conference game

[Eric the Red]

Is conference football title game obsolete?

 

BY BRIAN ROSENTHAL / Lincoln Journal Star

Friday, Apr 14, 2006 - 12:10:20 am CDT

 

Big 12 Conference athletic directors and coaches frequently discuss the pros and cons of playing a conference championship football game. The topic, says Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg, is usually brought up, in some form, each year.

 

Could the NCAA’s addition of a 12th regular-season game give a spark to those talks?

 

Nebraska athletic director Steve Pederson said the expanded schedule could lead to discussions about the future of the league’s title game.

 

“I think that’s already been talked about a little bit, but not as much in depth,” Pederson said. “Now you’re playing more games. You’re trying to sandwich more into a shorter period of time. I think that’s going to cause some discussion of that.”

 

Advertisement

 

 

 

 

Weiberg said no active review of the championship game is planned for the Big 12’s spring meetings, May 22-25 in Colorado Springs, Colo., although he expects the topic, again, to be broached. He said the last in-depth look at the game was four years ago.

 

More prominent on the agenda, Weiberg said, will be discussion of playing a nine-game conference schedule. That’s in response to the NCAA’s new 12-game schedule, which goes into effect this season.

 

Playing nine league games, Weiberg said, would help prevent problems athletic directors are already facing in filling a four-game nonconference schedule.

 

While that doesn’t necessarily spell the demise of the conference championship game, some coaches and athletic directors wouldn’t mind seeing that result.

 

When asked his views on the future of the championship game, Oklahoma coach Bob Stoops responded: “To me, it should look pretty shaky to everyone.”

 

The Big 12 has played a title game every year since the league’s inception in 1996. The advantages and disadvantages have been well-documented. Proponents like the game because it’s more exposure and money for the league. Opponents say it can do more harm than good, and point to 1998, when Kansas State lost the Big 12 game and, in turn, a chance to play for the national championship.

 

Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds, who’s against playing a league championship game, said he’d rather see an 11-game regular season, followed by a playoff.

 

“But we’re not in a perfect world,” Dodds said.

 

Dodds said the championship game generates some $800,000 per Big 12 school, a big reason he doesn’t believe the game will disappear.

 

“If you took a vote now, it’d be 9-3 or 8-4 (in favor of keeping the game),” said Dodds, noting Texas, Oklahoma and Nebraska, and possibly Texas A&M, would probably vote against the game. “We just can’t change it. We just don’t have the votes.”

 

Texas won the first Big 12 title game, upsetting Nebraska in 1996. The Longhorns were upset by Colorado in 2001, denying them a possible Rose Bowl berth, and last season played what amounted to a meaningless game, throttling Colorado 70-3 in the Big 12 championship en route to winning the Rose Bowl and the national championship.

 

“Colorado didn’t want to play it. They were in a tailspin,” Dodds said. “We didn’t want to play it. We didn’t need the win to go to the national championship.”

 

Stoops suggested playing a nine-game conference schedule and scrapping the North-South divisions. “It blends the conference better,” he said.

 

Nebraska coach Bill Callahan, though, said he’s in favor of playing the conference championship game.

 

“I like the divisional aspect, both teams fighting to capture their own division, get a playoff atmosphere, another game,” Callahan said. “You’re playing for everything. Possibly playing against an opponent you haven’t played during the regular season.

 

“It’s intriguing. I think the way the Big 12 is structured, the way they have set the format of the playoff, I’m in favor of it.”

 

First-year Kansas State coach Ron Prince agreed, saying the game gives the Big 12 an opportunity to put the conference on a national stage.

 

“I can’t put my finger on how it might affect the future … but I can say from a fan standpoint and coaches’ standpoint, that’s the game we want to get into,” Prince said. “If you’re playing in that game, you have a chance to play your way into a BCS game.”

 

Weiberg said the Big 12 championship game is guaranteed through 2007 because of the league’s television contract with ABC. That contract expires following the 2007 season, and Weiberg said negotiations will begin that winter.

 

As for a nine-game conference schedule, the earliest that could happen would be 2008; the league schedules are set through 2007. Weiberg said he’d like to schedule another four years in advance, and possibly eight years.

 

The future of the championship game, then, could depend partly on how the league decides to format future schedules.

 

Of the BCS conferences, the Southeastern Conference has the longest-running championship game, followed by the Big 12. The Atlantic Coast Conference added a league championship game last season.

 

As for the future of title games in other leagues?

 

“Those that don’t have it won’t get it,” Dodds said, “and those who have it can’t get rid of it.”

 

Reach Brian Rosenthal at 743-7436 or brosenthal@journalstar.com. Journal Star sports editor John Mabry and assistant sports editor Todd Henrichs contributed to this story.

[HUSKERbyNATURE]

I love the title game, but I would also love to play more teams in the south each year. There are so many ways that you could build a schedule in the Big 12 with the North and South, or just scrap that and have no divisions.

 

Would I scrap the Title game if it meant we would get a playoff....yes, I think that is where we should be trying to get to.

[bennychico11]

I'm for keeping it. I agree with Callahan. A bowl game is great to root for during the season, but I always like keeping track of the conference race first. And seeing how most of us follow the Big XII games more than any other conference's...I think most people like to see the top two teams of the divisions play for bragging rights. Especially during seasons where maybe Nebraska is really good and so is Texas...but during regular season we would never know who is better because they didn't play eachother.

And I don't know why they are complaining about the championship game hurting a teams chance to play in the National Championship. That's the way it should be! If Texas had lost to Colorado in the December game, Texas shouldn't have been allowed to play for a National Championship trophy. But they killed Colorado, and rightly so....Colorado deserved it in my opinion because they didn't deserve to be there (but that's another rant all together).

My ideal schedule would be to implement a tournament of some sort like Basketball gets, but that's never going to happen.

 

sooo...I say keep it.

[born red]

I don't like the fact that if you beat somebody in the regular season, there is always the chance you will have to beat them again in the championship game....just my $0.02

[NUpolo8]

I'm of the opinion that there aren't enough conf. championship games. -quick disclaimer- They are of course nothing but cash grabs, but they do serve a purpose. I think if every major conference had a championship game, it would help legitimize every champion and it would give them one last test before their BCS bid.

 

In an ideal world, I think it could make schedules tougher. FOr example, there has been fleeting talk about the PAC 10 inviting Utah, BYU and even Fresno St. to join. If they became, say the PAC 12, they could easily divide the conf. into a north and south division. A USC could then play Oregon twice (once in season and again the championship), or alternate their schedule and pick up a non conf. game similar to what Texas and OSU did.

 

Anyway, that's one step I'd like to see done, I think it would end a lot of controversey

[pigsonthewing]

i just hope they dont desolve it before we get a chance to get there one more time and win the whole bloody thing.

[bennychico11]

i just hope they dont desolve it before we get a chance to get there one more time and win the whole bloody thing.

oh, no need to worry about that....that will be this coming season

[AR Husker Fan]

Oh, the irony. I imagine a lot of presidents are feeling that they need to take a stand against title games with a 12 game being provided - after all, they're the ones that have fought a playoff on the grounds that the season would be too long...

[husker rob]

I like the title game except for when the two teams have already played during the year.

 

But the title games for all of the confrences that have them are hugh cash cows for them and I dont see them going away anytime soon.