So, in the interest of greed an incremental improvements to Division 1 football, here's what I think will occur, given time and a little forethought.

This years' rematch is giving some credence to the idea of a "plus-1" yet the primary reason that everyone outside the ACC & SEC was against it back in 2008 (everyone meaning the other conferences & the "bowl committees". What you and I think doesn't matter) still exist. The fear that a plus-one will eventually lead to an expanded playoff & taken to it's absurd end, you'll eventually have a playoff with 128 teams (the entirety of division 1 as a few more Div2 teams "move up"). Such a playoff would dilute the revenue stream currently dominated by the BCS bowls & their "AQ" conferences. But we'll assume that a plus one is adopted on the premise that it will not lead to the feared dilution of revenues.

If you get a plus-1 then,
4 teams will stage a mini-playoff.
Next, we need one or two conferences to bite the bullet and become superconferences. ACC & SEC are now at 14 teams. Can they get to 16? probably in a couple years when the Big12 goes into another meltdown because Texas does something selfish and greedy (why TX? because that's what they do). That will result in yet another BCSNCG featuring two teams from the same conference. See at 16 teams, the SEC will probably pick up someone like Oklahoma & OK State. We'll have another case where either the East or the West is absurdly strong and so forth. That will give credence to expanding the BCS further. And thus we have an 8-team playoff yet all 8 teams remain IN BCS bowls so the money stays within the same pockets.

Now, we get interesting. the PAC12 will see the need to expand. The Big10 will not want to be late to the party. They will either play catch-up and grow to 16 like the ACC & SEC, or perhaps the PAC12 will sieze the opportunity to grow to 18. Now, why do I advocate 18 teams? Because I like the NFL playoff format.

at 18 teams, a conference can split 3-ways. That means three division champs. Which means the conference can now stage it's own mini-playoff by picking up a wild-card.

Now, what would this mean. Let's go with 4 conferences & 18 teams each. That's 72 teams. All of which have a clear opportunity to reach the BCSNCG. Each conference mini-playoff would feature 4 teams (thus we see a 16-team playoff). the four conference champs would then be able to meet in two bowls with a plus-one to determine the champion.

Now, the only problem with this scenario is that there are 120, or so, Division 1 teams. The remaining 48 teams would effectively be locked out of the championship picture. Well, that's where the 8-team playoff I mentioned earlier comes into play. Instead of the four conference champs playing each other in a 4+1 format, let them play 4 at-large teams selected from the remaining 48. Oh sure, you'd get a matchup of an LSU or Oregon with someone like Rice or Samford, but hey, the point is to give the guys at the bottom of the pecking order a chance, right? Any given Saturday right? sometimes an Appalachian State beats a Michigan.

You might want to turn on the TV or radio. You'll find that a lot of people don't agree and don't want a rematch in the national title game. I have no problem with it, but I'd like it better if it had come about as part of a four-team playoff.

John

Wrote that this morning in our first post of the day — eight SEC titles by five schools in 14 years of BCS system.

John

A plus-one is a Final Four. There will never be a playoff in college football and — quite frankly — I've never seen a team ranked outside the top four that I though was deserving of being called national champs. I think it's a plue-one or nothing, and I'd take a plus-one.

Thanks for reading,
John

This now makes three conference commissioners who's gotten behind the idea of a plus-one at one time or another. People tend to act when they're mad about something, and a lot of folks won't like that it's SEC champ vs. SEC non-champ in the BCS title game.

We're not saying there'll be a plus-one in place next year. We just think you'll have more folks open to discussing it. And that in itself is a step in the right direction.

As always, thanks for reading the site,
John