ESPN College Football

AMELIA ISLAND, Fla. -- Coming changes to the BCS have captivated the college football world this offseason.

Coaches have been paying attention, too, and have their own opinions about how a future four-team playoff should look. One of the bigger discussion points at the ACC spring meetings Monday was about the BCS. Executive director Bill Hancock presented some of the ideas that have come up during meetings with the conference commissioners.

Nothing has been settled about who gets in, but one of the biggest debates has centered on whether winning a conference championship should be a requirement. Hancock polled the room to see what the ACC coaches want, and the consensus was that conference champions should be given preference.

"There has to be some stipulation in there about champions," Florida State coach Jimbo Fisher said. "Because not everybody plays the same schedule. We play a nine-game conference schedule. Other teams don’t. That’s weighed in. Some conferences have a conference championship game. Others don’t. Being a conference champion is no small task. Not only are you going through your conference, then you turn around and play a conference championship game. There has to be a lot of weight given to conference champions."

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany has already floated one plan that would include only conference champions. Under this plan, conference champions would be required to finish in the top six of the final standings; the top four advance to the four-team playoff. If four conference champions are not in the top six, then the highest ranked at-large teams would be selected.

Under this plan, Alabama would have made it into a four-team playoff last season. No. 4 Stanford would have been left out.

"The BCS is an evolving situation, and it has been in, what, 16 years, and they’ve improved on it every year and I think they will improve on it some more," Boston College coach Frank Spaziani said. "It’s not black and white, and it’s not clear cut. That’s why it’s a difficult question. There’s good people running it and they have a good plan.

"I’m in favor of the BCS, what they’re doing right now and opening up the dialogue and coming up with something. I do know the conference champion does need to be involved. A conference champion, certainly, in order to keep the season and the championship games relevant has to be involved in whatever the BCS comes up with."

The next BCS meeting is set for June, when details are expected to be worked out on how the final four teams would be selected, where the games will be played, how current BCS games factor in and whether bowl tie-ins to those BCS games remain.

In 2014, we will crown a college football national champion in a different way for the first time since 1997. How we might do that -- and how college football divides the substantial spoils -- remains a matter of intense, amorphous speculation.

But BCS executive director Bill Hancock laid down the biggest revelation coming out of the BCS meetings in Hollywood, Fla., on Wednesday: "I can officially say that the status quo is off the table."

So the pure BCS rankings model is dead. Long live... what?


[+] Enlarge
Chris Williams/Icon SMIPac-12 commissioner Larry Scott has a lot to consider when discussing a new postseason plan.
Deciding to change is one thing. Then you have to come up with a plan, and there are lots of options before -- and lots of agendas among -- the 11 FBS commissioners.

The consensus among reporters with "sources" rates a four-team playoff with semifinals at neutral sites, perhaps even the existing BCS bowls, as the leading plan. The national title game then could be put out for bid. And it would be very valuable.

But even that seemingly simple plan is fraught with issues. Chief among them for the Pac-12 and Big Ten: What about the Rose Bowl?

Beyond that: How do you select the teams? Will the BCS standings be tweaked -- again -- and used? Or what about a selection committee? What about bias issues? Will only conference champions be eligible? After you select the teams, how do you seed them? And then how do you decide who plays where?

And, when all of that heavy lifting is complete, how do you divide the billions? Do the Conferences Formerly Known as the AQ Conferences keep a lion's share of the loot? Or should there be more equity?

Know that the conference commissioners are not all on the same page. CBS Sports' Brett McMurphy does a good job of showing how Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott and SEC commissioner Mike Slive agree on very little. For example:


Scott said if a four-team playoff is chosen, the selection of the four teams needs to be "more credible, a more objective, fair system that balances strength of schedule.

"We don't all play over the same course," Scott said. "We play a different caliber ... some play nine conference games, some eight. Some play stronger out-of-conference competition, some tend to not. They just want to get home games."

Scott didn't say which conference he was referring to, but he didn't have to -- their initials are S-E-C.


What's important for the commissioners not named Slive is to not allow the SEC to dictate terms, particularly to introduce a system that will cultivate a "just because" feeling that the SEC should always will be in the Final Four -- often with two teams.

Wimpy scheduling needs to be addressed, including finding ways to circumvent misleading measures of "strength of schedule." And, yes, Scott is well aware that a significant part of the SEC's rise is PR and fan passion, not just quality play. He knows that would be in play with a selection committee.

Just imagine how contentious and controversial this could be.

