Conference Championship Games....

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:40 am

Suck.

I mean gimme a freakin break:

Colorado 7-4
Texas 11-0

Nobody has anything to gain in this game. If Colo. wins are they really Conf. champs? No freakin way!

FSU 7-4
VaTech 9-1

FSU is awarded for their current 3 game losing streak. What a joke.

LSU 10-1
UGA 8-2

The best matchup of the 3. At least the 2 best teams are in the title game.

What's the answer...conference divisional re-alignment? Pitting the 2 teams with the best records against eachother? That would make it VaTech/Miami and TT/UT. Better game for the ACC and perhaps in the Big12, though this is arguable. Maybe trim the fat off of some of these 12 team conferences get them down to 10 teams, and everyone play eachother? Play an 11 game conf. schedule?Something has got to give. These cash grabs have rarely provided a decent matchup.

OUMO · Post by **OUMO** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 2:51 am

Yeah 3 and 4 way ties for the conference championships are much better.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:01 am

I assume you're referring to the Big 10.

In case you are...

I don't like the fact that they don't play everybody. If they did the tie-break system would provide the clear champion. Head-to-head records usually sort out ties. This is a much better system than the best team playing the 4th or 5th best team for the conf. "championship".

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:44 am

Best game next weekend is UCLA vs. SC.

Keep your stinkin "championship" games...

Kind of weird how the #6 team of "1 team conference" can play a BCS team down to the wire with 14.5 mil riding on it....

Degenerate · Post by **Degenerate** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:53 am

The ACC should definitely have their top two teams play it out on the field since there's no rhyme or reason to their division alignments. Can anyone actually name who is in what division without looking it up?

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:54 am

But wait.

We need conference championship games because...uh....well...we just do.

Sin,
SEC fans who can't get over the fact that their conference sucks.

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:33 am

CCG's werent created to prove anything, they were created to make those conferences ass loads of money.

Terry in Crapchester · Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:19 am

Degenerate wrote:The ACC should definitely have their top two teams play it out on the field since there's no rhyme or reason to their division alignments. Can anyone actually name who is in what division without looking it up?

Fwiw . . .

Atlantic: Fredo, Clemson, Florida State, Maryland, NC State, Wake Forest
Coastal: Duke, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech

Yeah, I can do it without looking it up, but I'm a college football geek, and even I still have to think about it.

The easiest way to remember: seems that they put each team's most significant rival in the opposite division, to wit:

FSU-Miami
Maryland-Virginia
North Carolina-North Carolina State
Duke-Wake Forest
Clemson-Georgia Tech
Fredo-Virginia Tech (these two just kinda got thrown in with each other).

Ironic that this divisional alignment arose to keep Miami and Florida State in separate divisions, in light of the fact that Virginia Tech will have a two-year conference championship streak.

How the divisions should look:

North: Fredo, Duke, Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
South: Clemson, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Miami, North Carolina, North Carolina State.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 4:19 pm

I think the conference championship games have to be played unless you want to go to smaller conferences of only 8-10 teams to allow round-robin play every year. With a 12 team league, you'll play only 8 or 9 of them at the most...two or three are left off the schedule. You run into situations where two teams can run the table in the conference when they don't play each other. How better to determine a winner than a conference championship game? Especially with a two division conference like the ACC, SEC and Big XII...it's a perfect idea to have the two division winners playoff.

Granted, you'll have the years where one division is horrible and the other division winner is a national title contender. No one has control over that. I would be f'ed up if Colorado beats Texas and goes to the jackpot round. Would Texas go in as at large? Would they still play for the national title? That would cause a major mess.

To me, the conference title games in football make more sense than the conference tournaments in basketball. You can still allow the worst team in the conference in basketball play their way into the tournament...and this is after you play 15-20 conference games where you play each team at least once. In football, unless you win your division, you're not going to play in the conference title game...there are no last place teams in this discussion.

Out of all of the stupid things college football has as a part of their postseason, I like the conference title game concept the most. The bowl system and the BCS can go to hell...keep the conference title games for the leagues that need them.

Danimal · Post by **Danimal** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 7:52 pm

SoCalTrjn wrote:CCG's werent created to prove anything, they were created to make those conferences ass loads of money.

Yup, most coaches oppose having yet another hurdle to get over on the way to a MNC but AD's love the $.

It wouldn't be so bad if all the conferences had them, but they don't. Now with the Pac playing an extra conference game(excellent idea by the way) there is no reason for them to ever have a CCG unless they expand.

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:15 pm

^^this is my point^^

Play everybody, and it is decided on the field. Go for the cash grab and only bad things can happen...upsets, key injuries etc.

King Crimson · Post by **King Crimson** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 8:45 pm

Colorado will have been outscored 60-19** in two "attempts" to clinch the BXII North (against two North teams).....and still backdoors as the "champ" for the second year in a row coutesy of ISU.

**this will be an even uglier number a week from today making CU a bowl paraiah. they may travel between 17-20 fans to Houston.....and the bowl prospects may even be worse.

Van · Post by **Van** » Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:46 pm

BtH, please. USC is hardly a "1 team conference". The second and third best teams in the Pac 10 are light years better this year than those same teams in the Big XII.

Texas, Curley and Moe are no match for USC, Oregon and UCLA, and I believe UCLA already drove that point home fairly convincingly this season...

Van · Post by **Van** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:01 am

The Pac 10 has one undefeated and two one loss teams. That's hardly a "1 team conference", which you did call 'em...

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:33 pm

Please sell us on the majesty of this fine game..

Texas-35
Colorado-3

Halfway through the 2nd. What a joke. How the fuck does this game crown a conf. champ! Last years beauty was 42-3!!

You're right B12'ers this is the way to settle a title.

Terry in Crapchester · Sun Dec 04, 2005 3:08 am

Danimal wrote:
SoCalTrjn wrote:CCG's werent created to prove anything, they were created to make those conferences ass loads of money.
Yup, most coaches oppose having yet another hurdle to get over on the way to a MNC but AD's love the $.

It wouldn't be so bad if all the conferences had them, but they don't. Now with the Pac playing an extra conference game(excellent idea by the way) there is no reason for them to ever have a CCG unless they expand.

According to NCAA rules, conferences can't have a championship game unless they have a minimum of 12 teams.