With the CFP: are Conference Championships fair?

[theboardref]

I have said this many times, but I think it is still a very valid question. With this new system under way it comes into question whether or not it is fair for each conference to have a conference championship. Many times we see a team sitting in the rankings behind a team competing in the conference championship game. They are practically an automatic bid for the playoffs regardless just like Alabama last year and Florida the year before. If a team is ranked 1st in the nation and is undefeated, is it really fair that a team they already beat in their division gets a chance to play for a national title? While they sat at home the team that beat them earlier in the year went out and played an unnecessary extra game. I still think the playoff field needs to be expanded, but I think we need to get rid of Conference Championships.

 

[ellupo]

I think that each conference should be 10 like the B12. They each team will play in that conference and the true winner of the conference will go on to a playoff. The big thing is each team should play each team in their conference.

 

[trojanfan12]

I've never liked the CCG's. However, with all of the conference expansion, this where cfb has headed. I preferred when the PAC-12 was the PAC-10 and everyone played everyone.

 

[Boise4Life]

I think that each conference should be 10 like the B12. They each team will play in that conference and the true winner of the conference will go on to a playoff. The big thing is each team should play each team in their conference.

 

[Codaxx]

I've never liked the CCG's. However, with all of the conference expansion, this where cfb has headed. I preferred when the PAC-12 was the PAC-10 and everyone played everyone.

-
I think we may eventually go to 20 teams. Just think of it as 2 10 team leagues that pool resources to negotiate TV contracts and meet in champ game.

 

[Oney]

I think that's why the playoff committee should put an overwhelming amount of credit into the conference championship games. They're like the first round of the playoffs. Use it.

I'd much prefer to see 4 conference champs in the playoffs than any at-large teams. It's cut and dry, all they need to figure out is which team out of 5 sits out. Or have the #4 and #5 seeds do a play-in game.

 

[theboardref]

I eventually can see 4 conferences of 16 teams, 4 teams in 4 subdivisions with a built in playoff.

 

[WhiteMamba]

I eventually can see 4 conferences of 16 teams, 4 teams in 4 subdivisions with a built in playoff.

This would be nice. And now with Ville in a primary conference, Boise, Cincy, Fresno, and UCF need to get invites to join the group of 64(+)

 

[Codaxx]

I think that's why the playoff committee should put an overwhelming amount of credit into the conference championship games. They're like the first round of the playoffs. Use it.

I'd much prefer to see 4 conference champs in the playoffs than any at-large teams. It's cut and dry, all they need to figure out is which team out of 5 sits out. Or have the #4 and #5 seeds do a play-in game.

Why? Oregon should get a massive bump for beating 6-6 UCLA? FSU should get a bump for Duke? Look at the SEC. There is a pretty good chance that the SEC West has the top 3 teams in the league and it maybe more than that. Why should beating the 4th-6th best team in a CCG matter more than any other game?

 

[trojanfan12]

-
I think we may eventually go to 20 teams. Just think of it as 2 10 team leagues that pool resources to negotiate TV contracts and meet in champ game.

While I hate that idea. It's better than what we've got now. At least then teams could play everyone in their own "league or division" and then have the CCG. I would much rather everyone go to 10 teams and play the round-robin schedule, but that ship sailed quite awhile ago.

 

[theboardref]

Why? Oregon should get a massive bump for beating 6-6 UCLA? FSU should get a bump for Duke? Look at the SEC. There is a pretty good chance that the SEC West has the top 3 teams in the league and it maybe more than that. Why should beating the 4th-6th best team in a CCG matter more than any other game?

Exactly why I feel way too much emphasis is being put on these conference championships. Teams should not be penalized for being thrust into a conference title game in a no win situation. Ranked #1 in the country and playing an unranked team with the #3 team that you already beat sitting at home, who has the better position? In essence we are penalizing a team for not losing and putting them in a no win situation.

 

[WhiteMamba]

Why? Oregon should get a massive bump for beating 6-6 UCLA? FSU should get a bump for Duke? Look at the SEC. There is a pretty good chance that the SEC West has the top 3 teams in the league and it maybe more than that. Why should beating the 4th-6th best team in a CCG matter more than any other game?

And imagine if those massive underdogs won their CCG in the same year. A playoff with a bunch of 4 loss teams.

And again, the conf champ argument kills the importance of OOC games, why try or even schedule them?

It would be like NFL pre season games...

 

[Codaxx]

While I hate that idea. It's better than what we've got now. At least then teams could play everyone in their own "league or division" and then have the CCG. I would much rather everyone go to 10 teams and play the round-robin schedule, but that ship sailed quite awhile ago.

-
Its really the same thing. Just pool resources for bigger contracts. Also I think they would appeal to get a 3 or 4 team conference playoff if it happened, because it is about the kids

 

[Olyduck]

-
I think we may eventually go to 20 teams. Just think of it as 2 10 team leagues that pool resources to negotiate TV contracts and meet in champ game.

I think that is what Scott was trying to do with the pac but at 8 and 8 when he tried to get Texas Texas Tech Oklahoma and Oklahom State

Would have been
Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Cal, Stanford, USC, UCLA

Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahom State, Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Utah

 

[outofyourmind]

If Conferences want to be that big, that's their problem. Playing a team you already beat in a CCG is a Conference problem. Deal with it. Why should it be considered any less of a game because they had to play them twice?? Deal with it.


Oh, and if a conference is so big that they cant determine who the best team is, then that's their problem, not a problem for the rest of the nation. No more fucking rematches, it's bullshit.

 

[Codaxx]

And imagine if those massive underdogs won their CCG in the same year. A playoff with a bunch of 4 loss teams.

And again, the conf champ argument kills the importance of OOC games, why try or even schedule them?

It would be like NFL pre season games...

I never bought that argument, but that is in a larger format. My panacea would be a 14 team playoff. #1 and #2 get a bye. Conference Champs are given the benefit of the doubt on seeding. First two rounds are at the home fields of higher seeds. Final 4 is at neutral sites. That would make every win important. It would also stress the need to be battle tested

 

[Oney]

Why? Oregon should get a massive bump for beating 6-6 UCLA? FSU should get a bump for Duke? Look at the SEC. There is a pretty good chance that the SEC West has the top 3 teams in the league and it maybe more than that. Why should beating the 4th-6th best team in a CCG matter more than any other game?

Well, then the conferences should attempt to make the conference championship game better. Make it into a 1 v 2 in the conference, or go to at least 9-10 conference games regular season. But you aren't going to have that scenario in every ccg either.

Win your division, play for the ccg, and get in the playoffs. It's simple.

Right now we're still relying on 12 people to pick from a pole.

 

[potzer25]

This is why only conf champs should go to the playoffs.

Win your division
Win your conference
Win your semifinal game
Win the championship game
=
That year's champion

 

[theboardref]

This is why only conf champs should go to the playoffs.

Win your division
Win your conference
Win your semifinal game
Win the championship game
=
That year's champion

I agree with this more than allowing a group of people to pick the winner. That was the main issue the SEC people seemed to have, but I would prefer to have conference champion be mandatory than having a team sitting home on Championship Saturday winning the National Title.

 

[Codaxx]

I agree with this more than allowing a group of people to pick the winner. That was the main issue the SEC people seemed to have, but I would prefer to have conference champion be mandatory than having a team sitting home on Championship Saturday winning the National Title.

-
My issue is I would hate to see a conference champ left out for another team to get in based on opinion. If it gets to 8 teams, than I am happy to allow more at-large teams. Right now I am more comfortable errign to the side of conference champs.