Yesterdays meeting of FBS conference commissioners and Notre Dames athletic director was not the kickstart to a playoff for which most everyone had hoped. In fact, some viewed it as a reversal of field from the last commissioners+ND get-together. Depending on who you read and how you read the comments coming out of Chicago, you might even say a playoff was thrown for a loss.
Its becoming clear that the guys charged with covering this mess are, well, getting tired of covering this mess. No wonder. If the world wants a four-team playoff and most every coach, AD, president and commissioner seems to realize this
then how hard can it be to dream up a plan that will work?
Unfortunately, nearly 150 years of football without any type of FBS/Division I playoff shouldve told everyone that this might be harder to pull off than imagined. Money hasnt mattered in the past. Egos have ruled the day. To assume that everyone would just compromise and play nice this time around was pretty darned presumptuous.
Thats one reason, of course, that we continued to beat home the following line
a playoff (if theres a playoff) until many got sick of reading it. The other reason weve been writing it aint over til its over? We never underestimate the stupidity of human beings (dont take offense, were human, too).
But lets take a look at the divergence of opinion coming out of yesterdays meeting in order to form our own fresh opinion, shall we?
* First, the commissioners released a statement after the meetings that read:
We made progress in our meeting today to discuss the future of college footballs post-season. We are approaching consensus on many issues and we recognize there are also several issues that require additional conversations at both the commissioner and university president levels.
We are determined to build upon our successes and create a structure that further grows the sport while protecting the regular season. We also value the bowl tradition and recognize the many benefits it brings to student-athletes.
We have more work to do and more discussions to have with our presidents, who are the parties that will make the final decisions about the future structure of college footballs post-season.
The takeaway? Notice how its made clear that the presidents will have the final call? Thats not a promising sign because its been the presidents for more than a century whove said no, thanks to any type of top-level college football playoff.
* You can count Dennis Dodd of CBSSports.com among those writers in the frustrated camp. He states that yesterdays meeting was a regression, not progress. A source told him that a bit of an impasse has developed between the Hatfields (Big Ten/Pac-12) and the McCoys (SEC/Big 12).
If the Big Ten and Pac-12 presidents had embraced the four-team playoff, then I think there would have been a place where everyone was on the same page, and then ready to fill in all the gaps, Dodds source said. One commissioner told him, The Pac-12 is still dug in on some things that other people arent.
Meaning? Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman supposedly speaking for all the Big Ten presidents have made it clear theyd still be okey-dokey with a true Plus-One tacked on after the bowl games or even the status quo. But the status quo has been ruled dead by most involved, so that means the hang-up is the Plus-One.
SEC/Big 12 = pro-playoff. Pac-12/Big Ten presidents = pro-Plus-One, at least to some extent.
Dodd also points out the top dog of the BCS, Bill Hancock, said after Aprils commissioners meeting that seismic change was on the way. Yesterday he said it could be a while before the future of the game is known. Buzzkill.
The writer sums things up with a pair of uh-oh quotes from a commissioner (The presidents arent rubber stamping anything. The challenge is the commissioners have had eight or nine meetings. Weve been talking about it for 100 hours and then you cant give it to the presidents and expect them to digest it in four hours.) and from a source (Theyll look at the four-team playoff and look at the Plus-One.).
* Brett McMurphy of CBSSports.com doesnt paint a pretty picture either. He points out that the Pac-12′s Scott said options, plural would be presented to the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee on June 26. Yep, thatd be versions of a four-team playoff and of a Plus-One.
According to McMurphy: Numerous commissioners, however, told CBSSports.com that there is a real concern that the group will not have settled on which playoff formats to go forward with on June 20th. June 20th is the next commissioners meeting. This tells us that very little was actually accomplished yesterday other than everyone staking out their own positions
something that had already been done publicly on numerous occasions.
A BCS source also told McMurphy: Im dead serious that we have a long way to go. There are significant issues that must be resolved.
Hancock even said that everything is still on the table. (Everything, but the status quo, apparently.)
* Meanwhile, ACC commissioner John Swofford put happy face on the days work. Weve made excellent progress. Theres still a focus on a four-team playoff, and getting a consensus on how that will work. Well, Swoffords speaking for the commissioners. The presidents will examine the four-team playoff and a Plus-One, from almost all accounts. Where their focus will be remains a question.
