The "playoff system vs. the BCS" debate is intensifying. I've been following it on talk radio shows, message boards, blogs, and more articles than I can count. A growing number of fans are pleading for a college football playoff. Jim Delany is in the way of that. This is why:
He took over as commissioner of the Big Ten in 1989 and brokered deals that extended his influence far beyond the Midwest, further enriched the wealthiest conferences, and cemented the BCS system. Delany, 58, has emerged as a man widely considered the most powerful figure in college sports and the biggest obstacle to a Division I-A football playoff. Delany has largely ignored the public outcry as well as the coaches' call for a playoff. He readily admits a playoff could be good for Division I-A football at large, but quickly adds, "I don't work for college football at large."
However, Mike Slive, the coordinator of the Bowl Championship Series, seems to give proponents of a playoff system hope.
Slive told The Seattle Times that he doesn't oppose a "plus-one" proposal, saying he is "not married to the current format." In the plus-one format, seen as a middle ground between a playoff and the system in place, BCS standings would be tallied after the bowls, and the top two teams would meet in one game. "I remain very open-minded about looking at an alternative format," said Slive. "We have continued to look at some alternatives. Whether we keep it the way it is, or modify it, it won't be perfect." It seems as if Slive want to further explore the simpler question: Is a one-two game enough?
By the way, in addition to the lopsided score, Florida had 370 net yards. Ohio State had 82 net yards. Do you think that shows that a one-two game is not enough; that a different format would have produced a more worthy opponent?
(Photo provided by Getty Images, taken by Andy Lyons)