HOLLYWOOD, Fla. -- With little or no change expected to occur in the way college football determines its national champion, fans and media have been quick to blame the Big Ten and Pac-10 conferences, which seem to be most opposed to a proposed plus-one format.


Not so fast, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said Tuesday.

"The perception that the Big Ten and Pac-10 are holding this back is not right," Delany said, after exiting a Tuesday morning meeting of conference commissioners and bowl and television representatives at an oceanfront hotel here. "We're seen as obstructionists when we did what we did to evolve the system. The calls for change are external. Ask others here how strongly they feel for a call for change. I don't see it."

On Wednesday morning, SEC commissioner Mike Slive will present a proposal for a plus-one format, which would change the current BCS system to two semifinal games in advance of a national championship game. The changes couldn't take place until after the 2009 season, when the current BCS contracts with bowl games and TV networks expire.

Still, Slive's proposal is expected to fall on mostly deaf ears here.

"I think there are a lot of other people who like where they are, but they should say it," Delany said. "There are others in the room who like where we're at. There are no raised voices here. Everybody's mind is open for discussion."

Even ACC commissioner John Swofford, the BCS chairman, said he likes the current BCS format, which pits the top two teams in the final BCS standings in a national championship game.

"I feel good about where the BCS is at this point in time," Swofford said. "But I think it's important to look at models like this that might improve where we're at. I think there are a lot of people in the room who are happy with the way things are right now. I think the question is: Is there a better way? I think it's all about looking at opportunities to improve the BCS."

The Big Ten and Pac-10 have separate contracts with the Rose Bowl, which traditionally has paired the champions of the two leagues in a New Year's Day bowl game. The Rose Bowl's contract with ABC expires after the 2013 season. The Bowl Coalition was created in 1992 to help determine the sport's national champion. The Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl weren't integrated until 1997.

"We think the burden for changing is on the proponents of change," Delany said. "Not on the group that brought a bowl and two conferences from one place of tradition to a place that is 10 years old."

Swofford said the league commissioners and Notre Dame athletics director Kevin White would spend much of Wednesday's scheduled five-hour meeting discussing the plus-one model, among other topics. Swofford said the plus-one model might be eliminated from consideration altogether, or the commissioners could decide to take the proposal to their member schools' athletics directors and presidents for further discussion. Swofford said the commissioners must vote unanimously on whether to move ahead with the plus-one model or kill it entirely.

"It could reach an end point on the negative side, but couldn't reach an end point on the positive side," Swofford said. "We'll have to see how the discussions go."

Swofford admitted swaying Delany and Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen to a plus-one model will be difficult.

"They've been very consistent [in their beliefs]," Swofford said.

Swofford said league commissioners and athletic directors attending the BCS meetings have raised specific concerns about the plus-one model. The logistical difficulties of getting a team from a potential semifinal game at Dolphin Stadium in Miami to a championship game in Glendale, Ariz., seven days later, is among the concerns. Swofford said having a two-week period between the semifinals and BCS title game, like the NFL does with the conference championship games and Super Bowl, probably isn't plausible because university presidents have adamantly opposed extending college football's postseason beyond the first week of January.

"You run into the problem of taking it too deeply into second semester, which the presidential level says is unacceptable," Swofford said.

The BCS system has been highly controversial since its inception. Last season, LSU beat Ohio State 38-24 in the BCS Championship Game. Georgia and Southern California both felt they were deserving of a spot in the BCS title game. In 2007, Florida jumped Michigan in the final BCS standings to earn a chance to play Ohio State for the national title. The Gators beat the Buckeyes 41-14. In 2005, Auburn finished 13-0 during the regular season but was left out of the BCS title game. USC beat Oklahoma 55-19 in the FedEx Orange Bowl to win the 2005 BCS title.

"The BCS has had controversy, but it's done some things well," Delany said. "I think everybody would have to concede it has done some things well. Even when the coaches and sportswriters were determining the national champion, there was controversy."

Delany said college football's rising popularity is proof the current BCS format works.

"I don't think there's any doom or gloom about the regular season or postseason," Delany said.

