Started By
Message
re: Big 12/SEC Announcement coming today
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:06 pm to molsusports
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:06 pm to molsusports
quote:
The SEC and Big 12 doing this just gives the PAC/Big10 political cover and shields them from public criticism that they would have otherwise received.
That would be true IF the announcement today had not specified that the new bowl game will take a back seat to the playoff. The SEC and Big 12 are saying that our alliance is just as powerful as the B1G/Pac12 but unlike them, we're willing to put the playoff ahead of our own private alliance bowl. Your move Delaney.
1
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:07 pm to dallasga6
SEC - "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
UNC - Can we come?
NC - how about us?
WVU - can we bring our couches
VT - Sup
Clemson - Hey we are tigers to!
SEC - F you, F you, F you, VT your cool, F you, SEC out
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
UNC - Can we come?
NC - how about us?
WVU - can we bring our couches
VT - Sup
Clemson - Hey we are tigers to!
SEC - F you, F you, F you, VT your cool, F you, SEC out
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:07 pm to sarc
quote:
That would be true IF the announcement today had not specified that the new bowl game will take a back seat to the playoff. The SEC and Big 12 are saying that our alliance is just as powerful as the B1G/Pac12 but unlike them, we're willing to put the playoff ahead of our own private alliance bowl. Your move Delaney.
EXACTLY!!!
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:08 pm to NATidefan
quote:
What does it hurt?
it provides cover for the PAC/Big 10 Rose Bowl silliness and it makes a legitimate playoff less feasible.
and once the SEC and Big 12 have a guaranteed payout like that they won't easily give that up for a playoff that makes more sense
The weakest of any potential "playoffs" has always been a "+1" instead of a four or six team field. This paves the way for this kind of +1 and potentially shuts down better alternatives
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:13 pm to molsusports
quote:
and once the SEC and Big 12 have a guaranteed payout like that they won't easily give that up for a playoff that makes more sense
I disagree, like sarc said... They have stated this deal takes a back seat to the playoff set up.
There is more money in getting two SEC teams into a 4 team playoff, even if it doesn't happen every year.
Slive will ditch this setup in a second if he gets what he wants out of the playoff.
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:14 pm to ohiovol
quote:
So what's the point?
In addition to the 4 team playoff, it provides a marquee bowl matchup ($$$) for the #2 teams in each league.
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:18 pm to NonregAg09
Slive is a fricking genious. He's using a conference that he almost destroyed to hurt another conference that has something that he wants. This is only a five year agreement. He's doing this to get VPI and one of the Carolina schools. Once he has them, who knows what he planned next. 
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:19 pm to ATX Horn
This IN NO WAY COMPETES with the College Football Playoff. It just gives a nice marquee matchup to the teams left out of the logjam at the top of the SEC/4 Team Playoff Selection. It also gives the conferences some flexibility in scheduling (hence the phrase "Another Deserving Team").
If the SEC & Big XII are smart enough to bid it out and run it themselves and share $$$ (ie. cut out the old "Bowl System") then this will be worth tens of millions.
If the SEC & Big XII are smart enough to bid it out and run it themselves and share $$$ (ie. cut out the old "Bowl System") then this will be worth tens of millions.
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:21 pm to Guess
quote:
Slive is a fricking genious
He really is, I hope someone writes a book on him when this is all said and done.
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:22 pm to Smoke Ring
quote:
If the SEC & Big XII are smart enough to bid it out and run it themselves and share $$$ (ie. cut out the old "Bowl System") then this will be worth tens of millions
I hadn't thought of that. That would potentially be the biggest development of all.
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:26 pm to molsusports
quote:
The position I think Slive ought to be making is for a playoff with either the top four conference champs
You went directly into this:
quote:
This is a big step backwards... a common problem with split championships in the 80s and 90s was that you couldn't have a logical 1 vs 2 playoff because of bowl affiliations (even when there were two teams clearly considered to be 1 and 1a)
Your trying to play both sides of the coin here. You SUPPORT a setup that would leave out #2 Alabama, the CLEAR second-best team in the country in a playoff.
Yet your against allowing them playing in a marquee game that could legitimately split the national title(if LSU were to lose in said playoff).
So what is it? Basically, your approach is shortsighted in a "let's set this up in a manner that would've helped LSU last year" kind of way.
Slive is specifically setting this up to PROVE the flaw in the "conference champions" logic. LSU fans need to get over last year and look at the big picture. Best 4 teams in the playoff, PERIOD...or we'll split the National Championship and force the whole system to be reworked later.
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:29 pm to NATidefan
At age 71, he becomes the oldest dude on whom I have a serious man-crush.
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:34 pm to engie
quote:
Your trying to play both sides of the coin here. You SUPPORT a setup that would leave out #2 Alabama, the CLEAR second-best team in the country in a playoff.
