Conference Championship Games are a joke (usually)

[JTrain]

I'm sorry, but TO was right. Championship games are very often unnecessary. They are mostly a way for the conference to rack up more cash. Although there may be practical problems with this, the only fair solution is to make these games contingent on the standings. The only time they should be played is if the Div. A champion and the Div. B champion: a) didn't play each other in the regular season AND B) are within one game in the conference standings (such as, 7-1 vs. 8-0). Otherwise this game is pointless and unfair to the team with the clearly superior record. The Big 12 is a perfect example this season.

Texas will likely go into the game with a Big 12 record of 8-0. Let's say the North champion is Kansas St. with a record of 5-3. Why should this so-called championship game be played? Think about it with an open mind. It's just a game. Other than a pretty logo and a neutral field, this is just another Big 12 game. So let's say KSU has a miracle game, get's a few crazy turnovers and beats Texas 21-20. Well, now KSU gets crowed as "Big 12 Champions". This doesn't make sense. KSU finishes with a 6-3 conference record compared to Texas' 8-1. How on earth is KSU the conference champion?

To make the scenario even more absurd, let's say the same thing happens, only with Mizzou instead of KSU coming in with the 5-3 record. And Mizzou pulls out the crazy upset 21-20. It is ridiculous to call the Tigers conference champions in this case, even a little more ridiculous than the KSU case, because Mizzou and Texas ALREADY PLAYED. Texas went to Columbia and dominated 41-7! So now you have a Mizzou team with a 6-3 conference record being crowned over a Texas team with a 8-1 conference record, and the two are 1-1 against each other (41-7 Texas win in Columbia and 21-20 Mizzou win at neutral site). There is no logic behind this. But just because the greedy people in charge dub it as the "Conference Championship Game" we are supposed to be fooled into thinking it is anything more than one game out of a 13 game season.

Now, under certain scenarios, a championship game makes sense. The SEC this season will probably turn out that way, with Alabama and Florida having the same record and not having played each other already.

 

[zoogs]

I think your last paragraph takes away everything else you said up there.

 

[JTrain]

The paragraph about the SEC? What do you mean? My entire point was that they should be contingent on the final regular season standings.

 

[dbetz23]

Remember the one where Vince Young ran all over CU. I think it was 2005. 70-3.

 

[Pasadena Husker]

agreed. simply a way for the conference to make more money. which i suppose has some benefits as well.

 

[husker B-rent]

disagreed.

if you win on a neutral field at the END of the season, then you are the better team no matter if the other team had 5 turnovers. you forced those 5 turnovers therefore you are the better team at the END of the season.

it doesnt matter what you did in week one, just like in the NFL it doesnt matter what you did in week one, only what you did in week 13.

look at the cardinals of the NFL last season, they were not a very good team during the first few weeks of the NFL season but by the end of the season they were CLEARLY the number 2 team in the league...

 

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

disagreed.

if you win on a neutral field at the END of the season, then you are the better team no matter if the other team had 5 turnovers. you forced those 5 turnovers therefore you are the better team at the END of the season.

it doesnt matter what you did in week one, just like in the NFL it doesnt matter what you did in week one, only what you did in week 13.

look at the cardinals of the NFL last season, they were not a very good team during the first few weeks of the NFL season but by the end of the season they were CLEARLY the number 2 team in the league...

Kansas State vs Oklahoma. Who was the better team?

 

[JTrain]

disagreed.

if you win on a neutral field at the END of the season, then you are the better team no matter if the other team had 5 turnovers. you forced those 5 turnovers therefore you are the better team at the END of the season.

it doesnt matter what you did in week one, just like in the NFL it doesnt matter what you did in week one, only what you did in week 13.

look at the cardinals of the NFL last season, they were not a very good team during the first few weeks of the NFL season but by the end of the season they were CLEARLY the number 2 team in the league...

A championship has traditionally always been a season accomplishment. Are you trying to say it should simply be who performs the best in the final week? If Minnesota beats 11-0 Iowa 70-0 in the final game, should the Gophers be crowned Big 10 champions despite a bad Big 10 record over the course of the season? According to your philosophy, I guess they should.

Or consider on a national level. Let's say Florida had some injuries and bad luck and lost their first 5 games. However, they got everyone back and started clicking, and eventually became dominant, beating their final three opponents by an average score of 50-3. Since they are clearly a top two team at the end, they should play for the national title despite being 7-5 under your philosophy.

