still have no idea why you, as an Arkansas backer, would want your school to leave the SEC. I know that there's a vocal minority of Arkansas alums that long wistfully for the SWC days - I kind of get that from a nostalgia standpoint. It's kind of like how people romanticize about the times growing up in hard-scrabble places like Detroit and Gary. ("They used to be such beautiful places back in the day and there's soooo much character compared to this cookie-cutter suburb I live in now. If there were actually jobs there and I could avoid getting shot in my own driveway, I'd move back there in a second.") However, Arkansas actually leaving the SEC would be the single most idiotic move in the history of sports (college or pro). I'm not being hyperbolic about that. I don't care how much money Jerry Jones has - that doesn't mean he can do anything he wants. Case in point: the Cotton Bowl in his billion dollar palace still gets outspent by a wide margin by the crappy aging Citrus Bowl venue for the top non-BCS bowl game.

If it's the old "we don't have any rivals in the SEC" argument, well, that's completely overrated and fan-based. The university leadership wants stability and the SEC is as stable as they come. Arkansas should be thanking their lucky stars every single day that they got into the SEC when they did in the 1990s. If it were today's world where everything is about TV markets and recruiting areas, Arkansas would've been left for dead this past summer with Baylor and Iowa State and the SEC wouldn't have wanted anything to do with them. There's no UT or OU out there that's going to protect Arkansas. At best, Arkansas is in the same position as Missouri and Kansas (only with smaller markets to offer than either of them).

In theory I kinda agree with you but you remind me of Las Vegas and Jerry's World. Las Vegas NEVER thought they would lose top boxing matches to Jerry's World because they always said "we're Vegas, everybody wants to come here", "if you give people a choice between Dallas and Las Vegas, they'll always choose Vegas" (which is true), "who want's to see a fight in a 100k seat stadium"? and "we're an established location for boxing".

As much as I dislike Jerry Jones, I give him credit for being a visionary. The last 2 Manny Pacquiao's fights have been at Jerry's World and they have been a success (lots of $$$$). Not too long ago, there was a report on the local NBC5 station where they interviewed some folks at the Las Vegas C&VB and they said they were terrified they would lose more high profile fights to Jerry's World. Conventional wisdom would have told us five years ago that Vegas would never lose its status as the boxing capital of the world but now Jerry's World is its strongest competition.

The same thing will happen to the BCS. Just wait after this Sunday's Super Bowl at Jerry's World. Do you honestly think the BCS which is all about money will pass on the chance to make more money by making the Cotton Bowl and its state of the art 100k seat stadium the fifth BCS bowl? The only thing they need to do is get rid of the double hosting format, that's it. Jerry offered the NFL complimentary goodies to their executives and the other 31 NFL owners to just get the Super Bowl here (free limousine service for a week, free stay at very expensive hotels, free lunch and dinner at the most expensive restaurants, etc). He can offer the same courtesy to the six BCS conference commissioners if he can make the Cotton Bowl a BCS bowl. If there's something us Texans learned a long time ago is this: NEVER underestimate Jerry Jones when he wants something. If Jerry wants it, he'll get it.

As for Arkansas, I have a very good friend who's an Arky grad. He really likes the SEC but his parents still remember with nostalgia the good ol' SWC days. I agree 100% with you, Arkansas is not going anywhere, they have it good in the SEC moneywise even if they don't have any true rival in that conference. Arkansas and Texas A&M will play for 10 years at Jerry's World, that's as good as it can get for Arkansas: play in the SEC and at DFW vs Texas A&M. They can schedule another OOC game vs a former SWC rival for recruiting and exposure purposes in Texas.

(02-02-2011 10:48 PM)CatsClaw Wrote:  Thanks for the info UTEP, I bet TCU is ecstatic to be in the Big East, a BCS conference with major exposure without the headaches of the Texas Two. That's probably why TCU would likely welcome Houston with open arms a chance to play a BCS Texas school without the political garbage that goes with it.

I think TCU will take to the Big East the philosophy they had in the MWC: the only Texas school in the conference that wants to separate itself from the rest of the Big XII and C-USA schools for brand recognition. That's why I don't see TCU lobbying the Big East for another Texas school. And you're right, TCU got the AQ status they wanted so bad by not dealing with Bevo and its servants. That's why I think TCU already separated from the C-USA schools, UNT, Baylor and Tx Tech. They moved to an AQ league by merit, not by politics and things will get only better for the Frogs. I can't really say the same thing for Baylor and Tech which they were behind TCU when they were nonAQ, now the gap will get wider.

