SEC, Big Ten at odds as battle to mold 4-team football playoff becomes increasingly contentious
Two weeks after the Big Ten's athletic directors met in Chicago to hash out their preferred model for a college football playoff, the Southeastern Conference took its turn the past few days in Destin, Fla.
During that time, it dug a trench and aimed its cross hairs directly at the Big Ten on at least one key point: Who, exactly, makes the playoff in the first place?
The Big Ten has said it supports a so-called "three-and-one" model, wherein three spots are guaranteed for the top-ranked league champions. That leaves one spot for a non-champion or independent.
Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive, above, and the league's football coaches want a proposed four-team playoff to include the best teams in the country — and not be tied to conference champions.
Associated Press
There also was talk of a two-two split, although the three-one seemed to gain more traction.
The SEC, conversely, said this week it will vehemently oppose any playoff model that doesn't advance the top four overall teams into the national semifinals, regardless of league finish.
“Our league has been consistent that if you’re going to have a four-team playoff that the best four teams ought to be selected to play for the national championship,” SEC commissioner Mike Slive told reporters this week. “If the issue is how teams are selected, then let’s go and talk about the selection process and make the selection process more palatable to everybody rather than try to gerrymander who the top four teams are.
“I’m very open to looking at any and all ways to make changes in the actually selection process itself.“
The playoff system could debut as early as 2014, replacing the current BCS system that pits No. 1 vs. No. 2 -- as determined by its computer formula -- in a matchup that rotates between the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Fiesta Bowl venues.
Now, it appears that model is set to expire as major conferences show consensus support for a four-team playoff. The sticking point, though, is the "how" and "who."
It is logical the SEC, the nation's preeminent college football conference, favors a model in which any number of teams from a particular league could qualify for the playoff.
Likewise, it makes sense the Big Ten, which hasn't won a national title since Ohio State in 2002, would want to secure at least one seat at the playoff table.
Football also-rans such as the ACC and Big East, as well as the Pac-12, have sided with the Big Ten. The Big 12 is with the SEC.
But the SEC and Big Ten -- and their commissioners, Slive and Delany -- are the nation's foremost voices on college football, and their positions will carry the most weight in national deliberations.
And their rivalry has become increasingly contentious.
The battle heated up when Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany told the Associated Press he didn't have "a lot of regard for" teams that don't win their conference -- a statement many took as veiled criticism of Alabama, which won the national title last year while finishing behind LSU in the SEC.
Delany later said his comments were misinterpreted.
Crimson Tide coach Nick Saban fired back this week anyhow, telling reporters "I think somebody's a little bit self-absorbed in worrying about how it affects them and how they can best get somebody in the game all the time."
Of course, the irony in that statement is everyone -- including Saban -- is operating in self-interest, particularly at this early stage.
It seems the process of dismembering the BCS is too far along to be scrapped, but it's clear this thing is far from over.
The next step arrives Sunday, when the Big Ten's presidents and chancellors meet in Chicago. The league will present its model to the other conferences June 13 and June 20 in Chicago.
A third national meeting -- June 26 in Washington D.C. -- was added to the docket Friday. That suggests a four-team playoff model could be announced by the end of the month, a revolutionary turn in the sport.
But first, the country's two most powerful football conferences will have to holster their guns and reach some kind of armistice, which at this point, seems a long way off.
Kyle Meinke covers Michigan football for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at 734-623-2588, by email at kylemeinke@annarbor.com and followed on Twitter @kmeinke.
Comments
Buckybeaver
Mon, Jun 4, 2012 : 2:09 p.m.
If your going to have a play off system, then ALL things must be equal, such as recruiting policies and academic standards. Right now other conferences stretch the rules to their advantage and schools with high standards can't bring in some players that might be talented but can't cut it in school. Tyrell Prior comes to mind, couldn't even pass the SAT test and was no longer elligible to play at Michigan.
Yost Ghost
Mon, Jun 4, 2012 : 4:54 p.m.