Mark Schlabach covers college sports for ESPN.com.

I didn't even read this, i just figured it was more BS from the college higher-ups. Where is the fucking outcry for a playoff? Can we possibly do something about this? Can somebody please give me an obvious legitimate argument to why there shouldn't be a playoff?

Honestly I can't, they need to go to a style similar to the NCAA basketball tourney.

16 teams
11 auto bids to the conf champions
5 at large, to the next highest ranked teams according to BCS standings

first two rounds higher seeded team gets home field advantage
semifinals and NC games are at neutral sites.

If you don't make it it, you can still go to Hertz Rent A Car Bowl if you want.

No one can give you a legitimate argument because there isn't one. I've heard people say it has to do with the money I've seen scenarios where that has been worked out. TV? Rotate the games between networks each year. I've heard the argument that it will take away from the tradition of the Bowl games. Well that's already out the window because the Big 10 Champ didn't play in the Rose Bowl this year and for 2 consecutive games earlier in the decade the Pac-10 Champ didn't either. Make the Fiesta Bowl the Championship game one year with the Rose Bowl and the Orange Bowl as the semi-finals. The next year the Sugar Bowl gets the Championship game and 2 others get the semi-finals. The worst argument I've heard is that now matter where you cut it off, in this case at 16 teams, then the 17th ranked team will bitch about it. I'm fine with the 17th ranked team bitching instead of the 3rd ranked team when the top 3 teams all have one loss.

There was a blog I read from a fan of a Big Ten team (Michigan, I think) that made a legitimate argument against a plus one system in that it would put the Big Ten at a major disadvantage at the hands of the SEC, Pac 10, and to a lesser extent the Big 12. Essentially, since all the major bowls are played in warm weather venues, it would create a hell of a lot of traveling for Big Ten (and other northern) teams and their fans.

Let's say Michigan wins the Big Ten and USC the Pac 10--they play in the Rose Bowl. Of course, it's a lot easier for Trojans fans to attend that game and gain de facto homefield advantage. Then, if the Wolverines win, they go on to the plus one game to face...LSU. And it just so happens that the game's rotation is in New Orleans that year. Again, much easier for the Tigers fans to attend that game, especially when the Michigan fan with strapped funds may be asking (him/her)self whether to go to the assured Rose Bowl or wait for the possible plus one game.

*waits for B to say I should have used Ohio State in my example*

All that being said, plus one kinda intrigues me and I don't really have a personal opinion on it yet.

Does the Sun Belt Conference really deserve an automatic berth?

After a recent post that Darrin did on conference restructuring, I pondered the idea of possibly squeezing out a "best of the rest" of the non-BCS conferences, mainly focused on the MWC and C-USA. Basically, you send three of the far east C-USA teams (Central Florida, East Carolina, Marshall) into the Big East to round them out at 12, and then form a new conference of twelve centered around the middle of the US. Boise State, Fresno State, Utah, BYU, TCU, and maybe Tulsa would form a solid football base, throw UNLV, Nevada, and Memphis in there for basketball prominence, and maybe round it out with Texas schools like Houston, UTEP, SMU for geographical convenience.

(of course, I'd rather have BSU and Idaho in the Pac 10, but I know you won't like that. )

Anyway, give those seven conference champs automatic berths and the eighth can come from the remainder of the non-BCS schools. Then you have either four at large berths if you want to do 12 like the NFL and give the top four special advantage, or eight if you want to go all the way to 16.

Might never work, but I've had plenty of crazy thoughts on how to fix this mess that have been worse.

They can't just keep tweaking the BCS or college football post season.

It's broken, they won't be able to fix what's already broken. They need to do a drastic overhaul.

outside of some crappy matchups due to former bowl conference agreements namely last years Rose and Sugar bowls which should have had better matchups.... It's really not as bad as people think. Ratings come to early anyway that's an issue.

The entire season is a playoff I think that's what needs tweeking. They need to do it a little like the NFL and maybe get the conferences to help make sure all the teams play strong non conference schedules for the betterment of all, the cream will rise the pretenders will fade.

