(01-27-2020 01:03 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes, as I said, in practice the 2012 scheme favored Boise. However, I think it matters a lot that in theory others could get the bonus. That isn't just smoke and mirrors, it lends an element of 'merit' that was missing from the 2016 scheme. Other schools could say to themselves "well, we can get the bonus too, if we build our brand value or start winning more and can get in more nationally televised games".

Pride-wise, it's a lot easier to watch someone else get more if they earned it than if they are entitled to it regardless of 'performance'.

If you want to move a performance pool toward greater predictability, do it over four years. And having a finish pool in addition to an appearance pool would level out the divisional discrimination a bit, since it's easier for the schools NOT in Boise's division to get a share of a top four performance bonus.