T1B

Well, actually, it's not that I dislike the conference championship games. They're good entertainment (some of them, at least). But we either need to have NO conference title games or EVERY conference has one.

Case in point......

Auburn.

They are unbeaten. They already beat South Carolina. South Carolina is a good football team. It's not easy beating a good opponent twice in one year. The 2nd time is more difficult than the first.

Now let's take a look at the other 2 teams in the BCS title hunt.....

Oregon. 1 game ALL season against a decent team. TCU, no games against anyone that's any good. Auburn has played a handful of games against quality teams, and now they have to go play on a neutral field against another tough team (a team they already beat) in a big-game environment.

How is this fair? There is a reason college football is the punchline of every sports joke. From the garbage that is the bowl system to the BCS to the way we determine a national title, etc.....

Plain and simple. Everyone plays a conference championship game or nobody does.

South Carolina has a damn good shot of knocking off Auburn. What will the pundits say? "they proved they didn't belong in the BCS title game". I disagree with that on the basis of the 2 teams that will play for a title (if Auburn loses) of not really proving a god damn thing other than they can run it up on shitty teams all year- and get 1 nice victory (at home) against Stanford.

The CCG cost NU another national title in 96 so yeah....the CCG is bad. Nebraska would have played Florida in the national championship (essentially the same team the bitched 62-24 in 95) had it not been for an overachieving Tejas team catching them on an off night and with a little luck at the end.

But hey...money talks. I agree with you that every BCS conf. should have one or every BCS conf should not have one.

H4ever wrote:The CCG cost NU another national title in 96 so yeah....the CCG is bad. Nebraska would have played Florida in the national championship (essentially the same team the bitched 62-24 in 95) had it not been for an overachieving Tejas team catching them on an off night and with a little luck at the end.

But hey...money talks. I agree with you that every BCS conf. should have one or every BCS conf should not have one.

Your 1996 reference is actually a perfect example of my point....

Who did Florida lose to in their final regular season game? Florida State. Then FSU had to play them a month later in the championship game and got hammered. It's very tough to beat a good team twice in one year in college football.

of course the irony is that the conference championship games which no one really wants and rightly identify as a shameless cash grab....are even closer to a "playoff" win-it-on-the-field type of competition than the BCS.

A re-match wouldn't occur if there were playoffs?

Happens in NCAA basketball all the time.

...and a football playoff bracket would include almost all of the glorious SEC teams anyway, just like the bowls.

Carson wrote:A re-match wouldn't occur if there were playoffs?

Happens in NCAA basketball all the time.

...and a football playoff bracket would include almost all of the glorious SEC teams anyway, just like the bowls.

My point is that it's unfair for some teams to not have to go through a conference championship game, while others do.

What if Oregon had to play Stanford again- this time on a neutral field. It would be a lot more difficult than the 1st time around.

TheJON wrote: What if Oregon had to play Stanford again- this time on a neutral field. It would be a lot more difficult than the 1st time around.

No. Defensive adjustments would be made, and game in #13 of the season, roster depth becomes a much, much bigger issue -- and there's no comparison in roster depth between the two.

And enough whining -- the PAC12 will have a championship game next season, as will the B11. The Big Least needs to drum up some more teams, and join the party.

Although I don't have full details on the PAC CCG, but on the radio, they said that if Oregon wins the PAC12 North next year, the CCG is at Autzen. Not sure how that setup works yet, since it's new.


IMO, they should rotate it, maybe to West Coast sites that are within, say, 100 miles of a major airport. Maybe rotate the Mausoleum, the Rose Bowl (although they get their extra-cash love every year), The Stick in SF, Seahawk Stadium, Sun Devil, and Autzen. Autzen is a little far from a major airport, but it's a straight shot down I-5, and with those arenas, you cover all the major West Coast media markets (and AZ).

Dinsdale wrote: Although I don't have full details on the PAC CCG, but on the radio, they said that if Oregon wins the PAC12 North next year, the CCG is at Autzen. Not sure how that setup works yet, since it's new.

Thought I read that it would be held on the home field of the team with a better record / higher ranking or something like that. Bottom line, not a neutral site but home field of the "better" team. I could be wrong.

TheJON wrote:

Carson wrote:A re-match wouldn't occur if there were playoffs?

Happens in NCAA basketball all the time.

...and a football playoff bracket would include almost all of the glorious SEC teams anyway, just like the bowls.

My point is that it's unfair for some teams to not have to go through a conference championship game, while others do.

It's the conference's choice to play a CCG or not. Any complaint that it puts their teams at some kind of competitive disadvantage nationally is bullshit. It was their choice.

