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, 2007
Posted on: March 7, 2012 5:51 pm
 

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

I do not understand why the SEC is not happy winning the title with one team... Maybe the BCS is the best system....



Since: Dec 13, 2007
Posted on: March 7, 2012 5:49 pm
 

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

I do not understand why the SEC is not happy winning the title with one team... Maybe the BCS is the best system....



Since: Dec 13, 2007
Posted on: March 7, 2012 5:47 pm
 

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

I just can not understand why the SEC is not happy about winning the title with only one team. Maybe the BCS is the best system.....



Since: Sep 3, 2011
Posted on: March 7, 2012 5:40 pm
 

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

@ Joe Michael
All conference are not created equal. Sould the Sun Belt, MAC and WAC champs be invited?

Last year was not normal. We have not seen 2 teams from the same conference play in the title before. Everyone should not go crazy because of one strange year.
Top 8 teams should have a playoff reguardless of the conference.  



Since: Sep 3, 2011
Posted on: March 7, 2012 5:37 pm
 

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

@ Joe Michael
all conferences are not created equal
should the WAC, MAC and Sun belt Champs be invited?

Last year was not normal. We have not had teams from the same conference in the title before. Everyone should not go crazy beacuse of one strange year. 



Since: Sep 21, 2011
Posted on: March 7, 2012 5:13 pm
 

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

well why even play the games then?  Lets use the SEC fans logic.
lets just crown them champions until the end of time and not play the games at all.


Idiots!    



Since: Oct 17, 2011
Posted on: March 7, 2012 4:54 pm
 

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

Because Alabama was a one loss team in the SEC, while Oregon and Wisconsin were 2 loss teams in their weaker conferences. If they cant even beat the bad teams in their watered down conference, whos to say that they could stay on the field with Alabama or LSU? LSU stomped Oregon earlier in the season, and Wisconsin lost to Mich St and to 6-7 Ohio St. THATS how I know that those teams werent better than Alabama or LSU.



Since: Jul 28, 2008
Posted on: March 7, 2012 4:51 pm
 

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

I am going to have to side with slimey Slive on this one. However, there need to be restrictions if non-league champ is included. Perhaps the following criteria would work. A non-league champ cannot be selected ahead of a league champion ranked in the top six.



Since: Sep 21, 2011
Posted on: March 7, 2012 4:48 pm
 

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

how do you know that Oregon and Wisconsin were better teams than Alabama?
what are you psychic?

give a team a month to prepare and any team can beat any anyone on any given day of the week.
How quickly we forget Utah beating 3 TD favorite Alabama in the Sugar Bowl a few years ago. 

Boise State beating Oklahoma.

Human voters are all subjective.  Conference Winners is the only way to go in my opinion.        
;   



Since: Aug 13, 2011
Posted on: March 7, 2012 4:47 pm
 

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

My suggestion was to eliminate the subjective nature of picking teams. I also stated that some other system should be used for determining the 2nd through 25th places. I did not mean to imply that a team not making the playoffs could not finish as high as 2nd. Yes, my suggestion is not perfect. It is flawed as I tried to imply with my opening comment. I also see no system which isn't flawed.


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