Oh, now this is rich...

[Black Diamond Vol]

"SEC swipes at Big Ten undermine spirit of compromise".  LOL- this coming from the league whose commissioner claimed to have no respect for "That team" that didn't win their conference?  I'm dizzy from the spin.

Their teams have won six straight national championships. So Southeastern Conference football coaches and presidents have earned the right to be a little chirpy.

But some of the blather coming from last week's SEC meetings in Destin, Fla., stunk worse than what emits from industrial sections of Gary.

"For some young kid from Mobile, Alabama, who has never seen snow, to have to go play a national championship game in Wisconsin — I don't know if that's the right thing."



Alabama coach Nick Saban actually said that. Right after ripping the "self-absorbed people" (read: Big Ten officials) who floated the idea of playing semifinal playoff games on campus.

The Big Ten officially spiked that idea at its meetings last month, but given that the conference has struggled to convey its views, you almost understand why word did not reach parts of the South.

When Commissioner Jim Delany went off topic with an Associated Press reporter working on a Title IX story last month, his comments were misinterpreted as a demand that only conference champions be eligible for a four-team playoff.

That would be an absurd stance, given that Saban's Crimson Tide were the nation's best team last season — despite not even qualifying for the SEC title game.

It also has become a rallying cry for the Big 12 and SEC, which want the top four teams in the playoff, regardless of whether they won their conference.

How about this headline on ESPN.com: "SEC's playoff position: Big Ten is scared."

Self-absorbed … scared … any other insults?

Trampling on the spirit of compromise, Florida President Bernie Machen asserted that the public does not want top-rated conference champions to have an automatic spot. And therefore, "I think everyone is going to have to come to us on that (stance)."

And according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, there was this zinger from Machen: "The group that has to get real is the Big Ten to realize the world is going in a different direction."

Big Ten presidents and chancellors will huddle Sunday at conference headquarters in Park Ridge. A source said the group hopes to emerge with a position on the key remaining obstacles to a playoff that would begin with the 2014 season.

Obstacle No. 1: Who's eligible?

Tribune solution: Adopt a hybrid model — the top three conference champs and a wild card. This will add heft to conference races and title games and limit the importance of rankings, which are subjective. It allows the SEC (or, perish the thought, another conference) to send two teams to the playoffs. But not three.

Three teams from one conference would be a major turnoff in a sport that thrives on geographical rivalries. If the SEC coaches were not so "self-absorbed," they'd realize that.


Obstacle No. 2: Who decides?

Tribune solution: The current combination of Harris Poll, coaches poll and BCS computer rankings has no chance. Coaches determining playoff teams is like John Edwards serving on his own jury. And too many computer operators keep their formulas under wraps.

A selection committee has drawbacks, namely the need for members to go into witness protection. But I still favor the human element of a committee. Last season, Oklahoma State lost once — on a missed 37-yard field goal the day after Cowboys women's basketball coach Kurt Budke and three others were killed in a plane crash. Unbiased computers are important, but find me a software program that factors in a team's emotional state.

Obstacle No. 3: Where to play?

Tribune solution: The title game will go to the highest bidder. Good. The semifinal games will rotate among BCS bowl sites. Also good, given that stadiums at Oregon, TCU and Kansas State can't accommodate big crowds and 1,200 media members. And players on those semifinal teams deserve a bowl trip.

But which bowls? Do it this way: Designate two before the beginning of each season. Pair the Rose (best) with the Orange (worst) and the Fiesta with the Sugar. Then allow the top-ranked team to pick its venue, giving incentive to finish first.

With such a system in place, LSU last year would have selected the Orange against No. 4 Oregon or Stanford to avoid giving those West Coast teams a Rose boost. After the 2010 season, Auburn would have picked the Sugar over the Fiesta.

Either way, Nick, don't worry. Your players won't have to wear gloves.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-02/sports/ct-spt-0603-greenstein-college-football--20120603_1_sec-meetings-sec-coaches-big-ten

[droner]

I am against using the hybrid method of picking the teams. (3 Conference champs and a wild card). That doesn't move us much farther away from where we are now. Taking a conference champ raises the possibility that a conference chump might win the conference championship game.

Take the four best teams. What's so difficult about that? I really don't care much about how they're picked. After all, I think that there is usually general agreement about the top four. Yes, there will always be someone with an argument about why they should have been included, but that will happen with 4 teams, 8 teams or 68 (or however many it is now) teams that are in the NCAA basketball tournament.

Get on with it. And shut the front door!

[BigOrange Maniac]

The bickering between the SEC and the Big Ten proves exactly what I've always contended about a CFB playoff: it's opening the door to a playoff system that's going to become way too big and bloated. You'll never be able to satisfy everyone. Even with nearly 70 teams included in the basketball tournament there are always complaints from folks who are left out. Football, on a smaller scale, will be no different, and you'll never satisfy every conference (and Notre Dame, God bless their independent souls...) until you have at least a 16-team playoff...which is way too many.

[Black Diamond Vol]

The bickering between the SEC and the Big Ten proves exactly what I've always contended about a CFB playoff: it's opening the door to a playoff system that's going to become way too big and bloated. You'll never be able to satisfy everyone. Even with nearly 70 teams included in the basketball tournament there are always complaints from folks who are left out. Football, on a smaller scale, will be no different, and you'll never satisfy every conference (and Notre Dame, God bless their independent souls...) until you have at least a 16-team playoff...which is way too many.

I think an 8 team playoff is going to happen, probably within 5 years.  Whichever side loses this current fight, there are going to be enough worthy teams getting left out in the cold that they'll have to expand it sooner or later.  Seems obvious to me that 8 teams is where we're headed, so they might as well do it now. 

While I personally would LOVE a 16 team playoff, I don't think that's going to happen any time soon. 

[Quasi EVol]

The bickering between the SEC and the Big Ten proves exactly what I've always contended about a CFB playoff: it's opening the door to a playoff system that's going to become way too big and bloated. You'll never be able to satisfy everyone. Even with nearly 70 teams included in the basketball tournament there are always complaints from folks who are left out. Football, on a smaller scale, will be no different, and you'll never satisfy every conference (and Notre Dame, God bless their independent souls...) until you have at least a 16-team playoff...which is way too many.

Replace some of the WeedWhacker-type bowls with playoff games leading to a NC & you'll never notice the difference.

Except they'd be games you might actually wanna WATCH!

[BigOrange Maniac]

Replace some of the WeedWhacker-type bowls with playoff games leading to a NC & you'll never notice the difference.

Except they'd be games you might actually wanna WATCH!

A 16-team playoff will fundamentally change D-I college football...and I'm afraid it won't be a change for the better.

[droner]

I've always been in favor of 8 and no more. Ever. But I'll take the four for several years to get it started.

[101stDad]

I've always been in favor of 8 and no more. Ever. But I'll take the four for several years to get it started.

That's pretty much my feeling, too.  8 would be legit, but even a plus 1 is better than the zero teams we have in a D1-A playoff now. 

My only fear that that the Big Howevermanythereareinthatsecondrateleaguenow is somehow going to weasel their way in to a position of power within whatever the playoff format ends up being. 

[BigOrange Maniac]

I've always been in favor of 8 and no more. Ever. But I'll take the four for several years to get it started.

I am a proponent of the plus-one format of four teams. I'm opposed to anything more than that.