(06-12-2012 12:20 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I really do not see the Orange continuing their association with the ACC at all. It's done nothing but destroy the Orange Bowl..

But Chuck Neinas says they are working to get the ACC a BCS game and that's where I think they'll end up. If anyone else manages to ever get a #1 or #2 they'll end up in one of the 5 at-large spots as a bowl host.

(06-12-2012 12:18 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The "Champions Bowl" was a way to bid up the system and to have an agreement for the SEC and XII exactly like the PAC/B1G have with the Rose Bowl. If it's in the BCS system, then it stands almost assured of hosting a semifinal game (if they go the #1 and #2 hosting semifinal game via bowl tie-in route, and I think they will). If a semifinal game gets more $$ (which I think it will) then the big 4 have solidified their position. Even if the SEC/XII don't have a #1/#2, they're each guaranteed at least one BCS bowl share each. It also wouldn't surprise me if the SEC/XII agreement turns into having tie-ins with both the Sugar and Cotton, so as to have a fallback venue within the BCS in case both #1 and #2 are within those two conferences.

If, as I suspect, the bowls will each make their own TV deals, then the Champions Bowl-and therefore the SEC and Big 12--will get paid for the fact that it will frequently be a semifinal, when the SEC or Big 12 champ is in the top 2. Same for the Rose bowl, and for the bowls as you go down the ladder--the SEC #2, Big 12 #2 bowls will host semifinals every few years, the ACC #1 and Big Ten #2 bowls could each host a semifinal over a 10-year period.

I don't think you're going to see the BCS cartel, defined as the top 5 or 6 conferences and top four bowls, continuing to agree to pool their money and sell the TV rights as a unit. I think you're going to see the major bowl games each striking their own TV deals.

Quote:If the game is outside the system, then it just becomes another Capital One bowl - a good game with a good payout, but nothing like a BCS payout.

It's not "outside the system" because the system you're talking about ceases to exist. It's outside the system in the exact same way the Rose Bowl is.

(06-12-2012 10:57 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  By giving conf champs precedence/priority in any playoff system, that helps eliminate voting BIAS (i.e. like the Coach's Poll) out of the equation...as since ACC and now Big East in 2013 will all have Conf Championship Games...having that game count in some way, without relying on computer or human polls help take the bias out of the equation.

Pac-12, Big Ten, SEC and Big 12 all thrive on that "bias" and thus would NEVER want that "bias" to go away.

(06-12-2012 10:31 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 10:20 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  8 team playoff for this round is the only answer. It will include 4 top conference champs plus next 4 highest ranked at-large teams.

You're not going to get that answer, though. Personally, I think an 8-team playoff would work well, too, but it's simply not in the cards right now. The Big East will hopefully not waste any time trying to argue for something that is already non-starter and focus upon what it can realistically achieve in the new 4-team playoff format. The composition of the 4-team playoff itself is actually less important to the Big East than what happens in terms of revenue distribution and slotting of the other top tier bowls.

I agree. The biggest thing is which bowl games have the BE tie in and how much are the payouts.

I believe The Big East will be looking to build some alliances at the meeting tomorrow. Check out the list of attendees:

Presidential Oversight Committee
Scott Cowen - President, Tulane University
Rev. John Jenkins - President, University of Notre Dame
Bernie Machen - President, University of Florida
Max Nikias - President, University of Southern California
Duane Nellis - President, University of Idaho
Harvey Perlman - Chancellor, University of Nebraska
John G. Peters - President, Northern Illinois University
Bill Powers - President, University of Texas
James Ramsey - President, University of Louisville
Gary Ransdell - President, Western Kentucky University
Charles W. Steger (chair) - President, Virginia Tech
John Welty - President, California State University, Fresno

Conference Commissioners and Notre Dame athletics director
Joseph Bailey III (Big East, interim)
Britton Banowsky (C-USA)
Karl Benson (Sun Belt)
Jim Delany (Big Ten)
Jeff Hurd (WAC, interim)
Chuck Neinas (Big 12)
Larry Scott (Pac-12)
Mike Slive (SEC)
Jon Steinbrecher (MAC)
Jack Swarbrick (Notre Dame)
John Swofford (ACC)
Craig Thompson (MWC)

