Hi Pride, thanks for replying.
While I agree with most of your points, the fact that it was the SEC and Alabama that benefited from the current system is part of what has everybody on board for the +1 all of a sudden.
But here - to me - has to be the absolutely FUNNIEST part - when the SEC invoked the conference title game in 1992, there were warnings all over the place. "Don't do it - it will make an already extremely difficult task impossible." Keep in mind that Alabama was tied with a four-loss Florida team with a little over 3 minutes to go in that game. The other conferences were kinda laughing because it was going to put us in a fix. Now we all know, of course, that the difference from first to last in the SEC divisions is really NOT that far.
Here's some proof:
1995 - Arkansas won West, last in 1996
1996 - Alabama won West, last in 1997
1997 - Auburn won West, last in 1998
1999 - Alabama won West, last in 2000
While the argument can be made, "Well, those teams lost a bunch of seniors," that should not turn you from a 9-win team into a 3-win team.
So the conference title was going to hurt us. But then something happened - in the first 20 years of its existence there has only been ONE REAL UPSET in the SEC title game, LSU over Tennessee in 2001. The cream has risen to the top.
Remember, Slive introduce this 4-5 years ago and the only other commissioner that was in favor of it was the ACC. The Big 12 was adamantly against it. At the time, the PTB in the Big 12 could not foresee the almost demise of their conference and then a year later Ok State being the bell cow of the conference. They believed that either Texas or Oklahoma would be the conference champ most years.
All that is true. The Big XII would STILL be against it had nobody come close for them last year - because neither Texas nor OU wants to risk that extra game (insert 2001 Colorado upset over UT here). But they're on board now. To say it's a Bama thing is kinda crazy (not that you were).
Now - is there some "stop the SEC" to it? Sure.
You know what's funny? There's an EASIER way to do it. Simply schedule home and home games with the SEC and then BEAT THEM!!! I mean, you have to beat them anyway, so why not schedule them and take them out of the running by hoping you get them on an off day?
If this past season had played out basically the same way with Texas and Oklahoma as #1 and #2 and say Miss St at #3 having only one loss to Vandy (of course Bama, LSU, and Arky would have to have a down year), the outrage would have mostly come from SEC fans. Also, those that were so firmly against a rematch of LSU-Alabama (because Alabama already had their shot at the #1 team) would not have batted an eye if the rematch had been between LSU and a one-loss Oregon team that had already had their shot at the #1 team. Many of the sports media were actively promoting this match-up until 11/19.
Yeah, and you know the funny thing about that? They were touting that and then the moment Oregon lost they shifted gears and said, "no rematches." After talking non-stop about it for two weeks.
I think there has been enough commentary from other schools, conferences, boosters and national sports media to support the notion that the success of the SEC (and Alabama) and the fact that it doesn't look like its going to stop anytime soon have galvanized the college football world to ensure that this does not happen again.
I agree they're trying to stop the SEC, but let's not turn it into an anti-Bama thing.