It is very troubling that the future of college football’s postseason, which in turn affects entire athletic departments, which in turn affect entire public universities, is being determined by 11 conference commissioners and the BCS’ executive director, none of whom are public employees. There have been no public representatives in the meetings that have taken place and none are scheduled to be included in the June 20 meetings in Chicago. (But rest assured that television executives have been included.)

Sure, public university presidents will ultimately have the final say on whatever proposal(s) the conference commissioners and BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock put in front of them, but why didn’t this process start with them? And think they have the political will or resources to truly reshape the system? Not a chance. College football is still very much in the hands of a cartel of conference commissioners and cronyism is still rampant. Most troubling is the likely possibility that the two semifinal games (and possibly the final game) will be played in the existing bowl structure. Dan Wetzel, author of Death to the BCS, explains why this is so problematic:

Bowls have been horrible partners – unless you were an athletic director who received free Caribbean cruises or complimentary scotch and cigars on the 19th hole of the Arizona Biltmore. Of course, those were paid with what was college football’s money in the first place.

Now the commissioners want to give the bowls the semifinals, two games which each should be worth more than the current title game? When you extend it over an eight- or 10-year period, then college administrators will be handing over an estimated $300 million (and likely more) in profits to their already well-greased friends in what essentially is a no-bid contract.
That’s $300 million-plus that should stay with the schools.

Think our public schools and universities couldn’t use $300 million-plus? If college football’s playoff are simply handed over to the bowl games (and university presidents are complicit), the heart and soul of the BCS will still very much exist, even if the name does not. It may be time for Congress to intervene — before it’s too late.

The 11 college athletics conference commissioners (and Notre Dame’s athletic director) announced today that they will recommend to university presidents a four-team playoff starting in 2014. What exactly that will look like or how it will work remains to be decided. But the BCS did announce that 8- and 16-team playoff scenarios are off the table.

Here are a few options as explained by CBSSports.com’s Brett McMurphy:

• A four-team playoff with the semifinals and final rotated among the existing BCS bowl games (Sugar, Fiesta, Orange and Rose).

• A four-team playoff with the semifinals rotated among the existing BCS bowl games with the final held at a neutral site. The site of the final would be determined by a bid process, similar to how the Super Bowl is awarded.

• A four-team playoff with the semifinals and final held at either the existing BCS bowl game sites or neutral sites, determined by a bid process.

The BCS also announced the end of AQ (Automatic Qualifying) status for conferences, which had led to ridiculous reshuffling the past few years. But the bigger leagues will still receive more revenue.

Here’s the statement from the BCS on the developments. The changes must be adopted by the NCAA Presidential Oversight Committee later this summer.

Stay tuned for more on this…

As most college football fans know, the powers-that-be are currently weighing several options for a new format for college football’s postseason. But as with all things BCS and college football, these conversations are apparently taking place behind close doors with no accountability from the public (if they’re taking place at all). Back in November, BCS Executive Director Bill Hancock said on the Dan Patrick Show:

We’re in a very exciting time for us. The process has begun for considering the future and the first step is grassroots conversations on the campus level…Everything is on the table…Anything you can think of has and will be discussed…from the spectrum of going back to the old bowl system, that’s been in the press. All the way to a 16-team playoff, that’s also been in the press.

IF any of those discussions have taken place, there has been virtually no media coverage of them, which seems unlikely. That lack of transparency will continue in Florida in a couple weeks when the BCS holds meetings with conference commissioners, athletic directors and television executives to discuss the future of college football’s postseason. Our friends at PlayoffPAC have led the charge in calling for fan representation at these meetings, similar to Sports Fans Coalition’s call to be part of the NFL labor negotiations last year.

“We’re not wanting there to be a live camera in all the meetings,” Matthew Sanderson of Playoff PAC told CBSSports.com in an email. “What we want is a voice representing fans and players in the room. They need to engage all stakeholders in college football, and they should solicit input before decisions are made, not after. They promised “grassroots conversations” and what’s happened so far doesn’t qualify.”

We second Playoff PAC’s call for fan representation. This process should be open and transparent. Not closed and arbitrary. We’ve had more than enough of that…

Based on the recent statements of the five major conference commissioners, it appears that there is support for a four-team playoff of some sort. The lone exception is Big 10 Commish Jim Delaney, who has historically been opposed to a playoff. As the commissioners and university presidents create a new plan for college football’s postseason, it’s important to keep track of where things stand. Here are the most recent comments from conference commissioners. (And be sure to check out Andy Staples’ article on where nine individual university presidents stand on a playoff.)

SEC Commissioner Mike Slive

On a four-team playoff consisting of only conference champions:

I’m willing to have a conversation about (only conference champions), but if you were going to ask me today, that would not be the way I want to go…It really is early in the discussions, notwithstanding what some commissioners say publicly. There’s still a lot of information that needs to be generated.

On the possibility that the top two seeds would host home games:

There are plusses and minuses to that concept…One is that you’re playing a couple games to determine the national champion and to make it a home game for somebody has always been perceived as a competitive advantage. The NCAA men’s basketball tournament is not played at the homes of the higher seeds. So you have to look at that…The other side is there would be the question of fan travel and the ability to travel to one or more games. You guarantee good attendance (at a campus stadium) — for one team. It needs to be looked at carefully. It’s on the table and it should be on the table.

Source: The Birmingham News, 03/07/12

ACC Commissioner John Swofford

Q: In 2008, you and [the SEC’s] Mike Slive were the only commissioners from BCS conferences to support a four-team football playoff. Now, there seems to be broad support. What changed?