 

[UGAHusker]

Ok. Lets pretend that Oregon and Boise State are in the same conference. Since Boise beat Oregon at the beginning of the year, we should assume that come the end of the year, Boise would not only win again, but would win on a neutral field?

Things change throughout the season, conference championships can mean a lot.

 

[JTrain]

Ok. Lets pretend that Oregon and Boise State are in the same conference. Since Boise beat Oregon at the beginning of the year, we should assume that come the end of the year, Boise would not only win again, but would win on a neutral field?

Things change throughout the season, conference championships can mean a lot.

So your philosophy is that games in September don't matter, or matter relatively little compared to later games? I've always believed, especially in football where there aren't very many games per season, that each game should count equally. I believe Boise State's win against Oregon should count just as much as Oregon's win against USC. Otherwise you are completely devaluing non-conference play because of the way most schedules are set up.

 

[UGAHusker]

Ok. Lets pretend that Oregon and Boise State are in the same conference. Since Boise beat Oregon at the beginning of the year, we should assume that come the end of the year, Boise would not only win again, but would win on a neutral field?

Things change throughout the season, conference championships can mean a lot.

So your philosophy is that games in September don't matter, or matter relatively little compared to later games? I've always believed, especially in football where there aren't very many games per season, that each game should count equally. I believe Boise State's win against Oregon should count just as much as Oregon's win against USC. Otherwise you are completely devaluing non-conference play because of the way most schedules are set up.

I can see what you're saying, but I think it's important to recognize the best teams AT THE END OF THE YEAR. Teams are suppoused to get better as the year goes on and I feel that the ones that do should be rewarded. Trust me, I'll give KSucks props if they, having lost to La-Lafayette, beat Nebraska (who beat La-Lafayette 55-0) for improving throughout the year, but you're right, every game should be important.

 

[HuskerNMO]

Of course it's all about the money, and they are often entertaining. Going by your theory every bowl game should be optional also, right?

 

[Never Skerd']

"A championship has traditionally always been a season accomplishment. Are you trying to say it should simply be who performs the best in the final week? If Minnesota beats 11-0 Iowa 70-0 in the final game, should the Gophers be crowned Big 10 champions despite a bad Big 10 record over the course of the season? According to your philosophy, I guess they should."

This doesn't make sense. If the Gophers are in the Championship they didn't just play well the last game of the season. Also, a 70-0 win over Iowa would end all questions who is better.

Of course the championship game means something, the Big 12 is separated into North and South. Not every team plays each other. So who are you to say Texas has played the harder side of the fray? They don't have to play us? I think that is fortunate for them. There is still plenty of football to be played.

Hypothetically, if NU ends up playing Texas in Dallas and we win, you think Texas got hosed? That doesn't make any sense.

The conference wants to send its best team to represent them so I think it is a very good idea to have the top 2 teams play to see who is playing at the highest level in order to do this. Also, the neutral field is huge.

You act like we are playing the last place team vs the best. It is 1 vs 2. And if you think 2 teams from the South should play then we should drop all non-conference games and just play vs everyone in the Big 12 and whoever comes out on top at the end of the year is truly the victor.

 

[Never Skerd']

"so your philosophy is that games in September don't matter, or matter relatively little compared to later games?"

I will respond to this.

Of course they do, Their wins over their conference opponents in September are just as good as the ones they have in November. Do you know how they choose conference champions????

Should Oregons loss be taken into consideration in who the Pac 10 champion is? No of course not, they are not in the Pac 10.

When all is said and done the computers factor in a lot through strength of schedule etc through out the season to see who really deserves to be in the big games. Do you know how these things work?

 

[JTrain]

"so your philosophy is that games in September don't matter, or matter relatively little compared to later games?"

I will respond to this.

Of course they do, Their wins over their conference opponents in September are just as good as the ones they have in November. Do you know how they choose conference champions????

Should Oregons loss be taken into consideration in who the Pac 10 champion is? No of course not, they are not in the Pac 10.

When all is said and done the computers factor in a lot through strength of schedule etc through out the season to see who really deserves to be in the big games. Do you know how these things work?

:facepalm:

You are missing my arguments entirely. Read my initial post with more focus. I already covered most of your objections. And yes, I know how these things work. Computers don't factor into conference championship game appearances unless there is a three-way tiebreaker.