Why do some conferences have championship games and some choose not to? Should all conferences be forced into them? What are the ramifications of the ones that do and those that don't?
These are questions that need answers and what better place than here, on the Internet, where you have a worldwide view.
No, all conferences should NOT be forced to have championships.
Some conferences aren't as large as others, and it's easier to settle on a champion.
What about teams like Notre Dame that aren't in a conference?
Why should the Big Ten and others have to follow suit just because others are doing it?
It would add another game to an already hectic student-athlete's schedule.
Most times, there is one clear winner and and a championship would be redundant.
Yes, Everyone should have to play a championship game.
Some conferences have it too easy to be conference champion because of weak schedules and opponents.
The SEC and Big Twelve end up cannibalizing each other, and it could make it harder for them to get in the big game.
Voters shouldn't determine a conference champion, it should be done on the field.
Independents like Notre Dame should be forced to join a conference or be eliminated from BCS consideration.
Only conference champions should be allowed in the top four BCS bowls.
These are the arguments. My opinion, and it's worth every penny you paid for it, is yes. Every conference should have a championship game.
Whether Notre Dame should be forced to join a conference is a totally other article I'm working on, but teams LIKE a Notre Dame or Big Ten school plays a wussier schedule than an SEC or Big Twelve school.
No matter who you root for, if you don't agree with that, then you honestly don't know sports or let your bias stand in the way of your decision making.
Championships usually take away one of two conference's undefeated teams and would help clear up the BCS bowl picture without the need for any "playoff" system.
Now it's your turn. Take part in the bowl. Give comments below on your personal thoughts, either pro or con.
40 comments Last one added 7 months ago — Leave a Comment
Jeff D Gorman 7 months ago
I like how the Big 10 doesn't have a championship game, because it makes every conference game more important. Also, in many years in the past, the Ohio State-Michigan game would have been watered down by ANOTHER Ohio State-Michigan title game a week or two later.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
A conference championship would not necessarily mean ANOTHER OSU-Michigan game for the championship. That possibility wouldn't exist at all if a twelfth team was added and OSU and Michigan were in the same conference (much like Alabama and LSU could never meet in the SEC title game). So that wouldn't take any luster off of that game.
Edit Comment Cancel
Larry Burton 7 months ago
Notre Dame should be added to the conf. and then another and have 6 in each division.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
ND and another would make 13. The Big Ten currently has 11 teams (since the addition of Penn St.).
Edit Comment Cancel
Justin Goar 7 months ago
hey look we agree on something!!!
i like ccg's because it rewards a team for a good regular season (getting there) and being the hot team at the end (winning it).
at the very least i believe you must win your conference to play for the nat'l championship.
Edit Comment Cancel
Larry Burton 7 months ago
We agree on more... Kids, disliking Big Ten bias......
Edit Comment Cancel
Brett Field 7 months ago
All conferences should have to playaround robin schedule. If the 12 team conferences dont like playing 11 conference games, they can just go down to 10 teams
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
If thats the case, then the SEC, ACC, Big XII as well as MAC and CUSA all have to drop 2 teams and you're left with 10 teams without a conference. And you couldn't just take those teams and make a conference because the level of competition would vary way too much.
and the big ten doesn't even play a full round robin. each team only plays 8 of the other ten. so why are you saying anything to begin with.
Edit Comment Cancel
Brett Field 7 months ago
I am saying that if a conference doesn't play every team (like the Pac-10, Big East, Mountain West, and I think the WAC and Sun Belt) It isn't really a conference. The other conferences should drop teams and new conferences could form from the dropped teams
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Gartman 7 months ago
I believe every conference should have a championship game.
Not only that, but it's a didgrace for atleast the past two years, the Big Ten has entered the BCS title game, for what? To show you can enter it, have a good withstanding record, only to have been blown out by two SEC teams.
The Big 10 needs a couple of nearby elite schools to join in their conference, along with the Big East, now whether that will happen, and iff it did take place, there is no telling how long it would take.
The argument over Notre Dame is I think they should along with Navy, W. Kentucky and Army go to another conference. Notre Dame should go in the Big Ten.
The three conferences of the: PAC-10, WAC, and MOUNTAIN WEST should combine to two conferences, rather than three, both having a championship game, just splitting the three to two conferences.
There isin't a need for a playoff system. There shouldn't be twelve conferences of mixed amounts of teams, it should go down to around 10 conferences all with 12 teams would work out best, and if I'm not mistaken, there are 120 teams in the Bowl Championship Subdivion, which would work out perfect.
Tell me what you think, well written note. Pro, not con. Nice work.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
Not that this necessarily belongs in this context, but this is my solution for solving the all 12-team conference dilema.
Big Ten adds Iowa St.
Big XII replaces Iowa St. with former SWC member Arkansas
SEC replaces Arkansas with Southern Mississippi (one of the most consistent mid-major programs in the nation under former coach Jeff Bauer)
ND, Marshall, UCF and East Carolina join the Big East.
Fresno St and Boise St. join the Pac-10.
Edit Comment Cancel
Larry Burton 7 months ago
Now that's some good ideas!
