No more conference champ games?

[hokiehead]

link.

Summary: The ACC and BigXII are proposing that the NCAA 'de-regulate' conference championship games in light of the new playoff structure, likely eliminating a one-game playoff between division champs for the conference champ. The author claims:

Deregulation is expected to fly through and could be passed quickly by the NCAA board of directors. Both Swofford and Bowlsby have indicated there is no push-back from other conferences on the measure.

I feel this is something that I could passionately argue either side of, given research time. I suspect the net result will end up placing more media emphasis (which will lead to more public interest) on the inter-conference playoffs than on conference championships -- I see that as a negative.

 

[cubuffs85]

link.

Summary: The ACC and BigXII are proposing that the NCAA 'de-regulate' conference championship games in light of the new playoff structure, likely eliminating a one-game playoff between division champs for the conference champ. The author claims:


I feel this is something that I could passionately argue either side of, given research time. I suspect the net result will end up placing more media emphasis (which will lead to more public interest) on the inter-conference playoffs than on conference championships -- I see that as a negative.

LOL part of the reason, the ACC expanded was to stage a championship game. Remember they petitioned to do one when there were only 11 teams.

You almost have to have a championship game when not every team is playing against each other every year IMO.

 

[DBT]

You almost have to have a championship game when not every team is playing against each other every year IMO.

:stupid:

 

[hokiehead]

You almost have to have a championship game when not every team is playing against each other every year IMO.

That's going to be the biggest objection, no doubt.

LOL part of the reason, the ACC expanded was to stage a championship game. Remember they petitioned to do one when there were only 11 teams.

Yep, in 2004, the ACC was weak and in danger of collapse. At the time, the NCAA had a rule and the ACC had no leverage to change, so adding BC was the only route to get there. Now they're as secure as any other conference and driving for change, recognizing that the conference championship game wasn't a long term money maker, especially with the playoffs coming. Times change.

 

[Liver]

texasssss doesn't want a championship game.

 

[Buffnik]

I like the conference championship game.

I'm ok with getting rid of it, however, if the NCAA will allow a 14-game schedule that allows the Buffs to play an 11-game schedule in the Pac-12 and then another 3 non-conference games.

 

[MtnBuff]

For a lot of years a conference championship game was seen as an obvious money maker. Take two teams that had good seasons and put them on TV in a week where the majority of the rest of college football isn't playing. Winner gets the crown.

What could go wrong?

In recent years a few things have gone wrong. One is that attendance at these games hasn't been great and the TV money while nice hasn't been huge.

The bigger issue is that a number of conferences have seen situations where a win by the higher rated team doesn't do much of anything to improve their bowl or NC chances but a loss knocks the conference out of the NC picture. If one division winner is a zero or one loss team and the other division winner is a two or more loss team you get lots of risk and no reward.

I happen to like the championship games. As 85 says when you have conferences to large for everyone to play everyone else it is hard to call someone a champion when they haven't played the best from the other side of the conference.

 

[patebuff]

I thought a lot of these new TV contracts had conference game tie ins as part of the agreement? Probably wrong, but I am sure that could be a hang up to change this.

You've also seen plenty of teams go on to the MNC due to a conference championship game. With as big as these conferences are now, I am not sure how you do it unless you add more conference games.

 

[TimmyDUBs]

open the playoffs to more teams.

 

[boydbuff]

Hate the idea of no conference champs. What happens if you have one team from each the north and south or east and west or whatever team that went undefeated in their league play? Who won the conference and who should represent the conference in the playoffs?

But as Timmy says expanding he playoffs, that might make up for it and even allow for 2 teams from same conference to compete in the playoffs.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

Read again. The ACC and Big 12 aren't talking about getting rid of the conference championship games. The talking about getting rid of the requirement of having 2 divisional alignments and putting the 2 teams with the best record in the CCG.

From a link in the article:

The intent is to allow leagues their preference in how to determine their conference champion. It would theoretically eliminate the need -- per NCAA rules -- to split into divisions with the division winners meeting in a conference championship game.

