That means the SEC has to give a little.

When we get to the days of the 8-team playoff, with 4 bids for the top 4 conference champs and 4 bids for the top 4 teams that are independents or conference also-rans, the SEC will have its cake and eat it too. Or they can split into 2 conferences. Their call.

But compromise means that nobody gets everything they want.

Not to mention that LSU, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia, and Arkansas all have legitimate shots to end up in the Top-4 in 2012. And, you know that the SEC expects Florida, Tennessee, and Auburn to be back in the NC picture in a few years.

I think it would be terrible accept a compromise that could put a #6+ ranked conference champ in over a #1-4 ND team (or BYU or the SEC runner-up, etc).

I don't know what recourse ND would have. Perhaps everyone except the Big Ten, ACC, and PAC12 could agree to their own playoff, and let those three do what they will (which would probably mean Big Ten/PAC12 in the Rose Bowl and the ACC groveling to get back into the playoff discussion). Certainly, there would be enough numbers to pass this, as those conferences only make up 38 of the 124 teams. With the SEC and Big XII on board (followed by the ACC), the pool of likely NC contenders only shrinks by Southern Cal and Oregon.

- No text -

Nebraska getting a rematch with a Colorado team that just beat them 62-36?

Of course, in the system we're currently under, Nebraska got to skip that game and jump right to the National Title game against Miami. So I guess this would be an improvement.

But stupid situations will still happen.

There is a right and a wrong in this decision.

Most appearance in the Final Four of the BCS standings since 1998. Again, much more balanced then I thought it would be.

SEC 14
BigXII 13
Big Ten 10
PAC12 10
ACC 8
BigEast 1

Their goal is to be able to get 2 teams into the playoff, like they would have last year had it been the top 4.

- No text -

#1 -- conference champ or independent? You're in!
#2 -- conference champ or independent? You're in!
#3 -- conference champ or independent? You're in!
#4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ad nauseam.... same thing. This ensures that only conference champions get in (rather than non-champs like Stanford and Alabama last year) but also makes room for independents.

I got another one.

Take the top two ranked conference champs, no matter where they are ranked in the final BCS polls. Then go to:
#1 -- independent or from a different conference than the two highest-ranked conference champs? You're in!
#2 -- independent or from a different conference than the two highest-ranked conference champs and from the #1 team? You're in!
...and on down the line. This ensures that conference champs get in but also deals with Dylan's issue about an 11-1 conference also-ran that is #3 in the nation while a team from the other division of that conference pulls an upset in the conference championship game and is ranked outside the top 10 at the end of the regular season. The best team in that conference, not its champion, would go in under the above.

Basically, the first rule of all these compromises is there should only be one team from each conference in the playoff. That ensures nationwide appeal and takes power away from a certain family of networks (hi, Troy Smith, how you doin'?). And independents are each treated as their own conference, which encourages indpendence as a natural counterbalance to the known reasons to join a conference or maintain conference membership. Heck, this also encourages teams to spread themselves out among conferences (Boise can get right back out of the BE) instead of consolidating in the old "automatic bid" conferences.

How many times has the ACC champ made in into the Top-4 in the last 20 years? Of course the ACC champ doesn't usually make it into the Top-4 of conference champs either, but they have a better shot at that than Top-4 overall.

Edit: Actually, the numbers look fairly balanced since 1998. Each conference has gotten to double-up 2-3 times over that time from (although the old data is a little messy - see below).

SEC: 3
Big XII : 3
PAC12: 2
Big Ten : 2
ACC : 2

The Top-4 in the BCS with their current conference. This gets a little messy as we go back in time (example: Colorado & Nebraska in '01 now has nothing to do with the Big XII).

2011
Stanford @ LSU
Oklahoma State @ Alabama
out: Big Ten, ACC

2010
Stanford @ Auburn
TCU @ Oregon
out: Big Ten, ACC

2009
TCU @ Alabama
Cincinnati @ Texas
out: Big Ten, ACC, PAC12

2008
Alabama @ Oklahoma
Texas @ Florida
out: Big Ten, ACC, PAC12

2007
Oklahoma @ Ohio State
Virginia Tech @ LSU
out: PAC12

2006
LSU @ Ohio State
Michigan @ FLorida
out: ACC, Big XII, PAC12

2005
Ohio State @ Southern Cal
Penn State @ Texas
out: ACC, SEC

2004
Texas @ Southern Cal
Auburn @ Oklahoma
out: ACC, Big Ten

2003
Michigan @ Oklahoma
Southern Cal @ LSU
out: ACC

2002
Southern Cal @ Miami
Georgia @ Ohio State
out: Big XII

2001
Oregon @ Miami
Colorado @ Nebraska
out: Big XII, SEC

2000
Washington @ OKlahoma
Miami @ Florida State
out: Big Ten, SEC

1999
Alabama @ Florida State
Nebraska @ Virginia Tech
out: Big XII, PAC12

1998
Ohio State @ Tennessee
Kansas State @ Florida State
out: PAC12

Where No. 1 ND (12-0) could face No. 2 Alabama (11-1) in a meaningless bowl, while 3-6 play in the playoff (including an 11-2 SEC East team who beat a 12-1 SEC West team in the SEC title game).

trying to do. I was trying to posit a suggestion that works within the framework of the conference push. They want their champion in, and they want a conference championship game to determine the champion.

