NCAA Punts on Playoff Issue : College football: Unable to reach a consensus, Special Committee defers action.

They came. They saw. They tabled.

And so it went for the 23 members of the NCAA-appointed Special Committee, who left here Friday shrugging their shoulders about the future of a Division I-A football playoff. Rather than actually vote on the merits of a championship system, the committee decided the best action was no action.

In short, a stalemate.

“The NCAA committee has concluded that while there is merit to the concept of a playoff, they cannot, at this time, recommend specific legislation to the NCAA Presidents Commission and the NCAA Council,” said UCLA Chancellor Charles Young, who chaired the Special Committee.

The decision itself wasn’t much of a surprise. Beginning with the Special Committee’s first meeting at Indian Wells in early May, it was apparent that a few members, perhaps even more, had serious misgivings about a playoff. Even after arriving here for two more days of meetings, the committee was unable to resolve key issues.

Among the concerns:

--What would be the academic, financial and personal impact of a playoff on the participating student-athletes?

--How would the revenue from a playoff be distributed among NCAA member schools?

--How would a playoff affect the existing bowl system?

--How would the playoff be structured?

In the end, the Special Committee was overwhelmed by the contents of its 350-page research study, as well as by the reservations of the members themselves and their race with the NCAA legislative clock. According to Young, the committee didn’t have enough time to satisfactorily discuss the assorted key issues, “although the sense is they can be resolved.”

Maybe so, but they won’t be resolved in time for the 1995 NCAA Convention this January at San Diego. Proposed legislation for the convention must be submitted by June 15, a deadline Young said would not be met.

Instead, the committee requested that a task force be formed to further study those main sticking points. If it were approved later this month by the Presidents Commission and the NCAA Executive Committee, the task force would complete its work by the end of fall and then report its findings to the original Special Committee.

“And that would be far too late for anything to happen in this convention,” said Young, who suggested a proposal might be in place for the 1996 NCAA membership meetings.

Whatever the case, it now appears that the earliest a playoff system could be implemented is 1998. But first, proponents of the Division I-A championship system will have to do a better job of drumming up support.

Earlier in the week, the presidents of the Southeastern Conference institutions voted, 12-0, against a playoff. William Muse, president of Auburn and a member of the Special Committee, relayed those results to Young.

The SEC isn’t alone. Other conferences, such as the Big Ten and the Big East, also have expressed doubts about a playoff.

“I think the conclusion is at the present time . . . the attitudes have remained essentially as they were before, which would have been negative,” Young said.

Much to the surprise of Cedric Dempsey, NCAA executive director, the Special Committee never came close to voting on a playoff. Dempsey said he originally thought the committee would reach a consensus, thanks to the thoroughness of the research study.

But as the process continued, it became apparent that there would be no recommendation. The best the committee could do was agree to disagree--and to ask for the task force.

For now, nothing will happen until the four main concerns are resolved. Even then there is no guarantee a playoff will become reality.

“I don’t believe that’s inevitable,” Young said of a playoff vote someday by the NCAA Convention membership. “I believe it is likely that there will be a vote on this somewhere along the line, either up or down.”

No such luck Friday. The vote was decidedly sideways.