2011 BCS Championship Game: LSU vs Alabama, Why Big 12 Is to Blame!

In 2008, the Southeastern Conference had just won its second title in row. SEC commissioner Mike Slive proposed a plus-one playoff format change in the BCS. He wanted four conference champions to play in bowl games and then have the two winners play.

Out of those four, you are probably going to have the best and most deserving team as the champion. Enter Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe. The Big 12 had two BCS titles under its belt already thanks to Oklahoma back in 2000 and Texas in 2005. For two years in a row, he saw the SEC wipe the floor with Ohio State. Obviously the Big Ten would be against a playoff—they can't even handle one game. Does Beebe back Slive? Does Beebe see the benefit of a plus one? All he had to do was throw in his support.

Instead, the Big 12 commish leads the charge against the plus one.

In 2011, the college football world is in an uproar over the two SEC teams in the national title game. One is probably the most deserving 13-0 team in history, the other is 11-1, having already lost to the No. 1 team, not winning its own division or its own conference.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma State is sitting at home, whining that it got left out.

So why is the country furious at Alabama? What did they do? They played within the rules of the system. That is, a system that the SEC tried to change. A system that the SEC is still willing to change even after six straight titles.

The country should be mad at the Big 12. Not only did Oklahoma State blow their chance by blowing a 17-point lead against Iowa State (they actually have a team?), but the Big 12 could have had a dog in this hunt if they had backed the SEC almost four years ago.

Please quit with all of the SEC-hate-America talk. The SEC is the only conference trying to change the system when they have the least to gain by doing so. Oklahoma State fans must realize that their conference's commissioner is the one who screwed them.