It might also give a team a chance to win the game and jump up a few spots in the BCS rankings while other teams are idle. For that reason alone, I think it's a good idea to play the game....and it also gives a team more practice time before their bowl game. Of course the conference honks are more concerned about the money it generates.

Mace wrote:It might also give a team a chance to win the game and jump up a few spots in the BCS rankings while other teams are idle.

Yup. A ccg can be your best friend or your worst enemy. At least there's precedent for losing in a ccg and still getting to the MNC. Or even not getting there at all, and still getting to the MNC.

I don't know if it's unfair so much as it is just another flaw in the system.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:I don't know if it's unfair so much as it is just another flaw in the system.

There are so many flaws in the system that this is bound to be one of them.
Personally, I look forward to the Big 10 having a CCG next year.

Mace wrote:Personally, I look forward to the Big 10 having a CCG next year.

Yeah...anything other than this year's garbage.

Good points. I'm just saying that either everyone plays a CCG or NOBODY does.

How can we call our system legit when not everyone is playing by the same rules?

I'm glad the Big-10 and Pac-12 are getting CCG's next year, but the Big-12 is losing 1. So Oklahoma and Texas will both have easier rides to the national title game than teams of other conferences in the future. The winner of that game doesn't have to play a conference championship game OR Nebraska now.

How is that fair?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Mace wrote:Personally, I look forward to the Big 10 having a CCG next year.

Yeah...anything other than this year's garbage.

I feel your pain. 2002 Big-10 champion was decided anywhere but on the field. At least you didn't go 8-0 in conference and get left out of the Rose Bowl.

Papa Willie wrote:

Mace wrote:It might also give a team a chance to win the game and jump up a few spots in the BCS rankings while other teams are idle.

^^^^^^

This.

Honestly - this fact alone has not helped any of the teams from the Pac 10 or Big 10 in recent history. I'm pretty much for it because - IT GIVES US ONE MORE WEEKEND OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL!!!!!!

Now - THIS year? Hmmm. I could probably do without it! In fact - if Auburn loses this weekend, I'll probably come back into this thread and say the CCG is a really SHITTY thing to do. :D

But at least it's decided on the field with the best players money can buy. :)

TheJON wrote:At least you didn't go 8-0 in conference and get left out of the Rose Bowl.

No...my team only finished with the exact same overall record as the team that is going, and beat them head to head. Harder pill to swallow, I'd say.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

TheJON wrote:At least you didn't go 8-0 in conference and get left out of the Rose Bowl.

No...my team only finished with the exact same overall record as the team that is going, and beat them head to head. Harder pill to swallow, I'd say.

The bad thing is that the same scenario could happen again next year with the same 3 teams and only one will go to the CCG, as we have already seen in the Big XII. There's no perfect system...including a playoff system that will leave teams out of the fray, but it would be a more fair way to determine a true national champ.

There's no perfect system...including a playoff system that will leave teams out of the fray, but it would be a more fair way to determine a true national champ.

Yep, there is absolutely no perfect system. I would even argue the NFL doesn't have a PERFECT system. In fact, the only sport that really has a TRUE champion is the NBA. When I say "true champion", I mean the actual best team wins it almost every year. That's because they play a best of 7. Baseball does too, but baseball is a long-term game. The worst team in the league could win a 7 game series against the best team. But in the NBA, 8 or 9 times out of 10, the best team will win a 7 game series.

Plus, in the NFL, there are times when a team could have 2-3 more wins than a team that made the playoffs. Take the Patriots of 2 years ago. 11 wins and didn't even make the playoffs. But it is still a much better system than college.

In my opinion, we put far too much of a focus on winning a league/national championship. It's gotten to a point where everyone that didn't win it all is considered a horrible team. I don't think like that. Obviously, everyone wants to win it all. But only 1 team can. There is more than 1 team out there that is good. College football is a joke because there are about 10 teams in the country that somehow are of the mindset that they are winning national titles every year, and if they don't- FIRE THE COACH! What's the record for most titles? Isn't it something like 9 or 10? So nobody wins it more than once every 10 or 12 years. But somehow we have fan bases that talk like all they do is win national titles.

Mace wrote:The bad thing is that the same scenario could happen again next year with the same 3 teams and only one will go to the CCG

No, it couldn't.

Also, I don't really care what other tie-breakers they may use, as long as a poll isn't deciding who goes to Pasadena.

Also, let's not forget the Big Ten will be adding an extra conference game in the future, which will significantly help in decreasing these types of scenarios.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Mace wrote:The bad thing is that the same scenario could happen again next year with the same 3 teams and only one will go to the CCG

No, it couldn't.

Also, I don't really care what other tie-breakers they may use, as long as a poll isn't deciding who goes to Pasadena.

Also, let's not forget the Big Ten will be adding an extra conference game in the future, which will significantly help in decreasing these types of scenarios.