This is what I'm talking about. What the SEC commish is proposing sounds fair but when you consider their recruiting practices it no longer does. Level the playing field all around and then I might agree with Mr. Slive.
UlyssesWrong1
Mon, Jun 4, 2012 : 2:11 a.m.
I can't wait until Michigan is back at the pinnacle of college football and we can shut these SEC fans and homers up who act like the SEC is the greatest thing in college football since sliced bread. As far as the Big 10 competing with the SEC as a conference, I don't see it happening as long as it continues to be a three or four team race up top every season.
johnnya2
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 10:09 p.m.
Also, there are some things I disagree with Delany about. 1. Independents do not deserve special rights. Either join a conference and play for a chamionsiip or you are basically not in football. You can make your schedule whatever you want. At least with a conference you MUST play some teams. They don't allow "independent teams to play for a World Series championship 2. If we are serious about a playoff, lets add one round and go to 8 teams. Six conference champions plus 2 "wild cards". The wild cards would be required to be a team competing in their conference championship game. The runner up with the conference with the highest strength of schedule (this will lead to better in season match ups as teams can not stock up wins against East Texas El Paso State Tech) In the alternative, make it the six conference champions. Give the top two a bye (again based on conference strength of schedule) and play.
azwolverine
Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 7:35 p.m.
I like this plan a lot better than the 4 team models that are being brought up right now, especially the strength of schedule component.
azwolverine
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 9:03 p.m.
League champs only. Top 4 ranked league champs, doesn't matter which leagues they are from. This 4 team playoff system will ultimately, imo, lead to just as much controversy as the BCS, because it will all come down to rankings (VOTES) for who gets in. In other words, even with a "playoff", college football will still come down to a fallible vote. The SEC's plan of using rankings only is the most flawed system, imo, because it will reward teams based on votes only as opposed to winning conference championships on the field. Teams will be rewarded for cake schedules, whereas teams like Michigan that play ND and one other tough non-league team a year will be penalized, even if they win the conference championship. The system will be flawed either way (again), but rewarding conference champions seems more fair than being rewarded for votes.
owlnight
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 7:48 p.m.
What ever became of collage football when it was just a GAMES, without all the crap?
azwolverine
Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 7:36 p.m.
I agree. I always liked college football just fine the way it was.
Teemac
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 7:30 p.m.
The sec should just withdraw from the NCAA and play there season to crown the national champion! Lol! Thank God the north won the civil war! Southerners have tunnel vision, if they think they are gonna win national title every year! They have had a good run but take the human bias out of the equation and the playing field is level!
The1Cool
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 6:47 p.m.
The B1G's idea is lame. I agree with the SEC. I had to read a few comments and reread the article to make sure I wasn't missing something b/c I didn't expect to agree with the SEC. The B1G needs to make sure the selection process is favorable and doesn't give too much credit to teams for just being in the SEC. Like this year's Georgia team that could have made the Mythical National Championship without playing any of the top 3 teams in the conference (until the conference championship game). Strength of schedule should have its place in the ranking process and maybe a selection committee to hash out issues. NO COMPUTERS!!!
rf9
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 6:31 p.m.
if youre not a big six conference school you really arent in the conversation and im not sure all b6 conferences are in the conversation . imo the big east and acc have been watered down with expansion and by letting in an at large team the big ten would be out of the mix as well . the one thing that could make a difference is urban meyer at osu besides that a sugar bowl matchup between the sec and big 12 champ could make the rose bowl an undercard
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 6:15 p.m.
I say go with a 12 team playoff. The conference champion from each of the 11 conferences in the FBS plus one at large to accommodate the 4 independents. Then everybody but the 4 independents know exactly what it takes to get in the playoff before the season starts. That is like it is in real sports. Every body knows the criteria at the beginning of the season in all the pro sports.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 8:02 p.m.
