|
|||
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
BOWL CHAMPIONSHIP SERIES MEDIA CONFERENCEDecember 2, 2007Mike SliveCHARLES BLOOM: Welcome to tonight's Bowl championship series media teleconference with BCS coordinator and Southeastern Conference commissioner Mike Slive. The purpose of tonight's call is to review and answer any questions about the pairings and selection process for the BCS Bowls. A reminder that shortly after this call, each BCS Bowl will have its own media teleconference. We will start tonight's media teleconference with opening remarks from Commissioner Slive before taking your questions. Commissioner Slive. MIKE SLIVE: Thanks, Charles. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us tonight. I just want to take a couple of minutes to go over the selection process, and then I'll be very happy to answer your questions after that. There were seven automatic qualifying teams: Virginia Tech from the ACC, West Virginia from the Big East, Ohio State from the Big-10, Oklahoma from the Big 12, Southern Cal from the PAC-10, LSU from the SEC, and No. 10 Hawaii from the WAC. There were seven at-large teams: Georgia, Missouri, Kansas, Arizona State, Florida, Illinois and Boston College. As a result of the final BCS standings of today, the national championship game will pair the 1 and 2 teams Ohio State and LSU to play in that game. In the Rose Bowl, the PAC-10 champion automatically into the Rose Bowl, and then Illinois was selected at-large. The Sugar Bowl had Georgia at-large as its host institution, and then the Orange Bowl has Virginia Tech as its host institution. The Fiesta Bowl has Oklahoma as its host institution. The Rose Bowl had the first selection as a compensatory selection when they selected Illinois at-large because they had lost a team to the championship game. The Sugar Bowl then had a compensatory pick and picked Georgia at that point. Then we move into the selection order. The Orange Bowl had the first selection and selected No. 8 Kansas to play Virginia Tech. The Fiesta Bowl had then the next selection and selected West Virginia. And, finally, the Sugar Bowl had the last selection. Took Hawaii that was an automatic qualifier. That's exactly how the selections went and the order in which they went during the call. So with that, ladies and gentlemen, I'll be happy to try to answer your questions. Q. There's going to be a lot of talk about whether or not the system works or whatever, particularly with a two-loss team playing for the national championship. Do you see that as any kind of negative, that it worked out to where LSU with two losses is playing for the national title? MIKE SLIVE: You know, I don't think in this year, being such a different kind of year, with so many teams in the 1 or 2 slot, so many teams with one or two losses, I don't think that it's so much the system as it is the year. What I find interesting about this year, as I think about your question, is is this year an anomaly or is this year a precursor to what we might see in the future. And then trying to analyze that question leads us to the discussion we have had on numerous occasions about whether this format needs an adjustment. Therefore, as you know, it's a segue into my continuing interest in continuing to look at this format, at least in terms of a plus one. Q. What you're saying is if there's another couple of seasons like what we had this year, might gain some momentum for the plus one? MIKE SLIVE: It's very possible. You know, when we talked the other day, I asked the question, Is one and two enough? It may be this season, and this result may give us a hint towards the answer to that question. Q. Three of these 10 teams have been to a combined one major Bowl in the last 40 years. I'm talking about Kansas, Illinois and Hawaii. Are you willing to lump them together as part of this trend, the non-traditional teams getting in? Is that in itself a trend? MIKE SLIVE: You know, the question of non-traditional and teams that have in prior years been maybe better than they have been in recent years, then obviously finding their way and having outstanding years, you know, I don't know if you really can distinguish those teams because you really are trying to look at everything in terms of a particular year. That's a question we oftentimes get when we're talking about the basketball tournament at the end of the selection process. The idea that, well, you've got traditional teams. But the reality is this is designed to look at this year. And I think, you know, one of the things that still is a concern that we have not been able to resolve is the early pre-season polls, because in reality they're not this year, you know. They're a hold-over from a prior year, and that's one of the reasons we don't release the BCS standings until we have enough games in it to be a measurement for the current year. Q. Maybe it's better to frame it with the non-signatories. This is now three, and with Utah, Boise and Hawaii. Is that a trend, I guess? Do you sense these guys getting their noses under the tent now? MIKE SLIVE: I think when we went to 12 we doubled the opportunity for teams from the former to get into the BCS games, and they have done a great job playing well and getting to the game. Obviously Boise was successful last year in the game. They didn't just get to the game. But, you know, clearly they have to have -- and they've done it -- they have to have a pretty significant body of work, and they've done it. Q. One thing that's kind of intriguing is the fact that Kansas was picked in front of Missouri. Missouri was ranked in the final BCS in front of Kansas. They beat them on the field a week ago, and actually played for a championship while Kansas didn't. Does that, perhaps, show some flaws in the system, the fact that a team can be picked in front of another team that proved it was better on the field? MIKE SLIVE: I think what it shows is that in the system that has been agreed to by all, and that once you have a pool -- that's why I sort of introduced the call by going through all the at-large teams -- once you introduce the pool of at-large teams, then the Bowl has its own decision to make and makes it on its own and makes the selection for its own reasons. I'm not privy to those conversations within each Bowl. Whether or not Kansas has had a phenomenal year, Missouri has had a phenomenal year, there are some factors that one could argue. But I think it's also fair to say that with the outcome Kansas is very deserving to be, you know, in the BCS. Q. But does it undermine maybe the public acceptance of the BCS in general when something like that happens? MIKE SLIVE: Well, you know, I'm sure that if someone is a playoff proponent that that would be something they would use to talk about it. What we've done by -- you know, the BCS is truly an extension of the Bowl system. For 10 years now, we have given the Bowls the right to pick an at-large team. You know, that's what it means. I mean, it means that there are a series of teams, and they're all good teams, they're all deserving teams, and a Bowl makes a decision, you know, what it perceives to be its own interests. Now, that perception is one that people certainly can have, but on the other hand there are others that would say, you know, this system provides us with an ability to couple a national championship game and provide other very compelling games, and a Virginia Tech and Kansas game is a very compelling game. Q. Mike, there's been a lot of years where there's been flat-out controversy at the end of a BCS season. Am I wrong when I look at it? It's almost like every team that was left out had a chance to kind of control its own destiny. Do you see it the same way? Almost everyone had an opportunity to get there if they had won at the right time. MIKE SLIVE: Yeah, I think that's one of the things that made this such a fascinating season. The brass ring was there for a lot of different people to grab. Sometimes they did and sometimes they didn't. When they didn't, it allowed teams, two teams that early on in the polls were seen to be two of the better teams in the country, to find their way back because some of the teams just couldn't grab the brass ring when they needed to grab it. Q. Could the Rose Bowl have taken Georgia and matched them against USC, or was Georgia protected by the Sugar Bowl? MIKE SLIVE: That's a good question. The way it works is that if the Bowl that has a compensatory pick, the No. 1 pick, cannot take a team from the league in which the team in the second place comes without the consent of that Bowl. Now, it's also my understanding at this time that that consent was not sought by the Rose Bowl. Q. When you look at it, it worked out well for both parties. Looks like it was logical for the SEC. MIKE SLIVE: Certainly the final pairings reflect the choices of the Bowls. Q. You talked about some of the methods that go into the non-championship Bowls, how they select their teams. Because this has been such an unusual year, you have six or seven teams closely bunched together, I would guess a lot of fans would have liked to have seen some of the teams that didn't make the title game, Oklahoma, Virginia Tech, USC, play each other in a Bowl game. Obviously that didn't work out through the process. Can you explain a little bit if this is -- if truly the BCS was meant to protect the interest of the Bowls, they don't necessarily wind up with what would be the next most compelling matchups? MIKE SLIVE: Maybe the simple answer to that is that we have deferred to the Bowls to make these decisions and have not tried to second guess those decisions. That was your question, I think. Q. Obviously a part of it is the fact that each Bowl has their respective conference partner. I guess I'm asking, is that considered more important, making sure that that partnership is maintained in a year in, year out basis than having the highest ranked teams play each other? MIKE SLIVE: I think it is important that there is the host relationship. I think if you think about all the potential possibilities, it seems to us that, you know, the Bowls have every opportunity to make these decisions as to what they want. The host Bowl relationship is obviously significant and has been an integral part of the BCS. And, remember, it may sound somewhat trite now, but the purpose of the BCS was to develop the 1-2 game. What gets lost a little bit in all of this selection process is that what the BCS has done is allowed the teams to move to the 1-2 game from other tie-ups as long as those relationships remained intact. So it is an important part of it, but I wouldn't tell you that it is a part that takes precedence