AD Advisory Group
Barry Alvarez (Wisconsin - Big Ten)
Tom Bowen (San Jose State - WAC)
Joe Castiglione (Oklahoma - Big 12)
Jeremy Foley (Florida - SEC)
Rick Greenspan (Rice - C-USA )
Pat Haden (USC - Pac-12)
Tom Jurich (Louisville - Big East)
Dean Lee (Arkansas State - Sun Belt)
Jim Livengood (UNLV - MWC)
Mike O'Brien (Toledo - MAC)
Dan Radakovich (Georgia Tech - ACC)

How it works:

The conference commissioners and the Notre Dame athletics director make decisions regarding all BCS issues, in consultation with an athletics directors advisory group and subject to the approval of a presidential oversight committee whose members represent all 120 Football Bowl Subdivision programs.

Presently we know that The SEC and Big 12 have formed an alliance. The PAC and Big 10 historically support each other.

That leaves The ACC going against The SEC, something it never does. Now that The SEC is in bed with The Big 12. I would look for The ACC to support whatever The Big 10 and PAC are pushing.

Then you come to The Big East and Non-AQ conferences. Which way The Big East chooses to go will be one of the most important decisions the conference has ever made. I would expect The Big East to vote with The PAC and Big 10 to avoid The SEC getting its wish for non-champions to play for a National Title.

After that it's anyone guess where votes might go. It may come down to back room dealing and previous relationships. For instance I could see Fresno's President backing The Big East in whatever decision they make since his school has been mentioned as a possible member. Likewise I could also see The MWC looking to screw The Big East as they have in the past. For some reason Craig Thompson worries more about The Big East than helping his conference improve.
CJ

If the big east says the conf champ should matter, aren't they pushing the big 12 to expand to 12 so they can have a conf champ game? In a round about way, aren't they asking for the big east to get raided?

Hope not!

(06-12-2012 11:52 AM)Coog82 Wrote:  

Quote:The thing is that the computers love the SEC and Big 12 more than even the human polls. There was sentiment for Boise State by human voters, for instance, whereas every "objective" metric such as strength of schedule destroyed Boise State every year. The top 15 teams in SOS last year were ALL from the SEC or Big 12. So, this is another matter of being careful for what you wish for (just like the non-AQ conferences that wanted the BCS system to go away and will now never see the light of the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl ever again). It's extremely misguided to think that this is all about media propaganda - the SEC has consistently crushed everyone on computer metrics.

Why is it that the computers love the SEC and Big 12 more? Is it because their conference games are perceived to be greater than the Big East, ACC, or Pac12 conference games? My guess is probably, but when you get right down to it, this perception that Iowa State vs. Oklahoma should count more in the computer than Houston vs. Boise is just wrong. Computers are programmed to evaluate data. The data is obviously skewed toward the SEC and Big 12... which raises the question of how or even if this data can be changed or evened out.

I am not sure how you balance things, or even if you can unless you just consider the top 6 conferences to be close to equal. The computer is probably always going to be set up to give more credit/points to a Alabama vs. Tennessee game or a Vandy vs. Ole Miss game than a Rutgers vs. Conn. or a USF vs. UCF game.

The SEC and Big 12 actually have performed very well in their non-conference games, particularly their best non-conference opponents. LSU beat Oregon and WVU last year, while Alabama beat Penn State, and all of those SEC opponents ended up beating other top tier teams during the course of the season. The Big 12 as a whole had an incredible non-conference record last season. So, to SFHusky's point, I think what he was proposing where non-conference games are overwieghted actually helps out the SEC and Big 12 even more.

Look - I'm no SEC lover. They have numerous problems such as oversigning and the shadiest of shady recruiting practices. Complain about those practices and I'm all ears. However, they play tough schedules (INCLUDING their non-conference schedules - look at who LSU played last year) and they beat people on the field. The SEC *is* better than other conferences on-the-field. They continue to show that over and over again and it's supported on all measures: human polling, computer rankings and actual victories in the national championship game.

People can't have it both ways: they can't argue that conference champions should receive preference and then turn around and complain about schools' non-conference schedules. It's as if though they're trying to find every excuse to shut SEC teams out, which I highly disagree with. This playoff should be about finding the 4 best teams, and if that means the 4 best teams happen to be from the SEC in a certain year, then so be it. We don't need a quota system in the college football playoff.

