Evaluating the Conference Title Game

by Peter Bean on Apr 19, 2006 9:21 AM CDT in Football Comment 19 comments

By 54b

As regards to the conference championship game, should the Big XII keep the current format which matches up the teams with the best records in the north and south divisions (and risk another blowout like last year) or do away with the divisions and just match up the two teams with the best records? Last year, that would have meant a Texas vs. Texas Tech rematch.

Things to consider before making your decision...

The Big XII is already tough enough, why force the issue when the Big 10, Pac 10 and Big East don't even have conference championship games? In other words, why risk a shot at a BCS or National Title if you don't have to.
Matching the two teams with the best records would make a loss to a divisional foe less dramatic. More to the point, as Texas fans, would you really want to play the Sooners twice in one season, especially if you'd already beaten OU once on a neutral site in October?

Personally, I'd rather see the Big XII do away with the conference championship game until all six power conferences implement one. But we know
that's not going to happen because of the revenue generated by a championship game is too good to pass up. In that case, I would vote to do
away with the divisions and let the teams with the best records in the conference play it out. Since there are more teams in the Big XII than can be accommodated on an 8-game conference schedule, each team should get 3 or 4 teams from the conference that they play every year and rotate the rest.

For example, Texas would always play OU, A&M, Tech and maybe Baylor and rotate the rest...OU would always play Texas, OSU and Nebraska and rotate the rest. That way you keep the annual rivalries alive and well like they do in the Big 10 and Pac 10. But unlike those conference, if by chance the two teams in the Big XII with the best records didn't meet in the regular season
(think Iowa and Michigan, 2004), then we'd still settle it on the field in the championship game.

Discuss...

--54b--

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Conference Championship

I am actually against the idea of a Conference Championship, unless the two best teams in the conference have not played each other during the season. Those who argue for the BCS (as opposed to a playoff) say that "every game is a playoff." Well, if every game is a playoff, why should they have a conference championship, which is, in essence, a playoff game to determine who goes to the BCS? You can't have it both ways.
But like I said before, if the two best teams have the same record (and have not faced each other during the season), then I can understand them playing each other. I realize that this opens a can of worms when there are more than 2 teams with the same record, but I don't think that would be any different than the way it is now.

GO BRUINS. HOOK 'EM HORNS.

A Trojan can only be used once. A Bruin is forever.

by uclawarren on Apr 19, 2006 9:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

By the way

As many of you know, the Pac-10 is switching to a schedule which allows every team to play each other, so whether or not you think a conference championship for the Pac-10 was necessitated before, I don't think it would be anymore.

GO BRUINS. HOOK 'EM HORNS.

A Trojan can only be used once. A Bruin is forever.

by uclawarren on Apr 19, 2006 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They need to take a second look...

The big 12 and SEC are at a disadvantage because they are so big. Until all the conferences have them they should stop the confernce championships until its a level playing field.

And what good do they do anyway. i.e. OU in 2004. They lose and still get to the NC game, screwing Auburn.

Fight On!

by Paragon SC on Apr 19, 2006 9:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Don't hold your breath

54b is right. Follow the money. The games bring in more TV revenue, sponsorship revenue, and so on.

Like in basketball, though, I suspect the others will come along soon enough. It wasn't long ago that several of the power conferences didn't have end of the year tourneys; they all do now. The same will happen in football, too.

by Peter Bean on Apr 19, 2006 9:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

True

But they also risk losing the benefit of multiple teams in a BCS game. Especially with the plus 1 BCS starting next season.

For example, the BIG 10 got Iowa and Ohio State both in a BCS game several years ago (OSU MNC). The trick to that was they never played each other. Both were co-champions of the BIG 10.
If there had been a BIG 10 champ game, one of them would have played in the Citrus bowl or what ever.

So, is the revenue from a conference champ game greater than having 2 teams in the BCS?

Walker, Texas Ranger -- C.D. Parker: And how are you doing, little partner? Lucas Simms: Walker told me I have AIDS.

by EYESofBEVO on Apr 19, 2006 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The real question

is whether the money created by a championship game offsets the amount lost. In your example no, but this is not always the case, in 2001 Texas missed a BCS game because OU lost in the big 12 championship, but the Big 12 still got 2 teams in. Really how often does the championship game cost a conference a second team in the BCS? It happend to K state and that is about it in the Big 12. If you say, for example you are likely to lose one team every five years, then you have to make more than one fifth of the amount covered by the BCS payout annually on the championship game to come out ahead. I think the championship games more than make up for that.

by billb on Apr 19, 2006 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Plus

For every K St, there is a team that wins the conference championship that allows 2 teams in when there would have been only 1.

Leslie beat Adam at pool!

by Wells on Apr 19, 2006 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Google rocks

It took all of 2 seconds to find this. This gives an interesting breakdown of some of the numbers. I'm not sure what side of the argument this helps or hinders, but here it is.

http://www.bcsfootball.org/index2.cfm?page=revenue

Walker, Texas Ranger -- C.D. Parker: And how are you doing, little partner? Lucas Simms: Walker told me I have AIDS.

by EYESofBEVO on Apr 19, 2006 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree...

Follow the money. But then they should mke all the majors have conference championship game, it's only fair.