Imagine, for one, if Oregon were ranked No. 4 in the AP poll and by the vast majority of other polls -- coaches, Sagarin, computer, etc. -- but was bypassed by a selection committee for a second SEC team. My feeling, and I could be wrong, is that would bother some folks in Eugene. And the Pac-12 offices.

What if Boise State is the only unbeaten team but many think four one-loss teams from major conferences are much better? Or what if there are four unbeaten teams but an 11-1 team played a much tougher schedule? And will a selection committee worry about which teams would generate better ratings -- say Ohio State over Oklahoma State -- and therefore better revenue.

All these potentially contentious scenarios, of course, mean a HUGE political element will exist if there is some sort of committee. Conference offices will be forced to mobilize on talking points supporting their lead team. As a writer covering college football, it seems like potentially great fun but not necessarily like a system fans won't immediately start lambasting.

You know: Like they do the BCS.

Any committee -- or selection process -- will have to explain itself fully and how it made distinctions: "Yes, everyone else ranked Oregon No. 4, but we think Arkansas is better!"

Good luck with that.

When will we have an endgame? Not this week. The goal this week is to come up with two or three legitimate plans. Those will be put before the NCAA Presidential Oversight Committee. A decision should then be announced in early July.

More reading on this;
• Andy Staples breaks things down.
• In some ways, writes Pat Forde, this is a victory -- again -- for the SEC and Slive.
• It would seem the Rose Bowl is on board with change, mostly because there's really no choice. But it is a divisive issue.
• Roadblocks still remain.

Some of you may be thrilled about the national championship game rematch between Alabama and LSU. Others, not so much.

But however you feel about the way the BCS worked this season, rest assured there is growing momentum for making significant changes to the system. That will hugely impact the Big East and every other conference.

BCS officials will meet Tuesday to discuss ideas for improving the way the national championship is decided. Big East commissioner John Marinatto will be in attendance, along with commissioners from all the other leagues. Though BCS executive director Bill Hancock said Monday during a meeting of The Football Writers Association of America that "everything imaginable will be discussed," there most likely will not be a full-blown playoff.

But there could be a plus-one system, which has gained momentum this season. SEC commissioner Mike Slive has been in favor of adding another postseason game, and broached the idea back in 2008. But after he was summarily given the ol' thumbs down on the idea, he said he will not take the lead in the discussion this time around.

There are some, like Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, who remain opposed to a plus-one. But there are new commissioners in the Pac-12, Big 12 and Big East, so perhaps those leagues are open to reconsidering. All three were opposed to a plus-one in 2008. It is unclear how Marinatto feels about a plus-one, as he has not given a public comment on the matter.

I think a plus-one would benefit the Big East. Let's be honest. An undefeated Big East team is not going to finish in the Top 2 in the nation if there are multiple undefeated teams at the end of the season. Take the case of Cincinnati in 2009. The Bearcats would have at least had a shot at competing for a championship had there been a plus-one. That year, No. 1 Alabama would have played No. 4 TCU, and No. 2 Texas would have played No. 3 Cincinnati. Perhaps the outcome would have been the same, but the Big East could have boasted it had a team in the national championship race.

A few other suggestions are on the table: eliminating the restriction on the number of teams allowed in per conference; and taking away AQ status. I think we can all assume that the Big East would fight hard on both counts. Keeping AQ status is vital to the future survival of the Big East; and if conferences like the Big Ten or SEC are allowed more than two teams, getting in an eligible at-large from the Big East would be that much harder.

This week is when summer officially ends and the season begins -- at least for me, anyway.

I love the ACC's football kickoff. It's the first true sign that summer camp is about to begin and the season is right around the corner. I'll be leaving Saturday evening for Pinehurst, N.C., for the two-day event. On Sunday and Monday, I'll be running around like a crazy woman trying to get as many interviews and videos with players and coaches as I possibly can while blogging and giving you a constant feed of news and notes. This is where you'll get the preseason all-conference and player of the year nominations, and much more. Here are the highlights from the schedule:

SUNDAY

• Commissioner's 2011 football forum, 12:30-1:30 p.m. (This is basically a state-of-the-state address by John Swofford that's usually followed by a Q&A session with the media.)
• Player interviews, 2-5:45 p.m.: Two players will represent each school. You'll notice that these run pretty late into the evening, so the blog will be going later than usual.

MONDAY

• ACC football rules/officiating media clinic, 10:30-11:30 a.m.: This is hosted by Doug Rhoads, the ACC's supervisor of officials. He's very knowledgeable and will school us on any new rules and clarify the rules that already exist. I went to this last year and will attend again if time permits.
• BCS/ACC bowl partners forum with BCS executive director Bill Hancock and ACC bowl partners, 1:30-2 p.m.
• Head coaches' interviews, 2-6 p.m.: This is the main event. The coaches are split up by divisions and rotated in. Each coach sits at a table, and reporters come and go as they please. It's a good time to talk about everything from the upcoming season to issues in the game like pay-for-play.