(06-12-2012 12:33 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 12:18 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  The "Champions Bowl" was a way to bid up the system and to have an agreement for the SEC and XII exactly like the PAC/B1G have with the Rose Bowl. If it's in the BCS system, then it stands almost assured of hosting a semifinal game (if they go the #1 and #2 hosting semifinal game via bowl tie-in route, and I think they will). If a semifinal game gets more $$ (which I think it will) then the big 4 have solidified their position. Even if the SEC/XII don't have a #1/#2, they're each guaranteed at least one BCS bowl share each. It also wouldn't surprise me if the SEC/XII agreement turns into having tie-ins with both the Sugar and Cotton, so as to have a fallback venue within the BCS in case both #1 and #2 are within those two conferences.

If, as I suspect, the bowls will each make their own TV deals, then the Champions Bowl-and therefore the SEC and Big 12--will get paid for the fact that it will frequently be a semifinal, when the SEC or Big 12 champ is in the top 2. Same for the Rose bowl, and for the bowls as you go down the ladder--the SEC #2, Big 12 #2 bowls will host semifinals every few years, the ACC #1 and Big Ten #2 bowls could each host a semifinal over a 10-year period.

I don't think you're going to see the BCS cartel, defined as the top 5 or 6 conferences and top four bowls, continuing to agree to pool their money and sell the TV rights as a unit. I think you're going to see the major bowl games each striking their own TV deals.

Quote:If the game is outside the system, then it just becomes another Capital One bowl - a good game with a good payout, but nothing like a BCS payout.

It's not "outside the system" because the system you're talking about ceases to exist. It's outside the system in the exact same way the Rose Bowl is.

I suppose, but they would get WAY more money together than they would separately and they know it. The bowls have been through the bidding wars individually. The BCS package got significantly more money per bowl than they got on their own. I really don't see them segregating that again, especially with the deal being worth at least double for six games than it is now for five. The participating bowls make out like bandits with the BCS. I think what's truly changing about the BCS is the loss of AQ for the Big East and the additional game.

(06-12-2012 01:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 11:52 AM)Coog82 Wrote:  

Quote:The thing is that the computers love the SEC and Big 12 more than even the human polls. There was sentiment for Boise State by human voters, for instance, whereas every "objective" metric such as strength of schedule destroyed Boise State every year. The top 15 teams in SOS last year were ALL from the SEC or Big 12. So, this is another matter of being careful for what you wish for (just like the non-AQ conferences that wanted the BCS system to go away and will now never see the light of the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl ever again). It's extremely misguided to think that this is all about media propaganda - the SEC has consistently crushed everyone on computer metrics.

Why is it that the computers love the SEC and Big 12 more? Is it because their conference games are perceived to be greater than the Big East, ACC, or Pac12 conference games? My guess is probably, but when you get right down to it, this perception that Iowa State vs. Oklahoma should count more in the computer than Houston vs. Boise is just wrong. Computers are programmed to evaluate data. The data is obviously skewed toward the SEC and Big 12... which raises the question of how or even if this data can be changed or evened out.

I am not sure how you balance things, or even if you can unless you just consider the top 6 conferences to be close to equal. The computer is probably always going to be set up to give more credit/points to a Alabama vs. Tennessee game or a Vandy vs. Ole Miss game than a Rutgers vs. Conn. or a USF vs. UCF game.

The SEC and Big 12 actually have performed very well in their non-conference games, particularly their best non-conference opponents. LSU beat Oregon and WVU last year, while Alabama beat Penn State, and all of those SEC opponents ended up beating other top tier teams during the course of the season. The Big 12 as a whole had an incredible non-conference record last season. So, to SFHusky's point, I think what he was proposing where non-conference games are overwieghted actually helps out the SEC and Big 12 even more.

Look - I'm no SEC lover. They have numerous problems such as oversigning and the shadiest of shady recruiting practices. Complain about those practices and I'm all ears. However, they play tough schedules (INCLUDING their non-conference schedules - look at who LSU played last year) and they beat people on the field. The SEC *is* better than other conferences on-the-field. They continue to show that over and over again and it's supported on all measures: human polling, computer rankings and actual victories in the national championship game.

People can't have it both ways: they can't argue that conference champions should receive preference and then turn around and complain about schools' non-conference schedules. It's as if though they're trying to find every excuse to shut SEC teams out, which I highly disagree with. This playoff should be about finding the 4 best teams, and if that means the 4 best teams happen to be from the SEC in a certain year, then so be it. We don't need a quota system in the college football playoff.

I cant think of anything less appealing than a post season with 4 SEC teams. I'll bet the California network affiliates would be stoked.

(06-12-2012 01:14 PM)ponydawg Wrote:  If the big east says the conf champ should matter, aren't they pushing the big 12 to expand to 12 so they can have a conf champ game? In a round about way, aren't they asking for the big east to get raided?

Hope not!

You don't need a conference championship game to have a conference champion.

(06-12-2012 01:41 PM)attackfrog Wrote:  I cant think of anything less appealing than a post season with 4 SEC teams. I'll bet the California network affiliates would be stoked.

Those affiliates would still rather have 4 SEC teams than schools outside of the power conferences. That's the reality of it. Plus, if they are the 4 best teams, then that's what's "fair". I know that many of us have different definitions of what's "fair", but to me, what's "fair" is having the 4 best teams play each other. Unfortunately, it's difficult for any ranking, computer formula or anything to determine who are actually the 4 best teams. There have been times where the top 4 in the BCS rankings made perfect sense. There were other times where that top 4 was bats**t crazy (largely prior to 2004 when computer rankings were worth more). I don't find how anyone could legitimately believe that Alabama wasn't one of the best 4 teams in the country last year other than they wanted their own conference to take a spot in the playoff. However, I also don't think #4 Stanford should have gotten into a playoff over #5 Oregon last year (which crushed Stanford head-to-head and won the Pac-12) or #5 Wisconsin the year prior to that (the Big Ten champ). I guess what I'm saying is that if it's a really close call (a matter of one spot in the rankings), then I would give preference to a school that won its conference, but I don't want a #10 Wisconsin team getting into the playoff over a #2 Alabama team that anyone that has any hint of rationality knows is a better team.

I was heavily opposed to a selection committee before because I think it's (1) overkill in terms of selecting only 4 teams and (2) would be subject to accusations of bias and cronyism the very moment that its top 4 disagrees with the AP poll. However, I'm starting to come around to the thinking that there simply isn't a "one size fits all" format or formula that's going to be satisfactory year-in and year-out, so a selection committee might end up being the compromise. People are acting like picking the top 4 teams needs to be some convoluted process and it really shouldn't be. Normally, there are 2 or 3 teams that are clear no-brainers. Most years, you'll be arguing over 2 or 3 teams at most for that last spot. This is a much different animal compared to, say, the NCAA Tournament selection where you're trying to separate team #68 from team #69 (which requires a lot more data and is much more nuanced).

(06-12-2012 01:21 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I suppose, but they would get WAY more money together than they would separately and they know it. The bowls have been through the bidding wars individually. The BCS package got significantly more money per bowl than they got on their own. I really don't see them segregating that again, especially with the deal being worth at least double for six games than it is now for five. The participating bowls make out like bandits with the BCS. I think what's truly changing about the BCS is the loss of AQ for the Big East and the additional game.

I think the trend is more towards winner-take-all. Guessing wildly, let's say the Final Four is worth $500M, and a 6-game package (5 BCS + 1 NCG) is worth $600M. $600M is more than $500M, but you notice that adding three games only increased the pie by $100M.

I'm assuming that the "anchor bowls" of No. 1 and No. 2 get to host the semis, 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.

Continuing to guess wildly, let's value the NCG individually at $250, and the Rose and Champions Bowls around $100M each. $50M leaks out because every few years, a bowl besides the Champions Bowl or Rose Bowl hosts a semi. A smaller pie cut into four equal pieces can mean bigger pieces than a bigger pie cut into five-plus pieces. If you un-package the BCS, then the Rose and Champions/Sugar bowls are worth a lot more than the Orange or Fiesta.

