Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
COLLEGE FOOTBALL FANS: Please stay with me on this one and let me know what you think of it:
I hate college conferences championship games (ACC, SEC, XII). Nobody does things better than the Pac Ten with a 9 team team round robin. Still, I would prefer the Big Ten's set up with no divisions and no round robin...but still no championship game.
Conference championship games are for making money. Nothing else. They ruin the fun by creating six team divisions rather than having the 12 teams in the conference fighting it out for the title in the regular season.
They also hurt the conferences that hold them as a team in one division may be lined up for the BCS championship game with an 8-0 league record and 12-0 overall...and then lose in the championship game to a 5-3/7-5 team. Things like that have happened...especially in the B12.
So here's a simple idea for conferences to correct the situation and still make $$$. The following would apply to a 12 team conference:
1. Play an 11 game round robin. If that means only one out-of-conference game, so what? Most are against cup cakes anyway and are not nearly as interesting as conference game. And this still would allow for that one game to be special, if the schools so desire, such as Texas-Ohio State in recent years.
2. End divisions. All 12 teams play for the league championship during hte regular season.
3. If one team is alone on top of the standings at season's end, it is the league champion.
4. If two teams are tied for first, they play in a championship game for the league title.
5. IF three or more teams are tied for first, two are picked by formula (point differential? head to head competititon? head to head point spread?) to play in the championship game.
6. The date for a potential championship game would be set, as it is now. But with a twist. When no championship is being played, a special game will still take place. It would be called an Invitational. And here is how it would work: the league champion would play in this game and the second place team in another 12 team conference not playing a championship game that year would be invited. For example, if UF, VT, and Texas won their league championships outright, the second place teams from each league (let's say Bama, Wake, and OU) would be invited to play in the invitational game:
OU vs. UF in the SEC game
Bama vs. VT in the ACC game
Wake vs. Texas in the XII game
If, let's say, both the Big Ten and the Pac Ten each went up to 12 teams and each of them had a tie, neither league would be involved with an invitational game, but would hold a championship game:
Penn State vs. Ohio State in the B10
USC vs. Cal in the Pac Ten
Thus all schools in line for a BCS bowl would be playing the same last day in games that would be interesting in providing either a conference championship or an outstanding interconference match up. Conferences will automatically make money on the end of the season game, but get rid of unnecessary championship games that may be a poor match up. Fans get the excitement of a 12 team race rather than a six team one. And since most years, I believe, would produce a championship game, you'd still be going with the 2 out of 12 teams getting to play that now occurs during the championship set up.
The Mountain West Conference does not have a championship game. There are 9 teams. Each MWC team plays EVERYONE in conference.
Conference championship games are good for media ratings which turn to money. And, which conference doesn't like money? Especially the BCS, which is all about the money...but I won't get into that idiotic formula for deciding NCAA football's champ...
The Mountain West Conference does not have a championship game. There are 9 teams. Each MWC team plays EVERYONE in conference.
Conference championship games are good for media ratings which turn to money. And, which conference doesn't like money? Especially the BCS, which is all about the money...but I won't get into that idiotic formula for deciding NCAA football's champ...
as noted, my system allows those money making games to continue every year, but removes a championship game when one team wins out right and provides equal competiton in the years the game will be played.
COLLEGE FOOTBALL FANS: Please stay with me on this one and let me know what you think of it:
I hate college conferences championship games (ACC, SEC, XII). Nobody does things better than the Pac Ten with a 9 team team round robin. Still, I would prefer the Big Ten's set up with no divisions and no round robin...but still no championship game.
