The New Bowl Championship Series

1.    The New Bowl Championship Series plan provides the opportunity and framework for the NCAA and the various bowl board members to work together so that everyone "wins" including the fan by having an undisputed national championship decided each and every year on the field of play.

2.    Last year there were 34 bowls. This plan requires 31 bowl locations in addition to round one’s 16 home games. My plan currently requires that 3 current bowls be left out of the New BCS. The option exists that the 3 bowls that I left out replace 3 of the home teams so that only the top 13 teams of the second tier (17 through 29) would have home games in the first round (instead of 16).

3.    I have included the Nielsen Ratings and the viewership numbers for each respective bowl. My belief is that the TV ratings of the first three rounds of the New BCS tournament would at least double, and probably triple.. I will leave it to other professionals that can accurately predict what this increase would be, but it no doubt translates into “more money” for all to share. The NCAA would have more than a little to say about how the money is “shared”.

4.    The increased viewership and attendance at these games would greatly solidify some first tier bowls’ financial positions. It appears that the “big four” share proceeds which enables them to all provide an equal “pay out” to each conference/team. This type of structure may be investigated to enable each round to have the same type of equal pay-out.

5.    Although teams that advance should be fairly compensated for each victory, a compensation plan would be devised to where the advancing teams receive a limited pay-out, with the excess left for the NCAA or others to decide how to share the overages. The 20 teams left out of the 2008 Mock-up Bracket would have grossed approximately $17,375,000. To make up this loss revenue to these schools,  some of the additional revenue due to this plan could go to FBS conferences/teams. Obviously, the net amount required by each institution would be far less than the gross received because they would not incur any costs of “going to a bowl”.