Conference Championship Games are a joke (usually)

[junior4949]

"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....

Really? When? In 2001, the conference championship didn't mean much now did it? In 2003, the conference championship didn't mean much now did it? In the past 5 years, the championship game has been a complete joke. It appears that the 2009 game will be a joke as well.

In terms of the Big 12, I think we all can name more situation where the conference championshit didn't make sense rather than did...

 

[Never Skerd']

Junior...

2006 we lost to OU 21-7 that isnt an a$$ kicking.

 

[junior4949]

21-7 isn't exactly a close game either. I stand by my point that there's been more times than not that the Big 12 Championship game didn't make sense than it has.

 

[clone]

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

IMO-- you either play a championship game or you don't.

you don't pick and choose which year to have one.

B12 should NOT have one. Shouldn't have a north/south either.

everyone should play everyone, 12 teams = 11 games, only one non-conference game and there are plenty of cupcakes built in.

record determines champ for bowl purposes.

 

[Vince from ShamWOW]

Championship games are very often unnecessary. They are mostly a way for the conference to rack up more cash.

This is true. However looking at the horrible TV contract (compared to the SEC and Big 11) The Big 12 has, they need all the money they can find.

Someday they will get a top notch commissioner that will negotiate a killer TV contract equal to, if not greater than the Big 12.

 

[junior4949]

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

IMO-- you either play a championship game or you don't.

you don't pick and choose which year to have one.

B12 should NOT have one. Shouldn't have a north/south either.

everyone should play everyone, 12 teams = 11 games, only one non-conference game and there are plenty of cupcakes built in.

record determines champ for bowl purposes.

:yeah

This is what I've been saying for years. Have every team play each other, then we don't need the championship game. As far as I'm concerned, this is how the other conferences should do it as well.

 

[sd'sker]

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

IMO-- you either play a championship game or you don't.

you don't pick and choose which year to have one.

B12 should NOT have one. Shouldn't have a north/south either.

everyone should play everyone, 12 teams = 11 games, only one non-conference game and there are plenty of cupcakes built in.

record determines champ for bowl purposes.

:yeah

This is what I've been saying for years. Have every team play each other, then we don't need the championship game. As far as I'm concerned, this is how the other conferences should do it as well.

not that i necessarily disagree, but what about tiebreakers?

 

[junior4949]

Don't we already have tiebreakers in place to decide who even plays in the championship game? I'd assume they'd use the same tiebreakers we already have in place.