In one corner the Big XII/SEC...the other Pac 12, B1G, ACC and if they let them in the room the BIG EAST...

From the article:

1. "Best Four" Plan: Admits the four highest-ranked teams according to the BCS standings, regardless of affiliation or finish in the conference standings. (Favored by the SEC and Big 12.)
2. "Championship" Plan:Admits the four highest-ranked conference champions according to the BCS standings, with a cutoff at No. 6. If there are fewer than four conference champions ranked in the top six, the remaining spot(s) is filled by the highest-ranked at-large team. (Favored by the Big Ten, Pac-12, ACC and Big East.)

The plans on how it would affect the BIG EAST, ACC, B1G & ND...as a BIG EAST guy the reps after the first realignment would have been Louisville in 2006 & Cincinnati in 2009, there is a chart in the article for the entire BCS era on how it would have looked with both rules:

But over time, the difference is actually quite small. Under one plan, the Big 12 would have produced 14 playoff teams in 14 years; under the other, 11 playoff teams in 14 years. The SEC goes from 14 playoff teams in one plan to 12 in the other. The Pac-12 claims nine if you do it this way, 11 if you do it that way. For the ACC, Big East and Big Ten, it doesn't really matter – they're all behind the curve any way you slice it. Notre Dame would not have qualified for a single berth under either plan. The only two "mid-major" programs that would have made the cut under either plan (Utah in 2004 and 2008; TCU in 2009-10) have both made subsequent leaps into the major leagues. From any farsighted perspective, no conference can claim an inherent advantage or disadvantage either way.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball...-to-a-draw

IF the cutoff is #6 in the Champions format, that's really not all that bad. It would make sense that a #6 school could have a legit claim to the National Title by beating #2 and #1 seeds back to back. I actually think I like this proposal considering there's the fallback plan if conference champs aren't in top 6.

[quote='Maize' pid='7950778' dateline='1338510496']
In one corner the Big XII/SEC...the other Pac 12, B1G, ACC and if they let them in the room the BIG EAST...

The B1G and PAC12 will prevail. Why? Because these confererences are perfectly happy with the result if there is no agreement. They will send their champs to the Rose Bowl. They have all the leverage.

The SEC doesn't want the bowl system, the B1G and PAC do. That's why they cave at the end of the day.

Further, there is no way to determine the true top 4. Arkansas was somehow #3 in the polls. The same Arkansas program which has never beaten a Big 10 team in a bowl in the BCS era, and wets the bed every chance they get against a top team.

Does anyone really believe Arkansas had any claim to be in a 4 team playoff? Over Oregon?

Interesting that the leadership of the big 4 conferences are split on the issue. Since the ACC & Big East seem to side with the Big 10 & Pac 12, will that swing the decision in the Big 10's & Pac 12's favor?

(05-31-2012 10:42 PM)RUfan03 Wrote:  Interesting that the leadership of the big 4 conferences are split on the issue. Since the ACC & Big East seem to side with the Big 10 & Pac 12, will that swing the decision in the Big 10's & Pac 12's favor?

What favors the B1G and PAC is if there is no agreement, these conference will be content to take their ball and go home and return to the bowl system. The SEC desperately wants the playoff, but they would rather have a modified playoff, then play in the bowl game.

Who can liver with the worst case scenario? I don't think the SEC wants the old system, so I'm guessing it blinks first.

(05-31-2012 10:35 PM)MiamiWolv Wrote:  Does anyone really believe Arkansas had any claim to be in a 4 team playoff? Over Oregon?

Arkansas finished #5 in the post-bowl polls and #6 in the last BCS standings, so they wouldn't have made a top 4 playoff. Nonetheless, you can make a good case that their high ranking is the kind of overrating that would be a flaw of a pure top-4 playoff. Arkansas finished in third place in its own division of its conference (and, IMO, got its high ranking based just on the merits of the two teams that beat them like a drum). If you're going to have only four teams in a playoff, do you want a team that finished third in a six-team division to even have a chance of being in it?

(05-31-2012 10:44 PM)MiamiWolv Wrote:  

(05-31-2012 10:42 PM)RUfan03 Wrote:  Interesting that the leadership of the big 4 conferences are split on the issue. Since the ACC & Big East seem to side with the Big 10 & Pac 12, will that swing the decision in the Big 10's & Pac 12's favor?

What favors the B1G and PAC is if there is no agreement, these conference will be content to take their ball and go home and return to the bowl system. The SEC desperately wants the playoff, but they would rather have a modified playoff, then play in the bowl game.

Who can liver with the worst case scenario? I don't think the SEC wants the old system, so I'm guessing it blinks first.

Bingo.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegespor...-the-sand/

Wilner agrees...but he's not sure the "plus one" is off the table. uh oh.