Scenario:
ABC conference has division A and division B.
Set-up:
Division A has two teams, the Lions and Tigers, with 10-2 records, and one team, the Bears, with a 9-3 record. The rest are .500 or under. The Lions beat the Bears in regular season play.
Division B's top team, the Cheetahs, have a 7-5 record, but beat the Lions in regular season, with the rest of its division at .500 or under.
Question: Which two teams should rightfully play for the conference championship?
If you are an SEC, Big 12 or ACC fan, you will probably pick the Lions and the Cheetahs. If you are a Big East, Big Ten or Pac-10 fan, you will probably pick the Lions and Tigers.
Two colossal difference of opinions that seem to cause angst and disruption in the BCS polls and epic beat downs in chat rooms.
For sure, the three BCS conferences that play conference championships do play an extra game, and as such, argue they should get more props in the polls for that.
On the other hand, there are teams in those conferences that schedule FCS schools to counter that extra game in November. It's a give and take.
But what exactly is the point of their conference championship? If it's to name a true champion, are conference championships the perfect way to do that?
The arguments against them are valid. Conference championships exist for one reason and that is the Benjamins—it's a cash-cow for conferences. Another well-founded argument is that since not all the teams play each other, how can a true champion be crowned?
Last season, Georgia had the best overall record in the SEC East at 10-2, yet Tennessee (9-3) was the champ due to beating Georgia during the regular season. I'm still trying to figure out how a team with an overall better record doesn't play in a conference championship.
Today's Must Reads
Yes, Georgia and Tennessee were both 6-2 in conference play, but doesn't overall record count here? Apparently not.
The bottom line is this—conference championships don't take the two top teams in the conference and make them play for the crown. They take the best of each division, and the inequality of it is obvious.
Unless every team plays every team in the conference, a division winner doesn't mean much. A team can be the fourth best team in the conference—such as the mythical Cheetahs—and still play in a championship.
Do conference championships give teams with a poorer record one more chance to have the perfect day and win the crown? Is this really reflective of the best team in the conference?
If the Cheetahs, with a 7-5 record, play the Lions for the crown, and the Lions' two best players are too dinged up to play in the championship game and consequently lose, are the Cheetahs really the best team in that conference?
On the other side of the coin, teams that don't play in a conference championship have a different path to playing post-season. Win or go home. Proponents of this format make their case simple—every conference game is a conference championship.
Each team plays the rest of the teams (except in the Big Ten), and the team with the best record is the champion. This format also eliminates a lot of cupcake scheduling—the Pac-10 only allows for three non-conference games, while other conferences can, and will, play four non-conference games.
Another factor to consider is that since each plays all of the conference's teams, is this not the perfect way to crown a champion? How can one team be deemed better than another when they haven't played each other?
Finally, there is intense pressure on the Pac-10 and Big Ten to add more team(s) to their conference and give them the magic number twelve, and thus, be qualified to hold a conference championship.
Should these conferences cave in to the intense pressure so they can be "equal" to the SEC, ACC, and the Big 12?
Most fans of teams in those non-conference championships are perfectly content to keep their conferences right where they are—the Big Ten and Pac-10 don't want a conference championship, and ever since the ACC raped the Big East, it's going to be a long time before they get close to the mandatory twelve team qualification.
The question remains: are conference championships the best way to determine a champion? Or are they just another way to generate revenues for the conference? Is the best way to determine a conference champion simply to have all the teams play each other?
And most importantly, are teams that play conference championships unjustly being penalized or rewarded by playing that thirteenth game in regular season?
Remember, this isn't about the BCS or plus-one playoff proposals. This is about conference championships.
What say the college football fans?
comments (85) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
Yes, they name the true champion in a competitive setting. One of the reasons the PAC10, Big10, and Big East is lightly regarded by the SEC, and I am certain the Big 12 as well, is they don't have enough mustard in their hot dog to play a championship game.
It was in the Big 12 title games that Texas exposed Nebraska, that Kansas State exposed Oklahoma. These title games give us a true champion on a neutral field with the money on the line.
As long as the PAC10 and Big10 cling to their Rose Bowl as the most important game of the year I can't see either moving into the 21st century to set up a conference title game. I enjoy the traditions of the past as much as anyone, but this 1980s style of naming a conference champion is one the Pac10 and Big10 need move forward on.
Fish or cut bait boys.
2 months ago
A fundamental flaw in the Big Televen and Pac-10 system is that, hypothetically, two teams from the same conference could play for the NC. This can never happen with a conference championship game.
If everyone will remember back a couple of years, Michigan fans were balling and crying and whining about how they somehow deserved to play OSU again, for the NC, simply because they had lost to them better than anyone else.
This would have been a dark stain on the annals of college football. It almost happened and that reveals, what was at the time, some of the bias involved in determining who plays for a NC. Northern sportswriters almost, just a tad short, catapulted Michigan right back into the NC game.
If Urban Meyer had not done some crying and whining of his own on national television, we may very well have had an OSU vs. Michigan rematch. What a travesty that would have been.
So, that is one thing that conference championship games eliminate, the human factor. Of course, it isn't eliminated completely because teams in the Southeastern Conference, etc... still rely on rankings given to them by voters and computers.
Something you must understand about an SEC Conference type setup, Lisa, is that it is divided into two divisions. A western division and an eastern division. All the teams in the west will play each other every single year and the same goes for the east.
All the teams in the West do not play all the teams in the East, but quite a few of them do. That is crucial to understanding a conference championship type scenario like the SEC has.
You do not take the overall record of each individual team to determine who plays who in the conference championship game, but you use the conference record of each team.
You used as an example that Georgia had an overall better record than Tennessee but still did not have the opportunity to play in the SEC Championship game. This is true, but you do not fully understand the playoff system in the SEC and the ACC and the Big12.
Georgia did indeed have the better overall record, but Tennessee had the same conference record as Georgia, which was 6-2. With both Georgia and Tennessee having a 6-2 "conference" record, but with Tennessee having a victory over Georgia, which one do you believe has the upper hand when it comes time for the SEC Championship Game? Remember, only one of them can meet a team from the other division of the SEC. You can't have Tennessee playing Georgia or S. Carolina playing Florida in the conference championship because they are all in the same division of the SEC, which would be the eastern division.
Another issue that you may not understand is that the winner of the SEC Championship game or the Big 12 or the ACC does not necessarily play for the NC. I think Oklahoma proved this when they lost their conference championship game and still were voted in to play for the NC.
And no, no rule has been implemented since Oklahoma did this. There is no BCS rule that says that a conference champion will play for the NC if in a position to do so.
Allow me to clarify myself.
Georgia was ranked higher than Tennessee and was a better team than Tennessee at the end of the year, everyone knows that. Tennessee still had the opportunity to play in the conference championship game, but that did not mean that Georgia did not have a chance to play in the NC game.
