Jim Delany and the SEC

[vol66]

You have hit the nail on the head, with a huge freaking hammer.

Delaney needs to be fired. He is wasting our time with his useless banter. Fired. Quickly.

The Michigan -v- Bama (though it wont be michigan, cause they are gonna suck for a long time) scenario is EXACTLY what we want to happen in the Big Ten. It is what we NEED to happen. We need to bring the SEC up to the cold weather stadium and garner what LITTLE competitive advantage that will give us and take full advantage of it.

If people dont think that it is a competitive advantage for the SEC to go to the Outback bowl and play a northern team that is not acclimated to the weather, they are foolish. Same with the RoseBowl, the Fiesta. Cold weather schools going to warm weather bowls struggle.

It may not be a huge factor to make Bama play in Spartan Stadium in the beginning of December, but with the Nat. Championship on the line, I will take ANY advantage I can get. And I hope it snows like hellafire during the game.

And the money...good grief...Television rights...

I'll tell ya this much...If Tennessee was the fourth ranked team playing against OSU, I'm not going to the west coast, but I'd dang sure go to Columbus Ohio.

 

[GatorBill]

And the money...good grief...Television rights...

I'll tell ya this much...If Tennessee was the fourth ranked team playing against OSU, I'm not going to the west coast, but I'd dang sure go to Columbus Ohio.

Exactly. And that can probably be said for most of the SEC, as all of the snow-birds still have relatives "up north" and would head up in a heart beat.

oh, and let's not forget: IT WOULD BE FREAKING INCREDIBLE!!!

 

[bamawriter]

That's only because they haven't been able to expand back to 12 teams, but would you feel differently if, hypothetically, the Pac-10 had never expanded? Everybody played everybody else once and the best record won at the end. In many ways, that's better than a conference championship game IMO.

Maybe it is better, but it doesn't change the fact that some conferences makes their members play 13 games in order to declare a champion and some don't. That means unequal footing between the conferences, and that's garbage.

This is just my feeling, and I know Slive is going to argue differently in the weeks to come, but determining a conference champ is far more reasonable a process than determining a national champ, and if a team doesn't win their own conference then they have no business playing for the big one.

How is it more reasonable? Every single conference only takes conference record into account when determining a champ. As such, as team could win their conference (or qualify for their CCG) at 8-4 or 9-3, simply because their losses all came out of conference. That team may be a conference champ, but they aren't a better team than one that finished 11-1 but didn't win their conference.

 

[GatorBill]

Maybe it is better, but it doesn't change the fact that some conferences makes their members play 13 games in order to declare a champion and some don't. That means unequal footing between the conferences, and that's garbage.




How is it more reasonable? Every single conference only takes conference record into account when determining a champ. As such, as team could win their conference (or qualify for their CCG) at 8-4 or 9-3, simply because their losses all came out of conference. That team may be a conference champ, but they aren't a better team than one that finished 11-1 but didn't win their conference.

There is going to have to be a 9 game conference schedule, that will make it a little tougher. They will also have to make the strength of schedule count more, eliminating some of the 11-1's that dont play anyone in the Non-Con schedule. . . like Bama playing michigan this year. (cupcake)

 

[vol66]

As for the 9 game, The Big 10 or whatever they are now, don't move to a 9th game for another couple years I think. I also remind folks of something I posted elsewhere, from 2001-2017 we have played or will be playing in the future...Notre Dame 3 times, Miami twice, Cal twice, Air Force, UCLA twice, Oregon twice, NC State, Oklahoma twice, and Nebraska twice. Last year we got out of the UNC game, still played Cincinatti who turned out to be decent as the season wore on. We've played OOC games with teams from every conference.. If we move to a 9 game slate, those kinds of games are probably over, and I have no desire to give up the USC game scheduled for 2021.

