Are Conference Championships fair?

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

Are Conference Championships fair?

Postby colorado_loves_football » Thu Mar 09, 2006 1:59 pm

There has been a lot of discussion related to this topic, in other threads.
I thought I'd give you all a place to voice your varied opinions on the matter. I hope we will be objective and consider both the 'pros' and 'cons' which go along with the arrangement.
As a 'fundamentalist' I can say I prefer them over having co-champions, and basically sending several teams to the BCS 'pool', especially when they haven't already played against each other.
For those reasons, among others I'm a conference championship proponent.
Another advantage, is that they select teams to the BCS, directly, if their conference is rewarded with an 'automatic' bid, in effect, making it un-necessary to rely on a ranking, which many agree can be too subjective. For those reasons I vote 'yes' on conference championship games.

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

Postby Yeofoot » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:43 pm

They are fair, but as I've said, it handicaps conferences that have them. I'd like the other BCS conferences to have them also. I know, I know Spence, you like the UM vs OSU game to be the Big 10 championship game, but would you feel the same way if you still had Cooper? It'd be pretty easy just to have the playoffs be the conference champions. But let's face it, we could just cut all that and have the Rose Bowl stop putting crappy PAC-10 teams and have the Big 12 champ play the Big 10 champ. All the other conferences are a joke anyway.

Ok, I was just kidding, don't riled up. :twisted:

The more games I can watch Texas play the better, that's my honest opinion.

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 » Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:20 pm

They are fair, but as I've said, it handicaps conferences that have them. I'd like the other BCS conferences to have them also. I know, I know Spence, you like the UM vs OSU game to be the Big 10 championship game, but would you feel the same way if you still had Cooper? It'd be pretty easy just to have the playoffs be the conference champions.


I did feel the same way when we had Cooper, I just didn't like the outcome. :evil:

Conference championship games are solely a money making device. that is why they have them.

But let's face it, we could just cut all that and have the Rose Bowl stop putting crappy PAC-10 teams and have the Big 12 champ play the Big 10 champ. All the other conferences are a joke anyway.


Now there is a comment sure to win people over. :lol:


I prefer the best teams get the best games in the bowls. I see no reason for a team to play the 98th best schedule, win their conference, and make it to the BCS. That would make the games a joke.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Jason G
Head Coach
Head Coach
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:07 am
Location: Pataskala, OH

Postby Jason G » Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:48 pm

I definitely think they are fair, but I also agree they can handicap the conference that holds them. However, another conference's championship game upset can help your conference get represented in a better bowl or national championship. It all depends on where the team or conference you are pulling for falls.

In general, I don't think they are needed in BCS leagues but they are a good idea for non-BCS conferences. Those are the teams that need to prove they can play on a national stage and truly need the exposure the games would, or at least could, create.

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 » Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:18 am

In general, I don't think they are needed in BCS leagues but they are a good idea for non-BCS conferences. Those are the teams that need to prove they can play on a national stage and truly need the exposure the games would, or at least could, create.


I agree with this and they are probably good for non BCS teams for that reason, but i have changed my mind on them being fair.

I don't think a 11-0 team should have to put their season on the line so that a 7-4 team (that played similar competition) has a chance to pull an upset.

If the conferences envolved feel a championship games help them or they need the money badly, I have no problem if they want the game. It still isn't fair to the team that put together the good run to have to prove themselves against a team who has done nothing to deserve being in the game but lose less then the other average teams in their division.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:04 pm

Spence wrote:
I agree with this and they are probably good for non BCS teams for that reason, but i have changed my mind on them being fair.

I don't think a 11-0 team should have to put their season on the line so that a 7-4 team (that played similar competition) has a chance to pull an upset.

If the conferences envolved feel a championship games help them or they need the money badly, I have no problem if they want the game. It still isn't fair to the team that put together the good run to have to prove themselves against a team who has done nothing to deserve being in the game but lose less then the other average teams in their division.