Here are three topics that should create some buzz this year:

• Quarterbacks. I guarantee it won't be three seconds at Tom O'Brien's table before Russell Wilson's name comes up. Wilson could be starting for Wisconsin this year, while Mike Glennon is taking over as a first-year starter. It's one of the most interesting plotlines of the quarterbacks, but more than half the league will introduce rookies. There's also an interesting Commonwealth connection with many of these quarterbacks hailing from the state of Virginia. It's going to be fun to watch these guys compete this year.
• Off-the-field issues. I might have to arm wrestle somebody for a seat at Butch Davis' table this year, as the NCAA investigation has been the main storyline in Chapel Hill since the week leading up to last year's opener against LSU. It's not over 'til it's over. And Georgia Tech? The Jackets were just hit with NCAA sanctions that included four years' probation, a $100,000 fine and vacation of the 2009 ACC title. Odds are there will be a question or two about how and why the decision was made to play an athlete whose eligibility was in question.
• Florida State. I've said it, written about it and heard about it all offseason -- expectations are soaring for the Seminoles in only Year 2 under Jimbo Fisher. How good is this team? Are the Seminoles the national title contender the ACC has been waiting for?

There are also two new head coaches in the league in Maryland's Randy Edsall and Miami's Al Golden, and plenty of other storylines to follow. Follow me on Twitter @ESPN_ACC and on the blog for complete coverage.

For the first weekend in awhile, the Big 12 didn't have any spring games, but plenty happened over the weekend. Here's a look.

Franklin finishes spring on top

Missouri released its post-spring depth chart, and sitting at No. 1 quarterback: James Franklin.

Early in camp, the big mover was Tyler Gabbert, who finished the spring at No. 2 but took over the No. 1 spot at one point.

After the team broke for spring break, Franklin re-emerged as the team's best passer, especially in the spring game, when Gabbert had his worst outing of the spring.

Franklin completed 13 of 21 passes for 116 yards and two scores in the spring game, while Gabbert completed just 8 of 22 passes for 48 yards and an interception.

It was a nice rebound for Franklin, but the depth chart is hardly the declaration of a starter. This competition will resume during fall camp, and the lead Franklin has on Gabbert definitely isn't a big one. Franklin has the lead and the experience, but this is far from over.

It should be a fun August in Columbia.

K-State breaks even on trip to Pinstripe Bowl

Kansas State made just over $125,000 on its trip to the Pinstripe Bowl at Yankee Stadium, according to a report in the Wichita Eagle.

K-State spent $1,348,511 on the trip. That number came in under the expense allowance of $1,473,600 handed out by the Big 12 Conference, meaning the school profited $125,089 on the game.

Those numbers don’t factor in coaching bonuses that come with qualifying for a bowl game, though. Nor do they account for national exposure gained by the team. Figure all those in, and the bowl becomes essentially a wash.

Kansas State sold 3,200 tickets after being alloted 2,300 originally, but according to the Eagle, still had to absorb a hit of over $35,000 after it requested 1,200 more tickets and sold just 900 of them.

These days, with bigger traveling parties and increased travel costs, breaking even on a bowl game is a good thing when you start looking around.

Connecticut was this year's big loser, selling just 2,700 of 17,500 allotted tickets to the Fiesta Bowl and losing $1.8 million on the program's first BCS appearance. A Big 12 bailout helped Oklahoma make a few thousand dollars after selling 5,567 of its allotment to the same bowl.

Virginia Tech lost $1.6 million on its trip to the Orange Bowl this year and $2.2 million last year.

Auburn lost $600,000 on its trip to the national title game. Ohio State made just under $300,000 on its trip to the Sugar Bowl.

Fiesta Bowl meets with BCS review task force

The Fiesta Bowl, in hopes of keeping its spot in the BCS, stated its case in Chicago in front of a BCS task force on Saturday. The Arizona Republic has a pretty comprehensive account of the options now facing the bowl.

The options, for now, include removing the bowl from the BCS, keeping it in the BCS or "some things in between" said Graham Spanier, the Penn State president heading up the review.

The bowl detailed its changes in policy and tried to be transparent with the review board. Even still, the paper reported that the contract between the bowl and the BCS is private and leaves lots of questions unanswered.

