BCS Is Putting the Pieces Back Together

College football leaders emerged from three days of meetings in Dallas on Friday with some news.

Just not the news.

As expected, conference commissioners announced that three of the bowl championship series partners -- Fiesta, Orange and Sugar -- have agreed in principle with Fox to remain in the BCS rotation through 2010.

The payout for schools participating in BCS games is expected to range between $17 million and $18 million over the course of the four-year deal.

The other BCS member, the Rose Bowl, did not participate in the Dallas meetings because it already has a separate agreement with ABC to televise its Jan. 1 game through 2013.

What remains unresolved is how the BCS will chose its major bowl participants now that Associated Press has announced it will no longer allow its poll to be part of the controversial BCS standings.

While the idea for substituting the BCS standings with a selection committee similar to the one used in college basketball remains “on the table,” according to BCS coordinator Kevin Weiberg, commissioners are looking hard at a plan that would replace the AP poll with one made up of college football experts.

This rankings system might include willing writers, retired coaches and administrators.

“That’s one of the options we’re looking at,” Weiberg said Friday. “We have not embraced it as a definite direction.”

Because of conflict-of-interest issues raised last year in the BCS, when Associated Press voters were put in the prickly position of helping to determine which teams were going to play in $14-million bowl games, it is unlikely any sanctioned media poll would participate in the BCS standings.

The Football Writers Assn. of America, for example, has informed the BCS it would not allow its weekly poll to be used in the BCS formula.

This has led BCS officials to explore the option of a poll that might include 50 or 60 people.

“We have to find out if there would be folks willing to participate, writers or broadcasters, experts, people no longer active perhaps,” Weiberg said. “In some respects, people like that might be very good voters, because they have time to watch games. ... I would still hope there might be some folks in the media industry willing to participate.”

The commissioners hope to have at least a rough draft for a new plan when they meet again in late April.

If the BCS can’t agree on a new poll, the selection committee idea might come back into play.

The problem with a committee picking the Nos. 1 and 2 teams is that the BCS would still need a standings mechanism to determine other bowl participants.

Next year, the last in the current BCS contract, a non-BCS team earns an automatic bid to a major bowl if it finishes No. 6 or better in the BCS standings.

In 2006, when the new “double-hosting” bowl plan takes effect in the new contract, the requirements for a non-BCS team will require a top-12 ranking.

In news that won’t comfort California fans, Weiberg also said the BCS next year would probably drop the automatic BCS qualification for the No. 3- or No. 4-ranked teams.

Last year, the BCS unraveled when Texas nudged out Cal for the No. 4 spot, denying Cal its first Rose Bowl bid since 1959.

Weiberg said the BCS was leaning toward eliminating the No. 3 and No. 4 designations and allowing bowls the flexibility to make choices based on selection priority.