I was incorporporating aspects of the other proposal into this one, in regards to the MAC. My mistake.
Not to make work, but I'd love to see an example of how a season might pan out. I have a PhD in 3-dimensional Laser Calculus but still can't see how the top 4 teams will play the bottom two in the first 2 weeks to line up the "third game being versus one of the first teams in the current season to achieve two losses". Also, and I may be reading this wrong, but how are there enough 2 loss teams guaranteed to play the top 4 seeds? Even if I am mis-reading and the concept is for the top 4 to play the bottom 2 over 3 weeks, how can that work?
Probably staring me in the face, but I can't see it without example.
Beyond that, I just see a logistical nightmare in not knowing who you will play or where for what looks now to look like 4 games per year, right particularly with consideration, as noted, to give each team an equal number of home and aways.
Scheduling 6 OOC games still, IMO, would pull the SOS down even further because we would not be scheduling Pitt or WVU any more than we are now, probably dipping into FCS. Besides, teams have full schedules every year now with conference and OOC already. Where will 16 CUSA teams find 2 more OOC games per year?
Not much different from you... I had to start with pencil and paper, and then worked my way into an Excel file. I'm not sure how easily translated it is, but I did work something up as I thought it through, and could send it to you if you'd like. (It's very vertical, otherwise I'd take a screenshot of it and just post that.)
Not to be picky but... 14... CUSA teams.
Of course, I've already asserted that we can't do much worse with those 2 additional OOC games, but I'd like to build on that.
And yet, before I do, there's another issue that no one's brought up yet that I think has to be considered, and that is, if you go with this format, you're all-in on the premise that your conference champ to have the best possible shot at the major bowl... which pretty much rules out geographic rivalries.
Thus, under this structure, you don't know if you're playing Old Dominion and Western Kentucky or UTEP and UTSA in a given season... there's no guarantee that you'll play a game in Florida.
So having said that, let me throw out this sunroom addition to the house built in the initial post...
That is, let's add the clause that CUSA schools may contract with as many as 3 others in the conference to fill those 6 dates... so, even potentially reducing the number of OOC games rather than adding to them.
And, let's say that if you choose to do that, then those games
do count as conference games... thus, they do affect seeding for the current season's games. So, UAB may have had a sucky 2013, but having scheduled 3 September games with other conference mates, those games give them a shot at raising their seeding in the stripes pool bracket. Similarly, Marshall may have finished runner-up to Rice in 2013, and may mirror Rice in running the table in the Stars Pool games, but potentially could play and win games against MTSU and FAU that end up nudging them into the #1 seed for the R/W/B round. Alternatively, Hamrick may feel his program is better served by trying to fill all 6 of the slots with stronger competition since he knows the three Stars games will be against some of the conference's weakest competition.
So... by establishing that clause, your concerns are more than remedied, even potentially reducing OOC games to 3 if a given AD sees advantage in that... and my concerns are more than remedied, giving an AD some additional control he doesn't currently have, free to pursue even a very ambitious schedule, having more dates available to him to do that.
Kosher?