 

[TrueOrange]

There is going to have to be a 9 game conference schedule, that will make it a little tougher. They will also have to make the strength of schedule count more, eliminating some of the 11-1's that dont play anyone in the Non-Con schedule. . . like Bama playing michigan this year. (cupcake)

Not likely. Our ADs and coaches are fairly adamant against moving past 8 conference games, and all indications by Slive is that he's not going to force the issue on them at this point. (the ADs not wanting to give up the money from a guaranteed home cupcake game; the coaches not wanting to play another conference game)

In all likelihood, we're going to be the only ones playing a flat 8 game schedule in the next few years (all the others are looking towards 9)

 

[GatorBill]

Not likely. Our ADs and coaches are fairly adamant against moving past 8 conference games, and all indications by Slive is that he's not going to force the issue on them at this point. (the ADs not wanting to give up the money from a guaranteed home cupcake game; the coaches not wanting to play another conference game)

In all likelihood, we're going to be the only ones playing a flat 8 game schedule in the next few years (all the others are looking towards 9)

They will all have to be the same (as someone stated earlier) for this to work. So the SEC will probably use that as their bartering card along with the "Conf Champs Only" deal, and give a "either/or" "If/But" proposition to the NCAA.

"We will give in to "conf champs only" but only if we keep the 8 game non-conf schedule.

There is a lot to work out before anything like this can happen.

 

[TrueOrange]

The venue can be selected easily. Picking the teams to play in a 4 team playoff won't be so easy. The Big Ten, Pac-12, Big XII and ACC want it to be limited to conference champions so they can have teams in more often. The SEC wants it based on rankings so they can have multiple teams in.

And perhaps worth some note is that the ACC just flipped sides on the matter (i.e. they were the major ones on our side in the matter)

...There's some feelings out there that, possibly, this might have come in some part from the recent FSU ruckus.



Also, has the big 12 revealed a stance on the matter? I know the big10 and PAC 12 had (conference champions), but I hadn't read much in regards to Texas & Co.

 

[milohimself]

How is it more reasonable? Every single conference only takes conference record into account when determining a champ. As such, as team could win their conference (or qualify for their CCG) at 8-4 or 9-3, simply because their losses all came out of conference. That team may be a conference champ, but they aren't a better team than one that finished 11-1 but didn't win their conference.

And what if the 9-3 team played Oklahoma and VA Tech or some stiff OOC, and the 11-1 team loaded down with cupcakes?

The conference champion is, every year, the best team between a group of 10-12 as proven on the field.

I know Bammers have a difficult time handling truthiness, but you guys should have lost out on the shot to play for the national championship the moment you failed to beat LSU on your home field and subsequently lost the division.

Before you go on, I realize that the BCS worked how it was supposed to work the whole time, I'm arguing that the system that allowed you guys to play for the championship last year is totally asinine.

And perhaps worth some note is that the ACC just flipped sides on the matter (i.e. they were the major ones on our side in the matter)

...There's some feelings out there that, possibly, this might have come in some part from the recent FSU ruckus.



Also, has the big 12 revealed a stance on the matter? I know the big10 and PAC 12 had (conference champions), but I hadn't read much in regards to Texas & Co.

After what just happened with Okie Lite, I can guarantee the Big XII will be against it as well.

I know most of you "rah rah SEC" guys are going to be pulling for a straight 1-4, but Slive will be the only one on the side of that argument. I guaran-damn-tee these talks are going to have an everybody ganging up on the SEC slant.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

And what if the 9-3 team played Oklahoma and VA Tech or some stiff OOC, and the 11-1 team loaded down with cupcakes?

The conference champion is, every year, the best team between a group of 10-12 as proven on the field.

I know Bammers have a difficult time handling truthiness, but you guys should have lost out on the shot to play for the national championship the moment you failed to beat LSU on your home field and subsequently lost the division.

Before you go on, I realize that the BCS worked how it was supposed to work the whole time, I'm arguing that the system that allowed you guys to play for the championship last year is totally asinine.