Georgia could very well have been voted into the National Championship game, just as Oklahoma was, regardless of the outcome of the SEC Championship game or regardless of the fact that they did not even have a chance to play for their conference championship.
from 2 months ago
here is what happened to uga. they had the longest winning streak of any BCS conference school. they won 6 straight football games by 75 points and went DOWN in the polls. while the team who lost 90 hours earlier, at home, giving up 50 points to an unranked opponent went from 7 to 2 in the polls.
is that because they won the SEC championship game barely against the 3rd best team in the east or is it because the voters won't vote a non conference champion into the NCG? oklahoma may be the last we see. unless herbsteit changes his mind and tune a third time in 3 years next dec. 7th.
kansa and uga and auburn fans really just want to know what the rules are going to be going forward. no more change the tune in thw 11th hour. of course ohio state went from 3 to 1 and never snapped the football. you got to figure the voters would pretty much follow the line in las vegas. if that is the case, ask yourself. who would have been favored in an SECCG matchup? uga or lsu?
if you say uga then really the championship is paramount at the conference level.
who is the only college football team to be ranked number 1 3 times in a season? 2007 lsu
ask yourself why.
from 2 months ago
"A fundamental flaw in the Big Televen and Pac-10 system is that, hypothetically, two teams from the same conference could play for the NC."
Sorry brah, that's not a fundamental flaw with the Big Ten - that's a fundamental flaw with the BCS. It never would have been possible for two conference foes to play for the national title before the NCAA adopted the BCS system. Therefore, it's not the conference's flaw. It's the NCAA's flaw.
2 months ago
The biggest controversy to me is when the Big Ten has Co-Champs that did not play each other during the year. In 2002 Iowa and Ohio State both finished the Big Ten undefeated. Iowa's only loss was early in the year to Iowa State, and Ohio State ran the table. But because they only play 8 conference games and do not have a championship game, they did not get to prove who was the best in the Big Ten on the field (yes I know OSU beat Miami and Iowa got waxed by USC in the bowl games but you were talking about the conference title).
In the Pac-10 I applauded when they used the 12th game to make it another conference game so now they can all play each other, but since the Big Ten is stuck with 11 the same situation could happen again. In the SEC that would not happen because the two teams would either play each other in the regular season, or meet in the Championship game.
The "perfect" scenario would be for all conferences to have a title game, or all of them drop a team or two and make sure you all play each other at least once. Since the conferences are all about the money the former would most likely happen.
2 months ago
[quote]by john
from about 1 hour ago
here is what happened to uga. they had the longest winning streak of any BCS conference school. they won 6 straight football games by 75 points and went DOWN in the polls. while the team who lost 90 hours earlier, at home, giving up 50 points to an unranked opponent went from 7 to 2 in the polls.
is that because they won the SEC championship game barely against the 3rd best team in the east or is it because the voters won't vote a non conference champion into the NCG? oklahoma may be the last we see. unless herbsteit changes his mind and tune a third time in 3 years next dec. 7th.
kansa and uga and auburn fans really just want to know what the rules are going to be going forward. no more change the tune in thw 11th hour. of course ohio state went from 3 to 1 and never snapped the football. you got to figure the voters would pretty much follow the line in las vegas. if that is the case, ask yourself. who would have been favored in an SECCG matchup? uga or lsu?
if you say uga then really the championship is paramount at the conference level.
who is the only college football team to be ranked number 1 3 times in a season? 2007 lsu
ask yourself why.[/quote]
John, I too believe that Georgia should have been playing in the NC game, regardless of not playing in the SEC Conference Championship game.
I think some sportscasters, such as the one you alluded to, unfairly influenced voters. There was a false perception being spread that somehow the BCS doesn't allow a non-conference winner to play in the NC game.
This is what was repeated over and over and over again, of course it isn't true. Many "personalities" were even going so far as to say that if you voted for Georgia that your vote would be wasted because it simply would not be allowed for Georgia to play in the game.
I think some of that intentional trickery was being done because many knew that Georgia would have obliterated OSU. Some thought that OSU would stand a better chance against LSU.
How you can lose your last game of the regular season and then beat an average Tennessee team and shoot up the polls like LSU did is still a mystery. But, it is a mystery partly explained by the phenomenon I explained above.
Conference championships have absolutely nothing at all to do with who plays in the NC game and the BCS intended it to be that way so that a team like Georgia would not be unfairly treated.
from 2 months ago
"John, I too believe that Georgia should have been playing in the NC game, regardless of not playing in the SEC Conference Championship game.
I think some sportscasters, such as the one you alluded to, unfairly influenced voters. There was a false perception being spread that somehow the BCS doesn't allow a non-conference winner to play in the NC game.
This is what was repeated over and over and over again, of course it isn't true. Many "personalities" were even going so far as to say that if you voted for Georgia that your vote would be wasted because it simply would not be allowed for Georgia to play in the game.
I think some of that intentional trickery was being done because many knew that Georgia would have obliterated OSU. Some thought that OSU would stand a better chance against LSU.
How you can lose your last game of the regular season and then beat an average Tennessee team and shoot up the polls like LSU did is still a mystery. But, it is a mystery partly explained by the phenomenon I explained above.
Conference championships have absolutely nothing at all to do with who plays in the NC game and the BCS intended it to be that way so that a team like Georgia would not be unfairly treated."
But what about Kansas???
Why do you believe that Georgia should have been playing in the BCS National Championship Game... and NOT Kansas???
2 months ago
John, I do have to take issue with your statement about Auburn just wanting to know what to expect from this point on.
The idea that has been disseminated about Auburn being horribly cheated out of their rightful chance to a shot at being national champions is an idea that has no merit.
Auburn rightfully did not get a shot because of this:
2004-Auburn (SEC)
9/4 vs. Louisiana-Monroe (5-6) W 31 0
9/11 @ *Mississippi State (3-8) W 43 14
9/18 vs. *Louisiana State (9-3) W 10 9
9/25 vs. Citadel (non-IA) W 33 3
10/2 @ *Tennessee (10-3) W 34 10
10/9 vs. Louisiana Tech (6-6) W 52 7
10/16 vs. *Arkansas (5-6) W 38 20
10/23 vs. *Kentucky (2-9) W 42 10
10/30 @ *Mississippi (4-7) W 35 14
11/13 vs. *Georgia (10-2) W 24 6
11/20 @ *Alabama (6-6) W 21 13
12/4 vs. *Tennessee (10-3) W 38 28
They played 6 teams with losing seasons,
one Double A team,
a 3-8 Ms. State, a 2-9 Kentucky, a 4-7 Mississippi,
2 teams with break even seasons,
played one good team twice, and finally,
they scheduled Louisiana Tech, Louisiana Monroe, & Citadel all in the same season,
bugging my eyes out at this last one:
LT, LM, and Citadel all in the same season, damn.