* Whaddya think SEC commissioner Mike Slive had to say? Go on, guess. The First Amendment will be alive and well when the presidents meet, as it always is. There will be discussions with different models, and obviously my focuse has been on a four-team playoff. That will continue to be the Southeastern Conferences full concern.
If the most powerful commissioner in college sports talks in his sleep, Ill bet he mumbles something to the effect of The First Amendmenenntnenen
.
* So what about the recent bloggers whove flat-out stated that television will drive this playoff home? Some have gone so far as to say that television executives would demand a four-team playoff with the four highest-ranked teams by offering more money for such a plan. (Those assertions were quickly shot down by multiple college football reporters with multiple sources, by the way.)
Well, is television really in control here? Not according to Hancock. ESPNs Joe Schad tweeted yesterday that Mr. BCS himself Warns TV may not want package that is decided on.
In other words, just because theres more money in a four-team playoff
theres no guarantee of a four-team playoff. Yep, youve read that right here a hundred times. Television execs have long drooled over the thought of a college football playoff. And college footballs power brokers have long ignored their drool. And their money.
Just because logic suggests people will jump at the cash doesnt mean they will. In issues involving power and egos, you can often forget logic.
* Which brings us to Andy Staples of SI.com. One of our favorite football writers, Staples is a helluva lot more chipper about the state of things than other writers today. Why? Because he feels logic suggests that were too close to a playoff to turn back now.
Uh-oh. Logic.
According to Staples, the powers-that-be will figure it out. In his view, They havent left themselves much choice. Take it away, Mr. Staples:
Yes, there are differences of opinion between the Big Ten/Pac-12 faction and the Big 12/SEC faction. Yes, those issues must get resolved. They will. The commissioners talked money on Wednesday, as in how theyll split the revenue from the new postseason system. They wouldnt even broach the thorny topic of revenue sharing if they didnt believe they could reach a consensus on the other details (where the semifinals will be played, which four teams will make the playoff and how those teams will be selected).
There will be something for everybody, BCS executive director Bill Hancock said Wednesday, but there wont be everything for anybody.
Hancock, Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, ACC commissioner John Swofford, Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick and Big 12 commissioner-elect Bob Bowlsby he starts Monday all made it a point to mention the presidents have final say in the new postseason format. Scott said the commissioners will present multiple options to the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee. This presumably will happen before that groups June 26 meeting in Washington, but it isnt guaranteed. So why feel confident these guys can avoid screwing this up? Common sense.
Ouch. Common sense, huh?
Hey, reader, how many times in a day do you trust your fellow Americans or fellow citizens of Earth to use common sense? Yeah, thats what I thought.
Staples goes on to make some very logical points:
1. No conference wants to be viewed as the league that killed a potential playoff. (Though the Big Ten and old Pac-10 avoided joining the BCS for six seasons while everyone else took part in a Bowl Alliance and a Bowl Coalition.)
2. The commissioners have spent too much time talking about a four-team playoff to turn back now. (Didnt the NCAA pass and then effectively un-pass the whole stipend-for-athletes thing that was discussed ad nauseum last year?)
3. At least seven of the nine members of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee supported a four-team playoff in March. (Peoples opinions in a closed-door vote can differ from those they provide to the press months earlier.)
Finally, Staples finished up as follows: If you have any doubts, simply repeat after me. They arent that stupid. Only they have been just that stupid for generations.
Look, were not trying to play Debbie Downer and say that a playoff is definitely not on the horizon. It may well be for all the reasons that Staples puts forth. Again, if logic and common sense are to be trusted in this case, then a four-team playoff will come to pass.
We just think theres still plenty of chances for egos, arrogance, power-madness and sheer stubbornness to derail the playoff train. If anything, the news coming out of Chicago justified our lets not call them fears our qualms about everyone suddenly getting smarter and more willing to compromise.
The next meeting comes next Wednesday. Dont be surprised if we dont hear more of the same coming out of that meeting. And eventually, all this will still have to pass through those presidents, too.
A playoff is still the favorite. But it aint a sure-thing just yet.