It is unclear if the BCS has the legal authority to terminate the Fiesta Bowl's contract, which runs for three more years, and whether there is a "morals clause" to punish the bowl. And it is unclear if the BCS can intervene and break the Fiesta Bowl's contract with the Big 12 Conference, which sends its champion to play in the Fiesta Bowl if that school is not playing for a national championship.

BCS director Bill Hancock was unavailable for comment following this weekend's meeting.

A decision is expected by mid-May.

The Cotton Bowl likely has the most to gain if the Fiesta Bowl's status with the BCS changes, and the Big 12 would certainly welcome a BCS game to its geographic footprint. The league's offices are located in Irving, just minutes from Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, where the Cotton Bowl is played. For now, that looks unlikely, but the BCS could certainly make a strong statement to other bowls by handing down a heavy-handed punishment.

After the Fiesta Bowl released its report on the abuse of funds within the bowl and fired CEO John Junker, plenty of those who cover college football, myself included, turned an eye toward the Cotton Bowl.

The bowl already had BCS aspirations. Comments by BCS director Bill Hancock immediately after the report was released suggested that the Fiesta Bowl's status among the elite was in jeopardy. After that statement, he even added, in an interview with CBS Sports, that he was "dead serious."

However, those holding their breath that the Cotton Bowl will gain a spot in the BCS may be holding it awhile. Shortly after those comments, Hancock softened his stance in an interview with the Arizona Republic.

Bill Hancock, executive director of the coalition of college football's top bowls, said in an interview that discussion of eliminating the Fiesta Bowl from the BCS was "way premature." He called it "irresponsible" for media to speculate which bowls, if any, would replace the Fiesta Bowl in the four-bowl BCS.

Then, Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe, who operates out of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex where the Cotton Bowl is played, expressed confidence in the Fiesta Bowl reforming its finances in the future and holding on to its BCS slot as the home of the Big 12 champion.

"I feel good about their commitment to do the right thing," Beebe said. "There hasn't been a reluctance or push back [from Fiesta officials] at all."

The commissioner left the door cracked a bit on the league's future relationship with the bowl, saying he was "confident" but "not there yet" in determining whether the Big 12 and Fiesta Bowl's relationship will continue.

"We certainly have the highest stake in this," he said.

Looking for a campaign from the coaches? Don't expect Bob Stoops to carry the banner. Though his Sooners have played in the bowl three times in five years, he refused to inject himself into the debate.

Oklahoma played two Big East teams (UConn, West Virginia) and Boise State in their past three trips to the Fiesta Bowl. But the Cotton Bowl earning a BCS spot would mean the national title game would be played in Dallas once every four years. Oklahoma beat Florida State in Miami to win the 2000 title, but was beaten by Florida in Miami and LSU in New Orleans in front of decidedly partisan crowds. His team has earned eight BCS bids since 2000 and played in the Cotton Bowl just once.

Despite having plenty to gain with the Cotton Bowl earning BCS admission, Stoops is staying out of it.

"That would not be right for me to get into that debate,” Stoops said. "At the end of the day, I trust our administrators, presidents, and all of our commissioners and people running our conference to decide that. I am very aware of my job as the coach and my job is to run our team and their job is to manage the university and what is best for our league and everyone else, so I will leave it to them to determine that."

It's always looked like a bit of an uphill battle for the Cotton Bowl to earn a BCS spot, but currently, it's lacking in public support from people with real decision-making power. Will that have to change for the BCS to become a reality? Perhaps, but there's no doubt it would help.

For now, the Cotton Bowl will have to do without.

1. I’ll tell you one way that the BCS is like March Madness: No one in charge can read a map. Last January, Stanford played in Miami. UConn played in Glendale, Ariz. This week, Louisville and Morehead State play in Denver. Penn State and Temple play in Tucson. In what world does any of that make sense for the fans? UConn suffered a $1.66 million loss in the Fiesta Bowl. All the basketball scheduling shows is that the NCAA is so awash in money that no one has to care about geography. How is that a good thing?

2. BCS executive director Bill Hancock, speaking with me on the ESPNU College Football podcast, said Wednesday that he detects no movement among the commissioners of the six AQ conferences toward approving a plus-one. They lined up 4-2 against it in 2008. They’ll consider it again next year. What that means is that Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott, the new kid on the block, isn’t interested in a plus-one. But his presidents never have been.

3. As I pointed out on the Big Ten blog Wednesday, Michigan coach Brady Hoke mentioned “tough” or “toughness” seven times in his news conference Tuesday. His definition, in part: “When you see guys finish blocks. When you see a defensive lineman take on a block, get off the block and chase the ball 40 yards down the field and get lined up, ready to go again.” That’s a great definition of why coaches value mental toughness as much as physical.