Impressive season? I don't think so, and not many voters did either.
2 months ago
Conference championship games are only about the money, and don't let any conference commissioners try tell you otherwise. However, they only make money if they are done properly, and the ACC has lost lots of money on its title game because it was set up expecting FSU and/or Miami to be in it every year, and that has happened only once.
The best way to determine a champ is to do a complete round robin schedule where everyone plays everyone else, but only the Big East and Pac 10 are small enough to make that happen. But, there's no going back in size for everyone else, and there's no way anyone is scheduling 11 conference games.
Having the title game at the end could scuttle a team's national title hopes if it gets upset, but it also provides a high-profile boost on the last weekend of the season. Since the national title game is decided by subjective opinion polls, having that boost outweighs the risk of losing provided the team is playing someone decent.
Sure, it's possibly that the two best teams in a conference reside in the same division, but that's hardly a reason get rid of the conference title game. I mean, the two best teams nationally could be in the same conference, but I doubt we'll ever see a national title game with two teams from the same conference. If that never comes to pass, is that enough to get rid of the national title game?
2 months ago
ok, first off, if you don't win your conference, you shouldn't play for a nat'l championship.
why de-value the regular season???
secondly, lisa, i really can't say i agree with your UGA-tenn scenario saying that overall record should count for something. two reasons:
1) what incentive would that give (with no playoff in place) for teams to schedule tough non conf opponents?
2) it's called a conference championship for a reason. the best record in the conference. UGA had a chance to play LSU in ATL but they blew it by not taking care of business and not catching a break when tenn played UK.
but another solid article and this column is great fodder for conversation.
so in case you haven't guessed put me down in the "conference cg" column. the only conference that gets a pass right now without a cg is the pac 10 in which at least all the teams play each other.
2 months ago
John i see your point but LSU deserved to be in the National Championship game over Georgia
There is no way you can put a team that finished 3rd in the SEC in the Nat Champ game over the winner of that same conference. Both were 11-2. Georgia didn't even win their division. However, I agree it was a bit unfair that LSU jumped from 7 to 2 after the SEC Championship game. But in the end they got it right.
I don't know how you can argue that Ohio State shouldn't have jumped from 3 to 1 in the last week. You do realize that Missouri and WVU were ranked 1 and 2 and the both loss. That's what should happen.
Kansas obviously didn't deserve any consideration for the Nat Champ game. They finished 3rd in their own conference and lost to the only good team they played all year (Missouri). Not to mention, they played an extremely weak schedule.
from 2 months ago
"Kansas obviously didn't deserve any consideration for the Nat Champ game. They finished 3rd in their own conference and lost to the only good team they played all year (Missouri). Not to mention, they played an extremely weak schedule."
What are you talking about???
Kansas DEFINITELY DESERVED CONSIDERATION for the BCS National Championship Game :)
2 months ago
Here would be the Ideal situation. It'll never happen, but it would be great.
There are currently 119 FBS teams. Absorb one more from the FCS, possibly ASU. Then realign FBS into 12 10 team conferences. The current BCS conferences each take one of the six lesser conferences as an attachment. The Pac 10 gets the WAC. The Big Ten gets the MAC. The SEC gets the Sun Belt. The Big XII gets the MWC. The ACC gets CUSA, and the Big East gets the independents plus the local teams that get ejected due to contraction.
Each conference plays a true round robin, like the Pac 10 does, and each conference plays a standardized schedule, 6 home, 6 away. One game will be allowed against a rival team demoted to a mid major, the other two non conference games must be played against Major Conference Schools. At the end of the season, the last place team in the major conference is demoted to its attached mid major conference, and the champion of the mid major conference takes its place.
The champion of each major conference plays in a playoff, with the two highest ranked teams getting first week byes. This will require 5 games, and three weeks to play through. The first round will be played in the Orange Bowl and Fiesta Bowl, the second round in the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl, and the Final round in the Championship game.
The remaining bowls are played out by selection, as is done now.
2 months ago
They should just make it a rule that if you don't win your conference you can't play for the Nat Champ.
This is why: Georgia finished 3rd in its division. So what that says is that UGA is the 3rd best team out of 12. So how can the third best team in its own conference be the best team in the country?
from 2 months ago
What is says is that Georgia got ripped out of a fair shot. OSU benefited from not playing a conference championship game whereas Georgia was penalized for being in a conference that has a conference championship game.
You tell me how Georgia fell and OSU rose:
2007 NCAA Football Rankings - Week 13 (Nov. 25)
1. Missouri 11-1
2. West Virginia 10-1
3. Ohio State 11-1
4. Georgia 10-2
5. Kansas 11-1
6. Virginia Tech 10-2
7. LSU 10-2
8. USC 9-2
9. Oklahoma 10-2
10. Florida 9-3
Missouri and W. Virginia lost. Ohio State rose to the #1 spot, yet Georgia went in the other direction, falling, falling, falling. Neither one played in a conference championship, yet OSU was rewarded for not doing so and Georgia was punished. OSU was #3 and Georgia was #4, Missouri and W. Virginia lose and OSU rises to #1, yet Georgia doesn't rise to #2?
Once again, a conference championship has absolutely nothing to do with being eligible to play in a national championship game.
The BCS designed it this way with full knowledge that all conferences did not have conference championship games, they did it to level the playing field.
Unfortunately, it hasn't leveled the playing field, but only gave an unfair advantage to the Pac-10 and the Big Televen.
Again, conference championship games have absolutely nothing at all to do with who plays for a national championship. Never did, never has, and the BCS intended it to be this way and have no plans of changing it.
Now, popular sentiment may be that if you are in a conference that has a conference championship game you must win it to even have a shot at making it the national championship game, but popular sentiment doesn't count.
Luckily, for teams like OSU, they don't have to sweat it. Sportscasters, talking heads on ESPN, sportswriters, etc... that try to create the perception that you must win your conference championship are lying to you. Why?
They are doing it to give an upper hand to the OSU's of the world who don't play conference championship games. The BCS organization specifically included the rule that you "do not" have to win your conference championship to be eligible to play in the NC game for a reason.
from 2 months ago
"What is says is that Georgia got ripped out of a fair shot. OSU benefited from not playing a conference championship game whereas Georgia was penalized for being in a conference that has a conference championship game.
