When the term power conference was adopted during the middle of the BCS era with the expansion. The ACC, SEC, Big 10, PAC 12, Big 12 all had divisions and a championship game. The arguement to eliminate the Big East, now the AAC, came from the Big 12 as the Big East didn't expand and was without divisions and a championship game. Now the Big 12 finds itself at 10 teams and no championship. Only 2 other conferences are in this situation...the Sunbelt and the AAC, which is planning on expanding again once the ACC/Big10 moves happen. The MAC, MWC, and CUSA have divisions and a championship game. I won't argue that the talent and team quality is better at MAC, MWC, CUSA, Sunbelt, or AAC. However, the Big 12 shouldn't be regarded in the same breath as the ACC, SEC, Big 10, and PAC 12. They play one less game and skip the hazard of having their undefeated or one loss power team having problems in the conference championship. In an era of a 4 team play-off, why should the Big12 be given any consideration before the ACC, SEC, Big 10, and PAC 12? They should only be considered if the other 4 conferences can not fill the 4 slots with their conference champions. The Big 12 could have expanded last year...they continue to choose not to as the conference championship game as many times as not killed their best teams BCS title hopes. However, they could offer BYU, Boise St, Houston, SMU, and LA Tech to join and be able to go to 14 teams, 2 divisions and a championship game. I think the Big 12 should understand they are no longer sitting at the table with the big boys themselves...yeah they are a cut above the other conferences but below the cut of the 4 power conferences. Until the playoff system is expanded to 16 teams and rules clearly established by the NCAA for the qualificationn standards, they have to wait and see just like MAC, MWC, and CUSA to see if there is a top spot open. The real solution is the 16 team playoff. Which would allow all 10 conference champions automatic bids to the playoff. The remaining 6 spots would be filled in order of merit by the conferences with a championship game. This would allow the best 6 of 7 teams from the championship conferences into the playoffs. In a situtation where a conference has a champion and a runner up with both teams having 1 loss after the title game, you would have the conference champion in and the other team waiting to see how they racked up against the conferences to get in. In this secenario, you end up with the final 6 being made up of 1 loss teams unless its a year where the conference champs have more than 1 loss across the board..in which case you would have 2 loss teams filling out the final 6. However, it gurantees that the best teams are in the playoffs and the winner of it all is the champion not just a team who got votes. Who doesn't remember Tommy Tubbervilles undefeated AU team not getting a shot at the national title game solely because of a slanted popularity contest. It also eliminates the arguement over size and conference games. Cause really, how can anyone say an SEC or ACC team is not worthy cause of a 8 game schedule...when in reality the winner of the SEC and ACC championship game has played 9 conference games.