There's the economic crisis, two wars, global warming, energy dependence, health care, social security, poverty, AIDS and a national debt bigger than an Alabama defensive lineman.

You name it, the soon-to-be president has an awful lot of awful on his plate. So what would Barack Obama like to do with what little free time he's likely to have? Take on the most intractable cartel this side of OPEC, that's all.

The most recent graduate of the Electoral College, who campaigned on a platform of hope and change, is planning to use his influence to offer both to college football fans who prefer a democratic way of deciding a national champion. Twice in the past 10 days he's raised the P-word in national interviews.

"I think it's about time we had playoffs in college football," Obama said during a taped halftime interview during last week's Monday Night Football game.

He reiterated his point Sunday night in response to the final question from Steve Kroft during a wide-ranging interview on 60 Minutes .

"If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner. We should be creating a playoff system," said Obama, advocating an eight-team format. "It would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."

That's change a majority of American football fans can believe in. However ...

No, he can't.

There is a better chance of getting both chambers of Congress to stand in the Capitol's dome room linked arm-in-arm and singing Kumbaya after passing a universal health care bill than getting the six BCS conference commissioners to back a legitimate playoff plan.

Even the two biggest major-conference supporters of a Band-Aid "plus-one" solution to the annual BCS mess respectfully disagreed with the incoming president's casual proposal. At least that's what came across in the talking-point statements offered by the commissioners of the Atlantic Coast and Southeastern conferences (neither of whom accepted an interview request).

"First of all I want to congratulate newly elected President Obama, and I am glad he has a passion for college football like so many other Americans," said the statement from ACC commish John Swofford, the current BCS coordinator. "For now, our constituencies -- and I know he understands constituencies -- have settled on the current BCS system, which the majority believe is the best system yet to determine a national champion while also maintaining the college football regular season as the best and most meaningful in sports.

"We certainly respect the opinions of President-elect Obama and welcome dialogue on what's best for college football."

Then this response came from the SEC's Mike Slive via associate commissioner Charles Bloom.

"I appreciate the fact that in a discussion of major national issues on 60 Minutes that college football has found a place on the radar screen of our incoming president," Slive said. "While I am against a formal playoff, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the positive of a plus-one with him at any time."

Remember, these were the two guys who attempted to get an extra game added after the BCS bowls to provide another layer of vetting to define a more legitimate national champion and were shot down last spring by the other stubborn fools who make up the BCS committee. (Yeah, I'm looking at you Big Ten, Pac-10 and Notre Dame.)

The arguments against any kind of playoff are simplistic at best.

1. Everybody loves college football. Most Americans love America and think it's the greatest country on the planet, but that doesn't mean we stop trying to make it better.

2. The regular season is the most meaningful in all sports. And the criteria for selecting eight playoff teams would somehow make the season less meaningful? Go figure.

3. We don't want to abandon the bowl system. Why would you? Only eight teams make the "Playoff Bowls." The rest of the bowls would continue and present exactly the same kind of reward incentive they do now.

4. We don't want to give up those multimillion-dollar BCS payouts. Right, because there's no way the TV folks would pay MORE money for MORE postseason games in MORE cities that are MORE meaningful. That's just silly.

5. Debate about the BCS is good for it. Everybody talks about Donald Trump's hair, but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous and nobody else is copying the style.

This is not a red state/blue state issue. Much like Obama, every fan and most coaches I've spoken with about the collegiate football postseason are in favor of a reasonable limited-field playoff. Nobody except the people in charge disagree -- and we've seen how well our CEO leadership at large has worked out lately.

If Obama really wants to shatter the myth that college football "constituents" think everything is fine just the way it is, he should encourage all of those Gallup pollsters to take a break from politics and survey U.S. sports fans to see what the approval rating is for the BCS and how many would like to see change come in the way of a real playoff.

The truth is, the BCS powers don't want this thing taken to the electorate. They saw how 65 million patriotic Americans went to the polls and voted to take this country in a new direction. And every one of the states in the playoff-blocking Pac-10 and Big Ten voted for Obama except for the home state of John McCain.

So while the president-elect might be "fed up with those computer rankings," he is probably as powerless as the rest of us to break this political impasse.

But don't let that stop us hoping for change.

Reach Scott Michaux at (706) 823-3219 or scott.michaux@augustachronicle.com.