You tell me how Georgia fell and OSU rose:
2007 NCAA Football Rankings - Week 13 (Nov. 25)
1. Missouri 11-1
2. West Virginia 10-1
3. Ohio State 11-1
4. Georgia 10-2
5. Kansas 11-1
6. Virginia Tech 10-2
7. LSU 10-2
8. USC 9-2
9. Oklahoma 10-2
10. Florida 9-3
Missouri and W. Virginia lost. Ohio State rose to the #1 spot, yet Georgia went in the other direction, falling, falling, falling. Neither one played in a conference championship, yet OSU was rewarded for not doing so and Georgia was punished. OSU was #3 and Georgia was #4, Missouri and W. Virginia lose and OSU rises to #1, yet Georgia doesn't rise to #2?"
What are you talking about???
Kansas SHOULD have rose to #2... NOT Georgia :)
from 2 months ago
no it didn't it finished tied for first michael.
2 months ago
I highly disagree that Georgia should have been playing in Atlanta last year. They got beat by Tennessee which means Tennessee was better. Its that easy. You bring up Georgia had a better win lost record, well yes they did, but the SEC Championship is for the SEC records. Plus Tennessee had to play Cal last year
from 2 months ago
Well, Stephen, there is a difference between SEC Champion and National Champion. Just as you say, the SEC Championship is for the SEC, not for the national championship.
Some of you really need to purge this idea that you have to win your conference championship to play for a NC, if that were the case the PAC-10 and the Big Televen would not be allowed to play for the NC, ever.
Georgia was ranked higher than LSU and ranked much, much higher than Tennessee at the time of SEC Championship game. Nationally, Georgia was a better team than either one of them according to the "experts" who vote for them.
2 months ago
Ctrl-Atl-Del, i agree the poll standings at the time was unfair to UGA. It was a weird situation for everyone involved.
Take the top 25 poll standings out of it. You believe UGA should have been in the Nat Champ game over LSU?
You both finished with two losses and played difficult schedules. However, LSU won the conference which is the biggest factor involved. Not only did UGA not win their conference they didn't even win their division.
How many times has a team not won its division and played for the NC game? Zero.
How is it possible if you aren't the best team in your conference but still be the best team in the country?
from 2 months ago
"How many times has a team not won its division and played for the NC game? Zero."
Not true at all. Nebraska played in the Rose Bowl in 2001 without winning the Big 12 North. Nice try, but you might want to check your facts first. Still, they got blown out, so it supports your opinion anyway. In 2003 Oklahoma didn't win the Big 12 Championship, and they also lost in the National Championship. So that doesn't bode well for conference non-champions.
(For more about previous BCS seasons, check out my articles from last week)
2 months ago
Ctrl-Atl-Del wrote:
"Some of you really need to purge this idea that you have to win your conference championship to play for a NC, if that were the case the PAC-10 and the Big Televen would not be allowed to play for the NC, ever."
This is an extremely weak argument. The PAC 10, Big 10, and Big East all crown conference champs but don't play a conference championship game.
The SEC, ACC, and Big 12 also crown a conference champ but they play their 2 best teams in a conference championship game.
It doesn't matter whether they play a conference championship game or not. Either way, they still crown a conference champ. Even if the SEC had the format of the Big 10 or Pac 10, UGA still would've finished have finished first. They still wouldn't even have beaten out Tennessee because Tenn held the tie breaker.
2 months ago
ummm...looks like I arrived at the party a little late here. For the record, I think conference championships are a little over-the-top. They don't name a true champ. To me, #1 plays #2 for the crown. No ifs, ands or buts about it.
#1 playing #4 doesn't name a true champ....on any given Saturday, any team can beat another team. Why should one game count more than an entire regular season? If you have an undefeated team and for some reason, they have one bad friggin day and lose to a 7-5 team, are you telling me the 7-5 team deserves the crown? No way.
CC's encourage regular season games to have less importance than post season play. If team A beats team B in regular season, and they happen to meet up in the CC, why should THAT game have more significance than regular season's outcome?
from 2 months ago
You're so right. Example: the ACC in 2005. Because of a couple mistakes, VT lost to FSU (despite outplaying them). A decidedly less impressive FSU is crowned conference champion over VT. Major bummer for Beamer.
(see my comment below for more)
As for the conference championship games being over the top-- they are definitely not perfect, but they're still better than potentially having an unbreakable tie (à la the Big Ten).
from 2 months ago
If you feel that a superior team losing to a less than team is just a fluke and should not affect them too drastically, then you agree that Georgia got scammed for losing early to S.C. and then to Tennessee.
LSU had two losses also, to Kentucky and Arkansas. Tennessee had two losses as well, in conference, 3 overall before the SEC championship game. Four losses after the game, as we all know.
So, you have as much as said that Georgia should have been playing in the SEC Championship game, but I will not go that far.
I will say that they deserved a chance at the NC over LSU. But, who cares, all of that is over with.
I would like to ask that if, as you say, #1 plays #2 for a "crown" of a conference, do you feel the same about #1 playing #2 for the NC?
How do you reconcile your thoughts with the way that Georgia fell in the polls and OSU rose in the polls when #1Missouri and #2 West Virginia lost? Using your own reasoning, is it fair or reasonable to allow #3 OSU to rise to #1 and #4 Georgia to drop like a rock?
Neither system is perfect, but championship games allow for more competitiveness. All teams in each division of a conference such as the SEC play each other. The teams that have the best records or a tie breaking win on their resume are allowed to play the same type of team from the other division of the conference.
If a clearly better team such as Georgia blows it and do not have the win/loss average on their side, they lose out on the conference championship game.
This does not preclude a team like Georgia from having a shot at a NC and I am afraid that many have misunderstood this to be the case.
A team that wins a conference championship can very well be the best team in a conference, but that is not always the case, as we saw with Georgia last year.
As far as a #1 team playing a #4 team as you mentioned above, that does not happen in conference championship games. I assume you are speaking of a #1 team in a conference and #4 team in a conference, this doesn't happen.
On paper, the best team from each division plays in the conference championship game, the best team on paper. The best team on paper does not always equal the best team on the field, but I feel it is far less arbitrary than what the Big Televen has set up.
I mean, could you honestly imagine two teams who had just played each other as their last game of the season matching up again in the NC game? LOL. That would be absurd, yet was almost allowed by the screwy system that is in place for the Big Televen and the sappy voters who knock the slobber out of each other to vote for these types of teams.
from 2 months ago
Lisa your forgetting that this is how sports work. Did the Giants who had 6 losses in the regular season deserve to win the Super Bowl over the undefeated Patriots? Maybe not, but the fact is that it happened. If you win the game you deserve the crown period.
If your the second best team in your division but better than all teams in the other division and you already lost to the best team then you had your chance, too bad. If the best team doesn't win a game they're supposed to, they don't deserve the championship anyway.
And who says that a conference championship game has more weight in the BCS than a regular season game? Let's not forget that you must have the best regular season record to even make it to the conference championship game so I'm not sure how it lessens the importance of regular season games.
