SupperClub 0 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 SEC presidents not likely to change to playoff Wednesday, March 28, 2007CHARLES GOLDBERGNews staff writer Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville says the presidents of the 12 Southeastern Conference schools need "to be on the front end" in advocating a change in how college football's national championship is determined, but the commissioner of the league doesn't foresee an immediate change. SEC Commissioner Mike Slive said Tuesday that football's national championship will be discussed by the presidents at the annual conference spring meetings in Destin, Fla., in May but "it would be off base to think a major decision will be made." Slive said it is unlikely changes would be made to the Bowl Championship Series until the current TV contract with FOX expires after the 2010 season. Slive, who is also the BCS coordinator, said he doesn't sense a national outcry for an extended playoff. University of Alabama President Robert Witt said Tuesday he is "satisfied with the system we have now." Just another reason to hate bama! Slive said the presidents have discussed how national championships are determined every year at the spring meetings. The current format calls for the top two teams in the Bowl Championship Series to play for a national title. That has proven to be controversial. Auburn didn't play for the national title after the 2004 season despite being unbeaten. Florida, which won the title last year, only made the championship game because Southern California suffered a late-season loss. Florida President Bernie Machen told the Tampa Tribune over the weekend he favored a multi-team playoff that mirrored how other NCAA champions are determined. Slive said it is unlikely this year's discussions would go that far.' `I told them we only have three years left on the current arrangement, and we're only a couple of years away from thinking what the postseason is going to look like," Slive said. "Is it going to be the same as it is now, or are we going to look at another format? I said I didn't want to wait until the last minute. We need to be thinking about it now." Tuberville knows the position he wished they'd take. He favors a plus-one shortened format in which the nation's top four teams play in existing bowls with the two winners meeting for the national championship. "The structure is set up. You don't have to readjust it for television. You don't have to re-bid it. You've already got the game set," he said. Tuberville said he worries the current format means a deserving SEC team could be shut out of the national title game every two or three years. That's why he's looking to the presidents for action. "We need one voice from the SEC, and the ACC," Tuberville said. "We need presidents from BCS conferences saying we need to do this. I can talk about it all day, but it needs to come from the presidents." Link This really isn't big news, as we all know they won't change anything until the BCS contract is up in 2010. At least CTT is still pressuring them to make a change. Keep fighting the good fight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
townhallsavoy 2 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Of course the Alabama president is ok with the current system...it's so easy to just "claim" NCs. With a playoff, his school would have to earn them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 3,928 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Slive, who is also the BCS coordinator, said he doesn't sense a national outcry for an extended playoff. blink.gif Where has he been, living under a rock for 5 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickinwang 0 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 where is that story at? not doubting one bit...just need to email it to someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SupperClub 0 Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 What, you didn't see the link in the original post? Click me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUBandDad 0 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I wonder if this was a criterion for the selection and appointment of Dr. Gogue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU alum 2 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Slive, who is also the BCS coordinator, said he doesn't sense a national outcry for an extended playoff. blink.gif Where has he been, living under a rock for 5 years? I was thinking the same thing. How long will we be stuck w/him for commissioner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUslug 1 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Of course the Alabama president is going to stick with the current system. I mean why should you vote for change when your football team isn't even within a galaxy of comepeting for a BCS Bowl bid much less the title game bid; therefore change wouldn't affect Alabama anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mowegl 4 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I wonder if this was a criterion for the selection and appointment of Dr. Gogue? Anyone know what his position on this is? I applaud the UF president for stepping up and speaking up for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbo 0 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Slive, who is also the BCS coordinator, said he doesn't sense a national outcry for an extended playoff. blink.gif Where has he been, living under a rock for 5 years? Wt he may have been smoking the rock for 5 