A: What is evident is the collective feeling within the room that change is needed beyond tweaking…I think there’s a collective realization that there’s enough dissatisfaction with the current system that it’s really important to step back and make it better…Now, where that will lead us, I don’t know. Over the next few months, the [BCS] commissioners will continue to have meetings and ultimately will take the leaning of our group to our respective conferences and get the feedback of conference [members] and presidents. That’s where the decisions ultimately will be made, but we’ve got a lot of work to do between now and then.

Q: Is it fair to say the group is leaning toward a four-team playoff?

A: It’s a little early to say that. I don’t think we’re going to see an NFL-type playoff, [but] there is a receptiveness to discuss more teams being involved beyond just the [current] two. A four-team approach can be done in multiple ways.

Q: Is there an inclination to limit the field to conference champions?

A: Not yet. That would be part of the discussion. I think winning your conference championship is important in the overall scheme of things and maintaining the quality of the regular season.

Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 03/05/12

Big 12 Interim Commissioner Chuck Neinas (leaves post July 1)

On a four-team playoff:

Looking at it very broadly, we’ve agreed, we’ve got to do something to maintain public interest…We want a vibrant postseason. We have to explore ideas that will make it better. There’s obviously strong support of a four-team arrangement.

On a four-team playoff with conference champions:

I like the idea, if you’re going to take four, take four champions…They’re not hard to identify…The selection process is one that would concern me. The easiest is taking four conference champions.

Source: The Oklahoman, 03/03/12

Big 10 Commissioner Jim Delaney

It sounds like you are opposed to the “Plus-1” BCS format for college football?

We have historically been opposed to it, but we also have a lot of colleagues who are opposed. I think the last time it came up, there were five of the seven founders discussed it, and now most people want to discuss it. We’re curious and engaged, but I think what a lot of people don’t understand is underlying any of our positions are university presidents, athletic directed and coaches. I’m engaging with them over the next 60 days.

I would say the No.1 factor for us is: What is the impact on the athlete and then the regular season because that’s everything that we’ve been about for a long time. Three, is what is the impact on the Rose Bowl and the bowl system? Lastly, what is competitively fair? We have strong opinions on it internally, which are not always aligned. [Former Wisconsin football coach and current AD] [Barry] Alvarez has spoken favorably about it and [AD] Dave Brandon of Michigan has spoken strongly against [the BCS]. [Northwestern football coach] Pat Fitzgerald has spoken against it and others are in favor. I would say that for us to move or change it, it needs to work for [all four of those elements] and that the competitive fairness is somehow tied to the regular season because we play that for 13 weeks and average 70,000-plus. That’s why I say it’s regional; Michigan-Ohio St, Illinois-Michigan State; those games have been meaningful for a long, long time, and we want to make sure they maintain their meaning.

Source: Huffington Post, 02/20/12

Pac 12 Commissioner Larry Scott

On a four-team playoff with conference champions:

So much of the passion of a move to a playoff is to see it earned on the field… What more clear way to have intellectual consistency with the idea of a playoff than to earn it as a conference champion? It would de-emphasize the highly subjective polls that are based on a coach and media voting and a few computers. [He added that any formula “based more on results” would be good for the sport.]

On the possibility that the top two seeds would host home games:

There’s a reason that in the N.F.L. they only play the Super Bowl as a neutral-site game…There’s a reason they play playoffs and A.F.C. and N.F.C. championships with home hosting.

Source: New York Times, 02/25/12

Take a look at the overnight ratings for the BCS National Championship game:

2010: Texas-Alabama on FOX (27.7)

2011: Auburn-Oregon on ESPN (16.1)

2012: Alabama-LSU on ESPN (13.8)

There are several reasons why the ratings last night weren’t higher — the lack of a compelling playoff culminating in a true championship game not least among them — but the real question is, why is college football’s national championship game not on broadcast television? Is college football shooting itself in the foot by allowing its most valuable product to only be seen on cable television? Is it ethical for college football to put its postseason game on pay TV, given the massive subsidization of college athletics by states, taxpayers and students? Or is this all evidence more than ever that college football’s postseason is massively failing?

In 2008, ESPN purchased the rights for the BCS title game, plus the Fiesta, Sugar and Orange Bowls, paying $125 million annually from 2011-2014. FOX had previously been paying $82.5 million annually. But the move from broadcast television to cable meant 16 million fewer households. When asked at the time why ESPN wouldn’t at least put the BCS title game on partner ABC, ESPN President George Bodenheimer said, “ESPN is the perfect home given its 100% commitment to serving sports fans.”

But is it ethical for college football to put its postseason title games on pay TV, given the massive subsidization of college athletics by states, taxpayers and students? It’s one thing for professional sports to be shown exclusively on pay TV (though even that is problematic given the massive subsidization of professional athletics, as well), but the migration of college athletics to pay TV is especially troubling. Colleges and universities should be doing all they can to make games as available to fans and working families as possible.

Of course, if college football had a true playoff with a meaningful and fair title game, the ratings would be through the roof and it would undoubtedly be on broadcast television. There’s no reason to believe it couldn’t approach the ratings of the Super Bowl, which last year had a 46.0 rating and has set viewership records for four years straight. College football’s leadership is currently debating changes to the BCS and is considering its next television contract. If these leaders don’t come up with a compelling playoff system, there’s no doubt ratings will continue to decline.