These pretzels are making me thirsty.

Now on to some links!

Great column from Dave Sittler in the Tulsa World on Bill Hancock rising above the BCS rancor. It has been 10 years since his son, Will, was one of 10 men associated with Oklahoma State basketball to die in a plane crash.

The Norm Chow-Utah marriage is comfortable for both parties, writes Dick Harmon of The Deseret News.

Rocky Long is starting to fill out his staff at San Diego State.

Coming soon: a physical makeover for East Carolina.

M.L. Lagarde was all heart, gentle spokesman for Tulane athletics. He passed away last week at 82.

Chuck Landon of the Herald-Dispatch has some harsh words for UCF, calling the school "arrogant" for believing it belongs in the Big East.

Hawaii has landed Jared Leaf, a running back from California.

UCF has a blockbuster surge in recruiting.

Lost this week amid all the hoopla surrounding the BCS national championship game between Auburn and Oregon were yet more comments from BCS chief Bill Hancock, extolling the virtues of the current system.

In his remarks to the Football Writers Association of America, Hancock praised the virtues of the bowl system because it allowed a team like Tulsa to travel to Hawaii, and a team like Kansas State to travel to New York City. He also said the system worked because it allowed TCU to play in the Rose Bowl, something that would have never happened under the old system. Then he went on to say the BCS had allowed teams like Boise State and TCU to thrive in the upper echelon:

There is a new populism never before imagined. A new equity that could not have been envisioned just 10 years ago. New hope that previously was inconceivable. New national fervor for a game that some believed had reached its zenith, but whose potential now seems unlimited -- a tree growing to the sky.

How has the BCS done this?

It is very simple: by providing unprecedented access to the top-tier bowl games, by maintaining the focus on the regular season and by enhancing the entire bowl system that provides a foothold for programs on their way up.

All very idealistic of course. Hancock is paid to defend the BCS, and he does a great job. The BCS did match the No. 1 and No. 2 teams in the final regular-season coaches and media polls, and if we were under the old system, Oregon would have been in the Rose Bowl and Auburn in the Sugar Bowl. I get that.

But for the fourth straight year at least one undefeated team was left out of the national championship mix. I am still not quite sure how that is fair, or how it proves the system works. Is it so wrong to believe that at the very least a plus-one model would still keep all the "wonderful" things about the bowl season. And by wonderful, I mean the super-awesome matchups of .500 teams, the utter unwatchability of most of the games, and the dipping interest in the bowls. Indeed, 16 of 35 bowl games had a lower announced attendance than the Texas high school 5A state title game in 2010.

Just last week, The Associated Press ran a story that discussed fan apathy becoming a threat to the BCS, quoting Sugar Bowl executive director Paul Hoolahan, "We have to find a way to revitalize the marketplace." In that same article, Hancock said, "You have to be careful to evaluate the difference between a blip and a paradigm shift."

The BCS cannot be so blind to the trend, either. The system might work as it was laid out -- to match No. 1 vs. No. 2 -- but it does not work for everybody.

It has been a tough few weeks for backers of the BCS.

First, Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee spouted off about teams from outside the power conferences, equating their opponents to the "Little Sisters of the Poor."

Then earlier this week, Jerry Palm discovered a major error in the Wes Colley computer rankings that affected the finishes of LSU and Boise State. Colley is the only one of the six BCS computer programmers to make his formula public, and hence the only one who can have his math double checked. There is no transparency provision for those computer rankings, but there clearly should be after this embarrassment. Imagine if the error had affected who was playing in the BCS national championship game?

Mid-week, we had Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany and his cohorts threaten to go back to the old way of doing business if the non-AQs continue to push for more access. The forum in New York featured Delany, Larry Scott of the Pac-10, John Marinatto of the Big East, Karl Benson of the WAC and Dan Beebe of the Big 12, but did not do anything to make any of us believe the big conferences want to play nice. Those threats are nothing new, of course, and are an attempt to get the non-AQs to back down and accept the system for what it is -- something that has given them unprecedented opportunities.

Still, Delany complained about having to give up BCS spots to teams who have not had to do a lot. In fact, he interrupted Benson several times to make a point, none more striking than this one: "The problem is your big stage takes away opportunities for my teams, to play on the stage they created in 1902."

(Brief aside: To use an example, Florida is a relatively new football power. Because the Gators did not create a stage in 1902, perhaps they should not be allowed into the title game next time they are ranked high in the BCS standings).

