BCS Controversy: Big Ten Strategy of Non-Involvement Doesn't Fix Anything

According to Dennis Dodd at CBSSports.com, the latest drama out of playoff meetings is that we have a burgeoning impasse developing—specifically with the Big 12 and SEC in favor of a four-team playoff, and the Pac-12 and Big Ten opposed.

It's the Rose Bowl vs. Champions Bowl, already up against one another for the specifics of how to go up against one another. It's like Mayweather-Pacquiao all over again, and that sure was good for boxing, eh?

Now, one thing's worth pointing out: the Big Ten has already resigned itself to a fate that it won't like; remember the conference's head of presidents and chancellors Harvey Perlman telling reporters the Big Ten's brass would prefer the status quo, but Jim Delany saying essentially that the conference wouldn't stop a playoff proposal that the rest of college football preferred.

In a vacuum, that's a good stance to take. Progress is coming, the Big Ten knows it, and even if it's not entirely in the Big Ten's interests, it's not a fight worth fighting. So that's a nice idea.

Except the problem arises directly here: the Big Ten isn't in a vacuum; it's in a strategic partnership with the Rose Bowl and the Pac-12. So in a situation like this, the Big Ten just sitting back and saying "this isn't what we want, but we'll go with whatever" isn't a helpful addition to the mix.

If the Big Ten is going to be strategically partnered with the Pac-12 like this, they can't have disparate views toward the playoffs; otherwise it's not very strategic at all. So either the Big Ten defuses this situation and gets the Pac-12 to acquiesce in the face of a two-conferences-to-one deficit, or Delany and Perlman step up, get the Pac-12's back, and explain exactly why, so there can be an actual public debate framed instead of this quasi-anonymous sourced nonsense, which is where we are right now.

But sitting back? Not an option. Not if resolution is what the Big Ten wants.