Spence, I"m assuming you are referring to the ACC Championship. Virginia Tech wasn't 11-0, going into that game, they were 10-1. They lost to Miami, FL and but for a loss by the Hurricanes to Georgia Tech wouldn't have gone to the 'dance'. That was a gift, one they really didn't earn, and they pretty much lost whatever respect they earned over the season with their loss to the Seminoles.
Sure, it's possible they were unprepared. But more than likely they were over-confident, the 2nd time that happened. It may be possible the 'best' team lost, but if they did, they have nobody to blame but themselves. But, I'm of the opinion FSU had a better football team.
I already suggested Bowden 'tanked' on purpose, after securing the division with a win over Boston College. He's a tactician, he uses whatever advantage he can, and if his record is any reflection of his coaching ability, he does it extremely well. I can't 'prove' my thesis, it's possible, I suppose FSU 'lost' to NC State and Clemson, then to Florida because those teams were 'better'. But when you already have the division in hand, you maybe get complacent. Colorado is an example of that, as well, starting out 7-1, finishing 7-4.
Either way, FSU 'won' the ACC, there won't be an asterisk next to their name on the CFDW website. And beating the very teams that were supposed to 'dominate' the ACC likely shows they were better prepared.

It's a mildly amusing situation, in that those teams likely believed the ACC was 'easier' from a competitive standpoint than the Big East was.
Even if they didn't, it says something about how competition decides who goes, over ranking. If Virginia Tech really was as good as their ranking suggested, they win the ACC outright, and probably should have, but lost. A 'fluke' is something that happens one time. FSU beat Miami, Boston College, and Virginia Tech. Then they nearly beat Penn St.
One is happenstance, twice is a coincidence, three times is evidence, admissible by law. FSU 'won' the ACC, and they did it the only way they could, on the field.

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 » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:35 pm

Spence, I"m assuming you are referring to the ACC Championship. Virginia Tech wasn't 11-0, going into that game, they were 10-1. They lost to Miami, FL and but for a loss by the Hurricanes to Georgia Tech wouldn't have gone to the 'dance'. That was a gift, one they really didn't earn, and they pretty much lost whatever respect they earned over the season with their loss to the Seminoles.
Sure, it's possible they were unprepared. But more than likely they were over-confident, the 2nd time that happened. It may be possible the 'best' team lost, but if they did, they have nobody to blame but themselves.


Actually I wasn't referring to anyone just using a hypothetical, but you could use that as an example. Texas shouldn't have had to play Colorado. Oklahoma shouldn't have had to play K-State a few years ago. It has happened alot.

Fla. State won the game fair and square. I am not saying they didn't, just that they didn'y deserve to get the chance with the way they played during the season.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

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 » Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:10 pm

I can't feel sorry for teams that go into championship games and lose. If you are better, win the game.


I don't feel sorry for then either and I agree that you must win the game. I just don't agree, that there should be a game in the first place. Like in the SEC, how many times should two teams have to play to determine a winner?
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:17 pm

Spence, when Kansas State, and Oklahoma squared off in 2003, both were aware of what was on the line. It's possible, I suppose, K-State had an 'advantage' playing Oklahoma in Kansas City, in front of a partisan crowd, but if Oklahoma was a legitimate #1 they need to win that game. And at least in part, it was a 'payback' for when (1998 I think it was) K-State was the #1 team going into that game, and lost to Texas A&M. Colorado has played Texas twice in the Big XII championship. Both times, Texas knew what was at stake, they lost in 2001, and then beat Colorado, last year. I'm not sure I understand how it isn't 'fair'? Because they played eariler in the year?
In 2001, Colorado was a much better team at the end of the year, than at the beginning. Probably the opposite last year.
I think maybe it was 2000 when K-State and Oklahoma were paired in the Big XII championship, that might be the game you are referring to.
That year, Oklahoma won the national championship outright, but you are correct they had to beat K-State twice. That wasn't the case in 2003.

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Mon Mar 13, 2006 4:34 pm

Rolltide, the reason FSU had 4 losses going into the ACC Championship, at least partly, is because they had secured themselves a divison title by beating Boston College. After that, what happened, became meaningless, at least to a degree, although it likely hurt their overall ranking. But, it probably gave them an 'edge', at least with respect to how Virginia Tech viewed them. Their losing to Clemson, by a fairly wide margin likely made Virginia Tech over-confident, just like they were when they played Miami, and lost. I put nothing past Bowden, he's a tactitian, he knows how to win games that he's supposed to lose.
Beating Virginia Tech in the ACC Championship was likely as much a 'strategic' win as much as it was a demonstration of his teams' superiority. Remember, the year before Virgnia Tech won the ACC, outright. So, I think Bowden strategized, to give his team every possible advantage going into that game.
Now, as far as having fewer teams, that wouldn't help that much, because there's a rule requiring a conference to have 12 members, in order for a conference championship to occur. I personally think there ought to be fewer conferences with more teams, not the opposite.

