conf champ games

[Spence]

The ACC and Big 12 conference title games are nothing more than glorified scrimmages and money-grabbing ventures (sort of like NFL preseason games).
We don't need them. Great performances over a season should be rewarded -- not cheapened by these conference title games.

Virginia Tech and Texas have had great seasons, but those seasons are at risk against mediocre teams and for no apparent reason, other than cash.

This is why Bob Stoops of Oklahoma has come out against having to play the games.

[Eric]

Well, if Virginia Tech and LSU were that good, then they should've won the game. FSU and Georgia are the champs of the SEC, they beat the team for the championship.

I don't think every conference should have a championship games. What works for other conferences doesn't for another.

[Eric]

Well, I think I've said this before on this board, but it's like when people say, "I think the NFL has the right playoff format."

Well, not really. Would that wildcard stuff work for hockey and basketball? They wouldn't have enough time for that because they'd have to play a series instead of a single game. Baseball too, they need to finish the season before it gets freezing, and during the course of a series in baseball, I think 4 teams from each league works. Would that work in footall? No. I think each proffessional league has got it right. Just like the 5 college football conferences have it right with the championship game.

[Spence]

I hope the Big 10 never has one. It would mess up "the game". That game usually has a hand in decideding the Big 10 anyway.

[Eric]

I agree with that, Spence. As long as those two schools play at the end of the year, there is bound to be some drama. It either comes down to Michigan/Ohio State or if this team loses/wins, this team wins the Big 10, like this year.

[Jason G]

Outside of the financial ramifications I don't think the BCS conferences have to much to gain from championship games in an average year.
For example, what if Colorado would have pulled the upset in the Big XII game this past season? Then that conference would not have been represented in the national championship game.

On the flip side, I think championship games are a good thing for non-BCS conferences. It gives programs much needed added exposure. Plus, if a league has a potential BCS buster it gives that team one more chance against a supposedly pretty decent opponent to show whether they do or do not belong in the BCS spotlight.

[Eric]

You know, Jason, you bring up an interesting point. I agree that the non-BCS schools need more exposure, since I'm a big fan of the WAC, MAC, and Sun Belt, I can catch on to what you're trying to say. Especially the Sun Belt. I know it would be crazy right now, but if you gave that conference 2 bids to bowl games, I think it would grow into a better conference. It isn't looking to pretty right now, and that's because the schools are smaller, get no exposure, and don't get to bowl games.

For the MAC, I think you could've made a case for Western Michigan, Northern Illinois, and Bowling Green. Had Jacobs been healthy all year long, Bowling Green could've gotten to a bowl game.

[Spence]

That is very true Jason. For those conferences a championship game is probably a good thing.

[Jason G]

I agree with your point about the Sun Belt but in many seasons that league has only had one team bowl eligible. A few years ago North Texas won the title and didn't have a winning record.

I agree they should have another bowl tie-in but they should only send multiple teams if those teams have winning records.

[Howdy]

this is for those of you that think that conf title games are special, and actually mean something to the rest of us...

Conference title games are a charade
By Rod Gilmore
Special to ESPN.com


The ACC and Big 12 conference title games are nothing more than glorified scrimmages and money-grabbing ventures (sort of like NFL preseason games).
We don't need them. Great performances over a season should be rewarded -- not cheapened by these conference title games.

Virginia Tech and Texas have had great seasons, but those seasons are at risk against mediocre teams and for no apparent reason, other than cash.

To bad Stoops wasn't in the big 12 at the start.
Tom Osborne was the only one to vote no for the title game.
But the other coaches in the conference wanted the extra dollars to come there way.
As you said,it cost Oklahoma a few years ago.

[Yeofoot]

All 12 coaches in the Big 12 voted against the conference championship game. All 12 Athletic Directors voter for the conference championship game. It gives the favorite something to be scared of, and it gives the underdog a shot at redemption. In the Big 12, it would mean a lot more, if the north and south would both be strong, but since Kansas State and Nebraska have not had the dominant teams they've had in the past, it seems pointless. But I'll guaruntee, there will be years that the two best teams in the country will face off in the Big 12 championship game, to decide who gets to win in the National Championship game. There's been some down years, but eventually, it's going to be like the 90s where the Super Bowl was decided 2 weeks prior in the NFC championship game between the 49ers and Cowboys. Whoever wins that game wins it all. The Big 12 championship game seems pointless right now, how the cards have fallen lately, but there will be years that it will mean a whole lot. To say they were pointless is the same as saying the regular season was pointless, all year long, everyone was waiting for UT to play USC in the Rose Bowl.

[colorado_loves_football]

If you guys stop to think about it, a conference championship is basically a way to 'settle it on the field' as far as co-championships are concerned.
The problem comes in when there are divisional co-champions, as you are referring to the SEC, and that was a problem, last year with the Big XII N. Divison. I'm not sure how those tie-breakers work, but they can be a problem, especially when there are three-way ties, to be broken up.
And it could be applied to the WAC, where Nevada and Boise St. tied. But had Fresno St. not lost to Nevada, I believe it was a possiblity for there to be a 3-way tie, between Louisana Tech, Boise St. and Fresno St.
That's because Fresno beat Boise, Boise beat Louisiana, and Louisiana beat Fresno, last game of the year. And, if I'm not mistaken, Nevada beat Louisana Tech, so even a 4-way tie, was conceivable.
So, how do you handle those situations? I"m not sure there is an easy way, myself, in 4-way ties, it's complicated.

[Yeofoot]

I think it would be a lot more fair if all the conferences had a conference championship game. It's funny, this year the BCS "worked out", but championship Saturday was a joke. It just goes to show, everyone always enjoys griping.

[Spence]

But with respect to the Big Ten, was Penn St. the 'concensus' champion?

Penn State got the automatic bid and beat Ohio State head to head, so yes I would say that Penn State was the "concensus" champ.

[Spence]

But with respect to the Big Ten, was Penn St. the 'concensus' champion?

Penn State got the automatic bid and beat Ohio State head to head, so yes I would say that Penn State was the "concensus" champ.