Finally, to end the week, BCS chief Bill Hancock penned an editorial for USA Today in which he said the "abuse from critics is balderdash."

"As this season proves," he wrote, "outstanding teams can play in BCS bowls, including the national championship game, no matter what conference they're in. For much of this season, Boise State and TCU earned the ranking of No. 3 and No. 4. That can't happen in a rigged system."

He went on to describe the importance of bowl week, and keeping that tradition alive:

"A playoff, on the other hand, would be limited to a small number of schools, and it would turn their celebratory week into a series of one-day business trips because the teams would arrive the day before the game and leave right afterward. If they won, they'd need to get ready for next week's game. That's not a bowl party — that's another game on the schedule. For the schools that don't make a playoff, their bowl games would fade away. Sadly, so too would a great American tradition."

None of the comments from Delany or Hancock are surprising. The worst part of this week for those with BCS defense fatigue, as Delany described it, was the computer mistake Palm discovered. There are those who want a playoff, and those who hate the way the BCS system is currently configured. But this is the system we have in place. So I ask this -- how can anyone have confidence in a system that has secret computer formulas helping determine the BCS national championship matchup? What if Auburn had gotten left out because of a computer mistake that got TCU in?

What would the defense have been for that?

MADISON, Wis. -- We're about 30 minutes away from kickoff between No. 1 Ohio State and No. 18 Wisconsin.

I watched Terrelle Pryor in warm-ups, and although he's wearing a brace on his left leg -- he's dealing with a quad strain -- he seemed to be moving around well on his passes. It'll be very interesting to see if he runs the ball more tonight after having no need to against Indiana.

Speaking of quarterbacks, it's great to see Wisconsin reserve Curt Phillips going through warm-ups and moving well. Phillips made an amazingly quick recovery from a torn ACL and enters tonight's game as the third-stringer.

A lot of notable college football figures here, including BCS executive director Bill Hancock.

Should be a good one. Enjoy.

Here in Big Ten country, we've grown up believing that the Rose Bowl is different from all other bowls. It's special. It's in a class of its own.

There's no shortage of reasons why: longevity, history, tradition, pageantry. Heisman Trophy winners and Hall of Fame coaches. Unforgettable plays and finishes.

Or, you can simply watch the sun set over the San Gabriel Mountains during the second half of a Rose Bowl game. That's all the evidence I need.

The Rose Bowl also has stood out from the other bowls because of its ties to both the Big Ten and the Pac-10. The relationships with the bowl tick off fans from other parts of the country as well as some media members, but they're treasured by the two leagues.

As the 2010 football season dawns, it's important to remind everyone that access to the Rose Bowl is changing during the next BCS cycle (2010-2013 seasons). Beginning this fall, the first time the Rose Bowl loses the Big Ten champ or Pac-10 champ to the BCS title game, it must take a team from a non-automatic qualifying conference if that team earns a BCS berth. This can only happen once during the BCS cycle, but it's likely.

Ready for TCU-Iowa in the Granddaddy? What about Boise State-Oregon State?

"The commissioners felt like if the other bowls are in position every year to have non-AQ team, the Rose Bowl should be in a similar position," BCS executive director Bill Hancock said. "The Big Ten, Rose Bowl and Pac-10 agreed, ‘We need to share.'"

Sharing the Rose Bowl? Somewhere, Bo and Woody might be shaking their heads. But that's the way it goes these days.

Scott McKibben hadn't taken his post as executive director of the Tournament of Roses committee when the access change took place, but he backs the new policy.

"If we believe in the bowl system and the BCS and where that all is headed for our future, we really felt like we needed to participate in that also," McKibben told me this week. "It allows an opportunity for a team that might not in a typical year [be selected] to come to the Rose Bowl. Our feeling is, ‘Hey, if it’s good for college football and good for the bowl system, we certainly want to support it.'"

Was there any resistance, specifically from the Big Ten?

Hancock never saw any in a public forum. McKibben said commissioners Jim Delany (Big Ten) or Larry Scott (Pac-10) haven't brought up the access change during McKibben's nine months on the job.

We might only find out how the leagues really feel the first time a non-BCS team heads to Pasadena. This much seems clear: the days of the Big Ten nudging a 9-3 Illinois team ranked 13th in the final BCS standings toward Pasadena might be over.

At least for this BCS cycle.

“College football is an ongoing evaluation process, as we learned," McKibben said. "Do I feel this is probably something that will go on into the future? I would say yes. But do we know for sure? No. We’ll know more after we finish the [current] cycle and we sit in a room and talk about it."