over everything. But it is one that is a high priority. Q. For all the oddities of the season, just the idea that the runner-up from last year and a team that was thought to be a likely team here, LSU, have made it here, how does that speak to the season? MIKE SLIVE: I'm not sure I follow you. Q. For all the chaos we've sort of perceived that's been out there, we're looking at the end of the trail here, and it's two teams that might well have been expected to be here. Do you think that either confirms or disavows the chaos we've perceived has happened? MIKE SLIVE: That's an interesting question, because I was curious about the polls. Not the BCS standings, but the polls. I think I'm right here, you can correct me if I'm wrong, I think the AP poll and the coaches' poll and the Harris poll, the so-called human polls, all had these two teams in the 1 and 2 spot. So there was a pretty significant consensus, it looks like, with regard to those teams. Now, it's interesting that they were teams that were there early, and then both lost, then worked their way back up. But, you know, they're there. In part, it may be because some other folks lost some games. Q. Another twist with that Missouri also beat Illinois head-to-head. I know it comes to each Bowl game. If you're the athletic director at Missouri right now, would you understand if they are a little baffled by how this system has treated them? MIKE SLIVE: I don't think they'd be baffled by the system because I think they understand the system. But I certainly would understand they could be very, very disappointed. Q. It seems like the PAC-10 has had a series of disappointments with the BCS in recent years, including this one with Arizona State not in the Fiesta. Is there anything as a general statement you would say to the league about hanging in there or whatever? MIKE SLIVE: Well, that's a good question. You know, I don't know what I would say to my friend, Tom. I'm sure there is some disappointment. But, again, there's a selection process and the Bowls select the teams that they think they want to have. The PAC-10 is a great league, has had a great year, and has a lot of worthy teams. But at the same time, you know, there have been several conferences this year in the same position. I think the PAC-10 has been very comfortable with the current format and somewhat outspoken that they like the current format. Again, I have compassion for the disappointment, but on the other hand it's the system we have in place that the PAC-10 has been a party to agreeing to. Q. There's going to be a lot of folks that are going to wonder about Georgia being jumped in the polls without playing and what changed. I know you don't control that, but is there any kind of pressure you could exert on the voters in the Harris and coaches' poll to make more balanced public so there's a little more accountability when things like this happen? MIKE SLIVE: It's my recollection that these rules will be made public. Q. These will, but not last week. MIKE SLIVE: It has not come up this year and it may come up again. From a BCS perspective, there's really only one poll, one standing that really counts, and it's this one. So right now at least there has not been any conversation, up to now - and that doesn't mean there can't be some more - but there hasn't been any conversation up to now about releasing the poll before the final poll. Q. Do you think it hurts the credibility when stuff like this happens? MIKE SLIVE: Well, I can't try to explain. I mean, I can understand the facts. Actually I don't talk with the voters and I don't communicate with the voters. So when I walked in here this morning, I'm back from Atlanta, I sit around and wait for the information to come in and then take it as it comes. I would say this about our championship game, just historically, and this is without -- this is my sixth year as the commissioner of the SEC, and my second and last year as the BCS coordinator. In each of the three years that I've been here, three out of the six, we've had a team in the championship game, and each time that team I think made it to that game because of winning our championship game. But for having won that championship game, I'm not sure any of those teams would have been there. So part of the explanation I think to your question is winning our championship game, you know, is an important part of elevating our teams to the national championship. So I think that might help answer your question. Q. The rules say you don't have to play in that game. Do you need to address the rules to make that more clear? Mark Richter said so. MIKE SLIVE: I think Coach Richter has had a great year. You know, has indicated that he might want us to revisit the idea about the champion rule. That's what I thought I heard him say a few minutes ago. We've done that a couple of times. Georgia has had especially a great finish to their season, and then obviously co-champions of our eastern division, lost the tiebreaker to Tennessee, didn't make it to our championship game. Maybe therein lies the difference. Q. The thing that the sport has lacked through the decades is a Cinderella. Is that good or bad, and are we seeing maybe that take shape now? MIKE SLIVE: You know, what's interesting, there's an element of that. There certainly is an element of that. But it's adding