[Diddle E. Squat]

Interesting plan. I could live with it, with a couple of changes, primarily being seed the teams. An at-large team is usually gonna be stronger than a mid-major conf. champ, so the big conferences would oppose it without seeding. Why should Miami have to play an Oklahoma, while Louisville gets a likely much easier opponent in Toledo? And gotta insure that the Big 6 get at least as much payout as they do from the current system($11 mil. per BCS team).

Actually my plan provides for some conference champ games or none. So the Pac 10 wouldn't be forced to play one, its each conference's choice. However I think a conference playing one should be rewarded, as it is in effect(in one scenario) an additional playoff game. Further, the expansion and consolidation necessary for more conference champ games might lead to the elimination of the weakest major(such as the Big Least). This would force every team to play a tough conference schedule, and also open up two more at-large qualifier slots(and one at-large BCS berth).

[Sideshow Bob]

However I think a conference playing one should be rewarded, as it is in effect(in one scenario) an additional playoff game.

I completely disagree.

A conference already benefits monetarily by playing a championship game. They deserve no additional reward.

And conference also-rans (like LSU), who would not have otherwise qualified for the playoffs, get a bonus with an automatic berth.

If not for their conference championship games, Texas and Tennesee would have won their conferences and one team would have played Miami for the "national title".

Conference championship games and multiple division formats within conferences cheapen the value of the regular season.