Dan Beebe has made his opinions clear about a world with four 16-team conferences, a scenario that looked like a real possibility with the looming departure of five of the six teams from the Big 12 South to form a theoretical Pac-16, the nation's first major superconference.

"I think it's a huge disservice to the student-athletes if it grows to a bigger number, where they have to go further and not have as much chance to win championships and have access to championships," Beebe said at June's Big 12 spring meetings.

In an interview earlier this week, BCS director Bill Hancock proved an ally -- at least in thought -- expressing some relief that some recognizable status quo remained, rather than the birth of superconferences. Yet, anyway.

"I was concerned about it because of the unintended consequences. I don’t think any of us knew what might happen. One thing you know about right now, you know what the consequences are. But galactic changes open you up to so many things that you don’t even know about," Hancock said. "And it made me nervous. And I tried to think about, is this making me nervous because I’m a traditionalist, or because I really don’t know what might happen?

And I finally decided it was some of both."

Those concerns were nothing we hadn't heard before, but Hancock worried about one in particular: travel for student-athletes who competed in Olympic sports. Hancock's daughter-in-law coaches soccer at Oklahoma State, so the BCS head was especially apathetic toward their plight.

"And that’s just a tiny blip on the radar screen," he said, adding he didn't want to see regional rivalries disappear, either. "I wondered about scheduling, I wondered what would happen to institutions that were not in those [new] conferences."

Hancock remarked that the realignment saga featured more speculation and erroneous reporting than any time he could remember.

"What we were faced with was a vacuum; there was no information coming out," Hancock said. "And every time that happens, the vacuum gets filled. And in that case it got filled by people speculating, and I think there were people saying things that they really didn't know, just speculating and trying to help people, and the speculation was wrong."

Among the most "galactic" and discussed/feared changes was those four 16-team conferences forming and breaking off from the NCAA. While even the most adventurous fans may have feared the unforeseen repercussions, others favored the idea in hopes of a playoff drawing near without the NCAA or BCS to stop a bracket from forming.

But that idea is bullhockey, to use one of English's most eloquent and imaginary nouns, according to Hancock.

"I thought, probably, that would mean a playoff would be even further away, and I think it’s a long way off anyway," Hancock said. "Because the same presidents who are voting to not have a playoff would still be voting. Now there’s 120 represented, and if there were only 64 represented, I think the vote would be the same at the presidents’ level. I did kind of have to chuckle at that speculation."

Hancock also implied that had a Pac-16 formed, it wouldn't have necessarily earned the second automatic BCS bid that some speculated it would receive.

"The logical thing would have been there would have been more at-large spots available," he said. "As far as contingency plans, we didn’t go any beyond, 'Here are some options.' Right after we sort of internally came up with the options, the whole thing went away."

He declined to speculate on the Big 12's status as an automatic qualifying conference if the five remaining Big 12 North teams had patched together a new Big 12 without the South or Colorado.

"One thing is, if you lose an AQ, then you would run the risk of not being able to fill out all of the 10 slots because of the two-team rule, if that makes sense," he said. "So that was something we were going to have to think about, as to what steps you can take to make sure that there are 10 teams. But again, it never got beyond just scratching our heads and thinking this is something we’re going to have to think about at some point."

A quick look at the ACC’s record in BCS bowls is not impressive. It’s bad. The league has a 2-10 record with wins coming from Florida State and Virginia Tech.

The ACC, though, is better than its record indicates if you measure the conference’s performance during the regular season like the BCS officials do. Bill Hancock, executive director of the BCS, said the ACC has solidly earned its automatic berth in the BCS and there has never been any hesitancy on the part of Orange Bowl officials to continue their partnership. Instead, the data from the 2004-2007 regular seasons shows the league fared no worse than fifth among the 11 conferences in the major rankings used by the BCS to determine which conferences earn automatic qualifying status.

“The ACC and the Big East are solid,” Hancock said in a recent interview. “A lot of people when they talk about conferences don’t remember that the top to bottom conference rankings is one of the three thresholds, and those conferences are solid. I know the Orange Bowl is tickled with their ACC relationship.”

There are two ways to earn annual automatic qualification: (1) have a contract with a bowl, or (2) earn it on the field by meeting the thresholds which you’ll see in the charts below. In order to meet the thresholds, conferences must finish among the top six in the first two rankings and top 50 percent in the third. The five conferences earned it because they have contracts with bowls. Maybe not coincidentally, they also met the thresholds. And met them easily.

Here’s how the ACC fared against the other conferences in the most recent BCS evaluations:

BCS Evaluation of 2004-07 Seasons

Here's the average rank of the highest-ranked team in the BCS standings.

