Interesting quotes from the link. Some of the bracketed clarifications are mine, some are Mandel’s.
“We are in the midst of doing a very careful and thorough analysis of the plus-one model,” [SEC and BCS commissioner Mike] Slive told SI.com. “In doing this analysis, we’re looking back on historical data and then thinking ahead to what we know. We need to put together a model that is one that some people will be comfortable with, and see if there is acceptance to it.”
Those people Slive is presumably referring to are Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hansen and school presidents from both leagues. The two conferences, which, along with their longtime partner, the Rose Bowl, have repeatedly stated their adamant opposition to any postseason modification that might impinge on their arrangement. The fact that their ABC deal is locked in through 2014 will make any such discussions trickier.
“My sense,” said one major bowl executive, “is that Mr. Delany is unconvinced [about a plus-one]. Mr. Hansen is uninterested. Everyone says, ‘Why can’t we get to this yet?’ Until they look at it through each party’s respective self-interest, nobody understands how hard it is to come to an agreement.”
“Whenever my [league’s] presidents have asked me about the positives and negatives of a playoff, I tell them the two positives are [more] money and people will stop yelling and screaming,” said [Big East Commissioner Mike] Tranghese. “And the negative is that the value and meaning of the regular season will be diminished. Playoff proponents who say that’s not true – that’s just pure stupidity.”
The other common argument against a playoff – the one regarding academics – tends to draw more rolled eyes from the public. University presidents have repeatedly stressed their opposition to any postseason arrangement that would interfere with first-semester finals (usually held in mid-December) or would carry the season into a second semester (usually starting in mid-January).
Playoff proponents counter that plenty of other sports, such as baseball and basketball, cross over two semesters (though those sports also account for many of the NCAA’s lowest APR scores), and that Divisions I-AA, II and III all hold their playoffs during the mid-December finals season.
“Don’t insult my intelligence,” said Tranghese. "Don’t compare I-AA football to I-A football. Appalachian State-Delaware, that’s a great game, but they are not operating in the limelight that I-A is. For anyone to think there could be a I-A playoff during exams – the press demands, the television demands, they’re just huge.
“People criticize us for low graduation rates – then those same people want us to play playoffs during exams.”
[That a plus-one is not a playoff] is clear, if for no other reason than the fact that executives for most of the major bowls – which, understandably, are opposed to a full-scale playoff – are supportive of the plus-one concept. Rather than diminishing their games’ importance, as a playoff would, the bowls see a plus-one as a possible upside for their business.
By no means, however, should one view such sentiments [positive reactions about a plue-one model] as a sign that change is imminent. “I haven’t had a direct conversation with Mike [Slive] about [the plus-one], but I’m surprised he’s so interested in going forward,” said Pac-10 commissioner Hansen. “Because the Big Ten and Pac-10 have made it clear we’re not interested in that.”
Delany, the Big Ten commissioner, declined to be interviewed for this story, but recently told Sports Illustrated his conference’s original decision to join the BCS “was not considered the first step toward a playoff, but the last step.”
Slive, a former lawyer who’s brokered his share of negotiations, has presumably factored these and other contingencies [commonly cited problems about a plus-one model] into his ongoing analysis. Nearly all the affected parties will be in the room in Miami in April when the much-anticipated discussion finally takes place.
Following those meetings, the BCS commissioners will bring their own recommendations and conclusions back to their respective conference’s presidents and athletic directors at each league’s annual spring meetings in May and June. Whether any formative change actually gets pushed through will ultimately depend on whether the plus-one proponents can somehow convince the Big Ten and Pac-10 to go along with it.
“There are six [BCS] conferences, and one-third of the six are not favorable to a certain position,” said [Big XII commissioner Don] Beebe. “We have to face the reality of what that means and if there can be any persuasion. How persuasive can our position be?”
Some, like Sun Belt commissioner Wright Waters, are optimistic. “I think there’s a lot of talent in that room right now,” he said. “It’s the best spirit of cooperation that I’ve seen in the room in the long time.”
Others, like Tranghese, remain supportive but cynical. “Even if the details can be worked out, it’s still going to take everybody to agree to do this, and I just don’t think the support is there,” he said. “I may be wrong, but I don’t think I will be.”
Meanwhile, the man who’s most championing the plus-one cause remains coy about its prospects. “There is no model or solution that will satisfy everyone,” said Slive. “What each of us has to do is determine what’s in the long-term best interest of the game, and what’s in the long-term best interest of our conference.”
In other words, can a plus-one encompass both agendas? Plenty of reasonable minds across the sport think it can, but it’s going to require a gigantic dose of compromise by a group of vastly conflicting parties.