2 months ago
I agree with the folks saying that LSU deserved to be in the National Championship more than UGA did, but I don't think being the conference champion is the deciding factor by any means.
They had the same number of losses, but LSU did so in a more difficult schedule, with more ranked teams. Both of LSU's losses were in triple-overtime, and both were to respectable 8-5 teams.
Georgia twice lost in regulation; one of which was to a 6-6 team that didn't even play in a bowl, and the other loss was a 35-14 shellacking to Tennessee.
Note that without the overtime rule, LSU would have been undefeated and easily number one. If you are comparing an 11-0-2 team to a 10-2-0 team, it's not hard to pick the better record.
LSU beat both of the teams Georgia lost to. LSU also demolished ACC champ Virginia Tech in a nonconference game.
At the end of the regular season, Georgia had beaten only two teams that finished ranked in the top 25. LSU had beaten 4.
There is no contest for who should have been in the national championship game.
It doesn't mean that this will always be the case; say Georgia beat South Carolina and Tennessee beat Alabama so each finished with just one SEC loss. Then Tennessee still goes to the SEC championship game but Georgia almost certainly would have played OSU for the national title.
Also, to set the record straight: Georgia and Tennessee were co-SEC East Champions. Tennessee went to the SEC Championship Game because they won a tiebreaker, which was the head-to-head result. Georgia did not fail to win their division, they were co-champions of their division. So holding that "they didn't even win their own division" line over their head is somewhat misguided.
In fact, if you look at records against SEC teams as of December 2nd the way the Big 10 does (i.e. without divisional distinctions) then you see:
LSU 7-2
Georgia 6-2
Tennessee 6-3
Auburn 5-3
Florida 5-3
By this "Big Ten" logic, Georgia is the second-best team in the SEC.
It's too bad the comments have gone away from the actual theme of the article. In reference to that:
It's pretty clear that the round robin-style (i.e. Pac 10 and Big East) conference season makes the most sense and is the fairest. Of course, a championship game is better if you don't play a round robin. The Big 10 is the worst, because it's not uncommon for them to have co-champions who didn't play each other.
As for the penalty vs. extra boost from the conference championship game:
I look at each game as another bit of information about a team, another chance for them to show themselves on the field and be evaluated. When 2007 LSU or 2006 Florida wins their conference championship, that's one more piece of evidence that they're deserving of being in the national championship.
Sure, teams that don't play that weekend are at a little bit of a disadvantage in that sense, but that's just how it is. If they wanted to play a game the last weekend of the regular season, they should have talked to their conference about how they schedule (or played at Hawaii--those teams can play an extra game to counteract the travel cost).
Teams that play more games have more chances to show how good they are, so of course they're at an advantage if they win. But teams who play fewer games have fewer chances to lose, and so they can finish with fewer losses a little more easily.
For every advantage, there's a disadvantage; there's no black and white answer.
Wow, I could have just written an article about this instead of leaving a comment. Please excuse the length; I had a lot to say.
from 2 months ago
James-
First let me say, LSU deserved to be in the NC. I have no qualms about them deserving to be there. However, and this is a big however.....I tend to look at how teams finish the season. Georgia finished a lot stronger. I would have liked to have seen Georgia play LSU for the CC, but that wouldn't have happened.
Georgia and LSU, at the end of November, were the two best teams in the SEC. That would have been a helluva championship game. LSU might have had a serious fight on their hands. I don't think LSU didn't deserve to go to the CC, but throwing Georgia in the mix and the end would have been the best possible way to determine who was really the best in the SEC.
It is for that reason, that I believe #1 should play #2.
I like every team playing every team in a conference...it leaves no doubt. Whomever has the best record is the champ.
The Big Ten is a separate problem...they don't play everyone. Personally, I believe if you have 11 teams in a conference, you can still play the other 10 teams with two non-conference games...and let's face it, Indy and Northwestern are the same as a lower level FBC team, so it's almost like playing 3 or 4 non-c games. They need to play every one.
You had very valid points...it's a touchy subject. It seems to have touched a lot of nerves. Silly me...I'm a pot stirrer. :p
from 2 months ago
a lot stronger lisa? that is the understatement.
2 months ago
You make some good points James.
Yes, techincally UGA was co champs in the SEC East but it is not unfair to say they finished second. By Tennessee holding the tie breaker they finished first and UGA finished second. That is what the tie breaker is there for, to determine who finishes 1st and who finishes 2nd.
Correct me if im wrong but the winner of the East plays the winner of the West in the SEC Championship game.
UGA didn't play in the SEC Championship game, therefore they didn't win their division.
Its like in the NBA, MLB, or NFL: If two teams tie for the division lead at the end of the season it goes down to the tie breaker. The team that losses the tie breaker doesn't get a banner that say "2007 NL East Champions"
from 2 months ago
Michael...true...but I think overall record should carry more weight...Georgia had the better overall record...I think it should count for something.
2 months ago
You might have a point. Im not sure how they would implicate that though. However it is a conference championship so if you can beat the teams within your conference, does it really matter if you can't win outside your conference.
2 months ago
"Yes, Georgia and Tennessee were both 6-2 in conference play, but doesn't overall record count here? Apparently not."
Why should it count? They played completely different opponents out of conference. Tennessee beat Georgia - handily, I might add - what's so wrong with that?
from 2 months ago
Jeff-
If it shouldn't count, why bother playing the games? If conference games are the most important, then why not have every team play each other and schedule only one non-conference game? You can't say the overall record shouldn't count....in the NFL, it's overall record which is the measuring stick as to determining who plays post-season.
from 2 months ago
I would have no problem with every team playing one another - in fact, it's a painfully obvious thing that all conferences should have been doing a long time ago. But until that happens, I'd prefer to talk about the system we have in real life. If two teams play head-to-head, it should be the first tiebreaker. There's really no good argument for having out-of-conference results trump head-to-head results.
2 months ago
What can tend to make things seem more unfair is this idea of "who's playing best at the end of the season". I think the conference championship games are actually the most fair system in all of college football, because it rewards your record equally from September-November. It gets all out of balance then because the BCS, human polls and public opinion can tend to reward teams for how hot they are late and place them in bowls accordingly. I don't agree with it, but you can make a somewhat logical argument for Georgia in the BCS title game, if you can get past that whole didn't win their division/didn't play for the SEC Championship thing. But I don't see, at all, how you can make an argument that Georgia should've replaced Tennessee in the SEC Championship Game when the two teams had the same SEC record and Tennessee destroyed Georgia when they played head to head. I don't care if that was in October or not. The SEC/ACC/Big 12 system is fair because it rewards the whole finish product equally instead of just what you've done lately.
By the way, and I've always wondered this - where are all the Oklahoma fans in this argument? The Sooners also lost twice - once at the end of the game to a poor Colorado team, once at a good Texas Tech team by seven when their quarterback got a concussion on the first play. They smoked the #1 team in the country in the Big 12 Championship Game. They too were 11-2, and their losses are more understandable than Georgia's, plus they played for and won their conference title game. You could easily make an argument that OU, not LSU, should've played Ohio State.
from 2 months ago
Will-
I respectfully disagree that it rewards games equally from Sept- November. As a matter of fact, if two teams play each other in regular season and team A beats team B, if they meet again in the CC, and team B beats team A, then B is the champ. The second game holds more weight than the first.
PS...good question...where are the Sooner fans? ;)
from 2 months ago
Lisa,
i get where you are coming from and team A could win the reg season matchup and lose the conf cg and that part is a little uneven. (sorta like LSU-tenn in 2001) so you were probably in favor of tenn being in tha NC that year.
but i don't think (in this year's case) UGA's loss to tennessee head to head should be devalued by snubbing UT out of the conf cg.
i understand that tenn wasn't the sexy choice but that's why they play the whole season and don't just count the games atthe end of the season.
i think the argument is two pronged.
1) who deserves to be in the ccg??
2) should the conf cg dash a team's chances at the NC??
also what if there was no ccg last year. LSU and UGA had the same records. who would represent the SEC/play for a NC?
does UGA get the nod for being the hotter team or does LSU get the nod by beating better teams (as pointed out by James) through the course of the whole season??
i feel the same way about ccg as i do about the BCS. they are not ideal but better than the old way.
2 months ago
You ask good questions. Since the team joined a conference, if they have to play an extra game, well, that's their lot in life. If you notice, a lot of teams that have CC also sked an FCS school...so it kinda negates a little of the schedule difficulty.
But I do believe #1 should play #2 for a championship...#1 v #4 doesn't cut it for me.
from 2 months ago
Lisa, just out of curiosity, why do you keep repeating the mantra of #1 vs. #4? When has any conference championship game been between the #1 and the #4 teams of each respective division? Has that happened? Are you talking about conference rankings or national rankings?
I may be totally off track here, but doesn't the best team from each division of a conference play each other in the conference championship game? I am talking about the best two teams in a conference concerning win loss records and who beat who and who holds the tie breakers, etc...
The way you are constantly phrasing your #1 against #4 scenario, it makes it seem as if you wish to create an impression that the #1 ranked team in the western division of the SEC would somehow play the #4 ranked team in the eastern division of the SEC.
Explain exactly how that would happen, I enjoy learning things.
2 months ago
Conference record counts for conference title. Overall record counts for overall title. It makes sense if you think of each conference as its own league, with the nonconference games and bowls being a competition amongst teams from different leagues. After all, that's really how these college football conferences got started. It wasn't originally a national sport.
It's comparable to international club soccer, in that sense. When an Italian team plays a British squad in the Champions' League or UEFA Cup, it doesn't affect the standings in the Italian league; nor should it. Similarly, if a Big Ten team plays a MAC team, it shouldn't affect the standings in the Big Ten.
--
Also, it's important to note the difference between "rankings" and "standings." Rankings are an assessment of how good or bad teams are. Standings are strictly a comparison by record.
Conference championship races use standings, because they can regulate and standardize the conference schedule of each team. Thus, their win-loss records can be reasonably compared. The national championship race uses rankings, because teams from across the country can't necessarily be differentiated based solely on wins and losses. That's why Hawaii didn't play in the championship game.
The reason conferences use standings to decide on a champion instead of rankings is because standings are inherently objective and unaffected by personal biases. They are simple and final.
Sure, every SEC "Power Ranking" at the end of the season probably had Georgia and LSU as the top two. But those are rankings, not standings; they don't decide anything.
The NFL, as you mentioned, Lisa, uses overall record. But it uses it in standings, not rankings, because the schedules are controlled and uniform. If you look at NFL "Power Rankings," they don't exactly mirror the NFL standings, because rankings are subjective, and standings are objective.
If you use overall records to decide conference standings (like your NFL example), then a team can schedule four cupcakes to make sure it doesn't drop in the standings thanks to nonconference losses. Since the nonconference schedules vary wildly, you can't just use standings based on overall records.
So, if college football conferences eventually rank their teams in a poll instead of using standings, then yeah, you can then have the #1 v #2 ranked teams play. Would it really be good to have some poll determine who should play in the conference championship game? That's the only way you could fairly take overall record into account.
2 months ago
James-
But the whole goal of any football team is to win the conference. The only real way to measure how good a team is outside their conference is through non-conference games, but again, that's used for polls. I understand the difference between rankings and standings.
My point is simple.....all games should count equally. For example...if you have a Big Ten team who doesn't play Ohio State or Michigan this year (and there is at least one of those teams this year), then a tough non-conference game should be used in their record. I would be more impressed with a team who beat PSU, Wisconsin and Oregon Ducks than a team who beat Michigan, Indiana and Youngstown State.
Yes, it's for conference standings only, but the bottom line is that they play 12 games...and all of them should count. Too many mediocre teams have played in conference championships when a more deserving team should have played.
The best way to determine who is the best in the conference is to play everybody in the conference, is it not? If you don't play everybody, how can you judge a champion? It's illogical. A champion represents the best of the conference, not the best of one division who plays the best of another division.
If you look at the mythical scenario above, the Cheetahs are the fourth best team yet ply for the CC. That's simply not representative of one of the two best teams in the conference.
from 2 months ago
Lisa, you tend to go on and on about how each team, in a perfect world, would play every other team in their conference - I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you on that point. It's reached the point of irrelevance to talk about that.
That being said, let's talk about real life college football for a second, as opposed to how it would be if the world were perfect: In the event of identical intra-conference records between two teams, don't you think that the primary tiebreaker should be a head-to-head result (a la Tennessee-Georgia), if one exists? Why on earth would out-of-conference results trump head-to-head results? You wanna talk about illogical - THAT'S illogical.
from 2 months ago
You're right. Having every team play every other team within a conference is the best way to do a conference championship.
Unfortunately, some conferences have too many teams to do that. So unless we go to a dream (or nightmare) scenario where college football is completely overhauled so that it's organized with new conference alignment and mandated scheduling (which will never happen), there isn't a feasible way to have every game count fairly.
The SEC can only control the SEC portion of a team's schedule. The rest is out of their control, so the rest doesn't concern the SEC in determining their champion.
I know that the current conference championship methods for everyone but the Big East and Pac 10 are illogical. But explain to me a logical (and doable) way for those conferences to choose a champion. There isn't one unless you require them to play 10 or 11 conference games, which is absolutely not going to happen.
--
I could say that my ideal scenario would be for each conference to play a full round-robin, but then I'd miss out on tons of great inter-sectional non-conference match-ups. Would I really want that?
The true beauty of college football is that it is so complex, and appealing for so many reasons.
There are two levels of competition-- National and Conference (you could even argue that there is now competition between conferences). Each one has its own wonderful appeal, and changing either takes away greatly from the other.
The National level is abstract. It requires everyone to watch each game, to compare the teams based on their performance and use all the information at hand to decide who is the best. It requires careful analysis and discussion, and it is inherently subjective. In the end, it's the ultimate reality show, right down to a vote deciding who wins.
The Conference level is concrete. It's as simple and clear-cut as the NFL or any other sport. In some conferences, teams win their division and division winners play for the championship. In some conferences, teams play every other team to decide. No matter what, all you have to do is compare wins and losses and maybe check a tiebreaker.
I'm not saying that the sport is perfect as it is; in fact, it's far from it. But the "flaws" are a huge reason we like college football more than the NFL. In fact, I had been on the other side of this argument for a long time, until I finally fully thought through the subject and realized that I don't really want college football to change.
...well, maybe I could go for a plus-one game.
(Again, sorry about the length. I just can't stop writing about this stuff once I get going.)
2 months ago
Ctrl-Alt-Del,
I was actually enjoying your comments until I read the one about the 2004 Auburn team. I was a little suprised that you held the opinion that Auburn didn't deserve a shot in 2004 since most SEC fans felt we did (even your fellow Bama fans). I can accept that the reason we got left out was because OU and USC started off 1 and 2 and never lost. However, after reading further, I realized that your argument for why we didn't was ridiculous.
You seem to do a pretty good job of using numerical facts in your posts, so I thought you'd like to see these numbers (all pre-bowl) in regard to USC and OU's opponents in 2004.
Let's start with OU. The combined winning percentage of their opponents was 53% (Auburn's was 54%). Taking the three worst teams that they played from their conference (in rebuttal to your posted records of Ms. St., Ole Miss, and UK), their respective records were 3-8, 4-7, and 4-7. However, for balance, Texas was the only team OU beat with more than 8 wins. Auburn, on the other hand, won 4 games against teams with 9 or more wins.
As for USC, the combined winning percentage of their opponents was 50% (again, AU was 54%). The "three worst teams" records were 1-10, 3-8, and 4-7 (worse than AU head to head). They won three games against teams with 9 wins or more.
Auburn played 6 teams with losing records? Wow. That sounds bad. Surely, by the tone of that statement OU and USC must not have played any teams with losing records! Oh wait. BOTH of them played 6 TEAMS WITH LOSING RECORDS as well.
As for the bad out of conference schedule, OU and USC played ONE difficult OOC game apiece. OU played Oregon, who was 5-6 and didn't have a single win against a team with a winning record. USC does get props for playing Va Tech, but they had to considering the weakness of their conference schedule. I agree that our out of conference schedule was lacking, but especially as an SEC fan, you can't argue our overall schedule. It was hands down the best of the three.
Here are some final numbers to think about:
Wins against teams with winning records:
AU - 4
USC - 4
OU - 6
Wins against teams with 8 or more wins:
AU - 4
USC - 3
OU - 4
Wins against teams with 9 or more wins:
AU - 4
USC - 3
OU - 2
Wins against teams with 10 or more wins:
AU - 3
USC - 2
OU- 1
Other than an Alabama fan, can anyone look at these numbers and agree with Crtl-Alt-Del? Didn't think so.
2 months ago
To everyone else subjected to reading my response to Ctrl-Alt-Del,
Sorry. I know my post was somewhat off-topic. But, using the age-old arugment that we've all pulled out at one time or another in our lives...
"He started it!"
Please accept my apologies.
from 2 months ago
You are getting a time-out! (j/k)
from 2 months ago
Subjected to reading your response? If you thought your response inappropriate, why post it at all? I didn't think anything was wrong with it.
To set the record straight, I didn't feel I was starting anything, but merely putting facts out there. You did much the same thing.
That is how adults discuss things and learn from each other.
Calm down, stop apologizing, this isn't a flame war. Many times when discussions like this are occurring, different viewpoints will be presented, no need to start gushing out apologies.
Take it easy, Chris. I enjoyed reading your post and you made some valid points, no need to devalue your opinions by apologizing when it really isn't needed.
from 2 months ago
Ctrl-Alt-Del,
My apology wasn't because I feel guilty about discussing differing viewpoints. It was more because this thread is discussing conference championship games, not the 2004 debacle. The apology was partly in jest knowing that many reading it would think "great, another iron bowl war cropping up", and partly to head off any comments that it was off-topic. I was simply acknowledging in advance that it was off topic, but that I felt very strongly that I couldn't let your comments go unchallenged. I always enjoy a rational debate.
I apologize that you misconstrued my apology. (kidding, of course. Thought I'd spell it out this time)
Lisa,
I enjoyed the article and reading the debate. Thanks for not putting me in time-out.
2 months ago
I'm a fan of conference championship games. Yes, Georgia was probably the best team in the entire SEC towards the end of the year, but they didn't take care of business when they needed to. It's not like they didn't get just as fair a shot at playing for the conference title as everybody else. Not to sound like a cliche machine here, but you gotta come to play every week in this conference. If they had just taken care of business against South Carolina, the UT game wouldn't have been an issue.
from 2 months ago
Dscot- You have to come to play in EVERY conference, not just the SEC. If USC hadn't lost to Stanford, SC would have been playing LSU in the NC. The bottom line is that every game counts, but in conference championships, a team with a third best record can be rewarded over a team with the second best record.
Georgia did take care of business. Tennessee did not do as good of job as Georgia, and got the reward.
from 2 months ago
Lisa, if I didn't know any better I'd swear that you have no idea that Georgia and Tennessee played each other last year.
2 months ago
Dscot-
True, and I maintain that LSU deserved the CC and the NC. My point seems to be this: conference championships exist for one reason....MONEY. They came about as a way to generate extra revenue for a conference, and hence, their motives aren't to find a true champion. They can say that the game is a championship game, but two other conferences DON'T have a CC and do have a TRUE champion by virtue of playing everyone in the conference.
By "not taking care of business"...does that mean Georgia having one or two losses and suffering the consequences? (ie- South Carolina)
Question- then how can a team with three or four losses not take care of business and be rewarded with a chance to play in the CC while another team with two losses not get that same chance?
It's inequitable.
from 2 months ago
Lisa, division, division, division. There are two divisions in the SEC and wherever a championship game format is being utilized.
The best team in each "division" play each other at the end of the year to determine who wins the conference championship. Not the best team in the country, not the best team in the national rankings, but the best team in each division.
Tennessee beat out Georgia last year due to a head to head victory and an otherwise identical conference record. Georgia had a better overall record and better national ranking. But they did not have as good of a conference record due to losing the head to head with Tennessee.
