BCS boss happy with system

GLENDALE, Ariz. – So, about that state of the BCS . . .

Glad you asked.

Bill Hancock, the organization's executive director, gave his annual update at Monday's Football Writers Assocation of America awards breakfast. As usual, he was Mr. Positive, even though there are those who would like nothing better than to see it go the way of the flying wedge.

This much is not in dispute: In the 58 years before the BCS, No. 1 played No. 2 in a bowl game eight times. Since then, such a matchup has happened in 10 of 13 seasons, including the last eight, at least according to the Associated Press (media) poll. The BCS, of course, would like to think it has been 13-for-13. And the fact is, that's all it was created to accomplish.

Texas Christian might have something to say about that, just as other teams have been left out. But that's probably not going to change any time soon. There are 3 years left on the current contract. And frankly, the presidents like the system the way it is. And they're the ones calling the shots.

"The fact is, there's no groundswell among the presidents for any kind of seismic change as it relates to the format," Hancock said. "They'll say to the [conference] commissioners what they want to do in the future. It's human nature to want something different. It's so easy to sit back and throw snowballs, if you don't have to have respect for tradition and the long-term. I just don't see any groundswell for an NFL-style playoff.

"There's always a spectrum of options. There's always room to tweak something. But [the presidents] will tell you that what we have works."

It just doesn't work for the fans, who want to know why you can have a playoff in all the other levels of college football (and every other sport, actually) yet not at the highest. It's a conundrum, wrapped around a riddle inside an enigma. But for better or worse, this sport has never been about an elimination tournament. The powers that be will claim that the game already has one. It's called the regular season.

"It's strong, and it's healthy," Hancock said. "I think there's no better evidence than what we're going to see [in the title game]. But getting it right has different meanings. I think about the kids from Tulsa, who spent a week in Hawaii, having a great experience. The players from Kansas State got to go to New York City, with a chance to do so many things that they may never do again. We take that for granted, but as someone who lives in Kansas . . .

"They'll remember things because they were in that bowl game. It's a once-in-a-lifetime thing. That's what the whole bowl season is about. I think a lot of us forget what it's like to be 18, and have someone create that kind of opportunity and you enjoy it. We're dealing with college athletes. This is not professional sports.

"I get it, that a lot of people want something different. But you'll be taking those opportunities and throwing them in the trash can, forever more. With playoffs, that would happen to some extent. The bowls would suffer, in ways not everyone would predict."

Some would argue that you have some kind of playoff and still hold those so-called "minor" bowls. Some think there should at least be a plus-one format, where you have one extra game after the bowls are finished. To be fair, though, that might create just as much controversy. If you were picking four teams this year instead of two, then who gets left out, Wisconsin or Stanford?

So for now, this is what we have. It isn't perfect, by any means. But it probably is an improvement over what was in place before. And at least for the time being, that might have to suffice.

"I understand the lure of filling out a bracket," Hancock said. "But would that be in the best interest of the [players]. I think something would get lost."

And perhaps there'd be something gained in the tradeoff. We may never know.

"We try not to get defensive about it," Hancock said. "But what kind of corrupt, sinister system [as it's been portrayed] would give TCU the opportunity to play in [the Rose Bowl].

"There's a new populism to college football. There was a time when some schools would never be considered for the upper echelon. That was an unintended benefit of the BCS. There's new equity, new hope. That tells you that what we have works."

Under the pre-BCS system, Auburn and Oregon would not have met Monday night. Auburn would have gone to the Sugar Bowl, Oregon to the Rose.