Big Ten Says Few Support BCS Change
Earlier today, Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany met with conference commissioners and bowl and television representatives at an Ocean-Front Hotel in Hollywood, Fla.
Once again, he stated that the Big Ten/Pac-10 alliance is not the only thing preventing change in our twisted BCS system.
Delany told reporters, "The perception that the Big Ten and Pac-10 are holding this back is not right, ask others here how strongly they feel for a call for change. I don't see it.
"I think there are a lot of other people who like where they are, but they should say it. There are others in the room who like where we're at."
SEC commissioner Mike Slive will present a proposal for a plus-one format tomorrow, calling for the current BCS system to change and incorporate two semifinal games in advance of a national championship game.
Of course, the changes can't take place until after the 2009 season when the current BCS contracts with bowl games and TV networks expires.
The Big Ten and Pac-10 have separate contracts with the Rose Bowl, which has a tradition of pairing the two league's champions in a New Year's Day bowl game.
The Rose Bowl's contract with ABC does not expire until after the 2013 season.
The BCS system has been highly controversial since its inception.
In 2005, Auburn finished 13-0 during the regular season, but was left out of the BCS title game. USC beat Oklahoma 55-19 in the FedEx Orange Bowl to win the 2005 BCS title.
Two years later, a deserving Michigan squad was left out of the hunt as Florida played Ohio State for the national title. The Gators slaughtered the Buckeyes, 41-14.
“The BCS has had controversy, but it's done some things well," Delany said to reporters. "I think everybody would have to concede it has done some things well. Even when the coaches and sportswriters were determining the national champion, there was controversy."
Delany said college football's rising popularity is proof the current BCS format works.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?