The BCS Presidential Oversight Committee convenes next Tuesday in the nation's capital, although it's doubtful even that'll bring a closure to the process. But it'll sure be another step.
C'mon already. I realize this stuff is complicated and each constituency has its own agenda, but, at this pace, by the time they have something everyone can live with, the Ivy League will be handing out full rides. And scheduling Texas home-and-home.
First, there was talk of the so-called "Plus-One" system, with the championship-game matchup being determined after the bowls are played. To me, that doesn't solve as much as some would think, and actually could create more headaches. But that would keep the Rose Bowl intact, which seems to be rather important to the Pac-12 and Big Ten. The Southeastern Conference, which has won the last six titles, prefers a four-team playoff. As do a lot of other folks. Then the problem becomes how to feasibly incorporate the major bowls into any such plan. Not to mention how those four teams will be selected. You think coming up with four is any less stressful than two? And if you don't think the difference between four getting in and the fifth being left out isn't as big of an injustice deal as the difference between two and a third, why are we even talking about a mini-tournament?
And if you think this is the first step toward a full-blown 16-team scrum like all the other divisions, better think again. Maybe next millennium.
The current system utilizes two polls (but not the Associated Press media version) and multiple sets of power ratings. In the current format, you don't have to be a conference champ to make it to the ultimate game. Some folks want to see that change. The SEC would not, which might have something to do with the fact that Alabama won it all last season, despite not even playing in the SEC final by winning a rematch with SEC champ LSU. And the idea is to get the two best teams there, right?
So now the commissioners have at least said they'll support a four-team proposal. The hope is that it could be implemented by the 2014 season. We'll see what the presidents think.
In a perfect world, they'll sign off on it, too, and the details can actually start to get resolved in earnest. But when was the last time anyone mentioned BCS and perfect in the same handbook?
The commishes said they've come to a consensus on the model they'll present for approval. They wouldn't provide many specifics before they discuss them with their bosses, although I'm sure they'll start leaking out at any moment. They usually do. The major bowls will be involved, but who didn't know that? I don't care anymore. If you're going to move forward, just get it done and proceed from there. You can deal with the tweaking later, because there's always tinkering. They probably won't get it totally right the first time, just like the Bowl Alliance and the Bowl Coalition and the BCS. But if nothing else, it's a move in the direction most fans want to go. So that can't ever be a bad thing, can it?
"We are excited to be on the threshold of creating a new postseason structure that builds on the popularity of our sport," the commissioners said in a statement.
"We have developed a consensus behind a four-team, seeded playoff, while recognizing that the presidents will certainly present their views, including a discussion of a Plus-One. We also discussed various selection methods and look forward to having these discussions with the presidents.
“We are getting very close and we look forward to next week's meeting?…"
Encouraging? You'd have to think so. Still, I'm taking the over. It's called keeping it real.
As long as nobody seriously brings up the Plus-One any longer, though I'm afraid that's wanting too much.
Contact Mike Kern at email@example.com.