Despite many coaches saying they would like to see some kind of playoff in Division I-A football, a change is not likely to happen when the Bowl Championship Series commissioners meet this week in Hollywood, Fla.

The AJC polled all 65 coaches in the six BCS conferences. We gave them two options for postseason football:

> The status quo, where a formula heavily weighted toward two human polls picks two teams at the end of the regular season to play for the BCS championship.

> A four-team playoff with the teams seeded 1-4 that uses the current bowl structure. In the semifinals, 1 would play 4 and 2 would play 3. The winners would advance to a national championship game.

Of the 34 coaches who responded, 22 opted for a four-team playoff.

"We need a change," said Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville, whose 2004 team finished 13-0 and No. 3 in the BCS standings and did not get to play for the national championship. "We don't want to hurt the bowls, but our players deserve something a little better than what we have."

SEC commissioner Mike Slive agrees and said his league's presidents authorized him to present a four-team playoff model to his fellow commissioners at this week's meetings. The SEC presidents aren't endorsing the model, Slive said, only the discussion about it.

"We've done a considerable amount of homework and analysis, and we're prepared to talk about the pros and cons of our model," Slive said.

The TV contract between the BCS and Fox has two seasons left. Negotiations on a new contract are scheduled to start in September. If the BCS wants to change its format for its new deal, that decision must be made this summer.

But extensive interviews with most of the major players in the BCS made one thing clear: Changing the format in the short term is not impossible, but given the competing agendas of the parties involved it would be very difficult.

"I've often said that changing the BCS is like trying to turn around a battleship," said ACC commissioner John Swofford, coordinator of the BCS and a proponent of a four-team playoff. "We need to have a thorough discussion and drill down deep to see if we can improve the system. But change is not going to be easy. "

One of the biggest obstacles is the Rose Bowl and its partners, the Big Ten and Pac-10. Because of their large TV contract with ABC (which runs through the January 2014 game), they like the current system.

"All of our people realize that the BCS has flaws, but none of them feel that a playoff is the way to go," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said.

Even a four-team playoff would not guarantee an end to arguments about the process for choosing a champion. Many Georgia fans said the Bulldogs should have been one of the two teams that played for the BCS championship in January. Under a four-team playoff, the Bulldogs, who finished No. 5 in the final BCS standings, still would have been left out.

The current deal with Fox pays the BCS $320 million over four years. A "plus-one" model could generate as much as $50 million extra per season, industry experts say. But choosing a postseason format is about more than money.

Some presidents and athletics directors oppose a playoff because of its impact on players' schoolwork. Others worry a playoff could lead to killing the bowl system, shortening the regular season or eliminating conference championship games. Figuring out who's No. 1 isn't the most important issue for the majority of schools, who rarely if ever are in contention.

"From my perspective, the playoff is good for about 20 schools, and I don't know if that's good for college football," outgoing Mississippi State athletics director Larry Templeton said.

"The BCS is like a lot of things in life," Slive said. "Where you stand depends on where you sit."

THE PLAYERS:

The seven groups that may help determine the future of the BCS:

THE BIG SIX

Who are they?

They are the commissioners of the original six BCS conferences: ACC (John Swofford), SEC (Mike Slive), Big East (Michael Tranghese), Big Ten (Jim Delany), Big 12 (Dan Beebe), Pac-10 (Tom Hansen). They, not the NCAA, control postseason football in Division I-A. Each of these men has one of the eight BCS votes. The five other Division I-A conferences share a vote, and Notre Dame has a vote. Nothing changes in the BCS unless the six reach some kind of consensus.

What do they want?

They aren't of like mind on where the BCS should go next. But they agree on this: Whatever change, if any, that comes should retain the basic bowl structure. The increase in all bowl payouts that can be attributed to the advent of the BCS has been very good to the Big Six conferences. Consider this: Last season's 32 bowls paid some $213 million to the participating conferences. The Big Six conferences received about $190 million, 89 percent, of that total. But over the past 10 years the BCS also has distributed more than $100 million to the five other Division I-A conferences and to Division I-AA to promote the health of the game.

What do they have to lose?