Edit Comment Cancel
RedRaider Red 7 months ago
If we get Arkansas, how will you divide the conference? There would be 5 teams in the north and 7 in the south div. Which team from the south goes to north?
Other than this, very nice suggestion.
Also, it'd be great if you find places for good football programs like Utah, BYU and TCU.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
Fayetteville is in northern Arkansas - far more north than either of the Oklahoma schools. They'd fit in fine with the north division.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
Sorry, made a mistake. Stillwater and Fayetteville are about that same lattitude. But I still don't see it being a major issue if they are placed in the north division.
Edit Comment Cancel
RedRaider Red 7 months ago
You know what... we can have a Big Texas conference on our own.
Texas Tech
Texas
Texas A&M
Baylor
Houston
TCU
North Texas
SMU
Rice
Texas-El Paso
Doesn't sound too bad, does it? :-P
Edit Comment Cancel
HD Handshoe -- BlockONation.com 7 months ago
Conference title games are ONLY ABOUT $$$
The regular season is for determining champions, the "championship games" are all about cash.
If you think it's "unfair" write your conference president and tell him that a conference title game hurts your teams chance of playing for a national title and listen as they laugh you off the phone.....it's about $$$ ONLY.....not titles!
I would like a playoff for the national title but conference title games are voluntary so if you think they hurt you, STOP HAVING THEM!!!
Edit Comment Cancel
Isaac Luber 7 months ago
Yes, a wussy schedule. Hmm...do me a favor. Why don't you look up the Big 12 "powerhouses'" non-conference schedules, and then Penn State's. Basically, if all the teams in the Big 12 played cupcakes at the beginning, how good is the Big 12? We don't know. They could be a fluke, they haven't played anyone except for each other and conferences. So don't say that until you actually match up the best teams and have them play, then you can say who really played the "wussy" schedule.
Edit Comment Cancel
RedRaider Red 7 months ago
If we're having CGs then every conference shouldn't have A conference game... it should have THREE conference games.
Best of 3 wins so that "that-one-bad-day-where-we-played-like-crap" gets eliminated.
I don't know if this is financially feasible though.
Edit Comment Cancel
RedRaider Red 7 months ago
Its like my comments are invisible to Larry.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
Why has the comment thing been weird today? Is it just me?
Edit Comment Cancel
Larry Burton 7 months ago
What's it doing to you?
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
For a while this morning it didn't show any of the comments. But now it is.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 7 months ago
I think the conferences that have championship games get off easy. In the Pac-10, every team has to play each other and that's how it should be. Also, the OOC games are against FBS schools, not pansy FCS schools. The SEC schedules OOC cupcake games (9 FCS games this season alone and 2 more from a bottom dweller Independent team with a horrible record). The SEC will not get any respect from other conferences until they stop this. If they want to keep the championship game set-up, fine. But ditch the pansy FCS OOC games.
I do agree though that Notre Dame should have to join a BCS conference.
Edit Comment Cancel
Larry Burton 7 months ago
The sad thing is that our arguably worst team, Miss. State, would beat over the half the teams in the Pac 10 and big 12 EASY, so when you have to take that kind of competition week end and week out you need a cremepuff sometimes...
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
You really want to open this can of worms?
Washington State's ONLY win this season was against FCS Portland St.
Arizona had Idaho and New Mexico (whom they lost to).
Arizona St had FCS Northern Arizona and a loss to UNLV.
Oregon had Utah St.
Stanford had San Jose St.
Point is, EVERYONE in the FBS schedules cupcake games.
And you don't do yourself any favors when arguing for a conference that has two teams that are currently winless against FBS competition. Luckily enough they have to play each other so only one will be winless when the season ends. But, despite the "cupcake" schedules, no other BCS conference can take that claim.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 7 months ago
Are you actually going to compare FCS schools to non-BSC FBS conference schools? That's the stupidest thing I've heard. Yeah, the Pac-10 had TWO FCS games while the SEC had NINE!!!.. HUGE difference. There is NO comparison!!! The SEC takes the 'cake' in cupcake games.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
Yes, I think it is fair to compare a three-time FCS national champion to a perenial FBS loser (Idaho, Utah St.).
And here is some math. There are 12 teams in the SEC and only 10 in the Pac 10. SEC teams regularly play 4 OOC games while Pac-10 teams play 3. That's 48 OCC games for the SEC and 30 for the Pac-10. That's means the SEC plays 18 more OOC games than the Pac-10 does. HUGE difference! (to use your vernacular).
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 7 months ago
LOL. Typical SEC fan to only use stats that help them look good and ignore all the others. Sure, App St. is a good team, but what do you say about the other EIGHT FCS schools? Several of them that the SEC played have losing records!! Wow, you guys should feel great about yourselves for beating up on some high-school teams.
Thanks for the math lesson and proving my point that the SEC likes to pad up their resume with weak OOC games.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
Miami, Florida St, Washington, Virginia Tech, Arizona, Arizona St., Oklahoma, Oregon St, USC, West Virginia, Notre Dame, Texas, Missouri, Wake Forest, Clemson, Boise St., Louisville, Georgia Tech.
