The Sports Blog Nation A Community of the Best Sports Bloggers on the Web

News from New Orleans, where conference commissioners met after the BCS championship game, seems confusing and, at the same time, somewhat disturbing.

SEC commissioner Mike Slive, a man of candor and integrity regarding all things SEC, has let it be known that a “plus one” formula had been discussed. He sees such a mini-tournament as inevitable.

Finally, in the minds of many.

A “plus- one” game could do several things. It could allow seeding the teams ranked 1-4 into a mini playoff. It would create an additional high interest bowl game and increase revenue. It could also eliminate a game between two 6-6 teams who didn't deserve to go bowling in the first place (Florida v Ohio State, for instance). And, most importantly, it could break the strangle hold the SEC currently has on the BCS. No wonder there is sudden traction.

College football folks know why the plus-one has gained traction: it's  the SEC. Remember that the SEC “invented” the BCS to further its goal of gridiron and dollar domination. That's the popular perception, at any rate. After 6 BCS championships in a row, a streak capped by a game in which both combatants were not only from that conference, but from the same division, one of which teams had already lost at home to the other, the goal has been met and, perhaps, surpassed.

The Michigan-Ohio State rematch of the game of the century for the BCS bag of marbles met a resounding "No way!" not long ago.  But the SEC gets a rematch?

Slive was watching. He saw, and understood, that yet another SEC champion was a good thing for that conference, but he also understood that a smaller TV audience was the ultimate result.

Smaller audiences are a bad thing for business in the SEC or in any conference. Slive gets it. We all do.

But here's the thing: a plus-one may not have changed the results of this year. Alabama would have beat hell out of some other poor team, and LSU would probably have done the same. Then they would have gone at each other.

Still, other teams would have a chance to throw down with the big dogs sitting at 1 and 2. The system would be more democratic, the championship more accessible.

So the decree from New Orleans is that the BCS system doesn't work. The Big 12 espouses a plus-one system, and other conferences are certain to join the parade.

The response from Hoover, Alabama, where the SEC recently conferred following the New Orleans meetings? Free t-shirts reading “SEC: We Are College Football.”  But Slive is making sure those who need to know see the bigger picture.

There is a certain irony underpinning this movement toward a plus-one: Slive, in the name of the SEC, put such a suggestion on the table three years ago to deaf ears.  

That turn of events is, of itself,  confusing.  It borders on disturbing that the conference commissioners - minus the SEC - may be unwittingly leading college football, one step at a time, down the road to playoffs.

In cautionary tales, this road would be described as dimly lit and  fraught with twists and turns.