A proposal to fix Conference Championships.

This BCS debate has caused me to remember my annual diatribe on the screwed up state of our conference championship system.  Here is my proposal to fix it.

The idea is that the Big XII champion should be the team with the
best record against the rest of the league. The rest of the sports
world does it this way.

In 2003 a team that was 8-0 played a team that was 6-2. I know that
KSU beat OU, but the fact of the matter is that in the end OU was 8-1
in the Big XII and KSU was 7-2. Meanwhile Texas was 7-1. Based on our
record we should have played in BCS game. Instead, KSU got the auto bid and OU got the BCS championship bid.  I understand that KSU
end of season PERFORMANCE was awesome, but we had a better record. You
don't let the Devil Rays into the playoffs because they sweep the
Yankees the last week of the season.

The solution is to have Big XII weekend at the end of the year when
the Championship is currently played. You invite the Team from the
North with the best record to play the team from the south with the
best record if the teams have not already played. If they have then
the teams with the two best records play teams from the other division
with the best record that they haven't played yet. If the two division
champions haven't played but their record is such that the team with
the lower record could not surpass the team with the higher record
then you declare the team with the best record the Conference Champion
and you play the game for shits and giggles. The next highest team
plays the next highest team from the other division that they haven't
played yet to try to help their BCS standing. You get two great games
at the end of the year either way...sometimes they mean something.

2006:

Oklahoma(8-0) vs. Nebraska(6-2).  Oklahoma Gets first pick and they hadn't played Nebraska.

Texas(6-1) vs. Missou(4-4)  Texas has the 2nd best record so they play the highest team in North that they hadn't played yet.

If OU wins then they are the champions. If Texas wins and OU loses then Texas is the Champion due to the same record and Texas Head to Head win over OU.  If Texas loses then OU is the champion whether they win or lose.

2005:

Texas declared the Champion because no one is closer than 1 game away.

Texas(8-0) vs. Nebraska(4-4) for giggles.  We have already played Colorado and Mizzou and Nebraska beat Iowa state.

Colorado(5-3) vs. Texas Tech(6-2)  Tech beat OU so they get the nod to play the north champion.

2004:

OU declared the Champion because Texas is the only team within one game and OU had already beaten Texas.

OU(8-0) vs. CU(4-4) for giggles

Texas(7-1) vs. Iowa State(4-4)  A good performance against a 6-5 team could have given us another boost to the Rose Bowl.  This system works best when one division isn't down

2003:
OU declared the Champion because no team is within a game in the standings
OU(8-0) vs. Kstate(6-2) for Giggles
Texas(7-1) vs. Missouri(4-4)(We had a better record then Nebraska and
had already played them.

2002
Colorado(7-1) had the best record and they hadn't played Texas so:
Colorado(7-1) vs. Texas(6-2)
Oklahoma(6-2) vs. K State(6-2)

If Oklahoma beats KState and Texas beats Colorado then Oklahoma is the
Champion because they have the same record as Colorado and Texas and
they beat both teams. if K State beats OU and Texas wins then Texas is
the Champion. If Colorado wins then they are the champion because they
would have the best record.

2001
Texas(7-1) vs. Nebraska(7-1) - had the same record and hadn't played.
Colorado(7-1) vs. OU(6-2)
If Texas beats Nebraska then Texas is the champion. If Nebraska wins
and Colorado wins then Colorado is the champion because they beat
Nebraska and they have the same record as the Corn Huskers. If
Nebraska wins and OU wins then Nebraska has the best record and is the
champion.

2000
OU is declared the Champion because no team that they haven't played
is within a game of them.
OU(8-0) vs. Iowa State(5-3)
Texas(7-1) vs. KState(6-2)(Kstate beat Nebraska that year.

1999
Nebraska(7-1) vs Tech(5-3) Nebraska had already played Texas and A&M
and Tech beat OU.
K-State(7-1) Vs OU(5-3) OU beat A&M and KState had already beat Texas.
If Nebraska wins they are the Champion. If they lose and KState Wins,
K-State is the Champion. If both KState and Nebraska lose then
Nebraska is the champion because they beat K state earlier in the
year. This sucks for Texas(6-2) because they beat Nebraska, but
because they lost to KSU they have to stay home and watch teams that
they beat play.

I'm not going to go back any farther because I've spent too much time
already. This scenario has a ton of advantages:

1. The Team with the best record is the Champion no matter when the
games are played. This makes every game a playoff game.

2. Fun for the fans. Play both of these games in the same stadium. One at 11 and the other at 6. Play it in a city that is big enough to host
4 teams worth of fans.

3. Reward teams with another game.
4. Gets the arguments back down to head to head even though not everyone plays each other.
5. Did I mention how awesome this would be for the fans?
6. In some cases a team with a better record has to stay home, but this is only because they lost to a team with a better or equal record...its better than watching a team that you beat earlier in the
   

7. Its more fair. You only get one chance at each team. Take advantage.

I think #7 is the most important.  CFB is about head to head, you get one chance football.  I hate seeing rematches during the bowl and conference championship season.  You could even extend this as the 12th game and allow each team from the north to play a team from the south that they haven't played yet.  Home fields alternate from North to South each year.