Early Odds on Conference Championships

[Sgt. Ryan]

Id be happy with every team having a conference Championship game, or none as a great start. Its certainly not fair for teams like OSU and WVA, to not have to play another top opponent before the bowl, when SEC, ACC and Big 12 do.

[millerx]

Id be happy with every team having a conference Championship game, or none as a great start. Its certainly not fair for teams like OSU and WVA, to not have to play another top opponent before the bowl, when SEC, ACC and Big 12 do.

 

This may be the first thing I agree with you on. However, I'm sure we will be hearing Brian's ridiculous side on this topic soon enough.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

This may be the first thing I agree with you on. However, I'm sure we will be hearing Brian's ridiculous side on this topic soon enough.

 

Wow, calling me out. Ok. First of all, to even qualify to have a championship game you have to have 12 teams. The Big Ten and Pac 10 have 11. So even if they wanted to have one, they couldn't. And yes, I think conference championships are for the most part a joke, and nothing more than to score a big pay day for that particular conference. You think the ACC went through all that trouble to get Boston College, Miami, and Va Tech for nothing? No they wanted the money. I can't speak for the Pac 10, but people say, well, Big Ten, go get yourself a 12th team. It isn't that easy. They aren't going to pluck established programs from another conference. They can't get Notre Dame (the most logical and best choice) because Notre Dame won't join, and no one in their right mind would blame them for not wanting to join. So, I say, if you can accept the money, and accept the POSITIVES of winning, (LSU 2003?) then you should accept the negatives of losing that game (Kansas State 1998, Texas and Tennessee 2001). I think it's a load of crap that certain teams have the possibility of being rewarded after playing very average, or even bad for an entire year, like Colorado in 2005. Granted, they didn't have a hope in hell of beating Texas, but the fact that they have a CHANCE at making a BCS game is wrong.

[Rockerbraves]

Now Brian why do you bring up LSU without bringing up Florida?

 

I agree with Brian on this one. When the SEC first started their championship I thought they were nuts since it would certainly damage Alabama's chances of earning a NC. They prevailed that game and I believe went on to win the NC that year. As time has gone by we've seen how the championship can help and hurt teams. Brian mentioned how it helped LSU one year but it also cost them a BCS game in 2005. It's pretty clear the championship game also help boost Florida to the BCS NC game as well.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Rockerbraves

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Didn't forget Florida, but you're right. And lets not forget, it didn't HURT Oklahoma in 2003. Some say (I'm one) that it should have.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

I also want to say, IF the Big Ten ever gets to 12 teams, then they WILL have a conference championship, and people can stop whining about it. Until then, the NCAA requires conferences to have 12 teams to have a championship game.

[detlef]

Didn't forget Florida, but you're right. And lets not forget, it didn't HURT Oklahoma in 2003. Some say (I'm one) that it should have.

Count me in there as well. How do you get soundly beaten the last week before everyone decides who goes the NC game and still go? Total farce.

 

I'm also with Brian on this. Funny thing, I doubt the ACC is even remotely happy with how things have turned out. Their conference championship games have mostly been total failures. I forget the attendance last year but it was insanely low. Entire sections of the stands closed off. I understand that its mostly about the TV $, but putting on a game is not cheap and only filling half the seats really must suck.

[wildcat2334]

Well, I don't see the Pac 10 magically going from 10 to 12 teams anytime soon, so this is gonna be a problem for the forseeable future. The Pac 10 has high standards both athletically and academically- and there just aren't many schools that would be a good fit.

 

There are two sides to the argument, there is just something cool about the Pac 10 playing a balanced schedule, and deciding it all on the field over the course of the season.

 

The unbalanced schedule causes problems, (see KU this year) and certainly in some instances the conference championship is another tough game for someone to drop very late in the season.

 

I don't know what the solution is............. other than everyone playing an 11 game sched and going to a playoff!

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Well, I don't see the Pac 10 magically going from 10 to 12 teams anytime soon, so this is gonna be a problem for the forseeable future. The Pac 10 has high standards both athletically and academically- and there just aren't many schools that would be a good fit.

 

There are two sides to the argument, there is just something cool about the Pac 10 playing a balanced schedule, and deciding it all on the field over the course of the season.

 

The unbalanced schedule causes problems, (see KU this year) and certainly in some instances the conference championship is another tough game for someone to drop very late in the season.

 

I don't know what the solution is............. other than everyone playing an 11 game sched and going to a playoff!

 

 

Actually, I love what the Pac 10 has done, and I wish the Big Ten could do it, and that is every team plays each other, which is a far superior way of determining a champion than a conference championship. Now, if they would let the Big Ten have 13 games, then they could do it, and we probably wouldn't have the idiotic scheduling that we have now, where we have these ridiculously long lay offs.

[Rockerbraves]

Actually, I love what the Pac 10 has done, and I wish the Big Ten could do it, and that is every team plays each other, which is a far superior way of determining a champion than a conference championship. Now, if they would let the Big Ten have 13 games, then they could do it, and we probably wouldn't have the idiotic scheduling that we have now, where we have these ridiculously long lay offs.

You and Wildcat are talking out of both sides of your mouths. You claim you want a playoff, yet you say a season of playing each other is better than a conference playoff.

 

Playoffs would be very much like the conference championships we have today. The so called better team doesn't always win their conference championships much like the better team might not advance in a playoff.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Rockerbraves

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Conference Championship games are not playoffs. They are designed to make money. If every team in one conference plays each other (like the Pac 10) then the whole body of work of a season is much more important than one game. My only point is, if you're gonna take the pay day, and take the good fortune that can come with playing by the rules of your conference, then you should have to deal with the consequences as well.

[wildcat2334]

You and Wildcat are talking out of both sides of your mouths. You claim you want a playoff, yet you say a season of playing each other is better than a conference playoff.

 

Playoffs would be very much like the conference championships we have today. The so called better team doesn't always win their conference championships much like the better team might not advance in a playoff.

 

 

huh?

 

you make no sense. The only solution involving a playoff would be:

 

- shorten regular season schedules to 11, maybe 12 games, which would obviously:

- eliminiate confernece chapionships

- cause everyone to have an unbalanced conference schedule inlcuding the 10 team Pac 10

 

If we went to an 8 team playoff - that would create a maximum of 14 games- no more than many teams are going to play under the current system

 

unbalanced schedules in 12 team conferences would suck, but as long as it is gonna be determined on the field at some point, we would have to live with it

 

 

 

-

[Cameltosis]

Conference Championship games are not playoffs. They are designed to make money. If every team in one conference plays each other (like the Pac 10) then the whole body of work of a season is much more important than one game. My only point is, if you're gonna take the pay day, and take the good fortune that can come with playing by the rules of your conference, then you should have to deal with the consequences as well.

 

I agree with this 100%. Herbie was talking about this and made the point that each conference makes their own decisions about the championship game. If you dont like it blame your conference, dont blame the system. If your conference has one, your conference wanted more money. Plain and simple. And for every team crying about how that game cost their team a chance at the NC game there is another team helped significantly. You cannot have it both ways, and it was your choice to begin with.

[Rockerbraves]

It's being reported that Matt Flynn will not start at QB for LSU today due to an injury he suffered last week.

 

Looks like the line has dropped to LSU -7 over the Vols.