Those are just a couple of teams that SEC schools have scheduled OOC since 2001. Don't give me that "typical SEC fan" bull. You are just as guilty of looking at only the stats that support your arguement. You single out the 9 FCS games and ignore the other 39 OOC games played by members of the SEC. You are a hypocrite my friend, so don't give me your high and mighty attitude.
EVERYONE (yes even Pac-10 schools) schedule "easy wins" every year.
And how do you think those small schools get better? Because the big boys pay them to come take a whooping, then they take the 700,000 and put it in their athletic department budget. How do you think South Florida got to where it is now?
And I forgot so I need you to remind me, what are Washington and Washington St.'s records against FBS competition?
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 7 months ago
"And how do you think those small schools get better? Because the big boys pay them to come take a whooping, then they take the 700,000 and put it in their athletic department budget. How do you think South Florida got to where it is now?"
-------------------
Too funny. However you need to justify it there Mikey.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 7 months ago
Here's the breakout for this year's OOC games:
PAC-10:
BCS conf. games - 12
non-BCS conf. games - 14
Independants - 3 (all Notre Dame)
FCS games - 2
SEC:
BCS conf. games - 13
non-BCS conf. games - 22
Independants - 2 (both Western Kentucky)
FCS games - 9
The stats speak for themselves. The SEC has two more teams than the PAC-10 but only has one more BCS level game and 7 FCS level games. If you want other conferences to take you seriously, ditch most, if not all, of the FCS games; add a couple more BSC level opponents (preferably PAC-10); take on Notre Dame instead of Western Kentucky (even Navy would be respectable). The rest can be non-BCS conf. games. Until this happens, everyone outside the SEC with think you have weak schedules. If you have such a powerful conference, you should have no problem taking on (and beating) better competition. I think SEC fans should demand this.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 7 months ago
Paleaseeee! You SEC fans are a joke. Wrapped up in your own supposed superiority. Your statement about Ole Miss is such a load of crap. Not factual at all. Yes, the Pac-10 has had a down year this year but over-all we have a strong conference and we could compete with the SEC. In fact, the PAC-10 is 10-7 over the SEC so how do you explain that? With your typical SEC bias, you aren't even worth reading. Enjoy getting cudos from fellow SEC fans telling you what you want to hear.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
Take USC's record out of that total record, then tell me what it is. USC has performed very well against the SEC - but one team does not a conference make.
Edit Comment Cancel
Larry Burton 7 months ago
Nate before you get too carried away... ONE school in the SEC has more national championships than EVERY Pac 10 school put together, so our superiority is not supposed, but a fact. How do I explain your record against the SEC? You played Tennessee who sucks! You don't have a team there that would make it to the SEC championship game...
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 7 months ago
Wow Larry, if you're the typical SEC fan, I feel sorry for you all. You guys are more delusional than I thought. If you guys want to stay up there in the clouds in your own little world, that's fine, enjoy. But just remember that everyone else is laughing at you.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 7 months ago
Let me qualify my previous record. The 10-7 record is from 2000 to 2008 and USC only has 3 of those 10 wins. The others come from: UCLA (3), Oregon (2), and California (1). LSU has 4 of the wins for the SEC, the others come from Auburn (1), Tennessee (1), and Georgia (1).
So, if the PAC-10 is so weak as you say, we would be MORE than happy to be all of your OOC games instead of the pansy FCS teams you guys play.
Edit Comment Cancel
Michael Matthews 7 months ago
USC has four - two against Auburn and two against Arkansas. Take away USC and guess what - the rest of the Pac-10 has a losing record against the SEC.
And you can talk all of this talk, but what exactly has Oregon done against the SEC?
Now, I really don't like playing the "better conference games". But when foolish things are thrown around, I feel the need to chime in.
Edit Comment Cancel
Nate Dunn 7 months ago
2000 Alabama 24, UCLA 35 {PAC10}
2001 UCLA 20, Alabama 17 {PAC10}
2002 Auburn 17, USC 24 {PAC10} Mississippi State 13, Oregon 36 {PAC10}
2003 USC 23, Auburn 0 {PAC10} LSU 59, Arizona 13 {SEC} Oregon 42, Mississippi State 34 {PAC10}
2004 Oregon State 21, LSU 22 {SEC}
2005 Arkansas 17, USC 70 {PAC10} LSU 35, Arizona State 31 {SEC}
2006 USC 50, Arkansas 14 {PAC10} Washington State 14, Auburn 40 {SEC}Arizona 3, LSU 45 {SEC} California 18, Tennessee 35 {SEC}
2007 Tennessee 31, California 45 {PAC10}
2008 Tennessee 24, UCLA 27 {PAC10} Georgia 27, ASU 10 {SEC}
So, to answer your question, Oregon is 2-0 against the SEC. Sure it was the same team but that's not our fault. If you take away USC's 4 wins and LSU's 4 wins, the PAC-10 is 6-3 against the SEC.
Edit Comment Cancel
Larry Burton 7 months ago
Darn,,, This thing had as many comments as reads....
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.