something to what is a very exciting regular season, a very exciting sport. I won't get redundant because you have all been on this call before. But the idea that the sport is at its zenith in a sense, its pinnacle, Cinderellas add to that. Q. In baseball, as a fan Loren loves it. As a programmer, he loves it. But as a programmer, he would watch the networks saying, Great, Boise once; but Boise twice? I'm not so sure. MIKE SLIVE: Well, you know, that could be a point of view from Loren, who is now just retired and enjoying himself watching. The reality is what's important to us is finding a way. What we've done by doing this is increased the popularity of college football in every nook and cranny. Obviously, it isn't the same teams. It's giving everybody a shot. You know, last year was the classic we got a marriage and Boise won a great game. The talk went on. You know, this is about kids and giving kids a chance to play. Decisions have to be made. You can only put a couple of teams in Bowls. But the reality is more kids get a better shot, and that's really something that is of real value to us. Q. The plus one advocates out there, would a year like this, having a plus one, would that help? The three through six area is knotted. MIKE SLIVE: We have to put this one in the mix and look at it. If you go to a plus one, you're going to have years in which it is just very, very appropriate. You're going to have years where it may not be so appropriate. If you leave it the way it is, you're going to have years where it's very appropriate and you're going to have years like this one where maybe it isn't all that appropriate. The only way to solve that is to have a flexible format and just make sure that we look at the standings and then decide how to finish the year. It's an alliteration. The Final Four, the BCS having flexible formats. We can't do that. The answer to your question is - let me segue - whether or not this year is good or bad for a so-called plus one. I am still interested in exploring it in great detail. Q. Do you think if we ever get a plus one people are going to start crying for an eight teamer? MIKE SLIVE: Absolutely. Then I think what you'd have to do is you'd have to say two things. One, you'd have to say that football is a one-semester sport and it's not changing. We're not playing any later than we're playing now, and we're not going to play in December when we take exams. You know, in our league we don't play our Bowl games till the 29th or 30th. Those are concrete barriers, and that's the end of the story. Q. Do you need to do a better job of educating your voters on what your criteria is, or are you going to leave that up to each voter to determine? MIKE SLIVE: That's a good question. Q. Last night, if you watched ESPN, you would hear, You can't consider Georgia because they didn't win their division. As you noted, they were co-champion of the east division. They lost in a tiebreaker. Do you need, as a corporate entity, to say, This is what we're looking for and not this? MIKE SLIVE: That's a good question. You know, we've really kept a Chinese wall, so to speak. We've kept our distance from the voters. We don't really communicate. But I think that's an interesting question. I think it is one I will take to the table in April, whether or not there are some fundamental principles or concepts that we would expect voters to think about when they make their decisions. And they're free to make the decisions any way they deem appropriate, otherwise they're not a voter. But I think your point is well-taken. Q. If you do consider a plus one, procedurally what happens from here? When do you bring it up? Does it come up for a vote? You mentioned the table in April. What would have to happen? MIKE SLIVE: I think it starts out with some conversations amongst the commissioners and then I think people will -- all of us who are looking at it, you know, have to decide whether or not it's something we think, after looking at it, it has significant value and worth bringing in, and then ultimately working through that process. It's a decision made by each conference. Each conference votes what it thinks. Internally it brings to the table what it thinks is appropriate for the format, and then we would see what would happen there. But each conference has to decide for itself. That would really mean -- I think when I speak of the conference, I'm really talking about, you know, the recommendations and thoughts of the athletic directors for the presidents to make the final decision. Q. It wouldn't happen until after this FOX TV contract is over? MIKE SLIVE: For two reasons. And, again, remembering as we talk about this that the FOX contract is four years and the ABC contract is eight. It would seem to me that not only do we need to finish the FOX contract, but it would take that long to work through a process if there were to be a change. CHARLES BLOOM: That will conclude tonight's teleconference. We look forward to seeing you at a Bowl game this year. End of FastScripts |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
About ASAP Sports •
FastScripts Archive •
Recent Interviews •
Captioning •
Upcoming Events •
Contact Us
FastScripts | Events Covered | Our Clients | Other Services | ASAP in the News | Site Map | Job Opportunities | Links |
|
ASAP Sports, Inc. | T: 1.212 385 0297
|