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: Jan 3, 2007
Posted on: March 12, 2012 2:53 am
 

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

After reading all the comments on this thread it is fairly obvious that some peoples opinions will not be swayed.
Why?
Because they are tired of getting their gibletts handed to the by the SEC, and their solution is not to beat them, but to exclude them.
Well played!  You prove that you are cowards, but you have the commissioners of the PAC10, BIG10, and BIG 12 on your side!   You remember them...  the guys that rejected a playoff 5 years ago?
Gutless



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: March 10, 2012 8:06 am
 

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

I don't know about that Miles not only refused to name the Waterboy as his starting QB since anyone could have thrown better than Jefferson, but he even kept him in seeing how uneffective he was in the championship game to get drubbed by Bama, so why do you think he kept him in if not because he was his favorite?  And do you think he wanted to win?

hahahaha, touche!

That response started my morning off well. Thanks! 



Since: Aug 9, 2011
Posted on: March 9, 2012 9:30 pm
 

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

Screw the fact that the coach is playing his 9 best players... their son should be one of the nine best players... the coach is simply playing his favorites and doesn't really want to win. Right?
I don't know about that Miles not only refused to name the Waterboy as his starting QB since anyone could have thrown better than Jefferson, but he even kept him in seeing how uneffective he was in the championship game to get drubbed by Bama, so why do you think he kept him in if not because he was his favorite?  And do you think he wanted to win?

  



Since: Nov 21, 2006
Posted on: March 9, 2012 7:21 pm
 

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

Stick to the Oklahoma State argument, not Oregon State.  Embarassed



Since: Nov 21, 2006
Posted on: March 9, 2012 6:55 pm
 

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.  

So Oregon "displayed teams equal or in some cases superior to the teams playing in the NCG"?  Really?  And correct me if I am wrong, but did Stanford win their Conference?   At least be logical in the argument. 

I have said all along that I don't think Alabama should have been in the game.  I still feel that way.  But don't give me the rematch crap about Oregon who got their doors blown off by LSU in game 1.  And Stanford did not win their conference either.  Wisky wound up losing 3 games when it was all over.  Stick to the Oregon State argument.  That one works.  You dilute your POV when you add these others.



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: March 9, 2012 6:48 pm
 

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.

Seeing people whine about this supposed 'favorable media bias' is like watching the rich parents whine when their over entitled kid doesn't get enough playing time on their high school baseball team.

Screw the fact that the coach is playing his 9 best players... their son should be one of the nine best players... the coach is simply playing his favorites and doesn't really want to win. Right? 



Since: Sep 22, 2009
Posted on: March 9, 2012 6:43 pm
 

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

Conference champions are proven ( and certainly not 'voted'). 'Best' 4 teams can only be speculated and guerssed at . That's been the whole historical problem with big time college's pretend national championships.....the mythical ideology. Of course Slive advocates the 'mythical' approach. It has served his league very well.

Conference Champs...let's go 'real' !!


Yeah, the ACC champion was very 'proven' this year.  Great way to support your point.



Since: Nov 29, 2006
Posted on: March 9, 2012 12:20 pm
 

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

 Conference champions are proven ( and certainly not 'voted'). 'Best' 4 teams can only be speculated and guerssed at . That's been the whole historical problem with big time college's pretend national championships.....the mythical ideology. Of course Slive advocates the 'mythical' approach. It has served his league very well.

Conference Champs...let's go 'real' !!



Since: Aug 9, 2011
Posted on: March 9, 2012 11:55 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.

Dead on, balls accurate. 



Since: Aug 9, 2011
Posted on: March 9, 2012 11:54 am
 

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

That was my opinion for that subject.


Mine also.  No non-conference champs in a 4-team or 8-team playoff.  If they go bigger, then okay, but otherwise no.  The best 2 teams did NOT play in the championship this year as if they did, then in 2008 the best teams didn't play and in 2006 the best teams didn't play--it's got to be one way or the other, not both.


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