[LEFT]NEW ORLEANS—Ugly doesn’t begin to describe it. But it most certainly defined it—in such a profound way that even the men who run this crazy, controversial contraption we call the Bowl Championship Series are giving in.

Years from now, this BCS National Championship Game won’t be remembered so much for Alabama’s utter domination of LSU as it will the beginning of radical change in college football. A national playoff is coming, everyone.

It’s only a matter of what it looks like.

“It gets done,” a high-ranking BCS official told Sporting News Monday evening.

Here’s how: over the next six months, the leaders of the sport will meet at least four times to iron out a plan that protects the importance of the regular season—the one aspect BCS leaders believe separates the game from every other—while embracing a new frontier for the poll-driven sport.

It begins Tuesday here in New Orleans with a meeting of conference commissioners, and includes meetings in Dallas in February and Miami in April. Another meeting in June is also likely, especially considering the magnitude of the potential change.

When asked what the playoff would look like, a high-ranking BCS source said there are “at least 60” different options on the table, and that includes everything from a four-team playoff to one game after all the bowls.

SportsAndLady;1046845 wrote:Interested to see waht the ratings look like. Those who say "they won't look at one year's ratings and make a change"--while that's most likely true by itself, it will certainly be in play when they're talking about changing to a playoff. I know it's just one year of poor ratings (if the ratings actually are bad), but they can't afford multiple years of poor ratings, college football is WAY too popular right now.

vball10set;1046859 wrote:It'll be a +1 in 2014, but IMO we won't have a full scale playoff for a while--a long while

ernest_t_bass;1046871 wrote:I don't know why they don't just make the change for next year. Why wait until 2014?

GOONx19;1046867 wrote:http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/01/alabama-lsu_produces_lowest_tv.html

13.8... Lowest in the BCS era.

ytownfootball;1046905 wrote:It's a contract, can't change anything 'till it's up.

And yeah it will only be a +1, it won't satisfy the malcontents. The discontent from the 5/6 spot won't be any different from the 3/4 spots currently.

gorocks99;1046907 wrote:WE DID IT GUISE

Fly4Fun;1046908 wrote:Wrong... the parties can agree that it's in the best interest of all to change it immediately. It's unlikely but possible.

Fly4Fun;1046908 wrote:Wrong... the parties can agree that it's in the best interest of all to change it immediately. It's unlikely but possible.

Fly4Fun;1046908 wrote:Wrong... the parties can agree that it's in the best interest of all to change it immediately. It's unlikely but possible.

se-alum;1046924 wrote:I don't know that it's that unlikely. If the BCS sees that ratings are low, they have a reason to want the change as soon as possible. I can't see the schools holding it up either. This wasn't just a low rating in the NCG, this was a very low rating for the entire BCS system. They have a reason to want change. People are more likely to watch 2 teams that they normally wouldn't watch, if the outcome of the game can have implications on their own team. Right now, there's no reason for the non-diehard CFB fans to watch a game like WVU/Clemson.

ytownfootball;1046925 wrote:Jim Delany is and has been the lynchpin in this whole mess. His reluctance to make any changes has caused most of the conference re-alignment imo. That's the saddest part of it all imo.

ytownfootball;1046929 wrote:But if they dip below 50% of DI participants on board then they run the risk of their entire system being thrown out. They'll run the risk of low ratings (which they don't benefit from) vs losing the majority of the money they receive for a year.

JU-ICE;1047004 wrote:Isn't a "Plus One" basically the same as a four team playoff? If they are going to have a plus one, they would have to come out when the bowl match-up are announced and say the winner of Game A will play the winner of Game B, correct?

bases_loaded;1047008 wrote:The real problem is the long layoff.

You can't get good football with 40 days off