There was considerable debate about the #2 team in the country last year. Most football fans should recognize this much. And FWIW it would be nice to not see everything through only the window of justifying last year. If we could set that aside and try to think about the principles that should guide a playoff moving forward that would be major progress.
In using the terms 1 and 1a I thought it would be clear I was referring to years like 94, 97, 99, 2002, 2005 where there were two teams with pretty near identical credentials and no one else with an argument commonly accepted to be equally justified.
quote:
Slive is specifically setting this up to PROVE the flaw in the "conference champions" logic
Slive is doing what he wants because it will make the SEC a boatload of cash. I normally applaud this motivation but based on my disdain for the Rose Bowl motivated +1 discussions I fear this will end up making a real playoff with 4 or 6 teams in the field less likely.
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:37 pm to engie
This guy lists the teams that would have played from 1996-2011 under the rules. LINK
1996: Texas (Big 12 Champion) vs. Alabama (runner-up, Florida to national title game)
1997: Texas A&M (runner-up, Nebraska to national title game) vs. Tennessee (SEC Champion)
1998: Texas A&M (Big 12 Champion) vs. Mississippi State (runner-up, Tennessee to national title game)
1999: Nebraska (Big 12 Champion) vs. Alabama (SEC Champion)
2000: Kansas State (runner-up, Oklahoma to national title game) vs. Florida (SEC Champion)
2001: Colorado (Big 12 Champion) vs. LSU (SEC Champion)
2002: Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion) vs. Georgia (SEC Champion)
2003: Kansas State* (Big 12 Champion) vs. Georgia (runner-up, LSU to national title game)
2004: Colorado (runner-up, Oklahoma to national title game) vs. Auburn (SEC Champion)
2005: Colorado (runner-up, Texas to national title game) vs. Georgia (SEC Champion)
2006: Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion) vs. Arkansas (runner-up, Florida to national title game)
2007: Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion) vs. Tennessee (runner-up, LSU to national title game)
2008: Missouri (runner-up, Oklahoma to national title game) vs. Alabama (runner-up, Florida to national title game)
2009: Nebraska (runner-up, Texas to national title game) vs. Florida (runner-up, Alabama to national title game)
2010: Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion) vs. South Carolina (runner-up, Auburn to national title game)
2011: Oklahoma State (Big 12 Champion) vs. Georgia (second runner-up at 7-1, LSU and Alabama to national title game)
Considering the two conferences' dominance (and Oklahoma's brutal cuckold fetish every January), the only time the two conference champions would've actually met and played each other was three out of the 16 possible times.
1996: Texas (Big 12 Champion) vs. Alabama (runner-up, Florida to national title game)
1997: Texas A&M (runner-up, Nebraska to national title game) vs. Tennessee (SEC Champion)
1998: Texas A&M (Big 12 Champion) vs. Mississippi State (runner-up, Tennessee to national title game)
1999: Nebraska (Big 12 Champion) vs. Alabama (SEC Champion)
2000: Kansas State (runner-up, Oklahoma to national title game) vs. Florida (SEC Champion)
2001: Colorado (Big 12 Champion) vs. LSU (SEC Champion)
2002: Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion) vs. Georgia (SEC Champion)
2003: Kansas State* (Big 12 Champion) vs. Georgia (runner-up, LSU to national title game)
2004: Colorado (runner-up, Oklahoma to national title game) vs. Auburn (SEC Champion)
2005: Colorado (runner-up, Texas to national title game) vs. Georgia (SEC Champion)
2006: Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion) vs. Arkansas (runner-up, Florida to national title game)
2007: Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion) vs. Tennessee (runner-up, LSU to national title game)
2008: Missouri (runner-up, Oklahoma to national title game) vs. Alabama (runner-up, Florida to national title game)
2009: Nebraska (runner-up, Texas to national title game) vs. Florida (runner-up, Alabama to national title game)
2010: Oklahoma (Big 12 Champion) vs. South Carolina (runner-up, Auburn to national title game)
2011: Oklahoma State (Big 12 Champion) vs. Georgia (second runner-up at 7-1, LSU and Alabama to national title game)
Considering the two conferences' dominance (and Oklahoma's brutal cuckold fetish every January), the only time the two conference champions would've actually met and played each other was three out of the 16 possible times.
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:40 pm to molsusports
This all but ensures a 4 team playoff.
Notice how, in the announcement, they mention "if the conference champion is not playing in the semifinals."
Semifinals only occur in a 4 team playoff scenario.
Notice how, in the announcement, they mention "if the conference champion is not playing in the semifinals."
Semifinals only occur in a 4 team playoff scenario.
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:43 pm to molsusports
I believe he is just leveraging his model of the 4-team playoff. I don't see why we are overcomplicating this.
