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: Jun 30, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 2:02 pm
 

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

So you are saying a star player cannot get injured and a team lose because of that?

I'm not talking about a player being injured, i'm talking about what you said as a team with 3 losses making it to the 1-2 spot of the BCS polls.

That is my exact point.  Just because a team is the best in the country with the "eye" test does not mean they deserve a shot at the NC.   You earn your way in through the regular season which is why if you dont win your conf. you should not play in the NC game. 



Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: March 8, 2012 1:58 pm
 

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

"Alabama would have played OK State and would have DESTROYED them, that is pretty much the same consensus with anyone in the CF world who has half a brain.
And LSU would have played Stanford, and yes would have DESTROYED them.
So in the end you would be left with THE SAME GAME THAT YOU GOT ANYWAY."

But wouldn't it have been fun to watch those games on TV instead of only in your pea-brain ?




Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 1:54 pm
 

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

I want to see the 3 or four best conference champions and possibly one wildcard fight it out until only one is left. Who can argue against that ?

How do you argue that three or four of the best conference champions getting the four top spots are better idea than four of the best teams across the country?

Getting a conference championship doesn't mean you are the best.  Entry into a conference championship game doesn't follow the same rules as the BCS rankings.

South Carolina lost to Auburn and Arkansas but won every other game including every SEC East team... yet Georgia got to go to the SECCG.
Was Georgia better than South Carolina last year? I believe beating Georgia in Athens along with every other SEC team in the east proved that South Carolina was better than Georgia... but that's not the rules for entry into the SECCG.



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 1:42 pm
 

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

Well first off people have been complaining about the BCS for a long time, not just this year or even the last 6. 

We the people (couldn't help myself), have been complaining but the conferences as a whole have not made any effort to make changes.



Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: March 8, 2012 1:41 pm
 

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

I applauded Slive when he first adopted the plus-one idea as I do now for continuing to push it. I want to see the championship decided on the field instead of the polls as do most fans. I want to see the 3 or four best conference champions and possibly one wildcard fight it out until only one is left. Who can argue against that ?



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 1:41 pm
 

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

So you are saying a star player cannot get injured and a team lose because of that?

I'm not talking about a player being injured, i'm talking about what you said as a team with 3 losses making it to the 1-2 spot of the BCS polls.



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 1:40 pm
 

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

And my point was not to rag on Alabama's OOC, I was just using them as an example. It is hard to schedule big games early in the season because these are college kids after all, it takes a few games for teams to meld. Nobody wants to lose a shot at the title by scheduling Alabama as their first game. But by prefering conference champions in the playoff, you get strong meaningful cross-conference games at the end of the season where it counts. Who in the Big 12 can argue against Alabama being the National Champ if they beat the Big 12 champ at the end of the season ? Same for the PAC-12 or Big 10.


I agree with you on the OOC and trying to schedule quality oppts.  Hell, South Carolina scheduled and beat Boise State back in 2000-2001 when they aren't that good.  It's not our fault that Boise State has stepped it up.

But that's a whole another discussion, i'm sure you can talk about OOC in the many threads that have been spawned.

But by prefering conference champions in the playoff, you get strong meaningful cross-conference games at the end of the season where it counts.
That's the problem though yeah? You can't tell me that every conference champion is going to be an amazing team.  Look what happen to Clempson in 2011 and Georgia Tech in 2009.  Conference champs are taking into consideration at the end of the year... it's the extra game most conferences play plus the human poll that should pick up on that.

You are never going to satisfy the problem fully... Ok, more weight on the conference champ, less weight on the regular season.  Ok... So Alabama's one loss to LSU during the regular season is more of a negative than Oklahoma State losing to Iowa State?

Let me state, I HATE how 2011 turned out.  One of my best friends is an Alabama fan and he won't talk with me about it but... I wish I would have gotten to see different games.

Given a +1 format, you got to be kidding though if you believe Clempson or Wisconsin were more deserving than Alabama for that 4th spot.  Alabama was ATLEAST a top 4 team going into the bowl games.




Since: Aug 21, 2008
Posted on: March 8, 2012 1:36 pm
 

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

And your points here are what?.. Lets see, what would have happened this past year if the plus 1 had been in place...

Alabama would have played OK State and would have DESTROYED them, that is pretty much the same consensus with anyone in the CF world who has half a brain.

And LSU would have played Stanford, and yes would have DESTROYED them.

So in the end you would be left with THE SAME GAME THAT YOU GOT ANYWAY.

MORONS.




Since: Jun 30, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 1:31 pm
 

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

It's funny how the SEC was the first to try to change the BCS and was struck down by the other conferences.  Now you have everyone screaming for a change when the SEC has had a massive amount of success.

Well first off people have been complaining about the BCS for a long time, not just this year or even the last 6.  Personally I remember how it was with just the AP so I am content with the BCS how it is currently.  I would also be ok with a +1 system.



Since: Jun 30, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 1:29 pm
 

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

You are explaining a scenario that would NEVER happen so why discuss it?

So you are saying a star player cannot get injured and a team lose because of that?


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