Seeing as how his team just won a national title without winning the SEC, I don’t think it comes as a surprise to anyone that Nick Saban isn’t exactly enamored with the concept of a conference champs-only playoff.
But that’s because it’s all about you, SEC, not him.
“I don’t think there’s a parity in college football like there is in the NFL, where you can make a statement like that. No disrespect to any conference, but there are conferences that are in the BCS that if they played in the SEC their champion may be in fourth or fifth place. So because there’s not a parity, I don’t think it’s fair to make a statement like that.”
Honestly, there’s nothing in that quote with which I can disagree. Except that Scott’s proposal isn’t as much about making sure the playoffs have the best field as it is making sure the wealth gets spread around.
Get The Picture 
Hate to agree with Satan, but in this case he’s right.
LikeLike
Joe, I agree. He’s Saban and he’s grinding his own ax here, but we can agree on the nuts and bolts of it all.
If you want a “National Champion”….then only take conference champs.
If you want to crown a team “Best in the Nation”, then take the best teams regardless of conference standings, which is exactly what happened this last time.
I get the feeling this whole thing is becoming a campaign (by many) to keep the SEC from continuing it’s domination of the MNC.
Saban may have selfish motives, (like a defense lawyer taking a high profile case), but I’ll accept his efforts as benefical to the SEC as a whole.
Again, if the NC game is to determine which is the best team in the nation, the two best teams in the nation must face off in that game, regardless of conference affiliation or standing (ie 1st or 2nd place).
I say that knowing it could very well bite the SEC someday.
LikeLike
Ya think? 😉
LikeLike
Finally good to see Saban using his bastardness for a good cause.
LikeLike
+1- His bastardness, HAHAHA.
LikeLike
“Bastardness”…. Great word!
It’s a fitting adjective/noun hybrid, describing the subject while naming his condition.
LikeLike
His Royal Bastardness.
LikeLike
Lloyd Carr could have used the same argument in 2006. Maybe part of the reason is that Saban has won 1 conference title in 5 years and will not be favored to win it this year either. With a plus one type format I am not against a non-champ or independent playing provided there are no more than 3 high ranked conference champs. But with only two teams, sorry, part of the equation is whether a team “deserves” to play in the game.
LikeLike
Senator, is the 2011 Bama team the only team to win the BCSNC without winning its conference championship? How about in all of history and all MNCs?
LikeLike
‘Bama isn’t the only non-conference champ to play in the BCS title game – Oklahoma did that in ’03 – but it’s the only one to win.
As for all of history, that’s hard to say because of the number of ways national titles were determined before the Bowl Alliance era.
LikeLike
2001 Nebraska also played in the BCSCG without winning the Big 12.
LikeLike
But also didn’t win. Thanks.
LikeLike
It’s not like this would prevent the SEC from winning national championships. The reigning SEC Champions would have beaten the champions of any other league this year… hell, they DID beat the champs of the Pac 12 and Big East. It’s just that they couldn’t beat Alabama a second time.
LikeLike
This is of great importance to UGA, Ark and LSU as well as Bama since we are the prime candidates to play for the SECCG this year. That contest has been for the NC for the last 6 yrs.
Let’s say the West and East champs end up undefeated going into that game. Is there anyone who doesn’t think the loser can beat all other teams in the country? With one loss to the next NC, the loser wouldn’t get a chance to prove it if the playoff is limited to conference champs only.
LikeLike