That would benefit the ACC and other conferences which have expanded to the requisite minimum of 12 teams (and two divisions) to stage a championship game. Theoretically, with passage of the legislation, any of those conferences could play in one division and still stage a championship game.

If the new legislation is adopted a league could match its two highest-ranked teams. That might enhance a conference's ability to get as many teams as possible into the new four-team playoff.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...nship-games-would-change-postseason-structure

 

[sackman]

texasssss doesn't want a championship game.

They don't need to worry about that.

 

[FrankRizzo]

I'm not sure if I like this with the 14 team Big Ten and SEC.

 

[hokiehead]

Read again. The ACC and Big 12 aren't talking about getting rid of the conference championship games. The talking about getting rid of the requirement of having 2 divisional alignments and putting the 2 teams with the best record in the CCG.
From a link in the article:

The intent is to allow leagues their preference in how to determine their conference champion.

Good point -- my thread title and focus was on one of multiple scenarios. thanks for the clarification.

You almost have to have a championship game when not every team is playing against each other every year IMO.

Thought more about this last night and one obvious point escaped me yesterday -- there is a strong precedent for this. For years, the Big Ten and Pac 10 did quite well crowing a conference champion with a league schedule that didn't have each team playing each other. The difference is that instead of 10 - 11 team conferences we now have 12 - 15 team conferences, so I acknowledge the imbalance increases by scale.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

texasssss doesn't want a championship game.

Why is it that I immediately thought of THAT school when I read the OP?

Maybe they're worried that their eventual victories over SMU, Rice, La Tech (in their limp dick conference) that set them coasting into the playoffs (based on media popularity and polls) could be upended by those (heathen christians in green) from Baylor in a conf championship game.

IF there ever was one since they can't find 12 members. :rofl:

Or, is that their worried about being the 12 seed having to play the 1 seed because they dont have a CCG thus watering down their position in the polls?

Actually, I think their just worried that their limp dick team might actually lose a CCG to someone like, um KSU? And that annoying little aberration might cost them a trip to said playoffs. Oh darn.

 

[skibum]

Good point -- my thread title and focus was on one of multiple scenarios. thanks for the clarification.


Thought more about this last night and one obvious point escaped me yesterday -- there is a strong precedent for this. For years, the Big Ten and Pac 10 did quite well crowing a conference champion with a league schedule that did have each team playing each other. The difference is that instead of 10 - 11 team conferences we now have 12 - 15 team conferences, so I acknowledge the imbalance increases by scale.

Wait, what? Big Ten yes, but I'm pretty sure that the Pac-10 always had everyone play everyone else until the expansion to 12 (hence the 9 conference games).

 

[CarolinaBuff]

Wait, what? Big Ten yes, but I'm pretty sure that the Pac-10 always had everyone play everyone else until the expansion to 12 (hence the 9 conference games).

The Pac-10 didn't start having a 9-game conference schedule until 2006

 

[Lt.Col.FrankSlade]

Why is it that I immediately thought of THAT school when I read the OP?

Maybe they're worried that their eventual victories over SMU, Rice, La Tech (in their limp dick conference) that set them coasting into the playoffs (based on media popularity and polls) could be upended by those (heathen christians in green) from Baylor in a conf championship game.

IF there ever was one since they can't find 12 members. :rofl:

Or, is that their worried about being the 12 seed having to play the 1 seed because they dont have a CCG thus watering down their position in the polls?

Actually, I think their just worried that their limp dick team might actually lose a CCG to someone like, um KSU? And that annoying little aberration might cost them a trip to said playoffs. Oh darn.

The Big 12 doesn't want a conference championship game because they believe it unnecessary eliminates a team from the championship picture.

1996 - #3 Nebraska loses to Texas, misses chance at championship.
1998 - #2 KSU loses to Texas A&M, misses chance at championship.
2001 - #3 Texas loses to Colorado, misses chance at championship.
2003 - #1 Oklahoma loses to KSU, back doors into championship.
2007 - #1 Mizzou loses to OU, misses chance at championship.

Under the new 4-team playoff system, if two Big 12 teams finish ranked in the top 4, a conference championship game might eliminate one of those teams from playoff consideration.