(06-16-2022 07:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well, IMO, "power" is based more on brand value than performance.

E.g., in the latter part of the BCS era, the post-Miami/VT/BC version of the Big East was arguably the top basketball conference, and its football performance was clearly "power" level as well. But while it did have formal "power" status as part of the AQ club, it wasn't really regarded by most fans and the media as a "power" league, was constantly being criticized as not worthy, etc.

That's what I think the "NB12" will be like.

Whatever it's like, "power" designation is a purely artificial one, with no particular impact on the field.

I have toyed with alternatives to the CFP models being debated, and one that I prefer (which may never come to realization) is a pure 16 team tournament with no autobids for conference champions and no selection committee. This would replace all CCTs in order to keep the upper limit on games played at 16 for the finalists.

In my world, the selection criterion would be Massey Composite rating at the end of the regular season. In the first round, #1 hosts #16, #2 hosts #15, etc.

Using this methodology, over the past four "normal" seasons, the SEC would have placed 18 teams in the field, and the B1G would have 15. After that, come the Big 12 and PAC with 8 each, the ACC with 7, the AAC had 4 (one each year) and Notre Dame would have qualified all four years.

First round losers go to the Orange, Fiesta, Cotton or Peach Bowls, and quarterfinal losers go to either the Rose Bowl or Sugar Bowl. All of these are purely exhibitions the way they were before the BCS.

Tournament revenue would be distributed as follows. Each of the ten conferences would receive two shares, and each conference would get one additional share for every game in which one of its teams plays. That's a total of 50 shares. If the revenue pool is $800 million, each share is worth $16 million. My guess is that both the SEC and B1G would split half of that $800 million, more than compensating them for giving up their lucrative CCGs. Even the four conferences who may rarely get a team in the top 16 would get $32 million a year, earning their votes in support of such a format.