conf champ games

Say it all here
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:43 pm

I think I understand how the Big Ten selects a conference champion, but if mmory serves, it's an imperfect 'science' especially if two or more teams are 'tied' and haven't played. Northwestern got to the Rose Bowl, I believe in 1995 only because someone lost, that they were tied with.
The next year, they 'tied' with someone for the honor, rather than have it exclusively to themselves.
I agree the championship games themselves sometimes cloud, rather than 'clear' the picture, but that's partly due to the way teams are selected. Pairing the two most deserving teams, would likely resolve that problem altogether. Big XII championship, probably ought to have paired Texas and Texas Tech together, for competitive reasons, but that still wouldnt' necessarily given a 'better' champion in Texas. So, it works, and that's really all that matters, after it's all said and done.
Colorado 'earned' the right to go to Houston, although they would have been a better representative had they not lost to Iowa State, & Nebraska.
They could have beaten Iowa State, but they were never in the Nebraska game. But Nebraska lost to Kansas, and several other teams, so it's hard to argue they were more deserving than Colorado was, and it's irrelevant in any respect. Colorado went and lost. Texas won, and likely would have beaten Nebraska too. Getting it right in the end, is what matter most, and they did.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Mon Feb 13, 2006 5:58 pm

This is true, but if Michigan beats Ohio State, we are looking at a different 'automatic' bid, are we not?
Maybe you're happy with how the Big Ten, but I'm not.
The BCS isn't perfect, not by a long shot, but combined with conference championship games, it works. Penn State probably was the 'concensus' champions by most people's definitions, but they sure had a hard time beating Michigan State.
I'm a traditionalist, I like traditional pairings, but I don't agree that one team dominated the Big Ten, this year. It's not always going to come down to Michigan vs. Ohio State, believe it or not. It's nice when it does, but you can't bank on it, every year. Wisconsin probably should have won the Big Ten outright, this year, but they didn't to give Barry Alvarez a nice 'going away' present.


If Michigan beat Ohio State, Penn state would have won out right. The only way Michigan would have got the bid is for Penn State to have gotten beat by Michigan St.

The Ohio State - Michigan game has decided the B-10, directly or indirectly, more often then not for the last 50 years. One or both of these teams are almost always in the hunt for the title.

Anything that would take away from that game I am against. More importantly, anything that would take away from that game the BA-10 and the schools are against. It is one of 5 or 6 top games every year in CFB. To destroy that game like the Big 12 did to the Nebraska - Oklahoma game would be criminal.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:19 pm

Spence wrote:If Michigan beat Ohio State, Penn state would have won out right. The only way Michigan would have got the bid is for Penn State to have gotten beat by Michigan St.

The Ohio State - Michigan game has decided the B-10, directly or indirectly, more often then not for the last 50 years. One or both of these teams are almost always in the hunt for the title.

Anything that would take away from that game I am against. More importantly, anything that would take away from that game the BA-10 and the schools are against. It is one of 5 or 6 top games every year in CFB. To destroy that game like the Big 12 did to the Nebraska - Oklahoma game would be criminal.
I think a Big Ten championship would be an excellent way to send one team to the BCS.
It's not always going to come down to Ohio St.-Michigan, just like it didn't last year. Sure, they are most likely to be the 'best' in their division, so it could decide which team goes to the championship game.
That, in my opinion, is a 'fair' way to settle it, on the playing field, while honoring tradition.
Last edited by colorado_loves_football on Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:29 pm

Spence, times are changing.
You all but admitted that the Ohio St. vs. Michigan game really didn't determine the Big Ten champion, this year. Penn St. won it outright


Penn State didn't win it out right. They tied with Ohio State. There will be a B-10 championship banner hung with Ohio State's name on it. So it did help determine the out come. Times aren't changing that much.

The B-10 took Penn St. because they have an excellent research facility. All big 10 schools do. Athletics isn't the only thing considered when inviting a team into the B-10. How they fit academically is a bigger factor. Also Iowa St. and Missouri didn't have the potential to draw like Penn State. The Big 10 schools are for the most part very large schools. Iowa St. doesn't fit in that catagory. Missouri doesn't have the research facilities.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

mountainman

Postby mountainman » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:58 pm

Yeofoot, c'mon. You think it would be more fair if every conference had a conference championship game .... give me a break.