To be fair I'm only half joking to make a point. The current system doesn't crown a true champion, we have had too many undefeated teams not be champions. I am just trying to make the point that the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision that contains the SEC and Big 10 and Big 12 also contains several other conferences that are theoretically eligible to win the whole enchilada. A true champion can't be crowned as long as off field mysteries "propitiatory" computer formulas and secret votes in smoke filled rooms decides who gets in and who doesn't. A couple folks have mentioned the fairness of the NFL system and it is fair. There is no voting a team in or out, the formula for tie breakers is public knowledge. Not so for the current FBS set up nor for ANY proposed formulas on the table.
MRunner73
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 7:34 p.m.
And how long does this season go? Are you will to travel with Michigan if were the Maize and Blue winning all these these games to be in the champsionship? Then you'll need more than 16 extra season practices to play off these extra games and how about the 85 scholorship rule? Rosters will need to be much deeper.
TcFlint
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 5:09 p.m.
If it's not the "Plus 1" model or the "3 plus 1" model, screw the playoff system and keep the BCS. I am a Michigan fan and College Football fan as well, but the SEC cannot always get what they want. I cannot hack another National Championship game with 2 teams from the same league be it the Big Ten, Big 12, or the SEC!!! With regional voting bias in the polls, take it out of the hands of the sports writes and make it a more true national championship game with only the top 4 league champions. I am sure the NFL would do the same thing if they only had a "4" team playoff.
MRunner73
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 3 p.m.
Inherent controversy in trying to come up with a viable play off system to determine the number one college football team in the land will remain stuck in neutral for some time to come. Adding the extra playoff games means more travel for the fan bases. Ay fan base will be unable to travel to ALL of the playoff games. Playing extra games will take a big toll on the players on any team as well. Not always a sure thing to assume the TV viewing will be there. While this is a money grab, I seriously don't think 30 second TV spots would yield anything like the Super Bowl. All of this debate, controversy and contentiousness leads me to believe that the current BCS system should be maintend because it allows the Boise States to have any chance of making a championship game yet allows conference champs to paritcipate as well as runner-ups like Alabama. Like it or not, IMHO I cannot think of any proposed model that is better and would satisfy all.
Adam Zeeb
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 2:55 p.m.
I'm a Michigan grad and have been a big 10 fan all my life. However, any playoff system that doesn't let the four best teams in the country in, is just plain stupid. We might as well keep the messed up system we have now.
William Dove
Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.
Then why did the SEC fight tooth and nail to make sure Michigan and Ohio State didn't play a rematch just like LSU and Alabama did when OSU and Michigan were #1and #2? Florida from the SEC said it wasn't right to have two teams replay for the MNC. Seems like the SEC wants whatever fits them best that year!
bornblu
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 7:04 p.m.
The short end of it is, we can never accurately determine the "4" best teams as it's determined by human input without the benefit of comprable schedules, game location/weather, or in most cases, playing each other.
johnnya2
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 5:18 p.m.
Adam, Boise has offered to play anybody, anytime, any place. They went to Georgia and beat them soundly. Georgia was in the SEC "championship" game. If the SEC were honest, they would have their OWN championship be the top two teams. Explain why that is not the case, then they have an argument. Until then, they are hypocrites.
Adam Zeeb
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 3:21 p.m.
Don't misinterpret my opinion. I am all in favor of a playoff system for the best four teams. Doing anything other than that will be no better than the system we have now. If Boise State wants to be in, they need to play a schedule that proves they are a top four team.
MRunner73
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 3:04 p.m.
You are the only other one who makes sense of all this and your last sentence sums up what I posted. Should we mention that the regular season should count for something?
Scott Laux
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 1:24 p.m.
It's anti-competitive. Teams like Boise State will never make a playoffs, They'll go undefeated but never make it into the top 4. Any playoffs with less than 8 teams cannot truly say who is the best team in the nation. But the large conferences don't have to worry about losing to an overachiever. It's what they want.
southernblu
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.
The playoffs should be comprised of 8 teams--4 conference champions and 4 wild cards. While normally I would tend to side with those favoring the 4 highest rated teams, there is an inherent problem there as well. The SEC tends to start out with higher rated teams. Also, when an SEC team does lose, it usually does not drop very far in the rankings. Thus, you will have a system that tends to favor the SEC. If Delany really wanted to help the Big Ten, he would have pushed for games to be played at home stadiums. I remember back in 2010 when Florida had an unseasonably cold winter and Penn State, Iowa and Wisconsin beat warm weather teams (those teams being LSU, Georgia Tech and Miami, respectively). The fact is that Big Ten teams are at a disadvantage versus the SEC because they tend to play bowl games in SEC territory and in SEC weather. And don't get me started about USC and UCLA's Rose bowl advantage. USC is practically guaranteed a "home game" as a consolation prize should it miss out on the National Championship. Of course, Delany and other Big Ten officials and sponsors really care nothing about the conference winning a national championship in football; they're more concerned about preserving sun and fun junkets for themselves. As a result, expect the beatings from the SEC and PAC 12 to continue.
SEC Fan
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 10:26 p.m.
We start out higher rated cause we end the season higher rated.
Scott Laux
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 1:33 p.m.
When was the last time Boise State lost to an SEC or pac 10 opponent? I can't even remember. Let's see, last year they beat SEC Georgia 35-21 traveling to Georgia then beat PAC 12 Arizona state by 34 pts. in a bowl game. A 4 team playoff stinks.
TcFlint
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.
I agree with the Big Ten, PAC 12, ACC, and the Big East. Why even have leagues and championship games if the league champions are not going to be rewarded? The NFL awards it's division champions first, with automatic playoff bids, and the NCAA should do the same thing!
azwolverine
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 8:54 p.m.
Craig, I would. If you're going to do this, do it right. I know that won't happen any time soon, but the way it's stacking up is that it's going to come down to a VOTE (just like it does now) to determine who gets into the playoff. The system will still be broken and the 'playoff' will be a playoff in name only, with no real way of knowing if the champion is the most deserving team.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 4:44 p.m.
There are 11 eligible leagues and 4 independents. Are you calling for a 12 team playoff?
John
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 12:18 p.m.
When the SEC man's up and agrees to play a game in the north, in the winter, then I'll listen to whatever other argument the cheaters have.
SEC Fan
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 10:23 p.m.
Cheaters? Why, cause we constantly beat you? I challenge you to post the current number of big 10 teams on probation versus the current number of sec teams.
SEC Fan
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 10:21 p.m.
Geez, the big 10 won't even play outside after it gets cold. How bout you come down to baton rouge in Sept and play outside with us?
rf9
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 6:32 p.m.
you may get that wish via urban meyer
mmppcc
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 11:30 a.m.
The SEC is right on this one. It should be the best teams, regardless of conference politics. If the Big Ten can't compete with the SEC, that's their problem, and this is coming from a Big Ten graduate.
Yost Ghost
Mon, Jun 4, 2012 : 4:49 p.m.
I think you're forgetting that the SEC uses oversigning and loose academic requirements to stock their NFL factories. How is that playing fair? Remember college isn't just about getting into the NFL. Coming from a B1G school you should know that.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 11:46 a.m.
I'm a Michigan honk, a Big 10 fan and I hate the SEC (except Kentucky basketball-my youngest daughter lives in Lexington) but I won't drink the Delany Koolaide . If we were good enough Delany wouldn't need his version.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 11:28 a.m.
"It is logical the SEC, the nation's preeminent college football conference, favors a model in which any number of teams from a particular league could qualify for the playoff." Translation: The SEC would like the best 4 teams as nearly as can be determined in the playoff "Likewise, it makes sense the Big Ten, which hasn't won a national title since Ohio State in 2002, would want to secure at least one seat at the playoff table." Translation: the Big 10-11-12 wants a guarantee without having to "earn" it. Its rare that I would take sides with the SEC but on this one I do. If your going to have a playoff guaranteeing anyone is a bad option.
Yost Ghost
Mon, Jun 4, 2012 : 4:46 p.m.
Normally I might agree with you all things being equal. However, in light of rampant oversigning and loose academic eligibility in the SEC I must disagree. The B1G is playing at a distinct disadvantage. So until the SEC decides to be a conference of schools first and NFL factory second then the only way is to have restrictions on the playoff format.
johnnya2
Sun, Jun 3, 2012 : 5:25 a.m.
As I have said in EVERY post SEC, playing in ONE game does not make the SEC better.The fact that sports writes give the SEC an advantage makes the idea preposterous. I can guarantee you this. LSU BEAT Alabama last year. Why do they get a second crack at the apple? If as you say the Big Ten lost those games, why don't they get a second shot at the SEC team? Why is the SEX afraid to allow their conference championship be played by these same rules? Last I checked Georgia was not the second best team in the SEC. If they were than that means Alabama would have been third and out of the BCS mythical national title game By the way, just for clarification, I do not want a playoff. I think the system from the 1970's was just fine. I do not think there is any need or proof that a team that plays in the title game is the best team in the land. The DEBATE actually is what makes college football interesting. As much as people want to think other wise, college FOOTBALL funds everything (even though every other sport has a "championship")
SEC Fan
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 10:19 p.m.
@Johnny. Unless we play the top big 10 teams? Seems to me the last 2 times the big10 champ (ranked #1 in the nation) played an sec team in the championship game, the big 10 team was humiliated. Why are you so afraid to let the top4 teams play? Aftaid your conference may not be represented? As a fan, there can be no other reason. The sec won't always be dominent...we know that, yet we still want a system that lets the top teams play it out, instead of letting a # 5,6,7 in.
johnnya2
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 9:56 p.m.
@ Craig, Since when are the playoffs about fair? Is it fair that the winner of the MLB All Star game gets home field? Is it fair that a 10-6 second place team is out of the playoffs because they are in the wrong division? Is it wrong that a hockey team with more points than the other one is denied home ice because they finished second in their division as opposed to first in a weaker division? Is it fair that a team ranked number 1 at start of the season and loses on opening day has a chance to get into the title hunt again while a team ranked 25th pretty much has to count on everybody in front of them losing? Is it fair that Duke gets to play in North Carolina in a regional final for a trip to the final four? Is it fair that UM can seat 111k people while EMU can only put in 20k? The idea of fairness in the playoffs is silly. The fact is, if you listen to last year, the "pundits" always wanted a one loss SC team over an undefeated team from other conferences? How in the world can Alabama be considered better than LSU when in fact they PLAYED and Alabama lost. If the SEC wants their system, make them put a caveat in there, that teams that lost to another team do not get a second chance. I don't think UM deserved a second chance the year Bo died anymore than I believe Alabama deserved a second chance against LSU. Is it fair for LSU to have to beat a team twice. This whole idea of fairness is silly.
Craig Lounsbury
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 6:10 p.m.
johnnya2, While I appreciate your point, there are 11 conferences in the FBS. So do we want an 11 plus 1? what about the 4 independents eligible? If we had all 11 conference champions plus the highest rated independent then it would be ultimately fair .
johnnya2
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 5:14 p.m.
The "belief" that the SEC is stronger is just that, a belief. They win because they START the game in front of others. Unless the top SEC teams play top Big Ten or Big 12 or Pac 12 teams it is ridiculous to claim they are the best. Everybody has always said why doesn't football have a playoff like basketball. The basketball rule is CLEAR. If you win your conference, you get in. PERIOD. If you finish 30-0, but the one loss is in the championship game of your conference tournament you do not get the guaranteed spot. In EVERY professional sport conferences and divisions are taken into account. If the American League Central has a a team that is under 500, but wins their division, they are in. The Seattle Seahawks did it in the NFL. The other major problem I have with the SEC method is the ability to adjust schedules to meet the needs of more teams in the playoff. They can have Alabama play all the weaker teams in the conference each year. In fact, the CURRENT SEC playoff system says the winner of the East plays the winner of the west. It does NOT say the top two teams. Be consistent Mr Slivie
mmppcc
Sat, Jun 2, 2012 : 11:33 a.m.
Exactly. Conference's relative strengths change over time. Big East Champions come to mind.