After what just happened with Okie Lite, I can guarantee the Big XII will be against it as well.

I know most of you "rah rah SEC" guys are going to be pulling for a straight 1-4, but Slive will be the only one on the side of that argument. I guaran-damn-tee these talks are going to have an everybody ganging up on the SEC slant.

Yep.

 

[bamawriter]

And what if the 9-3 team played Oklahoma and VA Tech or some stiff OOC, and the 11-1 team loaded down with cupcakes?

And what if the 11-1 team had a solid OOC slate?

The conference champion is, every year, the best team between a group of 10-12 as proven on the field.

Bull.

LSU was the conference champ in the SEC last year, yet they weren't the best team in the conference, and it was proven on the field. Tennessee was the best team in the SEC in 2001, but didn't win the conference.

If 6-6 UCLA had upset Oregon in the Pac-12 championship game last year, would they have been the best team over Oregon and Stanford? Of course not.

There are so many variables that go into determining a conference champ, and they don't always synch up with determining a national champ.

I know Bammers have a difficult time handling truthiness, but you guys should have lost out on the shot to play for the national championship the moment you failed to beat LSU on your home field and subsequently lost the division.

College football is no different that any other sport. Teams divide into conferences or divisions for scheduling purposes, but those divisions and conferences do not dictate who is the best team in the country.

After what just happened with Okie Lite, I can guarantee the Big XII will be against it as well.

I know most of you "rah rah SEC" guys are going to be pulling for a straight 1-4, but Slive will be the only one on the side of that argument. I guaran-damn-tee these talks are going to have an everybody ganging up on the SEC slant.

Perhaps, but the Big XII has had more non-champs in the top 4 over the past 14 years than any conference other than the SEC, so they may see it from a self-interest perspective similar to the SEC's.

Regardless, it's not going to be a majority-rules vote. It's more like a jury. If the SEC holds out, it doesn't get passed. Or the other conferences could create their preferred system without the SEC involved, but any championship format without the SEC's involvement would be seen as completely illegitimate. So the SEC may be on their own, but they are holding a royal flush, while everyone else is holding three of a kind or worse.

 

[vol66]

So much for all the talk about only Conf. Champs vs. 1,2,3,4...This partnership for this bowl game with the Big 12, gives Slive his dance partner.

 

[milohimself]

Bull.

LSU was the conference champ in the SEC last year, yet they weren't the best team in the conference, and it was proven on the field. Tennessee was the best team in the SEC in 2001, but didn't win the conference.

Keep acting like it never happened.

If 6-6 UCLA had upset Oregon in the Pac-12 championship game last year, would they have been the best team over Oregon and Stanford? Of course not.

There are so many variables that go into determining a conference champ, and they don't always synch up with determining a national champ.

If Oregon had been undefeated at the time, it likely would have knocked them out of the national championship scenario. And rightfully so, because they didn't win their conference.

College football is no different that any other sport. Teams divide into conferences or divisions for scheduling purposes, but those divisions and conferences do not dictate who is the best team in the country.

They do more than worthy enough of a job of determining who's fit to play for the national championship; at least as good as can be with the cluster**** that is FBS.

Perhaps, but the Big XII has had more non-champs in the top 4 over the past 14 years than any conference other than the SEC, so they may see it from a self-interest perspective similar to the SEC's.

Regardless, it's not going to be a majority-rules vote. It's more like a jury. If the SEC holds out, it doesn't get passed. Or the other conferences could create their preferred system without the SEC involved, but any championship format without the SEC's involvement would be seen as completely illegitimate. So the SEC may be on their own, but they are holding a royal flush, while everyone else is holding three of a kind or worse.

Not the greatest analogy. Never said it would be a majority rules type situation, just that a 1-2-3-4 playoff won't happen because that's only beneficial to the SEC and maybe the Big XII, and the other four, who will be sitting in that room with just as much sway, won't have any part of it.

