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, has you covered with this daily newsletter. View a preview.

Get College Football updates on Facebook   


Since: Aug 18, 2010
Posted on: March 7, 2012 3:01 pm

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

The SEC made the same money from the BCS whether Bama was in the NC game or the Sugar Bowl.  It makes no difference whatsoever.  Obviously, the situation will change if we get a playoff, depending on how many team participate.  You really can't have champions only unless you are willing to omit Notre Dame from having an opportunity to compete for the title.  By having champions only, what you are saying is that it becomes much better to compete in a crappy conference.  That does not make much sense either.  No matter who you pull for, everyone thought Bama was one of the top four teams in the country.  How legitimate can a playoff be if the 2nd or 3rd best team in the country cannot be involved because they play in a great conference.  I think the top 3 conference champs ought to be guaranteed a spot in a four team playoff as long as they are ranked in the top 6 in the country, regardless of what conference they came from.  The fourth spot can go to ND or any other at large as long as they are in the top 4, or somewhere in that range.  This issue will take a lot of conversations amongst the power brokers before we have an answer to our playoff wants. 

Since: Oct 15, 2006
Posted on: March 7, 2012 2:32 pm

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

When did the NCAA elect Slive as their dictator?  Oh, its just SEC sycophantic writers that are BS'ing.  Forget it.

Since: Jan 19, 2012
Posted on: March 7, 2012 1:46 pm

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

Is anyone even the slightest bit surprised that this guy would be reluctant to diminish the potential for his conference to earn an additional payday or two at the end of the year? Of course he’s not interested in limiting the amount of teams that can be (almost illegally) voted into the money from one conference. Enough already.

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