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU007 0 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 New to the forum, so take it easy on me my first time around. In my humble opinion, there is only one playoff system that would eliminate all arguments of who the national champion really is and be fair to everyone including the mid-major conferences. That is to have the 12 conferences ( one conference made up of independants) have a championship game. Then seed the conference champions according to the BCS so theres still a use for the BCS poll and they won't feel left out. The 4 highest ranked conference champions (according to the BCS poll ) get a buy the first round. Use the bowl games for the playoff games so that all that revenue is still there for the schools and TV. The lower tiered bowl games can continue as they are now. Every team has a chance to be the unquestionable national champion regardless of conference. No one is left out. The presidents can't argue about missing classes, they play the same amount of games now except maybe the two teams playing for the NC. The plus-one playoff still leaves argument about who should be the top 4 teams because they are based on the BCS poll which we all know is very controversial. What do you guys think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssgaufan 0 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 New to the forum, so take it easy on me my first time around. In my humble opinion, there is only one playoff system that would eliminate all arguments of who the national champion really is and be fair to everyone including the mid-major conferences. That is to have the 12 conferences ( one conference made up of independants) have a championship game. Then seed the conference champions according to the BCS so theres still a use for the BCS poll and they won't feel left out. The 4 highest ranked conference champions (according to the BCS poll ) get a buy the first round. Use the bowl games for the playoff games so that all that revenue is still there for the schools and TV. The lower tiered bowl games can continue as they are now. Every team has a chance to be the unquestionable national champion regardless of conference. No one is left out. The presidents can't argue about missing classes, they play the same amount of games now except maybe the two teams playing for the NC. The plus-one playoff still leaves argument about who should be the top 4 teams because they are based on the BCS poll which we all know is very controversial. What do you guys think? Welcome aboard. Not bad for your first post, and I have to say I like your idea, but good luck getting ND to say that they are in a conference. ND would be the one "major" team/university to derail this senario, because as it is right now they have the EASIEST route to a BCS game and even the MNC. ND + Lou Holtz = Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTiger 3,928 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 New to the forum, so take it easy on me my first time around. In my humble opinion, there is only one playoff system that would eliminate all arguments of who the national champion really is and be fair to everyone including the mid-major conferences. That is to have the 12 conferences ( one conference made up of independants) have a championship game. Then seed the conference champions according to the BCS so theres still a use for the BCS poll and they won't feel left out. The 4 highest ranked conference champions (according to the BCS poll ) get a buy the first round. Use the bowl games for the playoff games so that all that revenue is still there for the schools and TV. The lower tiered bowl games can continue as they are now. Every team has a chance to be the unquestionable national champion regardless of conference. No one is left out. The presidents can't argue about missing classes, they play the same amount of games now except maybe the two teams playing for the NC. The plus-one playoff still leaves argument about who should be the top 4 teams because they are based on the BCS poll which we all know is very controversial. What do you guys think? Welcome aboard. Not bad for your first post, and I have to say I like your idea, but good luck getting ND to say that they are in a conference. ND would be the one "major" team/university to derail this senario, because as it is right now they have the EASIEST route to a BCS game and even the MNC. ND + Lou Holtz = well, if this were to fly (which it never will) the first thing you do is tell Notre Dame (whether they like it or not) that if they want to be a part of this, then they have to join a conference. If they refuse, they are eliminated from the equation all together. don't let them continue to dictate policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mowegl 4 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 New to the forum, so take it easy on me my first time around. In my humble opinion, there is only one playoff system that would eliminate all arguments of who the national champion really is and be fair to everyone including the mid-major conferences. That is to have the 12 conferences ( one conference made up of independants) have a championship game. Then seed the conference champions according to the BCS so theres still a use for the BCS poll and they won't feel left out. The 4 highest ranked conference champions (according to the BCS poll ) get a buy the first round. Use the bowl games for the playoff games so that all that revenue is still there for the schools and TV. The lower tiered bowl games can continue as they are now. Every team has a