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: Sep 19, 2006
Posted on: March 9, 2012 1:34 am
 

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

Of course the SEC does not want a champion restriction.  They enjoy favorable media bias, and don't want to limit the potential revenue that can be obtained by media anointing the SEC teams as the best in the country.



Since: Sep 19, 2006
Posted on: March 9, 2012 1:30 am
 

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

If you take anything other than coference champions you open the door to bias.  Look at this year's NCG, after watching the BCS bowls it is VERY difficult to believe that the two best teams in the country played in the Championship game.  Stanford, Oklahoma State, Oregon, and Wisconsin all displayed teams equal or in some cases superior to the teams playing in the NCG.  



Since: Dec 7, 2011
Posted on: March 8, 2012 9:32 pm
 

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

why in the world would they have to add that restriction. that is the while deal to get the 4 best teams at the time. not who was the preseason pick. it is all about playing those games on the field. not in the plls.



Since: Jun 30, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 9:14 pm
 

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

If you do not win your conf.  you do not deserve a shot at the NC.
That is an entirely different topic ell.  steels made the leap that the BEST teams were the conference champs.  Not so.


This started with the talk of who to let into the playoff.  Some were saying only conf. champs where others were not.  That was my opinion for that subject. 



Since: Dec 29, 2006
Posted on: March 8, 2012 8:29 pm
 

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

This is really easy to do, but get a bunch of commissioners together and none wants to give up any so-called advantage, and it's the bleeping BCS harangue all over again. It should not be conference champions. It should be te four best teams n the country, but with one caveat. Only one team from any conference can be seleted. The individual conference can vote on that team over another team in their conference. Last year, te SEC could choose LSU or Alabama, but not both. The PAC12 could choose Oregon or Stanford, but not both. It would be the nxt two slots that gets interesting. It looks as if Boise St. would have made one of those slots, and probably Wisconsin. But they won't like that and they'll have to gin up a way that Boise wouldn't have qualified. Oh wait a second OKSt.. Forgot all about them. Well the BCS really forgot all about them so why shouldn't I. No seriously, the rub would come down to Boise St. vs. two losses Wisconsin. The B1G would then argue why conference champions are needed. I know they don't want to go there, but that iswhy an 8 team playoff is really necessary to get rid of most of the shenanigans. We could have had LSU/Alabama and Oregon/Stanford  OKSt. Wisconsin Boise St. and I guess Clemson, unless they wanted to send Va. Tech. Then they would argue whether the final four, if were Alabama and LSU and Oregon and Stanford, whether or not same conference teams had toplay themselves so that no two teams from the same conference could meet in the final. This jockeying for position could be  so much fun. Probably the best solution is to let commissioners from the Sun Belt, MAC, etc. come up with the rules. At least you'd get a chance of some miracle team outside of the Unholy alliance to get a shot every 20 or 30 yers.



Since: Sep 18, 2006
Posted on: March 8, 2012 6:57 pm
 

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

If you do not win your conf.  you do not deserve a shot at the NC.
That is an entirely different topic ell.  steels made the leap that the BEST teams were the conference champs.  Not so.



Since: Jun 30, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 6:42 pm
 

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

As for Oklahoma State being that far behind... yeah, they could have competed with Alabama but I can't help but stop looking at who they lost to.  LSU vs Iowa State.  What would be a similiar team in the SEC when compared to Iowa State? Iowa State was 3-6 in the Big12.  They played the Rutgers in a bowl and lost 27-13.  In 2011 for the SEC, Iowa State would be compared to Vanderbilt at best... Kentucky or even 10AhC at worst.  Alabama's score against Vanderbilt? 34-0


You are right they had a bad loss but remember the computer average for Ok St. was higher than Bama.  To me, allowing the computer average Ok St. was not that far away from Bama so a conf champ should have been chosen over a top non champ.    



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 4:50 pm
 

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

To me Bama had their chance and unless everyone else was very far behind, which I do not think Ok St. was, you chose a conf. champ over the non champ.

CFB 2011 to me was the super bowl of 2007 with the Giants being Alabama and LSU being the Patriots... ignore the actual playing references... I know the Patriots, overall, were much better than the Giants... but not that one game... not that one game...
That's how I feel about the 2011 CFB season.  LSU's game plan absolutely was horrible and seemed like their players didn't even care.

As for Oklahoma State being that far behind... yeah, they could have competed with Alabama but I can't help but stop looking at who they lost to.  LSU vs Iowa State.  What would be a similiar team in the SEC when compared to Iowa State? Iowa State was 3-6 in the Big12.  They played the Rutgers in a bowl and lost 27-13.  In 2011 for the SEC, Iowa State would be compared to Vanderbilt at best... Kentucky or even 10AhC at worst.  Alabama's score against Vanderbilt? 34-0



Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: March 8, 2012 4:01 pm
 

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

The biggest advantage I see to having a preference for conference champions is to spread the interest in the games across as wide an area as possible. I personally hope to never see a same-conference "national" championship game again in my life. I can see a need to include a wildcard to 1: account for any highly ranked independent, and 2: give a second shot to a team like Alabama that lost a close game in-conference. Americans like wildcards and underdogs, that just drives more interest into the games, but if you get too carried away with it you limit the inclusiveness. I think 3 conferences represented should be the minimum for a 4 team playoff.



Since: Jun 30, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 3:49 pm
 

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

I do agree Oklahoma State deserved a shot at LSU.  Did I think they were the #2 team in the country though? No.  They weren't... and to me and a lot of people that's not even a worthy discussion.  This isn't a SEC homer opinion.  Look back at Oklahoma State and Alabama and tell me who was a more complete team.  Oklahoma State losing to a 6-7, 3-6 (Big 12) Iowa State proved this 'on the field'. I think this was also vindicated after the Arkansas vs Kansas State game this year as well.  Alabama dominated Arkansas and Arkansas handled Kansas State.  Oklahoma State squeeked by Kansas State.  You can't point at Alabama's OOC all you want but like you said, they handled it on the field.  You might have questions about Alabama but most of your questions were eliminated from Oklahoma State because of their loss to Iowa State.

I agree again, I think Bama was the better team when they lost to LSU even though they lost. I thought Bama was the best in the country but they lost.  And to me even though they are the best team in the country the loss over rides that.  To me Bama had their chance and unless everyone else was very far behind, which I do not think Ok St. was, you chose a conf. champ over the non champ.


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