 

[milohimself]

So much for all the talk about only Conf. Champs vs. 1,2,3,4...This partnership for this bowl game with the Big 12, gives Slive his dance partner.

I think this whole thing is going to bite the dust unless Slive capitulates. Delany is acting like a supreme douche, but when it comes down to it, the Pac-12, ACC and Big East will be on his side.

 

[bamawriter]

Keep acting like it never happened.

Oh it happened. But anyone who watched that game saw Alabama beat themselves more than LSU beat Alabama. The same can't be said in LSU's favor on January 9th. If you watched both games and think LSU was the better team, then you are simply hating, and doing so in irrational fashion.

If Oregon had been undefeated at the time, it likely would have knocked them out of the national championship scenario. And rightfully so, because they didn't win their conference.

That's irrelevant. As far as the Pac 12 goes, and only the Pac 12, would UCLA be the best team in the conference simply by virtue of upsetting Oregon?

They do more than worthy enough of a job of determining who's fit to play for the national championship; at least as good as can be with the cluster**** that is FBS.

No they don't. If they did, then the best team in the country would have also been the champion of their conference in '11. That didn't happen. The SEC champion happened to be the second best team in the conference.

Not the greatest analogy. Never said it would be a majority rules type situation, just that a 1-2-3-4 playoff won't happen because that's only beneficial to the SEC and maybe the Big XII, and the other four, who will be sitting in that room with just as much sway, won't have any part of it.

The Big East and the non-AQ conference are totally irrelevant in the creation of the playoff. And after today's announcement from the Big 12 and SEC, so is the ACC. We're about to be down to only four legit conferences, and it's a 2-2 split as to the format of the playoff.

 

[milohimself]

Oh it happened. But anyone who watched that game saw Alabama beat themselves more than LSU beat Alabama. The same can't be said in LSU's favor on January 9th. If you watched both games and think LSU was the better team, then you are simply hating, and doing so in irrational fashion.

Irrelevant. You split with LSU last season. Period. Any system that arbitrarily picks two teams to play and determines one the champ when they split during that season is asinine and utterly retarded.

If that's how you like to judge sports, take up soccer.

That's irrelevant. As far as the Pac 12 goes, and only the Pac 12, would UCLA be the best team in the conference simply by virtue of upsetting Oregon?

I'll bite.

Yes, it would. Let us count the ways. One, the teams are not selected arbitrarily. There are two groups of six teams, and the team with the best record from each is selected to determine a champ. UCLA and Oregon did not play the same schedule, and most importantly, it would have been determined on the field of play.

Conference champions are determined objectively while the national champs are determined subjectively. There are infinite universes of difference between the two.

No they don't. If they did, then the best team in the country would have also been the champion of their conference in '11. That didn't happen. The SEC champion happened to be the second best team in the conference.

They were not the second best team in the conference through the course of conference play, because they went undefeated in that conference, including beating you on your home field.

If Alabama was the best team in the SEC, then they would have WON the SEC.

Alabama was better than LSU on a single night months after the season ended, and for some unfathomable reason, that makes them the national champions.

Hence, BCSMNC. Mythical.

The Big East and the non-AQ conference are totally irrelevant in the creation of the playoff. And after today's announcement from the Big 12 and SEC, so is the ACC. We're about to be down to only four legit conferences, and it's a 2-2 split as to the format of the playoff.

The Big East ought to be irrelevant, but unfortunately the same people who set up the system which determined your Crimson Tide champs last season also deemed the Big East worthy of membership in the BCS. C'est la vie.

 

[vol66]

I think this whole thing is going to bite the dust unless Slive capitulates. Delany is acting like a supreme douche, but when it comes down to it, the Pac-12, ACC and Big East will be on his side.

The ACC just became the Big 12 of the last two years. All this buisness with FSU, they are the Texas A&M of the last two years. Slive is holding all the cards. He just created this Bowl Game with a conference he almost destroyed and now has more at the table than the Sugar and the Rose bowl combined. The two best football conferences in the BCS era just told Delaney to sit down and shut up. I love it.