The Big Six can argue that since they began exerting their control back in 1992 with the original Bowl Coalition, there is far more money for everyone in postseason football. In 1991 11 bowls paid $1 million or more per team. Today 19 bowls pay $1 million or more, and 13 pay $2 million or more. The five BCS games last season paid $18.6 million to each of the six automatic qualifiers and another $4.5 million for the second team from a conference that reached one of the games. The five Division I-A conferences that aren't in the Big Six shared about $18 million from the BCS pool. In this system, the commissioners control the money. If the NCAA runs a playoff, like the men's basketball tournament, the NCAA would control the money.

What they are saying

"In fairness to the game, the fans, and all of the participants of the BCS, we need to have a thorough discussion on this issue. We owe it to everybody who has a stake in this issue. That doesn't mean we can get there in the next cycle. It's one thing not to get there and improve the system. It's another thing not to even discuss it. We have to try." —- ACC commissioner John Swofford, current coordinator of the BCS.

THE ROSE BOWL AXIS

Who are they?

Since 1947 the Rose Bowl has had a business partnership with the Big Ten and Pac-10 to send their champions to the annual game in Pasadena, Calif. The parties did not participate in the early versions of the BCS but did join in 1998. In 10 years the Rose Bowl has hosted the BCS championship game twice (2001, 2005 regular seasons) and has lost its traditional matchup three other times (2004, 2006, 2007 seasons). The Big Ten and Pac-10 feel very strongly about the Rose Bowl and its tradition. Their eight-year TV deal with ABC gives them leverage with the rest of the BCS in all negotiations.

What do they want?

The status quo. Back in 1998 Delany and Hansen convinced the Rose Bowl that it was in everybody's best interest to break with tradition and join the BCS. But they have made it clear that the current format is their line in the sand.

What do they have to lose?

Delany and Hansen are gambling that the rest of the BCS conferences will not form a playoff without them. They are probably right. In nine of the past 10 seasons the Big Ten or Pac-10 champ has been ranked in the top four of the final BCS Standings. The value of a four-team playoff would drop dramatically without them. They will use that leverage to maintain the status quo or to get concessions that would protect their traditional match-up should a playoff come to pass. Their Rose Bowl deal, and the $30 million annually that goes with it, is guaranteed for six more years. They really have no incentive to change.

What they are saying

"We can have a thorough discussion on this issue, but we have to be honest about the environment that we're in. It [a four-team playoff] would be the first step toward a multi-step playoff. I don't think for a minute that you could stop at four. The political demands and desires would dictate that the playoff would quickly grow to 12 or 16 teams. Remember how Georgia and Southern Cal were upset about not being in the championship game last season? How upset would they have been had there been four teams in the playoff and they still didn't make it?" —- Jim Delany, Big Ten commissioner

THE COALITION

Who are they?

They are the five other Division I-A conferences (C-USA, MAC, WAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt) who have fought a long battle —- which included the threat of legal action—- to gain access to the BCS and its money. Three times in the past four seasons (Utah, 2004; Boise State, 2006; Hawaii, 2007) a Coalition team has earned a spot in the BCS and the $9 million payday that goes with it.

What do they want?

The status quo. Under the current arrangement, the Coalition conferences receive about $9 million automatically from the BCS money pool each year. They share another $9 million if one of their teams qualifies for a BCS game. And you can't put a price on the national exposure these teams have received for playing in the BCS.

What do they have to lose?

If the BCS creates a four-team playoff, it will have to make a big decision. Will it add another bowl in order to maintain the current 10 slots in BCS? Or will it keep the four bowls and cut back the available slots to just eight? That would leave only two at-large slots, and the BCS might make it more difficult for the Coalition teams to qualify. The consensus is that the genie is out of the bottle on letting the Coalition teams into the BCS games. The BCS can't go back.

What they are saying

"There is not anyone who can say that we have not added value to the current system. The Boise State-Oklahoma game [in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl] was a home run on all fronts. And the Hawaii-Georgia game [in the 2008 Sugar Bowl] was a compelling story. Our primary concern is that if there is a change of format, we would like the same access to the system."—- Karl Benson, WAC commissioner.

THE BCS BOWL EXECS

Who are they?

The executive directors of the four BCS Bowls: Fiesta (John Junker), Sugar (Paul Hoolahan), Orange (Eric Poms), Rose (Mitch Dorger). These men and their communities have invested heavily —- in money and in volunteer hours —- in the BCS.

What do they want?

