CHICAGO -- Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany expects to present multiple models to the BCS presidential oversight committee next week in Washington, where he expects "direction rather than closure."
"I expect we'll ... probably have more work to do," Delany told a small group of reporters before the BCS commissioners met to discuss the postseason. "If we don't, I would be surprised, but maybe we won't."
One item sure to be discussed, if a four-team playoff model is adopted within the existing bowls, is whether game sites will be predetermined or decided after the participating teams are known. A predetermined system would involve a rotation of bowls, while the other option could tie the sites to which teams participate. For example, if the SEC has the No. 1 or No. 2 team, it could play a semifinal at the Sugar Bowl. If the Big Ten or Pac-12 is the No. 1 or No. 2, it could play a semifinal at the Rose Bowl. And so on ...
Delany sees several pluses to determining the game sites ahead of time.
"Certainty always helps you in ways," Delany said. "When you know where the game is going to be played, it allows certainty for fans and for ticket distribution and for television sponsorship, all those things. The more you know that in advance, the more stable the system is."
There are also advantages to waiting, Delany said, particularly concerning geography of participants.
"You could have certainty, but if the teams are from another place, or if they're juxtaposed in a way where the team that’s maybe less accomplished is playing in somebody else's backyard, those would be some negatives," he said. "The positives are the certainty of playing. The negatives would be you don’t know what the matchup is going to be and it might be a matchup which would be much better presented in a different part of the country for a variety of reasons."
It sounds like predetermined sites has more momentum in the meeting room. The real interesting element is the rotation, how many bowls are involved and where the Rose Bowl fits in.