chance to be the unquestionable national champion regardless of conference. No one is left out. The presidents can't argue about missing classes, they play the same amount of games now except maybe the two teams playing for the NC. The plus-one playoff still leaves argument about who should be the top 4 teams because they are based on the BCS poll which we all know is very controversial. What do you guys think? Welcome aboard. Not bad for your first post, and I have to say I like your idea, but good luck getting ND to say that they are in a conference. ND would be the one "major" team/university to derail this senario, because as it is right now they have the EASIEST route to a BCS game and even the MNC. ND + Lou Holtz = well, if this were to fly (which it never will) the first thing you do is tell Notre Dame (whether they like it or not) that if they want to be a part of this, then they have to join a conference. If they refuse, they are eliminated from the equation all together. don't let them continue to dictate policy. Yeah i agree. That seems to be a problem in this country. We always cater to the minority instead of the majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 1 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 New to the forum, so take it easy on me my first time around. In my humble opinion, there is only one playoff system that would eliminate all arguments of who the national champion really is and be fair to everyone including the mid-major conferences. That is to have the 12 conferences ( one conference made up of independants) have a championship game. Then seed the conference champions according to the BCS so theres still a use for the BCS poll and they won't feel left out. The 4 highest ranked conference champions (according to the BCS poll ) get a buy the first round. Use the bowl games for the playoff games so that all that revenue is still there for the schools and TV. The lower tiered bowl games can continue as they are now. Every team has a chance to be the unquestionable national champion regardless of conference. No one is left out. The presidents can't argue about missing classes, they play the same amount of games now except maybe the two teams playing for the NC. The plus-one playoff still leaves argument about who should be the top 4 teams because they are based on the BCS poll which we all know is very controversial. What do you guys think? You and I are not that far apart on this. I agree that a (1) 12-team format is the minimum necessary to have a meaningful, controversy-free (or, at least, controversy-lite) playoff; (2) every team that gets an automatic bid should have to win their conference's championship game; and (3) the existing BCS formula could be retained for seeding purposes. We differ, however, in that I'd include at-large bids. Specifically, I'd give automatic bids to the winnners of the championship games of each of the existing BCS conferences (this assumes, obviously, that the Big 10, Pac 10 and Big East implement championship games), leaving six at-large spots. (If you wanted to get picky - aa-hemmm, ACC/Wake Forest - you could require that the conference champ be at or above a certain BCS ranking to make the field.) No doubt there'd have to be a "Notre Dame clause," so let's assume they get one at-large spot. That leaves five spots for the five highest rated (according to the BCS formula) teams that either (1) play in a non-BCS conference; or (2) play in a BCS conference, but didn't win their conference's championship game. Then seed all teams that qualify under the above by their BCS ranks. With that plan, this year, the first weekend (I think) would've looked like this: (5) USC vs. (12) Wake Forest (6) Louisville vs. (11) Notre Dame (7) Wisconsin vs. (10) Oklahoma (8) Boise St. vs. (9) (I got your Statue of Liberty right here!! ) Then, the second weekend, you'd have: (1) Ohio St. vs. Boise St. / winner (2) vs. Wisconsin / Oklahoma winner (3) Michigan vs. Louisville / Notre Dame winner (4) vs. USC / Wake Forest winner And so on from there . . . Boise St. still gets in, but I think you have to keep at least a few at-large spots to make a playoff palatable to the BCS heavyweights. Notice how two of teams ranked in the top four of the (regular-season ending) BCS poll did not win their conference championship (game or otherwise). But could you have really had a fair and meaningful national championship playoff without Michigan (you have to forget that they were thumped by USC in the Rose Bowl), LSU . . . and (who beat #2 and #4), for that matter . . . ? Thoughts? Criticisms? Musings? Invectives? Fire away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 1 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Apparently didn't get the memo. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2815940 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU007 0 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I agree ND would have to get with the program or be left out of the race. In the system I suggested no one else is receiving "special" treatment and neither should they. A conference championship game would have to be implemented for each conference so that all conference champions play the same number of games. No extra week off to rest up or prepare if you are in a conference without a championship game. I don't like the ideal of at-large bids. If you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to be national champ. There will always be woulda, coulda, shoulda, but at-large bids would only create more controversy if an at-large team actually won the NC. The purpose