You'll have to enlighten me. Why couldn't it happen again?

Duh. Nevermind. I just figured it out. :roll:
But, upon further review, there could still be a 3 way tie, only it won't be for the same reason as this year.

You'll have to enlighten me. Why couldn't it happen again?

Cuz there's no way Michigan State could win 11 games 2 years in a row with a Hawkeye at Quarterback! :D

How could there be a 3-way tie if MSU is in a separate division from OSU and Wisky?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:How could there be a 3-way tie if MSU is in a separate division from OSU and Wisky?

True, but there could still be a 3 way tie in a division.

Yeah, but at least you'll play every team in your division which should theoretically lessen the chance of this happening. Also, I don't know if the conference has established a series of tie breakers yet, but I'd hope they "keep it in conference" and go down a list of competent determinants like overall record, record vs cross divisional opponents, etc. If MSU loses a tie-breaker to a team that won more games I won't complain. Also, we won't have to worry about 2-way ties anymore because the head-to-head winner will get the nod. Simple.

It's not perfect, just better.

I don't remember seeing the criteria for ties but they've surely come up with one. A three way tie won't happen often but it's bound to happen at some point in time and somebody, like MSU this season, will get screwed.

TheJON wrote:How can we call our system legit when not everyone is playing by the same rules?

The only people calling it legit are those profiting off the system. You know that, Jon.

Mace wrote:A three way tie won't happen often but it's bound to happen at some point in time and somebody, like MSU this season, will get screwed.

In that case, let's hope it's Michigan. Though I'm not sure they'll be good enough to be in a position to get screwed.

I'd be much more enthusiastic about a Big 11 CCG if they hosted it in an outdoor venue. Preferably Chicago.

Screw_Michigan wrote:I'd be much more enthusiastic about a Big 11 CCG if they hosted it in an outdoor venue. Preferably Chicago.

say Wrigley Field?

Of course not. Soldier Field.

I'm going to spread this thread across Soldier Field and watch the grass get healthy enough to get the bid.

Good call. They could install that fieldturf shit for all I care. Having it in Indy blows.

Iowa fucked MSU's world up.

Of course we did. We haven't lost to MSU at home since about 1902........or something like that!

Iowa fucked MSU's world up.

Iowa was only 87 plays away from the MNC so I claim it as a quality loss. If they had a functioning two minute offense MSU would have enough BCS points to participate in the Super Bowl.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Iowa fucked MSU's world up.

Iowa was only 87 plays away from the MNC so I claim it as a quality loss. If they had a functioning two minute offense MSU would have enough BCS points to participate in the Super Bowl.

You crack jokes at that, but is there something untrue about Iowa being 5 plays away from unbeaten?

It's amazing how people on here get offended by the truth. And before you go "8 billion teams can say the same thing"- no they can't. That's the thing. Teams with 1 or 2 losses are further away from being unbeaten than a 5-loss Iowa team. It's true. So I don't see what's so funny about what I have said.

Is Iowa 5 plays away from unbeaten or not??? What does that get Iowa? A well deserving trip to the Insight Bowl. 7-5 is 7-5 regardless of whether or not you lost all 5 games by 40 or 1 in the minds of the bowl committees. So it really doesn't matter. However, we're still 5 plays away.........and even though that gets us nothing but a minor bowl........it's the truth.

Let me put it to you this way, Mgo........

There isn't a team in the country Iowa couldn't beat on a neutral field. In fact, other than Auburn or Oregon, there isn't a team they wouldn't be a coinflip against or better than.........on the road. I'm sure you'll laugh at that, but you would be fooling yourself if you thought otherwise.

This team is 1-2 against Top 10 teams this year. The win was by 31 points. The losses were by a combined 4 points. So yeah, we can play and beat anyone.

Carson wrote:A re-match wouldn't occur if there were playoffs?

Happens in NCAA basketball all the time.

...and a football playoff bracket would include almost all of the glorious SEC teams anyway, just like the bowls.

Is that why the glorious SEC is actually 4th in winning percentage in bowl games during the BCS era... go figure. Maybe you can garner more glory this year while Arkiesaw escapes another ECU or maybe Utah can play Bama again.

SEC has a losing record against the PAC in the BCS era.

Hey Noj -- Stanford is only about 4 plays away from an undefeated season... STFU.

You DO realize that if Oregon and Iowa played on a neutral field, Oregon would be -14.5... you knew that, right? (If not, take a gander at the predictor of your choice. Auburn would be -4.5. )

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:

Iowa fucked MSU's world up.

Iowa was only 87 plays away from the MNC so I claim it as a quality loss. If they had a functioning two minute offense MSU would have enough BCS points to participate in the Super Bowl.