The Big Ten's schedule is not balanced, there are years when Purdue does not play Michigan and Ohio State. This is not acceptable. Ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
1. Play an 11 game round robin. If that means only one out-of-conference game, so what?
So what? Purdue always plays Notre Dame. You are telling me Purdue's schedule every year should consist of the Big 10 and Notre Dame? That is not good. You have to gain exposure by traveling outside of your region. Sure, not every team does that, but some do. You can not take away the opportunity for schools who want to play teams outside of their region, such as the Purdue-Oregon series. Your plan takes that away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
2. End divisions. All 12 teams play for the league championship during hte regular season.
3. If one team is alone on top of the standings at season's end, it is the league champion.
4. If two teams are tied for first, they play in a championship game for the league title.
5. IF three or more teams are tied for first, two are picked by formula (point differential? head to head competititon? head to head point spread?) to play in the championship game.
Because I am very much opposed to your first proposal, these ideas by default full into the "no" category. A conference championship is the only way to determine a conference champ when divisions are involved, and the divisions have to stay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
When no championship is being played, a special game will still take place. It would be called an Invitational. And here is how it would work: the league champion would play in this game and the second place team in another 12 team conference not playing a championship game that year would be invited. For example, if UF, VT, and Texas won their league championships outright, the second place teams from each league (let's say Bama, Wake, and OU) would be invited to play in the invitational game:
OU vs. UF in the SEC game
Bama vs. VT in the ACC game
Wake vs. Texas in the XII game
If, let's say, both the Big Ten and the Pac Ten each went up to 12 teams and each of them had a tie, neither league would be involved with an invitational game, but would hold a championship game:
Penn State vs. Ohio State in the B10
USC vs. Cal in the Pac Ten
They have these already, they're called bowl games.....
They also hurt the conferences that hold them as a team in one division may be lined up for the BCS championship game with an 8-0 league record and 12-0 overall...and then lose in the championship game to a 5-3/7-5 team. Things like that have happened...especially in the B12.
I don't like this part either. Not everyone conference has one and it's an extra game that usually very tough. I don't like that it can mess up a team's ranking and bowl. In a tough conference, you may have two that are top 5 or top 10 teams that play each other. One has to lose and they suffer when others aren't necessarily given the same challenge.
I don't like this part either. Not everyone conference has one and it's an extra game that usually very tough. I don't like that it can mess up a team's ranking and bowl. In a tough conference, you may have two that are top 5 or top 10 teams that play each other. One has to lose and they suffer when others aren't necessarily given the same challenge.
I agree with this. I think the best fix, however, is to modify the NCAA rule that forbids a conference from holding a conference championship game if they have fewer than 12 teams. Then, you require every BCS conference to stage a conference game. The Big 10 and Pac 10 could split into divisions as they are now, the Big East could come up with something. At least with that, you have an equitable solution that won't lead to the big conferences raiding other conferences as the ACC did to the Big East a few years ago.
I agree with this. I think the best fix, however, is to modify the NCAA rule that forbids a conference from holding a conference championship game if they have fewer than 12 teams. Then, you require every BCS conference to stage a conference game. The Big 10 and Pac 10 could split into divisions as they are now, the Big East could come up with something. At least with that, you have an equitable solution that won't lead to the big conferences raiding other conferences as the ACC did to the Big East a few years ago.
A conference championship is the only way to determine a conference champ when divisions are involved, and the divisions have to stay.
there really is no difference in the need for a conference championship game (other than the imbalance of 6 and 5 team divisions) between 11 and 12 schools.
The Big Ten doesn't have one now. And there is plenty of sentiment (by no means unanimous) that would like to see a 12 team B10 not have any divisions...and that support comes from high up in the structure of the conference.
As for non-conference games, sure Purdue has ND scheduled yearly. But truth is that Purdue like virtually all the B10 schools ends up scheduling the likes of Ball St, Western Michigan, and East Carolina for out of conference games. Sorry....I could do without those.
In a given season, how many B10 schools actually schedule more than one BCS foe? MSU has Montana St, E. Michigan and W. Michigan to go along with ND...who needs it? I still would rather see a conference game than a non-conference game.
And I bet anything that under my suggestion, a chamionship game would be played most years and be better than the current set up since the two teams would have the same record.
As for your criticism of the Big Ten's system of picking a champ, only the Pac Ten has got it right through a round robin. The conf championship game group are no different within a division than the B10 is within the league: they don't all play the same opponents. And one division often is much better than the other.