The best team in one division of the SEC or the Big 12 does not play the 4th or 5th best team in the other division of it's conference for the conference championship game, that just isn't true.
Why do you continually say that? Are you confused?
from 2 months ago
I won't disagree that the conference championship games are all about the money. However, they produce a legit conference champion, without 2 or three teams that "tie" for the conference championship. With the teams chosen to play for the national championship being so subjective, I can take comfort in knowing that the true champion of the conference is settled on the field.
2 months ago
Cntrl...look at their records~ LSU was 10-2, Georgia was 10-2, Tennessee was 9-3. Tennessee was the third best team in the SEC. No ifs, ands or buts about it. (I said 1 v 3 or 4, but in the above example, a 4 was used).
In 2003, Ga played against LSU for the CC because Ga had a higher BCS ranking than Tennessee. Meanwhile, Ole Miss and LSU had the two best records in the SEC at 7-1. Ga, Tenn and Fla were all 6-2. The second best team in the SEC did not play in the CC...that would be Ole Miss.
In 1999, Florida played in the conference championship game and was tied for fourth as far as best record in the SEC. It happens.
from 2 months ago
This is false. Georgia did not play LSU for the conference championship game due to Georgia having a higher BCS ranking than Tennessee.
This is totally incorrect. BCS rankings have nothing whatsoever to do with conference championship games and who plays who in them.
2 months ago
Who cares...win your games
2 months ago
ctrl....please don't patronize me. You are the confused one. I understand it's two divisions.
But there have been many times where the second best team in the conference doesn't play, and that's why the divisions are not a good way to determine a championship UNLESS every team plays every team.
Answer me this: Do you or do you not agree that the top two teams should play for a championship? I don't care if there are divisions......that's my whole point. DIVISIONS make unfair competition if they don't play each other. A few years ago, you had two teams in the SEC with one loss, and a team with more losses got to play in the CC.
I don't buy that mentality. Frankly, it makes a lot of money for the conference and what you don't seem to get is the Conference Championships don't care about naming a true champion...they care about the Benjamins.
from 2 months ago
I still do not feel that you fully understand the concept of divisional play within a conference and the records of individual teams "in conference".
A win loss record out of conference means absolutely nothing when determining who plays who in a conference championship game. We are discussing conference records, conference records are the determining factor, not overall win loss records.
You do not determine who is the best in a conference by total numbers of wins or losses, but by total number of conference wins or losses.
A number four or number five team in one division of a conference does not play a team ranked # 1 in another division of a conference for the conference championship game.
Notice I said ranked in conference, not overall. You should probably stop putting a false perception out there that the very best team in one division of a conference plays the lowliest team in another division of a conference for the conference championship game.
That is simply false. Whatever two teams make it to the conference championship game will have the best records in their division of their conference, period. There is no other way to spin that.
2 months ago
Jef...you don't know any better! :p
2 months ago
Cntrl...by the way, I didn't mean to show disrespect towards you, but I don't like it when someone tells me "I'm confused" when I understand perfectly well how conference championships work.
I was trying to convey to you that the reason why they aren't the best way to determine is a champion is by virtue of having two divisions. I am a purist. Either play everyone or have the teams seeded. But taking a 3 or 4 loss team who didn't care of business during regular season get another reward while two other teams did take care of business isn't pure.
It diminishes the regular season games' importance. One division team can lose 3 games and play on, while a 1 loss team in another cannot. It's not equitable. It places more emphasis on a sub-league play rather than conference play.
from 2 months ago
You could use your purist inclination to look at the situation this way:
The best from each division play each other for the conference championship. If a team in the eastern division, such as Georgia, Tennessee, or Florida can't do what is necessary to win their own division, they don't deserve to face the best the other division can put up.
It doesn't matter if Alabama is 12-0 and LSU is 11-0 and all the eastern division could manage was a 10-2 Georgia or a 9-3 Florida. You may be tempted to say that Alabama and LSU are the 2 best teams in the conference and that may be correct, but only one of those teams can be the best in their division.
Each division is an entity into itself and each team strives to be the best in their division so they can face whatever team will oppose them in the CC game.
If LSU with an 11-0 record feels they got cheated and are really the second best team in the whole conference, too bad, this isn't a Michigan, "please let us play again", and OSU situation.
You have a chance and you need to take it.
2 months ago
"A win loss record out of conference means absolutely nothing when determining who plays who in a conference championship game."
In 2003, Georgia played LSU for the CC because they had a higher BCS ranking than Tennessee. As you can see, it's NOT all about league wins.
And again, I DO UNDERSTAND conference championships. I get paid to understand them. I never said 4th or 5th in division, I said OVERALL. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Your division winner Arkansas played in a CC a few years ago after getting smoked by USC, and clearly was not representative of one of the best SEC teams. Someone actually told me, "well, that's because Arky was mediocre that year."
That makes my point...mediocrity can be rewarded. Yes, USC was a non-conf game, but it's also indictative of how strong a conference is. If Arky beat a lot of good teams in the SEC, then lets a team spank 70+ and 50+ points on them for two consecutive years from another conference, what does that tell you? That's why non-conf games are important and can play a part in CC- like Georgia's getting into the CC game in 2003.
If they weren't, then an undefeated Sun Belt team could claim to be #1, when we know that if they played a BCS team, they would probably lose.
from 2 months ago
No they did not, Lisa. Georgia has never played LSU for the CC because they had a higher BCS ranking than Tennessee, this is just false.
Georgia played LSU in '03 because in a head to head comparison of "divisional" records, Georgia came out better than Tennessee.
Again, your mention of Arkansas playing USC and losing has absolutely no bearing on Arkansas' "western divisional" record, none at all, not in any way. Perhaps Arkansas was not one of the two best teams in the "SEC", but they were statistically the very best in the western division. There is absolutely no way around that.
Let me explain the '03 confusion that you seem to be having.
In 2003, Georgia lost to LSU and Florida in regular season SEC play.
In 2003, Tennessee lost to Georgia and Auburn in regular season SEC play.
Both Georgia and Tennessee are in the eastern division of the SEC.
As can be seen above, Georgia lost to one western division team and one eastern division team.
Tennessee lost to one western division team and one eastern division team also, but their eastern division loss was to who? That is correct, it was to Georgia.
Therefore, Georgia playing the best team the western division of the SEC had to offer, in LSU, had nothing at all to do with BCS rankings, but everything to do with having the best eastern division record. It was a tiebreaker decision and since Georgia beat TN in the head to head and their records were identical in ever other fashion, conference wise, Georgia plays the game.
Absolutely nothing to do with BCS or national or AP, etc... rankings, nothing.
2 months ago
Plug in LSU with having an 11-1 record, not 11-0. My mistake.
2 months ago