Blog Entry

Slive: plus-one shouldn't be champions-only

Posted on: March 7, 2012 1:13 pm
 

Posted by Jerry Hinnen

Few individuals -- if any -- will have as large a say in the construction of the impending college football "plus-one" as SEC commissioner Mike Slive. And as of Wednesday, the construction Slive has in mind is one that won't be exclusive to conference champions.

Speaking to the Birmingham News, Slive said that he was "willing to have a conversation" about restricting the field to champions only, but that it wasn't his preference--no surprise, considering it was his conference that wedged its teams into both slots in the 2011 national title game.

"[I]f you were going to ask me today, that would not be the way I want to go," Slive said. "It really is early in the discussions, notwithstanding what some commissioners say publicly. There's still a lot of information that needs to be generated."

Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott previously stated his support for admitting conference champions only, though we're not sure that veiled "some commissioners" jibe from Slive is a shot across Scott's bow or not.

What we are sure of is that Slive is more open to Jim Delany's proposal for on-campus semifinals than Scott's regarding league champions. While stopping well short of endorsing the Big Ten-backed suggestion, Slive also noted some of its benefits and kept the door well open to its consideration.

"There are plusses and minuses to that concept," Slive said. "One is that you're playing a couple games to determine the national champion and to make it a home game for somebody has always been perceived as a competitive advantage ... You have to look at that. The other side is there would be the question of fan travel and the ability to travel to one or more games. You guarantee good attendance (on campus) -- for one team.

"It needs to be looked at carefully. It's on the table and it should be on the table."

Slive also again declined to reveal details on the SEC' 2013-and-beyond scheduling arrangements and said the league wasn't interested in expanding beyond its current 14 teams. Of more interest was his comments on the league's ongoing television negotiations, reopened since the addition of Texas A&M and Missouri.

"They know who we are and what we have," Slive said. "None of our schools will be hurt financially (in 2012-13). But that's just today. It's tomorrow that's the real issue. The discussions are very important. They're longterm. We'll leave it at that."

Knowing that Slive's entire willingness to entertain expansion was -- very likely -- motivated first-and-foremost by a desire to rework the league's (mostly) static 15-year TV deal for something closer to the Big Ten and Pac-12's rapidly expanding, league network-driven contracts, could his emphasis on the "very important" "longterm" be commissioner-speak for a push for an SEC Network? 

We'd be stunned, frankly, if it means anything different. Slive's opinions and preferences on the plus-one matter a great deal where the rest of college football is concerned--but when it comes to the distant future of his own conference, those negotiations may be even more critical.

Keep up with the latest college football news from around the country. From the opening kick of the year all the way through the offseason, CBSSports.com has you covered with this daily newsletter. View a preview.

Get CBSSports.com College Football updates on Facebook   

Comments

Since: Oct 17, 2011
Posted on: March 7, 2012 4:34 pm
 

Slive: plus-one shouldn't be champions-only

@usbummer
Using that logic, 2 of the top 4 teams from this past season would not have qualified for the plus-one. There was no question this past season that LSU, Oklahoma St, Alabama and Stanford were by far the 4 best teams in the nation, yet Alabama and Stanford werent conference champions. Using your system, the four teams playing for the title would have been #1 LSU, #3 Ok St, #5 Oregon and #10 Wisconsin. Do you honestly think Oregon or Wisconsin were better teams than Alabama or Stanford? Of course not!



Since: Aug 13, 2011
Posted on: March 7, 2012 4:25 pm
 

Slive: plus-one shouldn't be champions-only

I think there is merit to both sides of this argument and regardless of how this controversy is settled, someone is going to be unhappy. It seems to me, however, (and I am sincerely trying not to let mt personal bias enter into this equation), that the least controversial solution would be that which involves the least subjective decisions. In other words, inviting only the conference champions would eliminate the subjective decision of evaluating whether the 2nd place finisher of conference "A" is better than the champion of conference "B" and is, therefore, more deservious of an invitation. Let conference champions only be invited and let the national championship only be awarded to the winner of the playoff. The loser of the national championship game has no guarantees of finishing second. Let some other system determine 2nd through 25th.



Since: Sep 21, 2011
Posted on: March 7, 2012 4:21 pm
 

Slive: plus-one shouldn't be champions-only

I'm sorry but I missed the memo that said that Slive was in charge.


