A four-team playoff is going to happen.

That was the big news out of the final day of the latest meetings of BCS commissioners. It's not exactly stunning, as the four-team version of a championship had been in the forefront of the discussion, and no one following the process thought the commissioners would expand the format to eight or 16 teams. Still, there seems to be consensus that a four-team playoff is the way to go, though there's no decision yet on how it will be handled.

The commissioners put out a statement saying they would bring several proposals back to their presidents, and BCS spokesman Bill Hancock said there were between two to seven playoff proposals.

But Hancock said one of the proposals that has been eliminated from the discussion was the "four-plus" idea, raised by the Big Ten and Pac-12 to have three semifinal games using the Rose Bowl if one of their champions were involved. That was a ridiculous and unwieldy idea to begin with, one that seemed all along like a bone thrown the Rose Bowl's way, and it should have been taken off the table.

The idea of campus sites also appears to have all but been discarded. Since the "four-plus" and campus site proposals were heavily endorsed if not originated by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, it's hard not to view these meetings in some way as a loss for him. He's one of the most powerful people in college sports, but Delany hasn't been able to get his way on some of his ideas, at least not yet. On the plus side, at least and the Big Ten won't be viewed as obstructionists to this process if a workable system is arranged.

There's still a lot to decide, from where and when the games will be played to whom will be selecting the teams. The leaders of the sport will meet again in Chicago in June with a goal of finalizing a plan by July 4, though that may ambitious. So what should the Big Ten and Delany fight for as the details are hammered out?

Assuming campus sites are indeed dead, the league must lobby hard for neutral sites that can include semifinal games in the Midwest, as we have discussed here. The conference should also make sure there's some way to keep the Rose Bowl vital. One interesting proposal is to make Pasadena the permanent site of the championship game. That certainly would keep the game's allure strong, but it also might mean that the Big Ten isn't involved in the Rose Bowl in many years. If the league's goal is protect its own teams' Rose experience, it might be better off not having the Rose part of the playoff rotation.

And while I disagree with the concept of limiting the four-team playoff to conference champions only -- any four-team playoff without Alabama included last year would have been illegitimate -- that idea might actually benefit the Big Ten. Eliminate the possibility of the SEC getting two teams in, and the Big Ten champion has a better shot. Of course, you only have to look back to 2006 to see when the champions-only rule would have hurt the Big Ten.

Regardless of format, the Big Ten needs to get its teams in the mix for those playoff spots. Remember that in the last two years, using BCS rankings, the league would not have been represented in the event. The elimination of AQ status could be a boon for the conference if bowls are allowed to pick whatever teams they want; the Big Ten and its large, eager-to-travel fan bases are always attractive to bowls.

But non-championship bowls will become even less important in the future. A four-team playoff without a consistent Big Ten presence would be the worst scenario possible for the conference.