By Stewart Mandel

The past two years around this time, I've laid out the Mandel Plan for a revamped college football postseason. It's a detailed, practical and -- most importantly -- realistic model for a plus-one playoff that more often than not would solve whatever BCS controversy hovers over a given season.

On the surface, this year is no different. Irked by the idea of a regular-season rematch in the national championship game? Worried about choosing between Alabama and Oregon if it comes to that? Here's how easily that problem could be solved, based on the current standings:

• Semifinal 1: No. 1 LSU vs. No. 4 Oregon

• Semifinal 2: No. 2 Oklahoma State vs. No. 3 Alabama

All viable contenders are accounted for. No team could honestly say it's been slighted, unless further upsets occur (like Arkansas beating LSU), in which case the bracket would be updated accordingly. The importance of the regular season would be preserved. Problem solved.

However, my goal remains to provide a solution that actually stands a chance of being implemented -- unlike, say, a full-scale playoff bracket that includes the Sun Belt champion and renders the major bowls meaningless. To this point, the Mandel Plan was based on the current BCS model and calendar. However, all indications point to the BCS structure going through a massive overhaul beginning with the 2014 season.

"I'm very excited about the six months ahead, because I think the [BCS] group has a chance to make some decisions that will be for the good of this game for the next generation," BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock said Monday following a meeting of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee in San Francisco.

Most notably, there is a growing sentiment for eliminating automatic qualifying berths entirely. The ongoing conference realignment madness -- in which teams from Idaho and Utah stand poised to join a conference based in Rhode Island -- has put several leaders over the edge.

"There's a lot of ideas I've heard floated," said Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott. "The AQ status thing is ripe because people are troubled in some cases by the appearance it's in the name of attaining AQ status or preserving AQ status. People would like to think conference alignment has to do with a lot more than AQ status."

A high-ranking BCS source told me "almost everyone" wants to do away with AQ bids, but they've yet to focus in on a specific alternative.

No group would be more thrilled by such a move than the bowls themselves, which are sick of having undesirable teams forced upon them, a la 8-4 Connecticut last season. However, the Rose Bowl, for one, is not going to end its century-old partnerships with the Big Ten and Pac-12. Whatever the new model, there would still be some affiliation between certain bowls and conferences.

"The thinking about AQ status is pretty different for the Pac-12 and Big Ten than it is for everybody else," said Scott. "It isn't as relevant given our unique relationship with the Rose Bowl. It doesn't really matter for us one way or the other whether there's AQ status or not."

Another issue being discussed is the two-teams-per-conference limit. SEC commissioner Mike Slive and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany have expressed support for eliminating it, and understandably so since their leagues' teams are generally the most sought-after. Scott was more skeptical, saying, "It could be seen as a step in the wrong direction when there's so much scrutiny about access [for the smaller conferences]."

If AQ bids go away, however, the access issue may be rendered moot. There would no longer be an official distinction between, say, the Big 12 and the Mountain West. That would also include the revamped Big East, which was already facing a challenge to maintain its AQ status.

There's another, less publicized issue looming, and unfortunately it could potentially stop a plus-one dead in its tracks. Last month, the NCAA's bowl task force -- formed in response to last spring's Fiesta Bowl scandal -- recommended several changes for the Board of Directors to consider. One of those is to narrow the window during which the bowls are played, ending closer to Jan. 1.

"The NCAA folks do not want the bowl season to extend far into the second semester, and we're going to have to live within that calendar," said Hancock.

However, in the incestuous world that is college athletics, the chairman of that task force, Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman, also serves on the BCS' oversight committee. Something tells me he can find a way to make the two organizations' desires mesh before the Board votes on the proposals in April. The key is not to play the title game any later than this year's Jan. 9 date.

Therefore, the revised Mandel Plan is based on the following assumptions:

1. There will be a fifth BCS bowl, the Cotton, added to the lineup to maintain 10 berths. (This is considered a near-given for the next contract.)

2. All BCS participants must meet a minimum Top 16 ranking.

3. There will be no more AQ berths, though the Rose Bowl will retain first rights to the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions, provided they meet the minimum ranking and don't need to be moved to a semifinal site (see below). Other bowls may still choose based on geography or traditional conference loyalties, but it won't be iron-clad.

4. There will no longer be a two-teams-per-conference limit.