First of all the SEC, against the NCAA's wishes, pulled out an archaic rule about being allowed to have a championship game if a conference has twelve teams for no other reason than to make some cash. Then the Big XII says, "Hey, let do that too." Then the ACC covertly approaches some teams from another conference and proposes that they will make more money if they join up with them because if they do the ACC can have a conference championship game.

Now you say it would be more fair if all the conferences had a championship game? Well, if it's a case of fairness then it would also be fair if the SEC, ACC, Big XII and others would not have a conference championship game. How could you justify as fair the realigning the Big Ten, Big East, PAC 10 and other conferences because of something the SEC, Big XII, ACC and others brought on themselves? They put a potential national title team at risk, not the other conferences. Let them deal with it. They made their choice with no sense of fairness to the other conferences. Don't advocate everybody else now follow suit under the disguise of fairness.
Last edited by mountainman on Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:54 pm

I think that the conferences would be better and more competitive if the trimmed the teams down to 8 teams and trimmed D-1A down to 80 teams in total. That would allow for more money per team to operate and it would make the division as a whole ultra-competitive. That would eliminate the need for a conference champion. All eight teams could play each other and they would still have up to 4 OOC games. Then there would be no ties.

Then they could trim the number of bowl games to 16. Teams would be forced to compete for bowl spots instead of making tie in deals. The money would be better because the networks wouldn't have the expense of 10 games. That way teams wouldn't be rewarded for finishing forth or fifth in their conference.

That would shake things up.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Yeofoot
Head Coach
Head Coach
Posts: 1971
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 9:57 am
Location: Bentonville, Arkansas
Contact:

Postby Yeofoot » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:49 am

whoa, easy there MountainMan, first off, I don't even remotely feel passionate about all the conferences having championship games. I was just saying that along the lines of, the Big 12 is screwing themselves over in the name of money, it would be more fair to me personally if all the conferences put themselves at risk also. It was one of the most exciting games I ever watched when Texas upset Nebraska in the inaugural Big 12 Championship Game. But now it's so stinkin political how the national championship game is decided. I can understand how teams wouldn't want to deal with a conference championship game. Although, it would be fun to have, say, the PAC-10 Champ, play the Big 10 Champ every year. Oh wait, that's they way it'd been forever with the Rose Bowl. Hehe. Ok, let's have a playoff.

mountainman

Postby mountainman » Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:17 am

I agree with the statement that there is a lot of politics going on.

In my mind, much of it starts at the school level. There are a number of schools that are playing the political game by padding their schedule with games they figure they can win, cupcakes in some instances, in order to have a stellar win/loss record that they can hold up and say, "Look at me, I'm 12 - 0 or 11 -1 or 10 - 2. I should play for the national title or I should be in a BCS bowl game."

Instead of looking on the back end of the season, blaming the bowls or the BCS after the season is over, maybe they should take a look at the front end of things when they made their schedule well before the season began. I'm not so sure that maybe the strength of schedule component should not be given a little more weight.

Got to hand it to some schools though, they are going out and putting together a schedule of tough OOC opponents that if they win will leave little doubt while others are putting together their media and political strategy.

