Which is settled by 2014, Iraq or the BCS?

In case you weren’t aware, you should know that the BCS commissioners are getting together later this month in Florida. Will the “P” word, or the “P-O” phrase be heard? Probably, but don’t expect any earth shattering developments on that front.  The Shia and Sunni factions conference commissioners don’t see eye to eye:

… the major conferences are still stalemated over the issue with four in favor and two opposed. The conferences against remain the Pacific 10 and Big Ten, which are firmly entrenched and have the benefit of a separate contract with the Rose Bowl and ABC that runs through the 2013 season.

Unless the Pac-10 and Big Ten can be swayed, there probably will be no playoff before then.

Tony Barnhart mentions a few matters that indicate the college football game is very healthy and then throws out this kicker:

… Many schools with full football stadiums during the regular season are having a tough time keeping their athletics budgets in the black. They don’t want to see any change that would de-emphasize a single game.

Or do you believe that no matter how you might change the post-season (playoff, etc.) the regular season would be just fine because the game is so popular?

When you phrase the question that broadly, of course not.  But is there a happy medium that lowers the angst over the postseason without tampering with the passion and popularity of the regular season?  Probably.  Are these guys smart enough – and fearless enough –  to find it?  Perhaps.  If they do, are they sensible enough to quit once they’re ahead?  Doubtful.

1 Comment

Filed under BCS/Playoffs

One response to “Which is settled by 2014, Iraq or the BCS?

  1. Would not a playoff scenario be just as subjective as what we have now? With a four team playoff, there would be eight teams with a claim to a spot. Sixteen teams would mean 20 to 24 teams that would rightly believe they should be in. A playoff system wouldn’t solve much, it seems to me.

    Like