No one cares about the SEC but the SEC.  Look what an alll SEC BCS NC game rated.
3rd lowest ratings in the history of the BCS.

Ratings for SEC games on CBS were down 18% this past year.  Bama/LSU rematch was a regional matchup.  
I'm sorry but if you don't win your conference, you have no business being in the final 4.
As long as we have human voters still deciding the rankings, there should only be conference winners. 
Give a team a month to prepare for a bowl game and anyone can beat anyone on any given day of the week.

How quickly we forget about Boise beating OU.  Utah beating Bama, etc..........   



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: March 7, 2012 4:18 pm
 

Slive: plus-one shouldn't be champions-only

of course Silve feels this way...the SEC has long benefitted from the highly subjective poll system that awards perception and is based on judgements from writers that miss or ignore half of the nation's cfb games and most games west of the MS river and from coaches that are rarely seeing any games outside of their own and advance scouting duties because they are too busy trying to win fb games...

Cry me a river, it would be a different story if this would have happen in 2006 with the B1G.  The same 'highly subjective poll system' was trying to get Ohio State and Michigan to play each other again.

The +1 solution fits both scenarios perfectly as long as you ignore which conferences they are in...

2006
Ohio State 1 vs LSU 4
Florida 3 vs Michigan 2

2011
Alabama 2 vs Oklahoma State 3
LSU 1 vs Stanford 4

PLEASE don't tell me you think the following would have been better:

2006
Ohio State 1 vs Louisville 5 or Oklahoma 7 or Southern Cal 8
Florida 2 vs Louisville 5 or Oklahoma 7

2011
LSU 1 vs Wisconsin 10 or Clempson 15
Oklahoma State 3 vs Stanford 4



Since: Jul 24, 2010
Posted on: March 7, 2012 4:13 pm
 

Slive: plus-one shouldn't be champions-only

So according to your logic Shoehead: LSU was not worthy of going to the NC game last year? If you had said that before the game even the stupidest SEC haters on earth would have called you an idiot. The only question was whether Bama deserved to be there...and they obviously proved that they did. Bama was the only team in the country that had any chance of staying on the field with LSU. Period. Everyone with any sense knew that. Bama played as well as they could and LSU stunk up the joint...in case you missed it.



Since: Jan 19, 2012
Posted on: March 7, 2012 4:05 pm
 

Slive: plus-one shouldn't be champions-only

Balboadc gets a huge....Harrumph! He's absolutely right. It's the only way to take some part of the human (polls) influence out of it.



Since: Oct 12, 2010
Posted on: March 7, 2012 3:51 pm
 

Slive: plus-one shouldn't be champions-only

No way.....that would mean half the teams would be from the SEC.  The public is in an uproar over that scam of a BCS Championship game.....Look how the public was sold a bill of goods about LSU being one of the greatest defenses ever....But really they were a defense full of holes who couldnt stop a decent quaterback.
Oh, I am sure he would love having a team from the Pac-12 travel to Tuscaloosa to play in a championship game...or to Ann Arbor Michigan in Decmeber....These ideas are so ridiculously stupid it is amazing that anybody takes these guys seriously.



Since: Jun 14, 2010
Posted on: March 7, 2012 3:44 pm
 

Slive: plus-one shouldn't be champions-only

of course Silve feels this way...the SEC has long benefitted from the highly subjective poll system that awards perception and is based on judgements from writers that miss or ignore half of the nation's cfb games and most games west of the MS river and from coaches that are rarely seeing any games outside of their own and advance scouting duties because they are too busy trying to win fb games...



Since: Mar 1, 2012
Posted on: March 7, 2012 3:44 pm
 

Slive: plus-one shouldn't be champions-only

Best 4 teams period. Spare us the SEC bashing. Select the best 4 the same way you did the best two for the BCSCG. NO home games for any of the 4.



Since: Dec 13, 2007
Posted on: March 7, 2012 3:27 pm
 

Slive: plus-one shouldn't be champions-only

I have an idea... Lets have a plus one and have all 4 teams from the SEC. How about the 5 BCS bowl have all SEC teams. LSU opened this can of worms by not winning.... I hope football conference's have only winners. Other wise we will not gain anything. SEC send you best team and I don't care how you select them.....  


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com