Multiple BCS proposals on the table

Another BCS meeting has left little in the way of resolution, as multiple plans are on the table and will be given to the presidential oversight committee later this month for further discussion.

After the latest meeting broke up Wednesday, all 11 FBS commissioners and Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick issued a statement that read they are "approaching consensus on many issues and we recognize there are also several issues that require additional conversations at both the commissioner and university president levels.

"We are determined to build upon our success and create a structure that further grows the sport while protecting the regular season. We also value the bowl tradition and recognize the many benefits it brings to student-athletes. We have more work to do and more discussions to have with our presidents who are the parties that will make the final decision about the future structure of college football's postseason."

Another BCS meeting is set for next week in Chicago, while the presidential oversight committee will meet June 26 in Washington. So who exactly is on this oversight committee, and what is its charge? This is from the BCS website:

The conference commissioners and the Notre Dame athletics director make decisions regarding all BCS issues, in consultation with an athletics directors advisory group and subject to the approval of a presidential oversight committee whose members represent all 120 Football Bowl Subdivision programs.

The oversight committee is going to have some major power in determining the future of the BCS. The Big East representative in the group is Louisville president James Ramsey. Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich also represents the Big East in the athletic director advisory group.

What is interesting to me is the way everybody who spoke after the meeting Wednesday was quick to point out that the presidents would be making the final decision about a postseason format. One of these presidents, Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman, has been a staunch advocate of the current BCS system. Who can forget his testimony in front of Congress in 2009 when anti-trust issues threatened the BCS?

There are academics to consider as well, as the Knight Commission argues a portion of the playoff revenues should go toward rewarding teams that do a better job of graduating their players.

Times and attitudes have changed, and as Perlman noted, the presidents have to be realistic about what is happening. But it may end up being dangerous for the BCS group to give the presidents multiple plans from which to choose. There is still time for them to come up with the best model possible, that way there is no real decision for the presidents to make.