The current BCS system has done a good job of providing a true, unquestioned national champ every year since 2004. It has done a questionable job of determining the 2nd team that should be in the game maybe. So, why not keep the system that's in place, take the top 4 teams, and have a playoff.
The more caveats that are put in place for "conference champs" etc simply overcomplicate matters and allow for more flaws in the process, like the specific scenario I pointed out.
#2 Bama gets into the playoff, we have a true national champion crowned from the SEC.
#2 Bama gets left out of playoffs, we likely crown LSU national champs, but on the outside chance LSU loses, we split the national championship vote.
He's leveraging this into allowing the 2nd team in by setting up a scenario that is likely to expose the flaw inherent to a situation where the 4 best teams aren't chosen.
The current BCS system has done a good job of providing a true, unquestioned national champ every year since 2004. It has done a questionable job of determining the 2nd team that should be in the game maybe. So, why not keep the system that's in place, take the top 4 teams, and have a playoff.
The more caveats that are put in place for "conference champs" etc simply overcomplicate matters and allow for more flaws in the process, like the specific scenario I pointed out.
#2 Bama gets into the playoff, we have a true national champion crowned from the SEC.
#2 Bama gets left out of playoffs, we likely crown LSU national champs, but on the outside chance LSU loses, we split the national championship vote.
He's leveraging this into allowing the 2nd team in by setting up a scenario that is likely to expose the flaw inherent to a situation where the 4 best teams aren't chosen.
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:49 pm to Smoke Ring
quote:
This all but ensures a 4 team playoff.
Notice how, in the announcement, they mention "if the conference champion is not playing in the semifinals."
Semifinals only occur in a 4 team playoff scenario.
As said before the ACC got fricked...Here's how...
quote:
1) Major bowls right now not counting the BCS championship game,
Rose - $18 million payout
Sugar - $18
Fiesta - $18
Orange - $18
2) 2nd Tier - a notch below
Cotton - $6.75 payout
Chicken - $3.35
Outback - $4.25
Cap One - $4.0
quote:
Conferences would like for the playoffs to be contested through the bowls with maybe only the NCG to be bid out to interested cities.
3) If they take two of the big bowls (let's say Fiesta and Orange for arguments sake, and the other two are tied into the B10/P12/SEC & B12 conferences, then the ACC champ will be forced to a smaller....and here is the big point....a.MUCH less paying bowl.
And if their champ gets paid a lot less, it trickles down to all of the other teams as they get forced down the ladder as well...
THE ACC JUST LOST MILLIONS OF $$$$$ WITH THIS ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:50 pm to sarc
Why is everyone so paranoid about the top four playoff scenario with a conference champion stipulation? Every major conference has a conference championship now, except the Big XII, so they (one's with champ game) have just as much of a chance of facing all of these crazy scenarios that people are dreaming up as we do.
This post was edited on 5/18/12 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:50 pm to TheCheshireHog
quote:
So basically never.
Exactly right!!
The SEC would have to fall a long ways to not be in the the natl semis.
Maybe this is a move by Slive to get an ally and not let the BIG and PAC 12 try to throw their weight around in dealing with the whole BCS playoff scenario.
This post was edited on 5/18/12 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 5/18/12 at 1:50 pm to engie
the whole best teams thing is a giant red herring argument to me - when you go back and look there are just too many examples of teams winning when they were not expected to for the "I can just tell who is better" to be credible.
I do want a playoff and have gradually come around to the idea of a six team field to include the top four conference champs and the top two at large teams... that I think avoids any possibility of a split title (making the AP pretty well irrelevant by the end of the season) and gives a real and fair opportunity to teams from different conferences.
I have never felt that teams like LSU 06, Michigan 06, UGA 07, USC 07, Florida 09, Bama 11 were deprived of anything or deserved to be a four team playoff... the only reason you end up giving those teams second chances with a six team playoff is mostly necessity by design... because if you don't include at large bids you run the risk of leaving out a highly ranked team that might otherwise finish higher in an opinion poll like the Associated Press. None of those teams really deserved a second chance but that's the price you pay to make your playoff bulletproof.
I do want a playoff and have gradually come around to the idea of a six team field to include the top four conference champs and the top two at large teams... that I think avoids any possibility of a split title (making the AP pretty well irrelevant by the end of the season) and gives a real and fair opportunity to teams from different conferences.
I have never felt that teams like LSU 06, Michigan 06, UGA 07, USC 07, Florida 09, Bama 11 were deprived of anything or deserved to be a four team playoff... the only reason you end up giving those teams second chances with a six team playoff is mostly necessity by design... because if you don't include at large bids you run the risk of leaving out a highly ranked team that might otherwise finish higher in an opinion poll like the Associated Press. None of those teams really deserved a second chance but that's the price you pay to make your playoff bulletproof.
Page 8 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News