http://www.herald-dispatch.com/sports/ma...8accd.html

Got to give some credit here. True out of the box plan.

That's a great idea! By having the better teams play each other, and the worst teams play each other, you might get all the teams to end up with a conference record of 9-9!

I like it.. It is their version of a bracketbuster.. Give teams the option to boost their RPI towards the end of the season to maybe make a case for an at large bid.

I like the idea and it may help with seeding but I have my doubts about helping with an at large. Even if teams grab a couple more quality wins the committee has shown no hesitation in devaluing a high RPI win because it came against a team without a "name" or that doesn't play in a top conference.

It's like a mass of rats piling over each other to try and climb out of a sewer hole - no matter who stands on who, there's not enough height for any one of them to get out.

So why would playing any combination of mid-major teams within one conference build the conference up so it gets more than one bid?

I feel that this is going to lead to the same sort of debates about its effectiveness as championships games get. If you look at Big 12 discussions on championship games you will see people showing off examples where the game helps and examples of where it hurts (not talking about the money angle just the "help to get you into the playoff" angle). I could see how in some years this idea could help a random team but in another year it would hurt them.