There was an article on The Dallas Morning News on Sunday stating why the Rose Bowl win and membership in a BCS league is helping TCU recruit against Big XII South schools.

(02-02-2011 10:38 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Bingo. I love how many people here are Texas politics "experts". I live in this Great State of Texas and believe me when I say this: Baylor and Texas Tech are losing their influence, especially Texas Tech. You want to know which Texas school has the most millionaires, influence and lawyers outside of UT and A&M? SMU. That's where the future is but that's another topic for another day.

SMU? Yeah they have wealthy alums but so do we and their political pull is mainly local. You think DFW legislators actually go to bat for SMU? Not the way centex does for BU or the panhandle does for TT

Quote:Baylor and Texas Tech are still lucky they can still take advantage of UT and A&M. Do any of you really think UT cares about Baylor? The UT liberal academia despise the fact that Baylor's president is no other than Kenneth "let's impeach Clinton" Starr. And let's not even start how A&M sees Tech. The Aggies see Tech as the poor cousin who won the lottery (Big XII membership) and tries really hard to be like them. Multiple beatings by Tech in football, AT&T Jones Stadium expansion and renovation, brand new United Spirit Arena, exposure in DFW and Houston, etc. is not seen as good news in College Station.

What I'm really trying to say is currently UT and A&M have the "Tech and Baylor problem". It will still be that way in 2, 5, 10 maybe 15 years from now. Once that happens, UT and A&M will be happy to drop BU and Tech like a hot potato and no politician(s) from Central Texas or the Panhandle will save those two. The Panhandle is losing population and with that, it will lose representation and influence in the Legislature. Baylor is not in a big metro area like D-FW, Houston-Galveston, San Antonio, Austin-San Marcos and even El Paso (which is expected to grow to over 1 million in 2020).

So in the future, if there's another conference realignment and UT and A&M want to go separate ways, trust me, they won't have to take Baylor and Tech with them. I can see SMU and even Houston having more political and economic power over the schools in Waco and Lubbock. As for TCU, they already separated themselves from the schools here in Texas not named UT and A&M.

UH and SMU never had that political pull and not much has changed to vault them over TT or BU. The first 2 are urban and don't have very strong pull as local legislators have other issues as primary concern to constituents. You add local interests from BCS membership to the quality law grads of BU & TT and you see significant pull.
BU and TT aren't in major population centers but each has sizeable and loyal alumni bases in DFW and Houston (BU and TT have more DFW alumni than SMU) and has full loyalty of their home regions which SMU and UH cannot claim.

BU and TT don't have the same pull as 1994 but they still have pull and that pull is just as likely to increase as it is to decrease. Its a matter of who sits where and that can shift easily.

(02-02-2011 11:00 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The same thing will happen to the BCS. Just wait after this Sunday's Super Bowl at Jerry's World. Do you honestly think the BCS which is all about money will pass on the chance to make more money by making the Cotton Bowl and its state of the art 100k seat stadium the fifth BCS bowl? The only thing they need to do is get rid of the double hosting format, that's it. Jerry offered the NFL complimentary goodies to their executives and the other 31 NFL owners to just get the Super Bowl here (free limousine service for a week, free stay at very expensive hotels, free lunch and dinner at the most expensive restaurants, etc). He can offer the same courtesy to the six BCS conference commissioners if he can make the Cotton Bowl a BCS bowl. If there's something us Texans learned a long time ago is this: NEVER underestimate Jerry Jones when he wants something. If Jerry wants it, he'll get it.

Eliminating the double hosting format would be very difficult. Getting the 4 BCS bowls on for a 5th BCS game was only easy because they got an extra game every 4 years. Otherwise all the bowls saw was their match-ups becoming less compelling (outside the Rose). The Rose Bowl also benefited because they could now more keep their traditional date, time, and somewhat match-ups while keeping the national championship. It will have to be an absolute ton of money to get the Big Ten, PAC-10, and SEC to support the Cotton over a 2nd game for their bowls. I just don't see it.

If the Cotton wants to become a BCS bowl though, it's best bet is to lure one of the BCS conferences away from their current bowl. The Big 12 is the easiest to imagine.