Sure there are bowl games a month later, but so what? An exciting early December intersectional game would be great when no championship game is played.
I'm not saying my plan is terrific, but I'm not really convinced about any weakness by what you suggest.
The Big Ten doesn't have one now. And there is plenty of sentiment (by no means unanimous) that would like to see a 12 team B10 not have any divisions...and that support comes from high up in the structure of the conference.
You have a source to back that up? EVERY conversation I have heard about adding a 12th team to the Big 10 has been motivated by the Big 10's desire to stage a championship game (which would imply the presence of divisions).
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
As for non-conference games, sure Purdue has ND scheduled yearly. But truth is that Purdue like virtually all the B10 schools ends up scheduling the likes of Ball St, Western Michigan, and East Carolina for out of conference games. Sorry....I could do without those.
Your plan would all but eliminate mid-major team's opportunities to play against the big teams. You may be able to do without Purdue v. Northern Colorado or Ohio State vs. Toledo; the fact of the matter is that Northern Colorado and Toledo make big money in those games. In fact, some small schools bring in significant amounts of their athletic operating budget in by taking it on the chin against a big name team. You can not take that away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
In a given season, how many B10 schools actually schedule more than one BCS foe? MSU has Montana St, E. Michigan and W. Michigan to go along with ND...who needs it?
Ohio State plays one big one, USC, but they also play a game that is at Toledo. That is a perfect example as to why you can not eliminate those games you personally don't like. Toledo is getting a "home" game against Ohio State at Cleveland Browns Stadium this year. You have any idea what that is going to do for the Toledo program?
Also, Illinois and Wisconsin both play Fresno State, a bigger name mid-major. The Wisconsin-Fresno game is going to be on ESPN, you have idea what that will do for Fresno State?
Quote:
Originally Posted by edsg25
As for your criticism of the Big Ten's system of picking a champ, only the Pac Ten has got it right through a round robin. The conf championship game group are no different within a division than the B10 is within the league: they don't all play the same opponents. And one division often is much better than the other.
So based on this, you must think the NFL's system is unfair. The Titans won their division last year against a very easy schedule. That is not fair to the Colts or Texans. The gist of that being, no system is absolutely perfect. However, the SEC is closer than the Big 10. If Purdue runs the table and goes to the Rose Bowl without playing the second and third place teams in the conference, that is a sham. Now, if Missouri runs over a weak division AND knocks of Oklahoma in the Big XII title game, Mizzou absolutely deserves the conference title. That is what a post season playoff does. The Titans had home field advantage in the playoffs for their good season, not a free pass to the Super Bowl. Same thing with a conference title game.
You have a source to back that up? EVERY conversation I have heard about adding a 12th team to the Big 10 has been motivated by the Big 10's desire to stage a championship game (which would imply the presence of divisions).
I can't give you the source to back it up because I read it awhile back. It did have quotations from a number of B10 people (including Tressel) about how harmful divisions would be to a conference that prides itself in unity and tradition. I don't make these things up, Toxic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast
Your plan would all but eliminate mid-major team's opportunities to play against the big teams. You may be able to do without Purdue v. Northern Colorado or Ohio State vs. Toledo; the fact of the matter is that Northern Colorado and Toledo make big money in those games. In fact, some small schools bring in significant amounts of their athletic operating budget in by taking it on the chin against a big name team. You can not take that away.
Gee, I didn't know that the BCS conferences gave a damn about anyone...but themselves. They sure fight hard enough not only to keep the midmajors out of the mix, but conferences like the MWC, as well. So I doubt that much compassion is being exercised in inviting Eastern Michigan, UCSB, Witchita State, or La. Tech to fill up a big stadium for the chance to get steam rolled.
Besides, where the heck did you get the idea these schools owe the mid-majors anything? As noted, it is a dog eat dog world.
Surprise, surprise: I knew they were there. So what? Plenty of schools schedule 4 cupcakes. Minnesota and K-State brought that to an art form.
