BCS Controversy: Why Won't the Big Ten Just Let the Plus-One Playoff Game Die?

Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman is the appointed representative of the Big Ten's presidents and chancellors. That means that what Perlman has to say about the BCS and the playoff system represents what the Big Ten's brass thinks, and that is a disconcerting thing.

Perlman's latest comments (which are scarcely better than his earlier ones) indicate that the Big Ten is no longer fully on board with a playoff of the four best teams in college football, and that conference affiliations will likely play the biggest role in seeding for the first round of the playoffs.

Or, to use its more common "street" name: a plus-one.

Here's what Perlman told Steven Sipple of the Omaha World-Herald:

"

The current SEC-Big 12 agreement would fit perfectly within a plus-one system and would give an advantage to conference champions, which I favor. At the same time, it doesn’t lock in the champion of the four conferences (SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12). This year, if LSU played Oklahoma State, and both played poorly, it would have been possible that Alabama could have beaten a good team in another bowl and qualified.

"

Let's back up a second: Alabama was the best team in the nation last season. Alabama earned its trip to the BCS Championship and absolutely spanked LSU there. If that team—which probably deserved its No. 2 ranking coming into the title game and definitely deserved to at least be in the top three—doesn't automatically have a seat at the table for the postseason, something is seriously wrong.

Let's also be clear: If Perlman says "it would have been possible" that Alabama could have played its way into the title game in his (and the Big Ten's) idea, then it necessarily follows that it would have been possible that Alabama might not have gotten a shot at the title game even with a good showing in its own bowl instead. That is an uncertainty that should not exist for a team ranked that highly.

Here's more from Sipple:

"

[Pac-12 Commissioner Larry Scott] last week described the Champions Bowl as a "game-changer." The SEC/Big 12 game has been referred to by some as "Rose Bowl East" — flattering to the Pac-12 and Big Ten.

"We're pretty far down the path on four-team playoff options, but given the very positive reaction to what the SEC and Big 12 have done, it's possible that (a plus-one) could get some traction," Scott told the Wall Street Journal.

A national championship game that matched the Champions Bowl and Rose Bowl winners could work as long as there was a way to include teams not in those four conferences, Scott said.

"

There's simply no way for every aspect of Scott's plan to work in a four-team system, which is the agreed-upon number. Not if the Rose Bowl and Champions Bowl—and conference champions as a whole—are as important as everyone has consistently stated.

Further, the odds of the four best teams in college football each being in one of four predetermined conferences are exceedingly low. Sticking with preexisting bowl matchups of conference champions is going to be unfair, and it will almost assuredly not create an ideal four-team playoff. 

And it remains mystifying why the Big Ten is such a proponent of the bowls, even as the Rose Bowl ruins championship matchups and the bowl system treats the Big Ten worse than any other major conference in the nation. The bowls are not on the Big Ten's side; why is the Big Ten on theirs?

And why can't we just have a playoff that selects the top four teams in the nation, period?

Oh, right.