(02-03-2011 06:50 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(02-02-2011 11:00 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  The same thing will happen to the BCS. Just wait after this Sunday's Super Bowl at Jerry's World. Do you honestly think the BCS which is all about money will pass on the chance to make more money by making the Cotton Bowl and its state of the art 100k seat stadium the fifth BCS bowl? The only thing they need to do is get rid of the double hosting format, that's it. Jerry offered the NFL complimentary goodies to their executives and the other 31 NFL owners to just get the Super Bowl here (free limousine service for a week, free stay at very expensive hotels, free lunch and dinner at the most expensive restaurants, etc). He can offer the same courtesy to the six BCS conference commissioners if he can make the Cotton Bowl a BCS bowl. If there's something us Texans learned a long time ago is this: NEVER underestimate Jerry Jones when he wants something. If Jerry wants it, he'll get it.

Eliminating the double hosting format would be very difficult. Getting the 4 BCS bowls on for a 5th BCS game was only easy because they got an extra game every 4 years. Otherwise all the bowls saw was their match-ups becoming less compelling (outside the Rose). The Rose Bowl also benefited because they could now more keep their traditional date, time, and somewhat match-ups while keeping the national championship. It will have to be an absolute ton of money to get the Big Ten, PAC-10, and SEC to support the Cotton over a 2nd game for their bowls. I just don't see it.

If the Cotton wants to become a BCS bowl though, it's best bet is to lure one of the BCS conferences away from their current bowl. The Big 12 is the easiest to imagine.

I believe the Cotton is in line to become a 5th BCS bowl, but a plus-one system would be required to get there. My understanding is that the current BCS bowls will FIGHT to keep the double hosting format. They're able to leverage double hosting a national championship game into extra sponsorships and ticket plans for their own bowls. I also agree that the double hosting was effectively compensation for watering down the bowl matchups. I doubt anyone wants to see it get watered down any further. Otherwise, you're just slapping a BCS label on the current Capital One/Cotton/Outback/Alamo matchup - there's no real incentive to do that.

Basically think of it this way - once the cat is out of the bag, you can't put it back in. There's double hosting now, which means there will be double hosting in the future. There are also 10 teams in BCS bowls now, which means there has to be 10 teams in BCS bowls in the future. The most immediate way to keep both is to add a 5th BCS bowl (likely the Cotton) and then play a plus-one championship game that's determined after all of the bowl games are played.

Just add six more teams and have a true championship!

(02-03-2011 03:19 AM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(02-02-2011 10:38 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  Bingo. I love how many people here are Texas politics "experts". I live in this Great State of Texas and believe me when I say this: Baylor and Texas Tech are losing their influence, especially Texas Tech. You want to know which Texas school has the most millionaires, influence and lawyers outside of UT and A&M? SMU. That's where the future is but that's another topic for another day.

SMU? Yeah they have wealthy alums but so do we and their political pull is mainly local. You think DFW legislators actually go to bat for SMU? Not the way centex does for BU or the panhandle does for TT

Quote:Baylor and Texas Tech are still lucky they can still take advantage of UT and A&M. Do any of you really think UT cares about Baylor? The UT liberal academia despise the fact that Baylor's president is no other than Kenneth "let's impeach Clinton" Starr. And let's not even start how A&M sees Tech. The Aggies see Tech as the poor cousin who won the lottery (Big XII membership) and tries really hard to be like them. Multiple beatings by Tech in football, AT&T Jones Stadium expansion and renovation, brand new United Spirit Arena, exposure in DFW and Houston, etc. is not seen as good news in College Station.

What I'm really trying to say is currently UT and A&M have the "Tech and Baylor problem". It will still be that way in 2, 5, 10 maybe 15 years from now. Once that happens, UT and A&M will be happy to drop BU and Tech like a hot potato and no politician(s) from Central Texas or the Panhandle will save those two. The Panhandle is losing population and with that, it will lose representation and influence in the Legislature. Baylor is not in a big metro area like D-FW, Houston-Galveston, San Antonio, Austin-San Marcos and even El Paso (which is expected to grow to over 1 million in 2020).

So in the future, if there's another conference realignment and UT and A&M want to go separate ways, trust me, they won't have to take Baylor and Tech with them. I can see SMU and even Houston having more political and economic power over the schools in Waco and Lubbock. As for TCU, they already separated themselves from the schools here in Texas not named UT and A&M.

UH and SMU never had that political pull and not much has changed to vault them over TT or BU. The first 2 are urban and don't have very strong pull as local legislators have other issues as primary concern to constituents. You add local interests from BCS membership to the quality law grads of BU & TT and you see significant pull.
BU and TT aren't in major population centers but each has sizeable and loyal alumni bases in DFW and Houston (BU and TT have more DFW alumni than SMU) and has full loyalty of their home regions which SMU and UH cannot claim.