Fight On!

by Paragon SC on Apr 19, 2006 6:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the divisions in the Big 12

Remember when the big 12 started, the north was bitching about how bad the south was, then Texas beat Nebraska in the championship game.
I think it is a way to keep playing the traditional rivalries, but still have a 12 team conference.
As a Buff, obviously I did not want to play in the championship this year, but in 2001, Colorado was .01 away from a national title game because of the Championship game.
Plus it is fun and a money maker for the conference.
If we took it away it would just leave room for one more game on the schedule, making Sammy St a traditional rivalry game.

Leslie beat Adam at pool!

by Wells on Apr 19, 2006 10:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

As some of you other guys pointed out

it is a balancing act with the money generated. From an individual team standpoint, Conference title games are horrible. Last year is a great example: what does Texas have to gain by playing last year's conference championship game? Nothing. In fact, the only thing that could happen is that Texas, improbable as it were, would have lost its shot at a National Title, and possibly a BCS bid. From that standpoint, it is easier for a PAC 10, Big 10 team to get into their BCS/MNC game.
The same arguement could have been made for the Sooners in 2001. Though they were showing signs of the wheels falling off before the K-State game, only bad things could ahve happened by playing that one. As it turned out, they still got into the MNC game, but the point remains, it is a serious land mine, if you are concerned about a single school's MNC/BCS chances.
On the other hand from a conference perspective, the title game (usually) makes a ton of sense. A conference is guaranteed its 1 championship BCS bid, and it will get that one no matter who wins the conference championship (See 2005 Florida State). At large bids are too iffy to count on for money each year, and while you might get an extra team in the BCS one year, you can't count on that year in and year out. Take the sure thing, and the Championship.

I don't like conference championship games. Most of the time, one team has nothing to loose/everything to gain and but for the automatic BCS birth would be on their way to the Outback bowl. The other stands to lose out on a great season, by playing the "hang everything on the line" underdog.

by Brandon 97 on Apr 19, 2006 10:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Dont be too short sighted on this

I did not mind taking the risk this year on a loss in the championship game this year for our ownership of the first big 12 championship.

Before this year, would you have given that up for an easier road to the national championship?

Leslie beat Adam at pool!

by Wells on Apr 19, 2006 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about this... ...

...give the strays of OU and OSU a better home in the north, but obviously keep the Tampax Heavy Flow River Shootout an annual bloody mess.
Kick Iowa State into the Big XI and give that conference a C game; where the two best play each other (a la Kubrick's Iowa-dOSU debacle), and not dividing it up into some Mongoloid Marketing pie chart. Cause you know, Iowa State has been testes-jocking the big 10 since before Seneca Wallace made his Kunta mark on a letter of intent and stopped eating grass to induce vomiting. As long as Iowa State is happy, that's all I care about...
Kansas and Mizzou flip a coin for which team will abort their respective football programs. Its scheduled for 2010, but we will expedite it a bit.
While we are at it, Baylor gets relegated to the likes of Cougar High and Uncle Ben's Institute for the Gifted and Smelly; and TCU is white collar promoted into a small window office, but still sitting really close to the Janitor closet.
Any takers.

by Tbone Stallone on Apr 19, 2006 11:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

We still would have been

Big 12 champs, even without the confernce championship game. The Pac-10 didn't seem to have any problems deciding on a conference champ, nor did the Big-10/11.

Conference Championship games are money makers. That was the only reason that they are added.

And yeah, ask me at the start of any season, and I would prefer a no conference championship game. You won out in the regular season, kudos to you. On the flip side, your team shouldn't get a big payday for a mediocre season by managing to scrape out a "conference champtionship" victory <looking at Big12 North>.

by Brandon 97 on Apr 19, 2006 2:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

sorry -

"...IS the only reason that they are added."

by Brandon 97 on Apr 19, 2006 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am talking about 1996

and we definitely would not have been the conference champs, as Nebraska had by far the better conference record. We were the equivalent of Colorado this year. A team who was the best out of the far worse side of the conference, the south.

Leslie beat Adam at pool!

by Wells on Apr 19, 2006 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

NCAA rule

It is has been too long since I looked at the NCAA manual (and I am too lazy/afraid to look at it again), I recall a conference had to have football divisions to conduct a championship. A conference must have 12 members and members play in a split division format.

Also, with the proposed permenant rotational members, you are arguing for adoption of the scheduling format used in the Big 10. Several of the schools moaned and groaned about the trip to Penn State. In that situation, every school will claim Iowa State and Baylor as a rival. Wins are wins.

by milevin on Apr 19, 2006 5:31 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, that game...

the 1996 conference championship...
Roll left. Priest Holmes had a great game in that one.
That game was actually played durring the December graduation ceremonies. I remember quite a few of my friends running out to buy small portable tv's so that the could watch the game durring the ceremony. I heard that it resulted in quite a few untimely cheers for the keynote speaker.
Yeah, I remember that season. It was pretty much just like all the others under Mackovic. Struggle early on, and then fight back to respectability. We went on to play Penn St. in the Orange Bowl, and lost.
I dunno Wells, while it was nice to be on the winning end of that one, our early season performance was pathetic that year. Nebraska would have beaten us 9/10 times, but that was our moment.
Besides, on the downside of that one, that game did get us another year of Mackovic.

by Brandon 97 on Apr 20, 2006 8:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Mackovic

I would argue that game ultimately led to his demise. Expectations were so high going into the 97 season, that when Texas floundered John was fired. If Texas loses that game there are lowered expectations for the following season and possibly Mackovic survives.

by billb on Apr 20, 2006 9:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs