Odds and Sods

Despite widespread support from fans, players, coaches and media for such a system, conference commissioners announced that they would not consider changes to the BCS format that determines the national champion when they renegotiate the TV deal for 2014.

“We will move forward in the next cycle with the current format,” BCS chairman John Swofford said.  “I believe the BCS have never been healthier in its first decade.”

There was no proposal for a true playoff system as such.  SEC commissioner Mike Silve proposed a +1 system where the top four teams in the BCS standings after the bowl games would play in a “Final Four” type format to determine a champion.  Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese favored a similar plan that would have included the four BCS bowl game winners, rather than the top four in the BCS standings.

This decision is not surprising.  Conference commissioners and school administrators are concerned with one thing, sweet cash.  They intend the BCS to be a treasure bath for the big conferences.  The top bowl games bring in tens of millions of dollars for schools and conferences.  As long as that money from television, ticket sales and merchandise keeps coming in, there is no reason to consider stopping that succulent gravy train.

Even the conferences that support a playoff, like the SEC, only do so because they did not have the foresight that forcing their teams to play an extra title game–a cash grab in itself–would only hurt that team’s chances to play for the national title.

The only way to alter the system would be to make it not financially viable–to boycott watching the bowls, traveling to them and patronizing businesses associated with them.  However, fans do not care enough to make such a sacrifice.  Michigan got hosed in 2006, but no one gave up their season tickets.

We may gripe about the unfairness, but the inflammation is fleeting.