BU and TT don't have the same pull as 1994 but they still have pull and that pull is just as likely to increase as it is to decrease. Its a matter of who sits where and that can shift easily.

The problem UH and SMU had when the SWC broke up was ineffective leadership. UH didn't see it coming. It won't happen again. As for political support, that too has changed. The support UH received from local legislatures during the PAC10 noise was loud and clear. As for law grads, not sure of the point, but UH and SMU have law schools that produce some pretty good lawyers too.

The economic impact of membership in an AQ conference will be difficult for any politician to miss. I doubt BU and TT administration will discount the power and support that UH and SMU have as much.

You are correct that political winds shift daily, so we all shall see.

I could see the cotton get the 5th bcs bowl away from double hosting format but that assumes the bcs is around. As for the plus one, i don't see how that will work really considering you can't expect people to spend money to go to the orange and than a week or so later fly to fiesta or rose bowl to watch a title game. What should happen is a pre one format, where a week after conference championship games, a final four is picked and they play at the higher seed home. Than the winners play each other with the losers also playing in each in rotated "bcs" bowls around new years.

(02-03-2011 09:45 AM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see the cotton get the 5th bcs bowl away from double hosting format but that assumes the bcs is around. As for the plus one, i don't see how that will work really considering you can't expect people to spend money to go to the orange and than a week or so later fly to fiesta or rose bowl to watch a title game. What should happen is a pre one format, where a week after conference championship games, a final four is picked and they play at the higher seed home. Than the winners play each other with the losers also playing in each in rotated "bcs" bowls around new years.

Ah, yes, I agree that this would be more reasonable as to what should happen. However, whether it's right or not, what will happen will be dicated by the AQ conferences and the bowls themselves. Having semifinal games at home stadiums means the bowls give up control, and that's simply not happening. Add in the Big Ten/Pac-10/Rose Bowl relationship (and they're essential to the process, so there's no "shutting them out" in the way that some non-Big Ten/Pac-10 fans suggest) and the plus-one is simply the only realistic option at this point.

I'm actually not as bothered by the ticket sale/traveling aspect of a plus-one. The national championship game is much like the Super Bowl - there are so many tickets provided to sponsors and corporations that it isn't dependent upon fan travel. The bowl games are also centered around the holidays when a lot of people take vacations, anyway. The main issues with traveling come from when you start getting to three or more rounds in the postseason - asking fans to travel 3 weeks in a row is a big-time burden.

If a plus one happened, i think the title game or plus one game would be fine but it would be the bowls leading up to the plus one that would get hurt. I guess they could have a triple piggyback format. Keep the rotated 4 game bcs format, maybe 5 if jerry jones gets his cotton bowl in it. Have the site host a double header around new years with 4 teams, than a week later the winners face off in a champ game at the same site, so you make a week vacation out of it. I like the pre one format best though with on campus games. The bcs bowls could still own/manage it, just call it a bcs playoff at the higher seed site and pool the money among the 4 bowls. I guess if they wanted to go neutral, they could bring in jerry jones to host the doubler header bcs playoff but attendance could be lacking. Yes, the problem of the big 10/pac 10/ rose bowl is impossible to fix without big compromise and that's why nothing has or might happen.

If Jerry was really really really amazing at his job and could strong-arm the BCS, he should dump the cotton bowl and try to just make the BCS national title game played in Jerry's World every year.

Push to get the TicketCity Bowl either moved or cut and put the Cotton Bowl back where it belongs. In the Cotton Bowl (stadium).

(02-03-2011 11:02 AM)bluesox Wrote:  If a plus one happened, i think the title game or plus one game would be fine but it would be the bowls leading up to the plus one that would get hurt. I guess they could have a triple piggyback format. Keep the rotated 4 game bcs format, maybe 5 if jerry jones gets his cotton bowl in it. Have the site host a double header around new years with 4 teams, than a week later the winners face off in a champ game at the same site, so you make a week vacation out of it. I like the pre one format best though with on campus games. The bcs bowls could still own/manage it, just call it a bcs playoff at the higher seed site and pool the money among the 4 bowls. I guess if they wanted to go neutral, they could bring in jerry jones to host the doubler header bcs playoff but attendance could be lacking. Yes, the problem of the big 10/pac 10/ rose bowl is impossible to fix without big compromise and that's why nothing has or might happen.