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 Mar 14, 2006 7:16 pm

I meant for the conferences to be smaller to have everyone play each other and eliminate the championship game. I thought if everyone played each other, there wouldn't be much need for the championship game.


This has been my point. Lower the conference numbers to 8 and play your peers in other conferences in the four OOC games. Then take the best teams and match them up in the bowls.

I have a feeling that the new game and the changes made to the BCS is going to be worse instead of better. The more games you add the more likely for people to get snubbed. Wait until they take a number 14 team and put them in the BCS over a number 7 team. It will happen, probably next year.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

colorado_loves_football

Postby colorado_loves_football » Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:09 pm

Spence wrote:
This has been my point. Lower the conference numbers to 8 and play your peers in other conferences in the four OOC games. Then take the best teams and match them up in the bowls.

I have a feeling that the new game and the changes made to the BCS is going to be worse instead of better. The more games you add the more likely for people to get snubbed. Wait until they take a number 14 team and put them in the BCS over a number 7 team. It will happen, probably next year.
I disagree that somehow the BCS has 'watered' down the formula by including a 'fifth' bowl. The stipulation is that any team necessarily needs to be ranked 'top-12'. The only reason TCU was 'in the running' at #14 was because a BCS 'automatic' qualifier finished ranked lower, if that doesn't happen, TCU never gets invited.
As far as not inviting Virginia Tech, I for one am happy they were 'overlooked' assuming that's your point. They don't deserve to go, if they can't beat FSU, a team that lost 3 conference games. Perhaps the Hokies were overcoonfident, but if they were they shouldn't have been.
FSU beat Miami first game of the year, and Miami beat Virginia Tech.
I suppose it's possible neither team really 'earned' the right to be represented, but if that's the case, which team was more deserving?
The Orange Bowl showed, if nothing else FSU came prepared to play.
They lost, but only because they missed a field goal. Some might argue they outplayed Penn St., and that was in a game Penn St, likely was seen as a 'shoe-in' having lost only one time, to Michigan.
I think we maybe all agree that in the 'big' picture the BCS got it 'right'.
I would have preferred TCU play Oregon or W. Virginia, but they didn't.
And, if the score is a true indication of how good they were, they probably weren't prepared to play a team of that talent level. And the bottom line is TCU wasn't selected to play, so that's really all that matters.

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 Mar 14, 2006 8:18 pm

I wasn't talking about TCU or Va Tech. Just making a point about the future. We will see in the next couple of years if the changes are good. I think they will cause more problem then they solve, but I'm willing to see how it goes before making a final judgment.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Postby Derek » Tue Mar 14, 2006 9:50 pm

irish88 wrote:i don't like the conference championships . it's just a money-maker.

like i said a while ago - everyone become an independent . you wouldn't be having this discussion. do i realistically believe it would ever happen ? of course not .


I agree with half of what your saying. I think that everyone should have to play one, or no one has too. And each conference should allow a smaller team in the conference to get to 12. The Big 10 and Pac-10 have an unfair advantage in the BCS, because they dont have to risk losing their championship game like Oklahoma did in 2003.

I think the Big 10 and the Pac-10 know this, and that's why they refuse a championship game.

Typical politics.
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.

- John Madden

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 Mar 14, 2006 11:37 pm

I think the Big 10 and the Pac-10 know this, and that's why they refuse a championship game.


That is definitely part of it. The Big-10 features its rivalries. Ohio State-Michigan, Penn St.-Michigan St., Michigan - Michigan St. Iowa - Wisconsin, Indiana - Purdue, Illinois - Northwestern, Penn St. - Ohio State, Minnesota - Purdue, Ohio State - Illinois, and Wisconsin - Ohio State to name a few. Some of these games go back 80 and 100 years, before their was even a B-10 conference. Splitting the conference into two divisions would destroy some of those rivalries as they have in other conferences.

Ohio and Pennsylvania have a high school all star game called the Big 33 game. Most of the players in that game end up in the B-10 so the rivalries are hatched before most get to school. Most of the guys know each other and have played against each other for a long time. For some of these kids the rivalry becomes real when a school that one really wants to play for takes someone else. It is the essence of how the B-10 fills these big stadiums every week. The B-10 wouldn't take a chance to ruin that unless they would be forced to do it. I believe they would opt out of the BCS before they would except a championship game.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests