Those are called hypotheticals. Please read my entire initial post. It all fits together. Conference championship game should be held on a contingent basis. I detailed the conditions under which they would be necessary. I am not predicting KSU to win the North or Texas to go 8-0 (although I think the latter is likely). I was simply giving possible examples. If Texas loses two games in the remaining schedule and Nebraska or KSU finished 5-3 or 6-2, then there is reason to hold the championship game. However, if one division champ is separated by two or more games, the championship game doesn't prove anything. It is a meaningless game played for money. I am only repeating myself here. This is all in the initial post.
Now, if you hold a different philosophy and believe the later a game is played, the more value it holds in crowning a champion, then you can disregard my argument. I hold that every game should be looked at as equal, that is the assumption and I see nothing in the NCAA literature that would make me change my mind on that.
If it makes it easier for you, throw out the names. Imagine Team A is 8-0 in conference and Team B is 4-4 in conference. However, Team B still managed to win its division. Team A plays Team B the final game of the season and Team B pulls the upset. The final conference records are: Team A 8-1, Team B 5-4. Who is the most deserving team to be crowned as the champion? Well, to me it's obvious. Despite the loss, Team A's record is far superior. They have the better conference resume and have performed better and more consistently over the course of the season. The entire season matters, not just the final game (this is where the Minnesota-Iowa example comes up... these two actually play this year in the final game, and if Minny blows them out, I don't think many will argue that Minny should be Big 10 champs since they played the best at the end of the season).
)