 

[bamawriter]

Irrelevant. You split with LSU last season. Period. Any system that arbitrarily picks two teams to play and determines one the champ when they split during that season is asinine and utterly retarded.

If that's how you like to judge sports, take up soccer.

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world. Never hear soccer fans complaining about their two game championships, either.

I'll bite.

Yes, it would. Let us count the ways. One, the teams are not selected arbitrarily. There are two groups of six teams, and the team with the best record from each is selected to determine a champ. UCLA and Oregon did not play the same schedule, and most importantly, it would have been determined on the field of play.

Conference champions are determined objectively while the national champs are determined subjectively. There are infinite universes of difference between the two.

Untrue. Oklahoma played for the Big XII championship in '08 because they won a tiebreaker over Texas and Texas Tech because they were ahead in the completely arbitrary BCS standings. The SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten have similar tiebreakers. So you cannot argue that a conference championship is always settled objectively, because it's not.

They were not the second best team in the conference through the course of conference play, because they went undefeated in that conference, including beating you on your home field.

If Alabama was the best team in the SEC, then they would have WON the SEC.

Alabama was better than LSU on a single night months after the season ended, and for some unfathomable reason, that makes them the national champions.

Hence, BCSMNC. Mythical.

You, and the rest of the chronically butthurt, add the 'M'. It is not a part of the official name.

The Big East ought to be irrelevant, but unfortunately the same people who set up the system which determined your Crimson Tide champs last season also deemed the Big East worthy of membership in the BCS. C'est la vie.

Actually, the people who set up the system aren't the people who selected Alabama. The presidents of the universities don't have a vote in either the Coaches or Harris polls.

It's also worth noting that a four conference champ playoff will not be determined objectively. Since not every conference champ will get in, some subjective measure will have to be used to select the final four. It can't be avoided as things stand now.

However. If the Pac 12, Big XII, Big 10, and SEC consolidate power like I think they will, all go to 16 teams, and determine their champions with the exact same criteria... then I could easily get behind a champ-only playoff. But not until all conferences go into it on equal footing.

 

[milohimself]

The ACC just became the Big 12 of the last two years. All this buisness with FSU, they are the Texas A&M of the last two years. Slive is holding all the cards. He just created this Bowl Game with a conference he almost destroyed and now has more at the table than the Sugar and the Rose bowl combined. The two best football conferences in the BCS era just told Delaney to sit down and shut up. I love it.

FSU ain't going anywhere. The SEC won't take them, and jumping to the Big XII for a much tougher schedule, for a little more money and getting bossed around by TU would be colossally idiotic.

And Slive didn't do anything close to "almost destroying the Big XII." If Texas had backed off, A&M, Missouri, Nebraska and Colorado would all still be there. The Big XII's issues are of its own making and nobody else's, including the SEC and Slive.

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world. Never hear soccer fans complaining about their two game championships, either.

For association football clubs, league championships are as coveted as any title or tournament championship out there. And none of their leagues have championship games; they all line up, play each other X number of times then the side with the best record at the end is the winner. I would be ecstatic to see college football revert to something closer to that. Truthfully, I buy much of what you're saying with conference championship games, but they are still infinitely more legitimate than the BCS.

Untrue. Oklahoma played for the Big XII championship in '08 because they won a tiebreaker over Texas and Texas Tech because they were ahead in the completely arbitrary BCS standings. The SEC, ACC, Pac 12, and Big Ten have similar tiebreakers. So you cannot argue that a conference championship is always settled objectively, because it's not.

You want to split hairs? Okay, it's come to that twice ever in the history of conference championship games, so it's only objective 95% of the time. Just shot holes all through it. Damn.

You, and the rest of the chronically butthurt, add the 'M'. It is not a part of the official name.