I don't necessarily disagree with yours, but I don't think it's within the realm of possibilities.

I want a straight top-4. But if there's going to be a conference champion guarantee, I'd want a top-2 guarantee.

Because the Delany model would have No. 1 Notre Dame out. I know this model would screw ND at some point, but that's going to happen if the conferences get there way. I put this out there as a least-screw option. The Delany model (and maybe even Swofford's, depending upon how you interpret his comments) would be worse.

Start with team #1. Congrats, you're in!
Move to team #2. In a different conference than team #1 or independent? You're in! Same conference as #1? Sorry, should have been the best team out of your conference.
Move to #3. In a different conference than #s 1 and 2 or independent? You're in! Same conference as #s 1 or 2? Bummer.
Move to #4 and on down the line.

This is a radical change from my earlier position, because it values the highest-ranked team in a conference more than it does a conference champion. Last year, for example, Stanford would have been in and Oregon out notwithstanding Oregon's conference championship and Oregon's head-to-head win over Stanford. See, what I'm doing is compromising. But on the other hand, the other folks have to compromise and give me something. And that something is a guarantee that the Evil Four Letter and its frosted-tip talking heads will not unduly influence voters to pack the playoff with teams from just one or two conferences. I want this thing wide open, and with nationwide appeal.

(A nice side benefit is that there is no limit on independents; maybe we can get FSU or Miami or some other school that thinks it is being held back in its current conference to join us.)

To fecal matter and nitrogen-consuming bacteria.

Extending your scenario, #3 ND (11-1) and #4 Alabama (11-1) could end up playing each other in the It Don't Matter Bowl. Are you telling me that the winner of that game has less of a claim to the national title than the playoff participants?

but I really hate that Slive is probably going to lose these battles.
On campus semis makes so much sense but that's exactly why it won't happen.

Stanford @ LSU & OSU @ Alabama would be incredible on-campus atmospheres but lets go play them in bubbles.

Say, we finish 11-1 and are No. 3 but a Michigan team that we beat wins the B1G and ends up ranked No. 5 - they'd get in ahead of us.

That said, any system that gives us a chance at the "Final Four" as an independent is OK.

...who happens to be running the most underperforming conference in all of college football.

Yeah, fuck that guy.

Selection process:

Step 1 - No. 1 and No. 2 teams are in automatically.
Step 2 - The next two highest ranked conference champions between No. 3 and No. 6.
Step 3 - If any spots remain open, No. 3 and then No. 4 get in.

The question is: How do we rank the teams numerically? Current BCS 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 (which I think has worked pretty well in terms of ranking teams)? Alternate model? Selection committee with a mini-poll?

- No text -

http://m.statesman.com/statesman/pm_22457/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=gFg1ji0R

During a visit with DeLoss Dodds on Monday, the Texas athletic director gave his preference for a college football playoff format as the 11 conference commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick continue to consider the post-season future of the sport. Sounded good to me.

In Dodds' version, four teams would be selected by a blue-ribbon committee of "seven or nine" objective panelists who are very familiar with college football and follow the game passionately. "They'd be people who have football backgrounds and who are not biased," Dodds said. He proposes an odd number to avoid any tie votes.

I'm with him. Smart, tough, opinionated administrators and former coaches like outgoing Big 12 commissioner Chuck Neinas, former ACC commissioner Gene Corrigan and ex coaches like Vince Dooley, new College Football Hall of Famer R.C. Slocum and Mike Bellotti would be strong candidates.

Dodds said, "I'd favor four teams picked at large" who were not necessarily conference champions, meaning two teams from a conference and independents like Notre Dame and Brigham Young could all receive consideration. He'd give the panelists every computer program, poll and set of statistics available and let them pick and seed the four teams.

Even if it's not a back room "Hey, let's screw Notre Dame!" deal, it's not the best scenario for us.

Probably a fair conclusion.

Classic loser's limp.

Basically "we know that we're not really that good, and are unlikely to have multiple teams in the top-4, so we'd prefer a system that gives us a little more leeway to getting our top team in".

could read this as a power move to pressure Notre Dame to join the ACC. I'm not sure I'm quite that narcissistic.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-05-16/sports/os-notebook-acc-meetings-0517-201...

Swofford: ACC prefers conference champs playoff model

AMELIA ISLAND - One of the biggest questions on the collective minds of college football fans is the ongoing debate surrounding the possible postseason playoff.

On Wednesday, ACC commissioner John Swofford weighed in on that debate.

"There is a lot of belief in our league that conference champions should matter," Swofford said adding that the model shouldn't just feature any conference champion but one that meets certain criteria, such as top five or six in ranking.

Swofford said after discussing with football coaches, athletic directors and football personnel, the consensus was that there was a "strong preference" to use the bowl games as sites for those playoff games, whether it be for the semis, the national championship or both.