No.	Conference	Avg. Rank
1.	Pacific-10	3.5
2.	Southeastern	3.5
3.	Big Ten	4.25
4.	Big 12	4.5
5.	Atlantic Coast	8.25
6.	Big East	9.0
7.	Mountain West	14.25
8.	Western Athletic	16.75
9.	Conference USA	40.975
10.	Mid-American	55.25
11.	Sun Belt	68.625

Next, we have the average conference ranking (ranking of all teams in the conference by the six computers).

No.	Conference	Avg. Rank
1.	Pacific-10	40.17
2.	Southeastern	40.65
3.	Big 12	42.38
4.	Atlantic Coast	42.47
5.	Big Ten	42.65
6.	Big East	46.76
7.	Mountain West	67.46
8.	Western Athletic	76.36
9.	Conference USA	81.41
10.	Mid-American	89.82
11.	Sun Belt	93.52

This is the adjusted Top 25 performance ranking (number of teams in top 25 of BCS standings, as a percentage of the top team).

No.	Conference	Adj. Rank
1.	Southeastern	100.00%
2.	Big Ten	78.35%
3.	Pacific-10	66.29%
4.	Big 12	64.29%
5.	Atlantic Coast	57.14%
6.	Big East	49.11%
7.	Western Athletic	22.32%
8.	Mountain West	20.09%
9.	Conference USA	0.00%
10.	Mid-American	0.00%
11.	Sun Belt	0.00%
Threshold: top six in the first two rankings and top 50 percent in the third one. Threshold to be eligible for an exemption: top six in the first two rankings, or top five in one and top seven in the other, and top 33.3 percent in the third one.

The Big Ten has benefited from the BCS system more than any other conference.

The league has made the most BCS bowl appearances (21), earned the most at-large selections (9) and sent a team to play for a national title three times despite a so-so record (10-11) in BCS games. And while the Big Ten didn't send a team to the Rose Bowl three times (2002, 2003, 2006), it maintains strong ties to the Granddaddy.

The Big Ten did all of it as an 11-team league without a championship game that ended its regular season before Thanksgiving.

Things will change in 2011, as the Big Ten welcomes Nebraska as its 12th member. The addition of a league championship game also is likely.

It begs the question: How will expansion and a likely championship game impact the Big Ten's BCS hopes?

A title game ensures one more loss for one of the Big Ten's top BCS at-large hopefuls. If the Big Ten goes to a nine-game conference schedule, an option athletic directors are considering, it means even more losses for the conference.

It's very likely the Big Ten won't have as many attractive candidates for BCS at-large berths as it did before expansion.

Could the Big Ten soon become a one-bid league?

"I’ve looked back at it and I don’t think you can quantify that [a championship game] has made a whole lot of difference," BCS executive director Bill Hancock said this week. "The jury’s still out on the effect of championship games of how many teams you get in the BCS. We’ll know more when Big Ten and Pac-10 go to championship games, but I don’t see a tremendous advantage or disadvantage."

Perhaps the best barometer for the Big Ten is the SEC, which also boasts famous teams with huge fan bases.

The SEC has only two fewer BCS appearances (19) than the Big Ten and has received at-large berths in each of the last four seasons. While the loser of the SEC championship received at-large berths in each of the last two seasons, five of the SEC's at-large berths went to teams that didn't reach the league title game.

Translation: the Big Ten still could be in good shape for at-large berths, but the loser of the league championship game might want to make alternate plans.

"Conferences that deserve [at-large berths] are getting them," Hancock said. "The at-large spots are filled by the bowls, and they’re choosing those teams for the same reasons they’ve always used."

Those reasons include name recognition and size of fan base, two categories where the Big Ten excels.

Let's look at the Big 12, another league with a championship game. The Big 12 has made 17 BCS bowl appearances but sent multiple teams to the big bowls on only five occasions. The Big 12 title game loser has only reached the BCS once: in the 2003 season when Oklahoma qualified for the BCS championship game despite a 35-7 loss to Kansas State a month earlier.

In most years, a loss in the Big 12 title game seals a team's BCS fate. Missouri got passed up for Kansas in 2008 even though Missouri beat the Jayhawks to reach the Big 12 title game, where it got pummeled by Oklahoma. Colorado lost the Big 12 championship game in 2002, 2004 and 2005 and each time failed to receive a BCS at-large berth.

I'm very interested to see how expansion impacts the Big Ten's BCS at-large chances. Bowls always will have a hard time passing up teams like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin when they're available.

Just as long as they don't lose the Big Ten title game.