(06-12-2012 02:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 01:21 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I suppose, but they would get WAY more money together than they would separately and they know it. The bowls have been through the bidding wars individually. The BCS package got significantly more money per bowl than they got on their own. I really don't see them segregating that again, especially with the deal being worth at least double for six games than it is now for five. The participating bowls make out like bandits with the BCS. I think what's truly changing about the BCS is the loss of AQ for the Big East and the additional game.

I think the trend is more towards winner-take-all. Guessing wildly, let's say the Final Four is worth $500M, and a 6-game package (5 BCS + 1 NCG) is worth $600M. $600M is more than $500M, but you notice that adding three games only increased the pie by $100M.

I'm assuming that the "anchor bowls" of No. 1 and No. 2 get to host the semis, 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.

Continuing to guess wildly, let's value the NCG individually at $250, and the Rose and Champions Bowls around $100M each. $50M leaks out because every few years, a bowl besides the Champions Bowl or Rose Bowl hosts a semi. A smaller pie cut into four equal pieces can mean bigger pieces than a bigger pie cut into five-plus pieces. If you un-package the BCS, then the Rose and Champions/Sugar bowls are worth a lot more than the Orange or Fiesta.

I still think there's going to be a grouping for those top bowls because of the flip side of having the "anchor bowl" slotting of semifinals: the tie-ins that aren't in the top 4 will get kicked out of their home bowls. For example, the Big Ten champ probably would have gotten kicked out of the Rose Bowl last year under this proposed system, so is that team seriously going to the Capital One Bowl instead? That Big Ten champ is going to need a high profile home, so I could see that the Orange and Fiesta continuing to have at-large slots in order to provide spots for those champs. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Determining a National Champion is going to be tough when you allow each team to create there own out of conference schedule. Example the West division of the SEC is tougher then the East because of Alabama and Auburn in the same division. Plus you allow some teams to play 8 home games while others only play 6. some teams never leave the south and never play up north. I give Alabama a lot of credit for playing Penn St while Florida never goes north. The Big East has a difficult time getting teams in the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 to play them in road games. Some SEC teams duck the Big East teams all together unless it's in a bowl. the Big Ten is even worst at guiding there schedules to victories. Minneasota, Indiana comes to mind. The Pac 12 has a 9 game schedule so there OCC games are limited.

(06-12-2012 02:16 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 02:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 01:21 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  I suppose, but they would get WAY more money together than they would separately and they know it. The bowls have been through the bidding wars individually. The BCS package got significantly more money per bowl than they got on their own. I really don't see them segregating that again, especially with the deal being worth at least double for six games than it is now for five. The participating bowls make out like bandits with the BCS. I think what's truly changing about the BCS is the loss of AQ for the Big East and the additional game.

I think the trend is more towards winner-take-all. Guessing wildly, let's say the Final Four is worth $500M, and a 6-game package (5 BCS + 1 NCG) is worth $600M. $600M is more than $500M, but you notice that adding three games only increased the pie by $100M.

I'm assuming that the "anchor bowls" of No. 1 and No. 2 get to host the semis, 1 vs 4 and 2 vs 3.

Continuing to guess wildly, let's value the NCG individually at $250, and the Rose and Champions Bowls around $100M each. $50M leaks out because every few years, a bowl besides the Champions Bowl or Rose Bowl hosts a semi. A smaller pie cut into four equal pieces can mean bigger pieces than a bigger pie cut into five-plus pieces. If you un-package the BCS, then the Rose and Champions/Sugar bowls are worth a lot more than the Orange or Fiesta.

I still think there's going to be a grouping for those top bowls because of the flip side of having the "anchor bowl" slotting of semifinals: the tie-ins that aren't in the top 4 will get kicked out of their home bowls. For example, the Big Ten champ probably would have gotten kicked out of the Rose Bowl last year under this proposed system, so is that team seriously going to the Capital One Bowl instead? That Big Ten champ is going to need a high profile home, so I could see that the Orange and Fiesta continuing to have at-large slots in order to provide spots for those champs. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

In this system Big Ten #2 is probably in a better bowl than the Capital One. Or not--the Cap One bowl was pretty close to the Cotton Bowl payout, and without the BCS splitting the money evenly, the Fiesta and Orange bowls aren't that much better than the Cotton Bowl.

Sugar Bowl--SEC 1 vs XII 1
Rose Bowl--B1G 1 vs PAC 1
SEC 2 takes the Orange Bowl spot vs ACC 1.
Big Ten 2 takes the Fiesta Bowl spot vs Big 12 2
Cotton Bowl matches SEC West 3 vs Big 12 3
Chick-fil-A matches SEC East 3 vs ACC 2
Big Ten 3 vs PAC 2 in the Holiday Bowl? vs BE 1 in the Pinstripe? vs SEC 5 in Cap One? Or maybe SEC bumps the Cap One above the Cotton and Peach, to have Big Ten 3 vs SEC 3.

(06-12-2012 01:15 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(06-12-2012 11:52 AM)Coog82 Wrote:  

Quote:The thing is that the computers love the SEC and Big 12 more than even the human polls. There was sentiment for Boise State by human voters, for instance, whereas every "objective" metric such as strength of schedule destroyed Boise State every year. The top 15 teams in SOS last year were ALL from the SEC or Big 12. So, this is another matter of being careful for what you wish for (just like the non-AQ conferences that wanted the BCS system to go away and will now never see the light of the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl ever again). It's extremely misguided to think that this is all about media propaganda - the SEC has consistently crushed everyone on computer metrics.

Why is it that the computers love the SEC and Big 12 more? Is it because their conference games are perceived to be greater than the Big East, ACC, or Pac12 conference games? My guess is probably, but when you get right down to it, this perception that Iowa State vs. Oklahoma should count more in the computer than Houston vs. Boise is just wrong. Computers are programmed to evaluate data. The data is obviously skewed toward the SEC and Big 12... which raises the question of how or even if this data can be changed or evened out.

I am not sure how you balance things, or even if you can unless you just consider the top 6 conferences to be close to equal. The computer is probably always going to be set up to give more credit/points to a Alabama vs. Tennessee game or a Vandy vs. Ole Miss game than a Rutgers vs. Conn. or a USF vs. UCF game.

The SEC and Big 12 actually have performed very well in their non-conference games, particularly their best non-conference opponents. LSU beat Oregon and WVU last year, while Alabama beat Penn State, and all of those SEC opponents ended up beating other top tier teams during the course of the season. The Big 12 as a whole had an incredible non-conference record last season. So, to SFHusky's point, I think what he was proposing where non-conference games are overwieghted actually helps out the SEC and Big 12 even more.

Look - I'm no SEC lover. They have numerous problems such as oversigning and the shadiest of shady recruiting practices. Complain about those practices and I'm all ears. However, they play tough schedules (INCLUDING their non-conference schedules - look at who LSU played last year) and they beat people on the field. The SEC *is* better than other conferences on-the-field. They continue to show that over and over again and it's supported on all measures: human polling, computer rankings and actual victories in the national championship game.

People can't have it both ways: they can't argue that conference champions should receive preference and then turn around and complain about schools' non-conference schedules. It's as if though they're trying to find every excuse to shut SEC teams out, which I highly disagree with. This playoff should be about finding the 4 best teams, and if that means the 4 best teams happen to be from the SEC in a certain year, then so be it. We don't need a quota system in the college football playoff.

Frank - I will admit SEC had some strong teams last year. However, I don't think that's the norm. The way they scheduled last year is not the norm either. If they have the best teams, I don't have a problem letting them play in the playoff. LSU was very strong last year as well as Bama. However, last year is not the norm for the SEC. In most years, they are far more hype than substance.

Bottom line is:

If you don't win your d@mn conference, you should not have an opportunity to play for the national title.
CJ

(06-12-2012 01:14 PM)ponydawg Wrote:  If the big east says the conf champ should matter, aren't they pushing the big 12 to expand to 12 so they can have a conf champ game? In a round about way, aren't they asking for the big east to get raided?

Hope not!

The B12 will have a conf champ without a champ game. They play a round robin with 9 conf games.

(06-12-2012 10:20 AM)SF Husky Wrote:  8 team playoff for this round is the only answer. It will include 4 top conference champs plus next 4 highest ranked at-large teams.

Expand it to 16 (11 conference champs plus the five highest at-large teams). It would make more money than March Madness. They could print money.

I know it has zero chance of even being mentioned.