of this is to reduce controversy. Thats why I'm not a fan of the plus one system. It still leaves to much opportunity for controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB33 1 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I agree ND would have to get with the program or be left out of the race. In the system I suggested no one else is receiving "special" treatment and neither should they. A conference championship game would have to be implemented for each conference so that all conference champions play the same number of games. No extra week off to rest up or prepare if you are in a conference without a championship game. I don't like the ideal of at-large bids. If you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to be national champ. There will always be woulda, coulda, shoulda, but at-large bids would only create more controversy if an at-large team actually won the NC. The purpose of this is to reduce controversy. Thats why I'm not a fan of the plus one system. It still leaves to much opportunity for controversy. So Troy, by virtue of winning the mighty Sun Belt Conference (I'm assuming it'd be one of the 12 to get an invite - things go downhill mighty fast beyond the existing BCS conferences), and despite its 8-5 overall record (including a 56-0 loss at Nebraska), ought to get a chance to play for the national championship in lieu of Michigan, whose only (regular season) loss was by 3 points on the road against the (regular season-ending) #1 team? I'm not buying it. Guess we'll have to disagree . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthLink02 8 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 In the next 2-3 years, another team will get screwed and it will cause another uproar. Personally, I hope it happens another 2-3 times with UGA not involved because if it does happen AGAIN....I think some things will be changed when the deal is up in 3 years. I think college is listening and just being idiots by saying otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OKieAuburnDoug 1 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 ONe of the main guys here on the SA keeps pushing his `16' team playoff... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
townhallsavoy 2 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 I agree ND would have to get with the program or be left out of the race. In the system I suggested no one else is receiving "special" treatment and neither should they. A conference championship game would have to be implemented for each conference so that all conference champions play the same number of games. No extra week off to rest up or prepare if you are in a conference without a championship game. I don't like the ideal of at-large bids. If you don't win your conference, you don't deserve to be national champ. There will always be woulda, coulda, shoulda, but at-large bids would only create more controversy if an at-large team actually won the NC. The purpose of this is to reduce controversy. Thats why I'm not a fan of the plus one system. It still leaves to much opportunity for controversy. So Troy, by virtue of winning the mighty Sun Belt Conference (I'm assuming it'd be one of the 12 to get an invite - things go downhill mighty fast beyond the existing BCS conferences), and despite its 8-5 overall record (including a 56-0 loss at Nebraska), ought to get a chance to play for the national championship in lieu of Michigan, whose only (regular season) loss was by 3 points on the road against the (regular season-ending) #1 team? I'm not buying it. Guess we'll have to disagree . . . Yes. They should get the chance if we're going to allow all of the conferences into the playoffs. I don't agree that the Sun Belt conference should get in because they are very mid-major. I've been saying for years now to change Division I to a 60 team division. 6 conferences, 6 conference champions and 2 at-larges. That's eight teams and it's done just like the NFL does in their divisional round of playoffs. It makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaReAgLe83 0 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 One of my ideas is to have 120 teams (there are 119 now) in 10 conferences, all set up SEC-style. Every conference champ gets a bid, plus an extra bid for each of the six BCS conferences, which makes 16 teams. At the very least, all the conferences should match. No more of this 8-team, 11-team, 9-team stuff. That would go further to solve the problem than tweaking the computer formulas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
townhallsavoy 2 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 One of my ideas is to have 120 teams (there are 119 now) in 10 conferences, all set up SEC-style. Every conference champ gets a bid, plus an extra bid for each of the six BCS conferences, which makes 16 teams. At the very least, all the conferences should match. No more of this 8-team, 11-team, 9-team stuff. That would go further to solve the problem than tweaking the computer formulas. Waaaayyy too many teams. I think the large number of teams competing for one trophy is the biggest problem we have right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUdmd07 2 Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 I proposed a 12 team playoff once and wrote a detailed explanation in my blog. It is similar to the new guy's idea. ND shouldn't be held back, if they finish in the top 12 of the BCS rankings then they should be allowed in the playoff, as well as any schools in the top 12 from smaller conferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.