Yeah, but being the best of 4 is more satisfying than being the best of 2 and there'll be less squawking.
Of all the conference commissioners who decided last January that they wanted a playoff — as soon as they witnessed an all-SEC BCS title game — we’ve never figured out why Mike Slive is in favor of such a set-up. We know that the SEC’s pro-playoff stance was forged when undefeated Auburn was left out of the BCS Championship Game after the 2004 season. We know that a playoff will bring in millions upon millions for everyone and that a good chunk of Slive’s job is to rake money into the coffers of his league and its schools.
But we also know the SEC absolutely dominates in the current BCS system. With computers involved, Slive’s league always gets respect. Need proof? How ’bout the fact that with a month to go in the season, five of the top eight teams in the latest BCS standings are from the Southeastern Conference:
2. Kansas State
3. Notre Dame
8. South Carolina
9. Florida State
Not too shabby. Toss in Mississippi State and Texas A&M at #15 and #16 respectively and that’s half the SEC ranked among the 16 best teams in America.
We’re not anti-playoff here at MrSEC.com, but we sure hope people realize the risk the SEC is taking in going from a computer-enhanced BCS system to a very human selection committee. In the current system, it’s hard to imagine an SEC squad — or two — not making the title game every year. In the system to come — with a few panelists perhaps wanting to spread the wealth — it’s hard to imagine the league even getting two teams into a final football four.
We won’t know that for sure, of course, for a couple more years. But we do know that the SEC thrives in the current system. There’s no debate over that fact.