That's all this is.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
That's all this is.
And you have a better idea? He mentioned it was a flawed idea, but it's an idea nonetheless...
As the OP correctly points out, this idea is flawed in many ways. It is also flawed in several ways the OP does not point out, such as the the loss of one of the four current at large BCS bids and the further separation of teams into the "haves" and "have-nots". Add to that, in the words of the OP, that it is "nearly impossible," and the best that can reasonably be said about it is it is just one more idea.
With regard to where it falls on the list of existing ideas, well, in my opinion, it is not very high. For starters, in addition to the drawbacks mentioned above, I do not see how this idea would improve anything for anyone other than the 10 or so teams that would be joining the new conference. For everyone else, it would be either a negative or a push. And if that is all you are trying to accomplish, why go to all of the trouble of starting a new conference? It would be simpler to just take the four or five or six teams you deem worthy and add them to the existing BCS conferences.
I was not trying to start an argument. It is simply that a number of ideas are out there already, all of which have positives and negatives but none of which seem likely to come about any time soon. This is just one more. The reason I called it a "bad" idea is that will do nothing to get us materially closer to settling the annual argument over which is the best team in the country. If we want to go with an idea that is not likely to happen, we might as well go with the best one -- some sort of playoff. A playoff at least has the benefit of settling the question on the field.
I've posted it before, but here it is again.
What about a college football playoff that:
Keeps All Current Bowl Games In Place
Keeps Most Traditional Rivalries in Place for Bowl Games
Includes 16 Teams
Limits Additional Games
Reduces the Need/Desire for Teams to Schedule “Non-Competitive” Games
Impossible? Not really, here it is:
All 6 BCS conferences will have two divisions (ACC, Big 12, and SEC already have this in place). Big East, Big 10, and Pac 10 will have the option to add teams and split into 2 divisions. If Big East, Big 10, and/or Pac 10 do not want to split into divisions, there would be more “at large” teams. All conferences may add teams if they want up to a maximum of 10 teams per division.
Schedule will consist of 12 regular season games. Teams may NOT play more than 3 non-conference games.
Playoff will consist of 16 teams
The 12 Division winners automatically qualify.
There will be an additional 4 “at-large” bids determined by BCS ranking.
First round of the playoffs (16 teams) will be the same as the current Conference championships (played the week after the regular season ends) plus playoffs between the 4 “at-large” teams. BCS ranking will determine the home team.
Second round of the playoffs (8 teams) will be the following week. Home team determined the same as for the first round.
Third round of the playoffs (4 teams) will be on New Year’s Day at two of the existing bowl games.
Championship game will be the next week at an existing bowl game (like it is now).
All teams that do not make the final 4 are eligible to play in any of the other bowl games (just like now).
All bowl games can keep traditional rivalries except for the 2 bowls hosting the final 4.
If your ideal is a BCS football conference, you have to include Hawaii, and especially Fresno. Fresno's "Play anyone, anywhere, anytime" motto has been great for college football IME, and would be great for a new conference. And if you're going entirely off current coaching, why not include June Jones' newest location, SMU?
And if this is a football specific reform, there's no need to make it into a basketball reformation. Get rid of Utah State and UNLV. Basketball seems to have their tournament on track as is.
As the other posters pointed out, it is certainly flawed in that deserving teams are omitted. Also, what happens in a few years when the balance of power shifts and teams that were left out of this conference because of their 2003-2008 performance become good? The alternative argument to this is that the teams that are excluded are effectively being removed from competition as recruiting to these schools would become impossible. All that being said, good work thinking outside the "BCS playoff" box.
tl;dr since there is a game tomorrow. Lets worry about this stuff when, oh, there is nothing else going on.
MICHIGAN FOOTBALL TOMORROW! Seriously who cares about the BCS right now?
To address the concerns of some that this "uber-mid-major" conference will just be another Mid Major in a few years, you could take a La Liga approach for the mid majors...This gets messy though as football teams could advance and basketball teams could regress...This would be an obvious complaint for those attempting to determine conference affiliation. Schools have Football, M&W Basketball, M&W swimming, track and field, volleyball, etc. Oftentimes, conferences will have a "commissioner's cup" competition related to the results from all sports just like the NCAA does for the conferences. You can't do this if different sports are in different conferences. Athletic departments like stability. They want to book their teams in the same hotels whenever they compete at school X...
But you just wanted this to work on paper. And this keeps our power mid major conference at the top.
