Conference Championship Games are a joke (usually)

[JTrain]

I get what you're trying to say... hypothetically, NU, KSU and KU could all be great teams, and ISU, CU and MU could all be really terrible. And there is a chance Texas just so happened to have the latter three on their schedule. So they don't have to play the North powers and go 8-0, while the North champ has two losses. But in that case, there is no way the North team would have two losses. They would have one or fewer. If they had two losses, they wouldn't be that great. NU couldn't lose to KSU and KU and still get in, could they? Because if those three teams were all great, losing to the other two would mean you wouldn't be able to win the division. You could lose one, but then the CCG should still be played under my stipulations.

[JTrain]

A contingent game doesn't work in football IMO. Too big an event to just say "well we might have it some years, we'll let you all know at season's end."

 

Not like baseball where nobody cares anyway and there are a billion games in a season, so what's an extra tiebreaker game if you need one. It is frustrating other leagues don't need to deal with it, but that's life and you can't force conferences to do something like this.

 

Yes, I hear you. And I even said that it would be tough to do for practical purposes. But it certainly would be the most fair way to do it.

[newenglandhusker]

A contingent game doesn't work in football IMO. Too big an event to just say "well we might have it some years, we'll let you all know at season's end."

 

Not like baseball where nobody cares anyway and there are a billion games in a season, so what's an extra tiebreaker game if you need one. It is frustrating other leagues don't need to deal with it, but that's life and you can't force conferences to do something like this.

Yes, I hear you. And I even said that it would be tough to do for practical purposes. But it certainly would be the most fair way to do it.

Theoretically another way to do this 'fairly' would be to limit the number of scholarships any team can have and do away with programs to allow athletes to qualify with restrictions if their academics are not up to snuff...

[husker B-rent]

ugh.

 

just because one team has an 8-0 record it does NOT mean that they are better than a 4-4 team, especially if they arent playing entirely the same schedule!

 

there is a reason that people in the media say that a loss early in the season hurts less than a loss at the end of the season....it gives you a longer/better chance to climb back up in the rankings.

 

end of the season games do matter more because of A. the rankings and B. strength of the teams at time of the game.

[Never Skerd']

"but it would never be like that in reality."

 

You have NO idea what will happen in football or 5 years from now my friend. The North could be better than the South next year.

 

I think we could all sit here and name more situations where a Conf. Championship makes sense rather than not...

 

I get the feeling you are the "lets give USC the national championship before the season even starts because they have the most 5 stars" kind of guy....

[junior4949]

Here's my take. If all conferences in D1 play them, the Big 12 should as well. If not all conferences in D1 play them, then the Big 12 shouldn't. It screwed us in 96'. It screwed KState in 98'. When was the last time the Big 12 Championship game was even competitive?

[Never Skerd']

2006

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_12_Championship_Game

[husker98]

Actually have that CCG at the end of the year has benefited us and the SEC quite a bit.

 

thats one more game for us while the teams that don't have a conference championship game do nothing.

 

this has been no more evident than OSU's demolition in multiple NC tries a couple years ago. the cause most like was the 30 or 40 so day's with out playing a live game.

 

for teams bowl bounded this hasn't harmed them the least bit either.

 

my only beef with the current system is how it has destroyed the NU OU rivalry game.

[JTrain]

"but it would never be like that in reality."

 

You have NO idea what will happen in football or 5 years from now my friend. The North could be better than the South next year.

 

I think we could all sit here and name more situations where a Conf. Championship makes sense rather than not...

 

I get the feeling you are the "lets give USC the national championship before the season even starts because they have the most 5 stars" kind of guy....

 

 

You need to read my arguments sentence by sentence. Your objections have absolutely nothing to do with what I'm actually saying.

[JTrain]

Actually have that CCG at the end of the year has benefited us and the SEC quite a bit.

 

thats one more game for us while the teams that don't have a conference championship game do nothing.

 

this has been no more evident than OSU's demolition in multiple NC tries a couple years ago. the cause most like was the 30 or 40 so day's with out playing a live game.

 

for teams bowl bounded this hasn't harmed them the least bit either.

 

my only beef with the current system is how it has destroyed the NU OU rivalry game.

 

My argument isn't about whether or not it helps the teams involved play well in their bowl game. It is simply about developing a sound and fair philosophy on what it means to be the "champion" of something (in this case, a conference). My issue, to put it as simply as I can, has to do with the arbitrary value being placed on the so-called championship games. A fair championship game should feature two deserving teams who have not played each other. That has always been the idea. It should act as a tiebreaker of sorts, matching two teams with roughly equal resumes. Championships should not be about who plays the best in the final week. College football has never been about that. If that was the case, the 7-5 Florida team I mentioned in a previous example should play for the National Championship, considering they are playing better than anyone in the country at the end of the year. But a championship is a season accomplishment, not a final week accomplishment. If you believe a championship should be awarded based on the most talented or well-performing team in the final week, then you have to take seriously my Iowa-Minnesota game example. If a Minnesota team is 3-4 in Big 10 play, dominates an Iowa team that is 7-0 in Big 10 play by a score of 70-0, who should be crowned Big 10 champion and get the bid to the Rose Bowl? Is it Iowa, who has the best conference record (7-1) or is it Minnesota, who is clearly the best team at the end of the regular season, but has a 4-4 conference record?

[Never Skerd']

I just completely disagree with you.

So a team that ends up second in the conference isn't deserving? even if the first time they played each other, the 2nd place team was on the road?

[Never Skerd']

I don't think anyone think whoever has the most talent should be deserving of a championship, it is who wins games.

[sd'sker]

I don't think anyone think whoever has the most talent should be deserving of a championship, it is who wins games.

That's the great thing about sports, you play to win the game.

[Bdaily]

Just watch the games its COLLEGE FOOTBALL! I for one will not complain if i get to see more of it.

[BeachBuffs]

Assuming Texas wins the CCG will this be the first year in 7 years that the Big 12 won't have two teams in BCS bowls?

 

Scratch that, I was wrong two years ago we only had OU.