I can go out, right now, and provide you with dozens or hundreds of links of different CFB fans and writers calling it the BCSMNCG, including many like myself who are fans of teams that HAVE them. UT won the national championship in '98 insofar as a champ can be determined, it doesn't mean the system is any less ridiculous.

And that's in spite of the fact that the very same system delivered my beloved Vols a championship. So, no butthurt here. You're barking up the wrong tree, sport, look elsewhere.

Actually, the people who set up the system aren't the people who selected Alabama. The presidents of the universities don't have a vote in either the Coaches or Harris polls.

Time for syntax lessons? "The people who set up the system which determined Alabama champs." That does not mean that the people that set up the system also selected them.

And that brings up another thing... Coaches and Harris Polls make up 2/3 of the decision-making task force to select the teams for the BCS championship game. It's nothing more than a group of interns, office assistants and trained monkeys. At least there was somewhat of an air of legitimacy around it when the AP was involved.

It's also worth noting that a four conference champ playoff will not be determined objectively. Since not every conference champ will get in, some subjective measure will have to be used to select the final four. It can't be avoided as things stand now.

However. If the Pac 12, Big XII, Big 10, and SEC consolidate power like I think they will, all go to 16 teams, and determine their champions with the exact same criteria... then I could easily get behind a champ-only playoff. But not until all conferences go into it on equal footing.

If there were some dream scenario in which an entire division comprised only of 64 programs divided into four conferences had a playoff, I would be all in favor of it. So, I agree. But that situation is very, very hypothetical.

As it stands, the absolute, incontrovertible fact of the matter is that the ACC and Big East also have a place at the table and must be accounted for.

How good the SEC has been carries zero weight in this situation. The commissioners and their presidents must reach a general consensus, and there are plainly more parties against Mike Slive's position than for it.

Either they all agree or this whole thing doesn't happen, and if they agree, it will be Slive giving up ground.

 

[VolsSportsFan]

I doubt at this point this thing dies, the hype and popularity of getting a 4 team playoff is too great. If they screw it up at this point and it doesn't happen, that's a major fail.

 

[milohimself]

I doubt at this point this thing dies, the hype and popularity of getting a 4 team playoff is too great. If they screw it up at this point and it doesn't happen, that's a major fail.

We'll see what happens, but it would take a huge shift to the tune of Miami, FSU, Clemson and VA Tech all leaving the ACC at once to tilt things that much. It remains to be seen.

 

[vol66]

How good the SEC has been carries zero weight in this situation. The commissioners and their presidents must reach a general consensus, and there are plainly more parties against Mike Slive's position than for it.

Either they all agree or this whole thing doesn't happen, and if they agree, it will be Slive giving up ground.

As usual you and I will have to agree to disagree. Many forget that Slive helped postpone for a year, the expansion by telling A&M it wasn't the right time. He then got his ducks in a row, and boom, just like that, The Big 12 had 8 teams. Their TV contract could have become null and void, they had to bring in at least one team. I guess I shoulda said, Slive and Dodds almost destroyed it.

The ACC screwed up by not going along with Slive, so the Big 12 gets the partnership instead.

Slive just built a bowl between two conferences, no tie ins, the conf. commishes get to make the rules not the bowls, not the BCS. It's a brand new buisness model, and it's gonna make a ton of money.

 

[milohimself]

It should, but we'll see how many times it occurs. I can't recall the last season when either conference didn't have at least one team with serious bcs aspirations. I think 99 and 03 were the only ones without a team from either conference.

 

[vol66]

It should, but we'll see how many times it occurs. I can't recall the last season when either conference didn't have at least one team with serious bcs aspirations. I think 99 and 03 were the only ones without a team from either conference.

Goose Cooked, S---E---C---S---E---C! Last year 1 would face 4, 2 would face 3 and Arkansas will now be playin in a bowl game bigger than the Rose...Who's your Grandaddy now Mr. Jackson.