Jim Delany disputed Sports Illustrated's characterization of the Big Ten Conference, the Pacific-10 Conference and the Rose Bowl as the "axis of obstruction" regarding changes in the Bowl Championship Series format.

Turns out the Big Ten commissioner was right.

The BCS, which has two years left on its deal with Fox Sports, is entering another round of television negotiations, which made last week's meeting of conference commissioners the final hope for fans who want to see the controversial system altered.

For the first time, the commissioners discussed the plus-one format, which would match the top four teams in two BCS bowls, with the winners advancing to a championship game. Currently, the BCS formula identifies the top two teams and they meet in a title game.

The surprise wasn't that the commissioners decided to maintain the status quo. No, the surprise was that they were so adamant about retaining a system that has delivered only four argument-free, 1-vs.-2 matchups in 10 years.

Turns out the Big Ten, Pac-10 and Rose Bowl had plenty of support in their opposition to change. Only two leagues — the ACC and SEC — even wanted to bring the plus-one format up for discussion. It never even came to a vote and therefore won't be sent to the university presidents, virtually ensuring that, like it or not, the current system will remain in place through the 2013 season.

By and large, the commissioners liked the most recent tweaks to the formula, were leery of marginalizing the regular season and wanted to avoid a slippery slope that would lead to a full-blown playoff system. At least that's what they said.

There is, however, another overriding reason why they are so adamant about maintaining the bowl system when every other NCAA sport is decided with a playoff. Surprise, it's called money. The big boys don't want to share the wealth.

As it stands now, the 66 schools in the "big six" conferences (plus Notre Dame) rake in about 90 percent of the millions paid out by the bowls and TV networks.

If the NCAA ran a playoff, the money would have to be divided evenly among the 121 teams in the former Division I-A. And, as happened in basketball, once schools saw the size of the payoffs, more of them would join I-A, further dividing the profits.

Of course, the presidents are opposed to a playoff. But as budget-conscious as they have become, their concerns about the student-athlete, the regular season and the bowl tradition probably would evaporate if they could be shown that the dollars make sense.

Of all the arguments against a playoff, the most bogus is that it would devalue the regular season. This is football, not basketball. The NFL has a great regular season and a great postseason. College football could do the same if it had a playoff.

Ironically, the BCS is undermining the very system it purports to save because its formula has devalued all but two or three bowls. Last year, most of the BCS bowls were duds and TV ratings dropped for four of the five.

A few more years of that and maybe, just maybe, fans would get the playoff they want. After last week's developments, though, it won't be anytime soon.