HOLLYWOOD, Fla. -- Bowl Championship Series officials, meeting at a posh hotel for three days, don't need to leave Florida with a tan.

They need to leave with a plan.

And that's not only because many news organizations -- The New York Times, USA Today, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Associated Press and ESPN among them -- have gathered here to monitor proceedings that may not justify the expense accounts.

Need us to set the agenda?

How's this: The future college football needs to be decided somewhere.

Decide it here.

The next round of television negotiations are set to begin sometime after September, so BCS power brokers have to soon determine what they're selling.

Fox has two years left on its four-year, $320 million deal, with an exclusive window to renegotiate. Fox wants back in and definitely doesn't want the BCS to take its game to the open market.

There are two viable options:

Option A is staying with the status quo, and allowing Fox or another network to take another four-year run with the BCS, starting with the 2010 season. That would push the deal through 2013 and sync it up with ABC's separate deal with the Rose Bowl.

That would also give college presidents and administrators more time to assess the viability of a playoff and set the stage for a mega-deal in 2014.

Atlantic Coast Conference commissioner and BCS coordinator John Swofford sounded like change was not in the offing.

"I continue to sense a certain comfort level, if you will, with the current state of things," Swofford said Monday of the BCS system, which was adopted in 1998 as a way of matching the No. 1 and No. 2 teams in a sport without a playoff.

Shoot, the commissioners are even happy with the convoluted BCS standings formula, with Swofford announcing there would be no changes to the system.

The same six computer operators will offset the two same polls -- Harris Interactive and the USA Today coaches'.

The BCS standings were tweaked annually, sometimes comically, in the early years and a full-blown riot broke out in 2004 when The Associated Press pulled out after the Texas-California voting fiasco.

What's changed? Two years ago, the system became transparent -- and more credible -- when voting coaches were mandated to reveal their final votes.

Option B is endorsing the modified "plus-one" model for the next four-year bowl cycle. It would take the top four teams in the final BCS standings and pair them off in semifinals. It also would require adding a fifth BCS bowl to the mix, with the Cotton Bowl and others itching to get in.

As much as the public clamors for an NFL-style playoff, there isn't going to be one. Opponents say it would diminish college football's regular season.

Even the plus-one is flawed, though, and it would only amount to a cookie thrown to satiate an angry beast.

As Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany pointed out before dashing off to Monday's first marathon meeting, plus-one would have solved nothing last year.

It would have pitted No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 4 Oklahoma in one semifinal and No. 2 LSU vs. No. 3 Virginia Tech in a rematch of an earlier season game.

Plus-one would have left out schools many thought were the two best at season's end: No. 5 Georgia and No. 7 USC.

The Big Ten and Pacific 10 conferences are adamantly opposed to plus-one. Delany says it would only lead more controversy.

Fine, so quit talking about it.

Swofford said the commissioners will discuss plus-one on Wednesday. It finally moves from conception to reality, with Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive providing the pie charts.

Put plus-one on the table and vote on it.

"It certainly needs to be made before September," Swofford said of the yes or no decision. "It may well be made prior to that."

What's wrong with Wednesday, around noon?

The Big Ten and Pac-10 reject it, which they will.

Tell the public why the BCS is fine the way it is.

Then, stand back for the inevitable backlash.

On that front, though, what's new?