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:20 pm

I can't believe we're having a debate on conference championship games, but since we are, I can't help but throw in my two-cent's worth.
I personally, agree with Yeofoot, they are good for the game.
I remember when Texas beat Nebraska in the inaugural Big XII championship, also, in fact that's how Texas 'earned' a BCS 'bid' to the Fiesta Bowl, before the BCS existed. I think it was called Bowl Alliance back then. They played Penn St. and as I recall it was a pretty one-sided game, but the point is that the Big XII championship selected a deserving team, in Texas, which otherwise likely would have been playing in either the Cotton or Holiday Bowl, so its an 'incentive' to win!
Not every confernece championship game is going to be exciting to watch.
Colorado's lack-luster effort vs. the Texas Longhorns was disappointing, but Texas was a lot better than Colorado, and it showed on the scoreboard. The better team usually wins.
People have short-term memories, apparently. K-State earned it's first Big XII championship by beating then #1 Oklahoma 35-7. They 'earned' the right to play in the Fiesta Bowl, where they lost to Ohio St. And I still maintain the best team usually wins, in any respect, in bowl pairings.
Ten conferences, equally divided, would allow for ten conference championship games. This is a fact, not something I dreamed up.
The Big Ten would need to add a team, or two, if Penn St. should somehow 'jump' to the Big East, a conference probably more suited to their geographical location. That means, in my way of thinking the Big XII would need to send two teams to the Big Ten, Iowa St, and Missouri.
Spence thinks I'm crazy but I think they would complement the conference, from a competitive standpoint. Those are two pretty good teams, by-and-large. And they are geographically appropriate.
Then we would'nt have to be talking about Big Ten 'co-champions' nearly every year, including this year, although I personally believe Penn St. won it, outright. Had Michigan beaten Ohio St, then there's a tie, but tie-breaker favors Penn St, and they probably should have been paired against USC in the Rose Bowl.
Nobody likes my ideas, but I'm a traditionalist. I want the bowls to remain in place, basically unaltered, but together with semi-final and championship pairings to select a single national champion, every year.
If every conference had a conference championship, or in other words, 5 more to make for ten in total, that would fit perfectly in the BCS, ten 'automatic' bids, awarded to every conference champion.
Call me crazy if you want, but it works, and works pretty well, too.
Win your conference, go to the BCS, whats' more fair than that?

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Tue Feb 14, 2006 1:26 pm

I think the tiebreakers should decide the champion of a conference. For example, Boise State and Nevada were co-champions, but Nevada won in the regular season. Therefor, I say the Wolfpack were the WAC champions.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:47 pm

Nobody likes my ideas, but I'm a traditionalist. I want the bowls to remain in place, basically unaltered, but together with semi-final and championship pairings to select a single national champion, every year.


How are you a traditionalist? You are for a playoff - non traditional. You are for conference championships - non traditional. You are in favor of realignment of conferences -non traditional, and you don't think breaking up a traditional rivary is a big deal. That doesn't make your ideas necessarily bad, but it is a long way from being a traditionalist.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:39 pm

Spence wrote:How are you a traditionalist? You are for a playoff - non traditional. You are for conference championships - non traditional. You are in favor of realignment of conferences -non traditional, and you don't think breaking up a traditional rivary is a big deal. That doesn't make your ideas necessarily bad, but it is a long way from being a traditionalist.
Spence, I believe I am a traditonalist when it comes to conferences, and their alignment of teams. First of all, I think the ACC is now a much more representative conference than they were prior to the acquisitions of Big East members, Miami, Boston College, Virginia Tech. Those teams complement the conferece very well, in my opinion, and that's likely a reason they all left, to establish more 'traditonal' pairings.
Secondly, I believe the Big East acquisitons of C-USA members, Louisville, Cincinnati, and S. Florida is also a good thing, because those teams are probably better suited to the Big East, competitively speaking.
Now, all that needs to happen is for Penn St, Notre Dame, Navy, and Marshall to jump on board, and the Big East can have their own conference championship arrangement.
C-USA already does, and it would appear at first glance to be a success.
Gone are 'traditional' members, Army, Cincinnati, Louisville, S. Florida and TCU, and added are excellent replacements: Rice, Tulsa, UTEP, SMU, UCF and Marshall. What happened was sort of a geographical redistribution of teams, to make C-USA a more regionally 'appropriate' conference, similar to how the WAC and Sun Belt became more specific to their region, also.
Those are good changes, by and large but aren't finished.
The WAC needs to reunite with the MWC for sake of competitiveness.
The Big XII needs to reunite SWC members TCU and Arkansas with S. members Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, and Baylor.
The Big Ten needs to add Iowa St, and Missouri to give them a 12-team arrangement, and the Pac-Ten needs to add San Diego St. and San Jose St. to give them a 12 team-assortment of teams.
Should all that happen, then we are looking at a BCS that gives 'fair' and 'equal' representation through comference selection.
That, in my opinion, not only honors tradition, but also allows for a fair,and non-prejudicial way to select a national champion, in competition.