The argument in favor of the plus-one is that those BCS bowls would actually be helped out since they go back to having an impact on the national championship race as opposed to the glorified consolation prizes that they are now. In a sense, it's like going back to the pre-BCS bowl system (with a slot granted to the non-AQ schools) and then putting a national championship game after it all. I agree that the main risk is travel and whether fans can go to multiple games. The flip side is that the bowls themselves will be more meaningful (as most, if not all, will have some impact on the national title race), which may have a positive effect on ticket sales and will almost definitely improve TV ratings (and their associated TV rights fees).

I honestly think the Big Ten/Pac-10/Rose Bowl aren't opposed to a plus-one - they just don't want to see it seeded. If there's an unseeded plus-one proposal or a format that keeps the traditional Rose Bowl no matter what, then I think it will happen as soon as the current BCS contract is up.

(02-02-2011 07:35 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Doesn't the TV deal make the conference more stable? Now there is no chance Texas would want to leave. They have no reason to go anywhere.

If Texas gets to keep its bevo network, be part of a new conference network which might pay more than the previous tv deal, and be able to upgrade to a conference that they would feel in terms of olympic sports and academics a massive upgrade to the current Big 12. Why wouldn't they do it?

I know when this whole thing was really burning it up in June, many UT fans were excited about the potential for new rivalries, and new road trips.

(02-03-2011 01:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The argument in favor of the plus-one is that those BCS bowls would actually be helped out since they go back to having an impact on the national championship race as opposed to the glorified consolation prizes that they are now. In a sense, it's like going back to the pre-BCS bowl system (with a slot granted to the non-AQ schools) and then putting a national championship game after it all. I agree that the main risk is travel and whether fans can go to multiple games. The flip side is that the bowls themselves will be more meaningful (as most, if not all, will have some impact on the national title race), which may have a positive effect on ticket sales and will almost definitely improve TV ratings (and their associated TV rights fees).

I honestly think the Big Ten/Pac-10/Rose Bowl aren't opposed to a plus-one - they just don't want to see it seeded. If there's an unseeded plus-one proposal or a format that keeps the traditional Rose Bowl no matter what, then I think it will happen as soon as the current BCS contract is up.

What is the thought out there about the pac10/Big10 Rose Bowl match up?

It seems that at least from larry scott's pov that he thinks the Rose Bowl should always be a p10 vs b10 contest.

(02-03-2011 01:43 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The argument in favor of the plus-one is that those BCS bowls would actually be helped out since they go back to having an impact on the national championship race as opposed to the glorified consolation prizes that they are now. In a sense, it's like going back to the pre-BCS bowl system (with a slot granted to the non-AQ schools) and then putting a national championship game after it all. I agree that the main risk is travel and whether fans can go to multiple games. The flip side is that the bowls themselves will be more meaningful (as most, if not all, will have some impact on the national title race), which may have a positive effect on ticket sales and will almost definitely improve TV ratings (and their associated TV rights fees).

I honestly think the Big Ten/Pac-10/Rose Bowl aren't opposed to a plus-one - they just don't want to see it seeded. If there's an unseeded plus-one proposal or a format that keeps the traditional Rose Bowl no matter what, then I think it will happen as soon as the current BCS contract is up.

This way if the #3 or #4 team going in to the four BCS bowls gets a huge win, that team could conceivably leapfrog the #2 or even #1 team going in if those teams win in a sloppy game. And if the #1, #2 or #3 teams lose, it's possible that a team ranked below #5 at the start of the BCS bowls could end up in the title game.

This way, all 8 teams have a theoretical shot at the national title game when going into the BCS bowls. It's a far better format, and the only reason they won't do it is because they don't want to let the nose of the playoff camel into the tent.

Plus-one game might be a big improvement on the current system. There are a few problems that would have to be considered --

1) The bowls and teams might manipulate some of the bowl matchups to help a team's chance of qualifying for the plus-one game. For example, the #4, #5, and #6 teams could politic for the chance to play #1 in a BCS bowl game because beating #1 gives them a shot at leaping over #2 or #3 into the plus-one game.
2) The Big East, ACC, and Big "12" might all want to have their champs "float" instead of being tied to a BCS bowl to maximize their chances of a bowl matchup that would improve their plus-one chances, which also increases the risk that one BCS bowl would get a less-attractive game;
3) The question of whether to add a fifth BCS bowl so that you still have 10 teams qualifying for BCS bowl games. If you don't do that, you are limiting opportunities for non-AQ teams and for at-large teams from AQ leagues.