University Presidents from various points on the FBS food chain “discussed their wishes for the postseason system that will take effect when the current BCS deal expires after the 2013 season,” according to Andy Staples of SI.com. The group included three members of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee. Seven of the nine presidents interviewed “expressed a desire to decide the national champion using some type of bracketed tournament.” Kansas State President Kirk Schulz “favors a true plus-one: a No. 1 vs. No. 2 game in which the participants are chosen after the traditional bowls are played.” Florida President Bernie Machen, who serves as SEC BOD Chair, said, "This one is going to be driven by the presidents -- and it's going to be driven through the commissioners. But the commissioners are not going to make this decision. The presidents are going to make it." Georgia President Michael Adams said, "There is growing sentiment to do something. Now, whether the commissioners will land on a four-team or an eight-team sort of depends on which one of them you ask, but I just don't think you can continue to ignore the fans who pay the bill for all of this." Arizona State President Michael Crow “would like to see the FBS football title decided the same way titles are decided in every other team sport in the NCAA.”
IF IT AIN’T BROKE… Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman “favors keeping the current system of deciding a national champion but suggested other tweaks to the BCS.” Perlman sees “no benefit in a playoff, and he worries any additional television revenue gained might be lost again in the next round of media rights negotiations if the playoff causes interest in the regular season to wane.” Schulz said, "I like the bowl system. I'm not sure it's as broken as everybody likes to think it is. Personally, I'm happy to have us tweak it a little bit." Tulane President Scott Cowen said, "We want to maintain the integrity of the regular season. We want to have a conference championship. We want to maintain the integrity of the bowl game. We want to maybe have a playoff to determine a national champion, but we don't want to screw up the academic calendar in any particular way. I think it's going to be hard to meet all of those goals. Something is going to have to give. The question is what will give." Staples noted one factor on which “all nine presidents agreed is that the Automatic Qualifier designation likely will not survive this round of negotiations.”
SETTING THE STAGE: Staples noted the Big Ten and the SEC reportedly “may be working together on a new plan for the postseason.” Machen said that the SEC “has worked more with the Big Ten than with any other league on potential options for the system.” Considering the Big Ten has “traditionally moved in lockstep with the Pac-12, a plan that satisfied the Big Ten, Pac-12 and SEC probably would dominate any others” (SI.com, 3/8).
SOUTHERN COMFORT: SEC Commissioner Mike Slive on Tuesday said that he “currently opposes seeding only conference champions in a four-team college football playoff and believes campus sites for the semifinals carry advantages and disadvantages.” Slive said that SEC football coaches “discussed the postseason at their meeting last month and will weigh in again at the SEC spring meetings.” Slive: "There's a tendency to forget that commissioners do not make final decisions. Our work is to do an analysis and come up with a recommendation for the presidents. There's always been differences of views within the SEC about what the postseason should look like, even amongst our presidents at different times.” Meanwhile, Slive said that the conference “is content with 14 members.” Slive: "Going beyond 14 is no longer an extension of 12. Maybe the Pac-12 and Big Ten scheduling alliance may be their way of answering that question. I can only speak for us.” He added, “We've never been trying to get 14 so I don't see us necessarily trying to get to 16." Slive said that the SEC is “currently in future TV discussions with CBS and ESPN and that finalizing future football schedules beyond 2012 does not impact those talks” (AL.com, 3/7). ESPN.com’s Edward Aschoff wrote it “sounds like no one involved in the discussions” about the college football postseason “is exactly on the same page.” It is “probably better for schools financially to have home games and it might be more practical.” Aschoff: “If we are going to use the BCS in college football and you want a four-team playoff, then we should use the top four teams in the BCS standings -- however it shakes out” (ESPN.com, 3/7).