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:14 pm

The Big XII needs to reunite SWC members TCU and Arkansas with S. members Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, and Baylor.


This would be the only thing you said in that paragragh that would represent a traditionalist view.

I won't argue the realignment thing with you right now only to say that the B-10 will never screw with the Ohio State - Michigan rivalry. Which means there will never be a conference championship in the B-10. Conference championships are about making a conference more money and the B-10 doesn't need the money. The B-10 has huge stadiums and they keep them filled.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Wed Feb 15, 2006 1:23 pm

Spence wrote:
The Big XII needs to reunite SWC members TCU and Arkansas with S. members Texas, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, and Baylor.


This would be the only thing you said in that paragragh that would represent a traditionalist view.

I won't argue the realignment thing with you right now only to say that the B-10 will never screw with the Ohio State - Michigan rivalry. Which means there will never be a conference championship in the B-10. Conference championships are about making a conference more money and the B-10 doesn't need the money. The B-10 has huge stadiums and they keep them filled.
That's not true, Spence, if you analyze it, you have to come to the conclusion that conference realignments are, in general, good for traditionalists.
Rice, Tulsa, and SMU were rivals in the SWC, remained rivals in the WAC, and are rivals in C-USA. What happened is that the C-USA gave those teams a 'home', something they hadn't had, prior to SWC being dissolved. Secondly, TCU and Arkansas deserve to be reunited with Big XII rivals Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor and Texas A&M. That, in my mind would give the Big XII more prestige, than it's had thus far, as a conglomerate. It would be an 'equal' representation of Big XII and SWC teams, re-uniting Oklahoma & Oklahoma St, with N. Division rivals, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, & Kansas St.
Iowa St, and Missouri have to go somewhere. They are rivals, and most appropriately 'belong' in the Big Ten Conference, geographically. You are probably correct they would need to establish new rivalries, but they already have one in Iowa. So, 3 additional teams would need to be represented, so I propose that Indiana, Minnesota, and Wisconsin be included. That would be an interesting grouping, at any rate.
The advantage, is that the Ohio St.-Michigan rivalry remains in place, perhaps selecting the winner of the 'east' division. Similar to the Big XII, the division champion would 'earn' the right to play for the conference title. Last year, it would likely have paired Wisconsin and Ohio St. together. (Penn St. is assumed to have been relocated to the Big East).
You don't see how that helps the Big Ten? I think it makes it better.

Guest

Postby Guest » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:13 pm

rolltide wrote:I don't think I am a radical, but I would like to see a realignment that would allow for every conf. team to play each other. So there may have to be some major breakups of confs. but I would want all the rivalries to remain intact. The confs. could be trimmed w/o messing up any rivalries.
That's not a bad idea, really, but practially-speaking it might not work that well. At present the only conferences I'm aware of that play each other are the 8 and 9 team conferences. That's because typically a team schedules 8 conference games, annually. There are exceptions, I think the Big East has 7.
And that's ok, but sometimes, that doesn't select a 'concensus' champion.
For example, say Louisville had beaten W. Virginia (they lost in 3OT).
Then, had W. Virginia beaten S. Florida, it's possible the Big East has a 3-way 'tie' for conference champions. And there's no one 'fair' way to select a team to the BCS. That happened the year before, when the Big East had 7 teams, 4 'tied' for conference champions.
Pittsburgh was selected, they had the best overall W/L record, but were also ranked higher. Syracuse was also a co-champion at 6-5 and likely would have represented the Big East, had head-to-head been the criteria.
So, in my opinion, a conference championship is the best way to select a deserving champion to the BCS, which is one reason I favor 12-team conferences. The teams selected typically haven't played, so that would actually be a 'plus', in the event of a tie.
When they have, more often than not, the same team wins. I've researched it, and even when they haven't, the better team usually does.
So it's 'fair' at any rate, in my opinion. Colorado beat Texas 39-37 in 2001 to win their first Big XII title, after having lost to Texas 41-7 earlier.
They 'earned' the right to go through competitive play. Texas lost the opportunity to play in the Rose Bowl, against Miami, and the game was played in Texas, to boot! Blame it on Chris Simms if you want, Colorado got it done.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guests