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: Dec 13, 2006
Posted on: March 8, 2012 9:02 am
 

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

A simple question.  Everyone knows that under the current system, the SEC has enjoyed tremendous success.  But almost every SEC school schedules weakly in their nonconference portions, and plays a lot more home games than road games.  I was looking at this year's upcoming schedule.  In 55 OOC games, something like 42 of them are against bad teams, and only 9 are true road games to another school's home stadium.  What this enables the SEC to do is to produce several teams whose only losses are to each other.  This year, almost none of the SEC schools will take on a top team from another conference.  In all 55 games, a only see a match against Michigan, another with Clemson, and a few traditional rivalries as potential trap nonconference games for the SEC.

Hence, it's easy for SEC fans to argue that more teams from their own conference should be included in any plus one system.

Here is a noble idea.  How about having every SEC school do like LSU did last year?  How about playing a couple of really tough teams on the road for your nonconference schedule?  How about dropping those games against FCS schools?  How about leaving the region to play up North or out West?

If like LSU, the SEC conference champ can point to victories against several other top rated programs, then I'd be willing to allow more than one team from their conference.  But I note that LSU is playing no one on the road, OOC, yes, four home games, and only has a single school scheduled that even has a chance of being within 5 touchdowns.

In short, if you really want every game to be meaningful, then go out and play some real teams in those early season games.  Sure, have one "warm-up" game, but then, dang it, go play someone with a pulse.



Since: Aug 9, 2011
Posted on: March 8, 2012 8:45 am
 

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

Since when does winning one's conference make a team one of the best teams in the country?  Were ORE and WVU considered to be one of the best teams in the country last year?  Each won their conference.  Each lost to LSU in the regular season.  Is that not the same thing that happened to ALA? 
That was kinda my point and the reason that so far everyone talking about a plus-one or simlar small field playoff would only be conference champs as Bama can't really say that they are the champs--not really, they just won the glass ball.  They aren't even the SEC champ and at best are tied with LSU in reality.  Notice in 2008 when Texas was in the same position, they were skipped in favor of Florida and again in 2006 Michigan was skipped in favor of Florida too--why?  Because they didn't win their conferences.
That did not happen and many think BIG JD has been the reason.  His vocal opposition has stymied any attempt to implement a playoff. 
Actually, it wasn't JD alone, it was Larry Scott of the PAC as well and since 2 of the 4 biggest conferences were opposed to the playoff, that is more than the matter of 1 conference having the pull over all the rest.  Now if another of the big conferences were to support Slive, then it might be the same, but Dodd implied that Slive alone had more pull than all the rest and I would have to wonder how that is so.




   
   

  



Since: Jun 30, 2009
Posted on: March 8, 2012 8:28 am
 

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

our logic ceases to amaze, steels.  Now you tell us the best teams in the country are conference champs.  ho knew?  Since when does winning one's conference make a team one of the best teams in the country?  Were ORE and WVU considered to be one of the best teams in the country last year?  Each won their conference.  Each lost to LSU in the regular season.  Is that not the same thing that happened to ALA?  Why are ORE and WVU considered to be the best simply on the basis of winning their conference, yet ALA is not?  All lost to LSU, but unlike ALA, both ORE and WVU lost other games on their way to winning their conference championship.

If you do not win your conf.  you do not deserve a shot at the NC.  Bama did show they were better than LSU in the NC game last year but that does not matter, they did not deserve a shot. The regular season matters, you earn your shot during the regular season. 



Since: Sep 18, 2006
Posted on: March 8, 2012 7:13 am
 

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

My first question is why wouldn't it just be exclusive to conference champs?  I mean if you can't win your conference, you obviously aren't one of the best teams in the country, right?  And why would Slive (of the SEC) be one of the few with a "large say" in the matter?  Aren't all conferences equal in the system?  So wouldn't every conference commissioner have as much say as Slive?  Imagine that.......

Your logic ceases to amaze, steels.  Now you tell us the best teams in the country are conference champs.  ho knew?  Since when does winning one's conference make a team one of the best teams in the country?  Were ORE and WVU considered to be one of the best teams in the country last year?  Each won their conference.  Each lost to LSU in the regular season.  Is that not the same thing that happened to ALA?  Why are ORE and WVU considered to be the best simply on the basis of winning their conference, yet ALA is not?  All lost to LSU, but unlike ALA, both ORE and WVU lost other games on their way to winning their conference championship.

All teams and most of all conferences are not created equally, both in the quality of teams and in clout.  Why do you think JD has been a stick in the mud in this entire debate?  He is commish of the BIG and his objection to a playoff has been one of the major reasons a playoff has not even been considered, much less implemented.  If all the conferece commisioners had an equal say, a playoff could have at least been discussed.  That did not happen and many think BIG JD has been the reason.  His vocal opposition has stymied any attempt to implement a playoff.  If ALL had as much a say, would it not follow that one commish could stop such a plan before it is even discussed?




Since: Mar 7, 2008
Posted on: March 8, 2012 5:22 am
 

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

How about the top 4 SEC teams get in , naturally because nobody can ever defeat even the middle of the pack in the SEC , and then conference champs, but only from the PAC12,B1G andBIG12, because the rest of the conferences suck at football and wouldnt even be worth watching. Why not just give the SEC champs the trophy at the end of the regular season, they will win it anyway. 



Since: Aug 9, 2011
Posted on: March 8, 2012 5:04 am
 

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

Few individuals -- if any -- will have as large a say in the construction of 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.
My first question is why wouldn't it just be exclusive to conference champs?  I mean if you can't win your conference, you obviously aren't one of the best teams in the country, right?  And why would Slive (of the SEC) be one of the few with a "large say" in the matter?  Aren't all conferences equal in the system?  So wouldn't every conference commissioner have as much say as Slive?  Imagine that.......



Since: Aug 9, 2011
Posted on: March 8, 2012 4:59 am
 

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

Few individuals -- if any -- will have as large a say in the construction of 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.
My first question is why wouldn't it just be exclusive to conference champs?  I mean if you can't win your conference, you obviously aren't one of the best teams in the country, right?  And why would Slive (of the SEC) be one of the few with a "large say" in the matter?  Aren't all conferences equal in the system?  So wouldn't every conference commissioner has as much say as Slive?  Imagine that.......
  



Since: Jan 3, 2007
Posted on: March 8, 2012 3:25 am
 

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

Why have a wild card?  Why not just have the best four?
Are you people that scared of the SEC?
Quit being homer babies



Since: Jan 9, 2008
Posted on: March 8, 2012 12:20 am
 

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

All we need is the possibility of one wildcard team if ranked in the top 4, and the rest top-ranked conference champs. That will allow an independent like Notre Dame a chance if they ever get a team again, and also leave the possibility of a strong second-place team like Alabama getting in to prove their worth after a tough lose to their conference champion. This year, that would have been the SEC, Big 12, and PAC-12 champions plus Alabama going head-to-head. No what-ifs, no "my loss is better than yours", etc. Resolved on the field.



Since: Jul 10, 2007
Posted on: March 7, 2012 11:44 pm
 

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

Oh well, my memory IS failing - the SEC did have 2 teams this year.  So what - six in a row, and either ALA or LSU could have won against any other team in the nation.


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