College Football Conference Championships: Do They Really Name a True Champion?

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.

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?