Let's see now, would Purdue rather play Oregon or Michigan in a year when the Wolverines weren't on the schedule? Would Minnesota be better off with Cal and Syracuse than it would be with, say, Ohio State and MSU? Would Iowa find Arizona or Penn State a more attractive opponent? Would the Illini trade Cincinnati for Wisconsin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast
Ohio State plays one big one, USC, but they also play a game that is at Toledo. That is a perfect example as to why you can not eliminate those games you personally don't like. Toledo is getting a "home" game against Ohio State at Cleveland Browns Stadium this year. You have any idea what that is going to do for the Toledo program?
Apparently the Buckeyes are far more compasionate and loving than I thought, especially by empowering in-state MACs. Nothing OSU would rather do than promote Toledo's program. What's next, Ohio State "doing the right thing" and switching places with Ohio, letting that school into the B10 instead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast
Also, Illinois and Wisconsin both play Fresno State, a bigger name mid-major. The Wisconsin-Fresno game is going to be on ESPN, you have idea what that will do for Fresno State?
I absolutely know what UW-Fresno will do for Fresno State: keep it in the shaddows of USC, Cal, UCLA, and, yes, Stanford. Especially after the Bulldogs go back to playing UCD, La Tech, and SJ State which are also on the schedule. Those two Big Ten schools will do nothing to give Fresno the real exposure it wants and will never get: membership in the Pac Ten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toxic Toast
So based on this, you must think the NFL's system is unfair. The Titans won their division last year against a very easy schedule. That is not fair to the Colts or Texans. The gist of that being, no system is absolutely perfect. However, the SEC is closer than the Big 10. If Purdue runs the table and goes to the Rose Bowl without playing the second and third place teams in the conference, that is a sham. Now, if Missouri runs over a weak division AND knocks of Oklahoma in the Big XII title game, Mizzou absolutely deserves the conference title. That is what a post season playoff does. The Titans had home field advantage in the playoffs for their good season, not a free pass to the Super Bowl. Same thing with a conference title game.
Do I think the NFL schedule is unfair. Sure. They don't really care what i think. It's all about money. Look at MLB: 14 AL teams, 16 in the NL with divisions running 4, 5, or 6. There are some elements of fairness in what you suggest about the SEC over the Big Ten, but, I'm sorry, winning a weak division with a less than stellar record should not be an invitation to a title game, especially in a sport that worships the regular season. Do I have concerns that the B10 can produce a tie on top with two teams that haven't played each other...yes. But you seem to be forgetting something: I'm here to adovcate for a round robin. As for the Big XII, Texas and OU, I believe, had the same league record. So, believe me, I would have found it far more interesting and far more fair to see OU-UT than OU-Mizzou.
Toxic, my ideas here are only my opinion, with no sense that I am right. But I do like what I came up with:
1. round robins make sense, conference games are more interesting. and it wouldn't be a stretch to go to a 13 game schedule (the length of time is already at 13 weeks with a bye) with an 11/2 set up. As for the exploitation issue on the "student atheltes"...we're already exploiting the hell out of them. Two games gives the Purdues of the world an opportunity to play instate rival ND yearly and an Oregon or the like as well on an alternating basis.
2. An 11 game round robin would produce a title game most years. I think it would be hard to win outright in a 12 team league where you play everybody. And the match ups that those championship games produce would far exceed the division vs. division set up and would be far more consistent with college football's awarding stature to success during the regular season. Texas earned a spot in the B12 game far more than Mizzou did. So did TT.
3. My "Invitiational Game" was there not to compete with the bowls but for the purpose of allowing a replacement for a championship game in a year when a school won outright. And the matchups would be good and they would be most relevant to BCS placement. If the system were in place last year and if Oklahoma, say, had won straight out, the Sooners wouldn't have played Mizzour or Kansas, but might have played someone like Bama or FSU, with BCS bowl selections (of course including the championship) very much on the line.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
