Rematches are dumb

[JTrain]

Let's not use real teams to keep any emotions at bay.

 

Team A and Team B are in the same conference, different divisions. They play each other twice in one season, splitting the series 1-1.

 

Team A goes 7-1 in the conference, with a close loss to team B.

Team B goes 5-3 in the conference, with a blowout loss to team A along with two other losses.

 

Who is deserving of the conference championship? Obviously Team A, right?

 

But in reality, Team B is crowned champions. This is because they managed to win a fairly weak division, then get a few breaks to beat Team A in the "Championship Game". I put it in quotes because the label is arbitrary. The game is no different than any other games. The rules are the same. By most standards of fairness, Team A should be champions, since the two teams split the series and Team A had a better conference record.

[mmmtodd]

eh. its called a "championship game." however you get there, get there. then win. youre the champ. simple concept.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

Let's not use real teams to keep any emotions at bay.

 

Team A and Team B are in the same conference, different divisions. They play each other twice in one season, splitting the series 1-1.

 

Team A goes 7-1 in the conference, with a close loss to team B.

Team B goes 5-3 in the conference, with a blowout loss to team A along with two other losses.

 

Who is deserving of the conference championship? Obviously Team A, right?

 

But in reality, Team B is crowned champions. This is because they managed to win a fairly weak division, then get a few breaks to beat Team A in the "Championship Game". I put it in quotes because the label is arbitrary. The game is no different than any other games. The rules are the same. By most standards of fairness, Team A should be champions, since the two teams split the series and Team A had a better conference record.

Your argument then would mean every playoff system out there be it NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA Basketball, etc are "dumb".

[JTrain]

eh. its called a "championship game." however you get there, get there. then win. youre the champ. simple concept.

 

You're just accepting the arbitrary distinction then. You should question it. Just because someone in power calls it the championship game, doesn't mean there is good reason for it.

[mmmtodd]

eh. its called a "championship game." however you get there, get there. then win. youre the champ. simple concept.

 

You're just accepting the arbitrary distinction then. You should question it. Just because someone in power calls it the championship game, doesn't mean there is good reason for it.

 

it is what it is. those in power made it that way. if you dont like it, get in power and change it to the "stupid end of year game that jtrain doesnt like." i think you just want to question it to question it.

 

think about it tho...they do have a place. we had a chance to prove ourselves last year and nab a trip to a bcs game because of the big 12's arbitrary game . we had 3 losses. we lost. holiday bowl here we come.

[Lil' Red]

eh. its called a "championship game." however you get there, get there. then win. youre the champ. simple concept.

 

You're just accepting the arbitrary distinction then. You should question it. Just because someone in power calls it the championship game, doesn't mean there is good reason for it.

 

I would question it but it seems to work pretty good and I can't think of any better alternatives. If you lose in a Championship game why should you be champion?

[Malth]

CCG games are a farce.

 

Eliminate them completely and just go to a playoff system

[JTrain]

Let's not use real teams to keep any emotions at bay.

 

Team A and Team B are in the same conference, different divisions. They play each other twice in one season, splitting the series 1-1.

 

Team A goes 7-1 in the conference, with a close loss to team B.

Team B goes 5-3 in the conference, with a blowout loss to team A along with two other losses.

 

Who is deserving of the conference championship? Obviously Team A, right?

 

But in reality, Team B is crowned champions. This is because they managed to win a fairly weak division, then get a few breaks to beat Team A in the "Championship Game". I put it in quotes because the label is arbitrary. The game is no different than any other games. The rules are the same. By most standards of fairness, Team A should be champions, since the two teams split the series and Team A had a better conference record.

Your argument then would mean every playoff system out there be it NFL, NBA, NHL, NCAA Basketball, etc are "dumb".

 

It's a good point, and in a sense I think they are dumb. Because there is a padded value added to postseason that doesn't really exist outside of people's minds. I think postseason should essentially be a way to break the tie between teams of nearly equal qualification who didn't play in the regular season. College football comes the closest to this ideal. In college football, the national champion really is the team who had the best season, at least more so than most other sports, where the regular season exists only as a qualifier for the postseason.

[JTrain]

eh. its called a "championship game." however you get there, get there. then win. youre the champ. simple concept.

 

You're just accepting the arbitrary distinction then. You should question it. Just because someone in power calls it the championship game, doesn't mean there is good reason for it.

 

it is what it is. those in power made it that way. if you dont like it, get in power and change it to the "stupid end of year game that jtrain doesnt like." i think you just want to question it to question it.

 

think about it tho...they do have a place. we had a chance to prove ourselves last year and nab a trip to a bcs game because of the big 12's arbitrary game . we had 3 losses. we lost. holiday bowl here we come.

 

I definitely won't be spending 30+ years working my way up to a position of power within NCAA athletics. That doesn't mean we can't have an analytical discussion about whether there are fairer alternatives to the current line of thinking.

[Enhance]

Let's not use real teams to keep any emotions at bay.

 

Team A and Team B are in the same conference, different divisions. They play each other twice in one season, splitting the series 1-1.

 

Team A goes 7-1 in the conference, with a close loss to team B.

Team B goes 5-3 in the conference, with a blowout loss to team A along with two other losses.

 

Who is deserving of the conference championship? Obviously Team A, right?

 

But in reality, Team B is crowned champions. This is because they managed to win a fairly weak division, then get a few breaks to beat Team A in the "Championship Game". I put it in quotes because the label is arbitrary. The game is no different than any other games. The rules are the same. By most standards of fairness, Team A should be champions, since the two teams split the series and Team A had a better conference record.

So if we had beat Texas last year, you would have still called Texas the Big 12 champion?

 

I see your point, but non championship systems can be just as flawed as championship system. Nothing is perfect.

[NUance]

Rematches are dumb

$$$ > dumbness

[mmmtodd]

eh. its called a "championship game." however you get there, get there. then win. youre the champ. simple concept.

 

You're just accepting the arbitrary distinction then. You should question it. Just because someone in power calls it the championship game, doesn't mean there is good reason for it.

 

it is what it is. those in power made it that way. if you dont like it, get in power and change it to the "stupid end of year game that jtrain doesnt like." i think you just want to question it to question it.

 

think about it tho...they do have a place. we had a chance to prove ourselves last year and nab a trip to a bcs game because of the big 12's arbitrary game . we had 3 losses. we lost. holiday bowl here we come.

 

I definitely won't be spending 30+ years working my way up to a position of power within NCAA athletics. That doesn't mean we can't have an analytical discussion about whether there are fairer alternatives to the current line of thinking.

so this is really a playoff thread in disguise?

 

and if so, what happens when you get put on the same side of a bracket with a team you beat previously?

[mmmtodd]

side note: i hate it when people keep replying on top of replies making the page 6 miles long...and look what im doing...

[Never Skerd']

In conference round robin,

Playoff of Conferences.

 

Simple fix IMO.

[Lava]

side note: i hate it when people keep replying on top of replies making the page 6 miles long...and look what im doing...

 

 

Agreed. People need to learn to delete the quotes other than the one they're directly responding to.