It depends on whom you ask. Dorger, like his business partners, says the current system is just fine and wants no changes. The other three bowls are willing to work with the BCS on the format but do not want a change from the current "double hosting" model that gives them the national championship game every four years. That could change if the BCS goes to a four-team playoff and has to add a fifth bowl to maintain 10 available slots. That would make the current BCS bowls —- and their sponsors —- very unhappy.

What do they have to lose?

The Sugar, Orange and Fiesta could work with a four-team playoff because chances are they would have a semifinal or a championship game in three out of four years. But they see the four-team playoff as a slippery slope, and when it expands their games are bound to get hurt.

What they are saying

"We're not saying that what we have is perfect. And we should listen to our customers, who are the college football fans. But our experience is that the closer people are to the game, the less they want some kind of bracketed end to the season. The presidents say that whatever happens to postseason football, they want to keep the bowl experience in place for the student-athletes. We will take them at their word." —- John Junker, executive director, Fiesta Bowl.

THE COACHES

Who are they?

There are the 120 head football coaches in Division I-A. Of that total, 65 are in the Big Six conferences. One of the measures of their job performance is getting a team to one of the 10 available slots in a BCS game.

What do they want?

They don't want to hurt the bowl system, because that will always be their fallback position if they don't make it to the playoffs or to a BCS bowl. But coaches want something that gives an opportunity to more teams than just the top two, who are essentially picked by human pollsters. The AJC polled all 65 coaches in the six original BCS conferences. We gave them the two options for postseason football 1) the status quo or 2) a four-team playoff with the teams seeded 1-4 that uses the current bowl structure. Of the 34 who responded, 22 opted for a four-team playoff.

What do they have to lose?

What little peace of mind they have left. If a four-team playoff is instituted, that will become the new standard for a successful season. The pressure to win in Division I-A football is already enormous. The pressure to make the playoffs would be off the charts.

What they are saying

"When Auburn got left out in 2004 [with a 12-0 record] I knew it was time for a change. The current system is not fair to the players, and it's not fair to the fans. College football is a great game, but it can be even better. And we have the power to make it better." —- Mack Brown, Texas coach

THE PRESIDENTS

Who are they?

The chief executive officers of the 120 Division I member colleges and universities. They have, at least in theory, the power to hire and fire conference commissioners, athletics directors and coaches.

What do they want?

To be able to run their universities and not be embarrassed by what happens in the athletics department, which remains a small though very public part of the university. They want academic integrity, plus control over athletics programs some presidents see as increasingly commercialized and isolated from the rest of campus life. Anything that pushes football into the spring semester, even slightly, meets strong opposition from many college presidents, a few of whom admit they don't much care which college football team is playing the best at season's end.

What do they have to lose?

The last vestiges of the notions that the presidents are in control of college athletics and that so-called student-athletes really are students first. Many presidents worry that a "plus-one" system will start football down a slippery slope toward a broader playoff.

What they are saying

"The presidents are told things, and they believe it. They listen to their athletic directors and their commissioners. The commissioners are the ones who killed the playoff." —- Charles Young, former UCLA chancellor and Florida president and chairman of a 1994 NCAA committee that studied a playoff but failed to reach consensus

THE ATHLETICS DIRECTORS

Who are they?

These administrators get caught in the middle. They're pulled in differing directions by the presidents, the coaches and the boosters. Their job: Make college athletics work at their universities.

What do they want?

A system that works, but they don't agree on what that means. Some want to maximize revenue and create a "true" national champion. Others want to preserve the bowls and the importance of regular-season games. The current system allows more than 30 teams to finish with a postseason victory and creates large and predictable income for each school every year through conference revenue sharing.

What do they have to lose?

Anything that threatens the bowl system brings unpredictability, especially for schools whose teams would rarely if ever be good enough to take part in a playoff. (If each team made it just once, only one of every three Division I-A schools would have participated in a four-team playoff if such a playoff had existed the past 10 seasons.) Also, the athletics directors are the ones who would have to deal with the headaches involved with playoff travel, housing and ticket logistics.

What they are saying

"Critics have said Division I-A is greedy and only in it for the money. If that were the case, we'd have a playoff now, because the money is so incredible." —- Dutch Baughman, executive director, Division 1A Athletic Directors Association

—- Staff Writer Mike Knobler contributed information on presidents and athletics directors.