Well the old school had the SEC champs hosting the Sugar Bowl, the SWC champs hosting the Cotton Bowl, the Big Eight champs hosting the Orange Bowl and the Big 10 and PAC champs in the Rose Bowl. That guaranteed 5 teams in the major bowls. If LSU hosted Kansas State in the Sugar Bowl, what bowl does that put Alabama vs Boise State in? Doesn't the ACC champion have a tie in with the Orange Bowl? No ACC team in the top 8 who goes to the Orange Bowl. In this case I could see all bowl tie ins dissolved, boy the Big 10 would block that immediately. So would say the Sugar Bowl matchup #1 vs #8 this year and next year the Fiesta Bowl hosts #1 vs #8? A lot of unknowns in this scenario.
Come on now Gray. You set the date back a little to far in the Delorean. Dr. Brown will have to adjust the flux capacitor after that one. The freakin Big Eight and SWC don't exist so let's try that again.
Last season....
LSU would have hosted the Sugar against the best they could find (best meaning the team that the SEC and the Sugar Bowl execs felt would be the best traveling fan base and bring in the most money and be the most compelling match-up, just like it was always done before the BCS).
Oregon-Wisconsin in the Rose is a given. All parties involved (Rose execs, Wisc, Ore, PAC10, BIG10) would have wanted that.
OSU as the BIG12 winner would host the Fiesta against the best they could find (best meaning the team that the BIG12 and the bowl execs felt would be the best traveling fan base and bring in the most money and be the most compelling match-up, just like it was always done before the BCS).
The Orange might have taken Clemson as the official ACC champ or VT as the highest ranked ACC team. Again, in the old system they would have their choice. They would then go out and look for the best opponent they could find (best meaning the team that the ACC and the bowl execs felt would be the best traveling fan base and bring in the most money and be the most compelling match-up, just like it was always done before the BCS).
I don't think the Sugar would invite another SEC team that LSU had already played. There is no precedent I am aware of that this ever happened. However, I know that both the Fiesta and the Orange would have loved to have Bama last year (excellent traveling fan base, high profile tradition-rich school, highest ranked team available). But, in the off-chance that neither of them was able to "strike a deal" with Bama and the SEC at that time, then Bama would have likely played in the Capital One bowl against the next best BIG10 team.
The point is, Gray, that this suggestion is not confusing at all. It is simply to revert back to pre BCS (and pre Bowl Coalition) days and let the bowls and the conferences do what they always did, and that is do whatever the heck they want to, independent of any BCS involvement.
In some circumstances, those bowls would give us some very compelling match-ups that might clear-up some confusion at the top of the polls. In some cases that would not happen at all. In some cases it might muddy the water even further.
IN ALL CASES, it would take the BCS out of the bowls, which was my original intent when I said I prefer to do it this way.
Maybe a better way to package this proposal is to say it like this. This is not a "next step". This recently proposed 4-team playoff is viewed as a next step in the progression toward a big playoff like March Madness. The idea I am discussing is not that at all. This is a simply tweak of the current system. This is admitting that the current system would have always been better served to wait until after the bowls to do its thing instead of trying to incorporate the bowls and the BCS together.
-Sully