I think that this is the best solution to keeping the league competitive in the short term, but there are long term issues. You hit on most of them, but I think that one of the biggest flaws is that this system could be detrimental towards recruiting. Teams like Nevada, Air Force, and (maybe) TCU could experience problems because they would not have any guarantees of playing in the more competitive conference. Because any team in the lower league would almost certainly be precluded from playing in a BCS bowl, recruiting at a higher level would become very difficult. This would potentially reduce the level of talent coming into the league over time, which would be detrimental to all of the mid-majors. Furthermore, scheduling between rivals (exp. Utah-Utah State) would be a complete nightmare, because they would either suspend rivalries when the teams were in different leagues or not be able to determine non-conference schedules until the late season or offseason (nine months max).
I think it's an interesting idea, but overall not feasible because it could prove to be detrimental in the long term.
I +1-ed you though, for FWIW.
Before we get all happy putting all of these podunk mid-major patsies (normally) in a secluded conference all by themselves (which only re-creates the same problem), we might just want to address the issue at hand. The issue is Boise State. In the past 10-15 years, they are actually the one mid-major that has threatened to have a sustainable program.
Boise State could be added to the Pac 10... like Penn State was to the Big 10. (No, I'm not saying Boise St is at Penn St level pre-Big Ten) I'm noticing a natural fit in to the Pac 10 conference. They could make some kind of creative logo like the Big 10 did to have the number 11 in it, and still call it Pac 10.
It's local enough to the rest of the Pac 10 schools (especially the ones in Washington and Oregon), and there'd be ample more chances for them to be bludgened.
The other 9 mentioned above haven't been as consistent as Boise. (possible exception in BYU and TCU... maybe Utah, but give it time) Fresno State would be a better fit than a few of those schools, but again they've dropped off after David Carr left.
While these 9 have been lucky/good recently, Boise State is the only school in the above subset that I believe can make it in a big conference like the Pac 10. BCS berths (and results) help me believe they can do it now.
While Boise State would probably be able to compete in the Pac-10, it is unlikely that the Pac-10 would be willing to add any team because then they would either have to abandon their round robin or have each team play only two non-conference games. Furthermore, Boise's only good team is the football team and would be demolished in conference play in basketball and other sports. Even if Boise was admitted to the Pac 10, the only sport that would benefit would be football, and Boise would either have to attempt to stay in the WAC for basketball (no reason for the WAC to consider this, Boise is a mid to low level team in the conference every year) or they could become an independent in sports other than football (also highly unappealing, especially from an economic standpoint).
I'll address your other points briefly. I left out Fresno State precisely because they haven't done anything since the best player in school history left. BYU, Utah, and TCU have all been somewhat successful without the same core of players every year, not unlike Boise State. I also included Nevada, because they've been an upper level WAC team in the past several years and their pistol-offense can be great at times. Air Force was left because they do have a consistent group of players from whom they can recruit every year, courtesy of being a military academy, and have shown that they can be somewhat successful with them. Finally, the remaining teams are often good at basketball, which makes the conference into a viable entity in multiple sports. This is important because it will keep money flowing into the conference even when teams in one sport aren't playing well. Furthermore, it would help induce Utah and BYU to leave the MWC if their basketball team would have some quality competition.
... you might as well make it something that actually fixes the problem at hand: a two-team playoff is no way to decide the champion of a 120-team division in which each team played 12 games before the playoff. This might solve the "Boise State gets screwed out of the BCS" issue, but it won't solve the "Utah, Texas, USC get screwed out of playing for the title" issue - and that's the more important one.
The difference between my idea and a playoff is that Boise State, Utah, BYU, etc. would actually have some matter of control over the process of making a new conference. Theoretically, these schools would actually want to form a new conference and would be able to create one by remaking their contracts with their conferences so that they all expire around the same time, allowing them to form a new conference when that time comes. A playoff will only happen when the beneficiaries of the BCS system decide either that a playoff will bring in more revenue or they are in some other way compelled to make a change that is not in their best interests financially. Here, the non-BCS teams at least have a say in the matter.
Given the BCS rules that allow for a 7th automatic qualifying conference, if Boise State joins the MWC, it might give them the status they need to get the AQ nod. At that point, with Boise State, TCU, BYU, and Utah playing each other every year, if they schedule tough OOC games (like they do now), then they might get the ranking boost they need to break the top two. At worst, there will always be a MWC team in the BCS.