The 4 team is not bad, any bigger than that... lots of whiney bitching.

neither UGA nor USC deserved a spot in the National Championship game. The BCS got it right.. The conferences screwing the matchups is what bothered me.

UGA vs USC would have been a HELL of a rose bowl. INstead we got two games which weren't really worth watching. Three if you count the Orange Bowl which wasn't much better.



controversy is good, we just need to make the regular season better. Take out the 1AA's and replace them with up and coming 1 A's like Troy, Tulsa... FAU etc. Give me at least one home run a week in August/Sept

USC vs OSU. UCLA vs BC Clemson vs Texas Tech.. etc. whet the appetite.

Yeah I definetly don't want a Pac-12.

I guess it's under the idea that "win your conference, and you have a CHANCE to win the national title." Even though the Atlantic Sun will never produce an NCAA champion in Men's basketball, they still get a bid. Lower conferences getting an auto bid would a) give the higher seeded teams an essential bye b) provide a cinderella for causal fans to pull for and c) assure an undefeated mid major(Boise St in 06, Utah in 04) the chance to prove they belong on the field and guarenteed they won't be pushed out for another big conference school.

Oh yeah, another thing, no special Notre Dame clause. Either join a conference, or finish high enough to gain an at large bid.

*cough*USC-GEORGIA*cough*

Yeah, Beat Tennessee Georgia. Period. They didn't take care of their own business.

As for USC... punked by STANFORD... yeah uh the Rose Bowl pretty nice consolation all in all.

That's what I'm saying, USC-UGA should have been the Rose Bowl.

That would have been orgasmic, though I'd have been broke between the flight and tickets and everything else.

Damn.

The Buckeyes will take the blame for that one. We should have beat that sad Illinois team which would have kept them out of the Rose.

Our bad.

I definitely understand the sentiment, and it works beautifully in basketball--just a shame there isn't enough time for a 64-team playoff in football. I could just see it now: a team like Alabama punks a team like Troy 63-0, yet they finish a close third in the SEC and are left out while a 7-5 Troy team somehow wins their conference.




Of course, I'd rather demand that every conference have a championship game in the first place, but given your first comment, you won't want that.

Personally I think the conferences should decide for themselves what's best for the conference. True round-robins are fine, everyone plays everyone. As for Alabama and Sun Belt teams, considering they lost to UL-Lafayette, I don't think they're the best example to use. Not to mention Troy State wasn't all that bad last year, just ask Georgia and Oklahoma State.

I understand why it is, but as someone who followed more pro sports growing up, the lack of uniformity always frustrated me. Not so much with college basketball, because they came up with a brilliant postseason plan. I'm sure I can mention the year 2003 as a sign of eternal damnation for you.



Yeah, I know--maybe I should used, say, Florida and Florida Atlantic.

The odd thing is that Troy went 8-4 that year but because they got edged out by FAU for the conference, they got shut out of a bowl even though several 6-6 teams went to one. I thought 6-6 teams got the lowest bowl priority, but I guess that's not the case if you're a Sun Belt Team.

I don't see why Division I is all HIGH AND MIGHTY with them selfs and the size of their cocks.

I mean the I-AA, II, and III all do tournaments.

WHY THE FUCK can't Division I do one too.

to Division I

I think another thing that could really shake up the BCS when they renew in a couple years is that with the new Cowboys stadium being built, the Cotton Bowl is going to make a hard push to return to its glory days by getting included in the BCS package.

If they get included, the conference tie-in aspect intrigues me the most. I don't think the Big East would be a natural fit for them. They could either tie-in with that new conference that I created, or even more interesting, have no tie-ins at all and try to land the best matchups available. That might have the chance to weaken the Rose Bowl if it keeps getting stinkers like the USC-Illinois debacle from last year.

All I know is that they should get rid of the rule that permits only two teams from each conference making it into the BCS. Reward the conferences that do well.

Great. MAYBE a "tourney" in 2014. MAYBE.

The Pac-10 commissioner is the worst. Any fan of the conference who is familiar with our Pac-10/FSN television deal should know what I'm talking about.