With the CFP: are Conference Championships fair?

[theboardref]

I say screw bowl games they are pointless. Cut off conference championships and make that week 1 of an 8 team playoff.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

It depends. The Big-12 doesn't need to have a conference championship because it only has 10 members and plays a 9 conference schedule. A conference like the ACC and SEC needs to divide itself into two divisions because it has 14 members and it would be impossible for every conference opponent to play against each other, therefore, you need to take the best team from the North and the best team from the South, and have them face off against each other.

If college football wanted to be fair and more equitable (which it has no interest in being), then you would create equal size conferences, and have every team play the same amount of conference opponents and OCC opponents.

The way it is setup now, is a perfect reason to go conference champions only playoffs or undefeated Notre Dame.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

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

The 4-team playoff SHOULD be conference champions only and Notre Dame if they run the table. This does the following things:

1. Reduces the gray area.
2. Prevents teams from avoiding upper crust competition within their conference, and getting rewarded for it.
3. Gives us a better chance to see how different conferences match-up against each other.
4. Provides an extra reward for completing your conference's obstacle course.
5. Makes conference championship week more exciting.
6. Promotes a more equitable system. Some teams play 12 games, others play 13 games. Winning your conference is something consistent.

But we all know some conferences will not go for this, and demand the committee put in two of their teams.

BTW, I have looked at the last 68 college football seasons. 63/68 teams seasons we have at least 4 conference champions in the top 8. The last time we had the fourth highest ranked conference champion with more than 2 losses was in the 50s.

 

[963BUSC]

Which conferences were forced to add the extra revenue only games? If you can show your conference was forced by the NCAA to expand and add a game that's only purpose was to increase revenue then the CCG should not be allowed to count against you. But if your conference was a bunch of greed bastards that went out and added the game then too bad if it hurts your team. If you don't like it change conferences.

 

[Texas Jefe]

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.

That's what Big12 leaders have said. They've had it both ways, and seem pretty intent on keeping it at 10. Not sure if that will be possible, but guess we'll see.

I do like playing everybody. While some think that having to play a CCG is unfair, it may conversely be unfair to not have one, in that that conference (big12) has to play every conference team. There are no seasons where you can luck out, and not have to play a really hot team, and thus have an easier go of it. But, I guess you eventually will have to play at least one of them in the CCG, so it might all be moot.

 

[4down20]

No.

Speaking directly of the SEC, the problem in 2011 wasn't that we had a conference championship. It's the divisions, and that the divisions prevented the top 2 SEC teams from playing in the conference championship. It's happened in other conferences too.

IMO, I'd like to see more of a rotating schedule in the SEC, so that more teams from the conference are seen more often, and then the top2 overall teams in the SEC play for the championship.

If anything, the 2011 SECCG was evidence that the idea of conference champions only playoffs is extremely flawed. If Alabama had played LSU then, it wouldn't have needed to happen in the NCG.

Taking teams just because they belong to this division, or this conference is the problem. If we only had a few teams overall like the NFL it would make more sense, but that's not the way college ball works. Take the best teams always in all playoff type formats(championship games generally and usually being that).

 

[TexasExes98]

No.

Speaking directly of the SEC, the problem in 2011 wasn't that we had a conference championship. It's the divisions, and that the divisions prevented the top 2 SEC teams from playing in the conference championship. It's happened in other conferences too.

IMO, I'd like to see more of a rotating schedule in the SEC, so that more teams from the conference are seen more often, and then the top2 overall teams in the SEC play for the championship.

If anything, the 2011 SECCG was evidence that the idea of conference champions only playoffs is extremely flawed. If Alabama had played LSU then, it wouldn't have needed to happen in the NCG.

Taking teams just because they belong to this division, or this conference is the problem. If we only had a few teams overall like the NFL it would make more sense, but that's not the way college ball works. Take the best teams always in all playoff type formats(championship games generally and usually being that).

Something I can finally agree with this guy. So many times the Big 12 CCG should have been Texas vs. OU, instead of Tex/OU vs. the shitty Big 12 North champ.

 

[Oney]

The ACC is saying that they are looking at changing their CCG to be the top 2 teams in the conference rather than the 2 division champs. Apparently the NCAA rules already go along with this concept. I think it makes sense

 

[Oney]

EDIT: They've submitted to the NCAA to change it to the top 2 teams, rather than division champs.

 

[outofyourmind]

So why have divisions at all then.

 

[Wild Turkey]

The 4-team playoff SHOULD be conference champions only and Notre Dame if they run the table. This does the following things:

1. Reduces the gray area.
2. Prevents teams from avoiding upper crust competition within their conference, and getting rewarded for it.
3. Gives us a better chance to see how different conferences match-up against each other.
4. Provides an extra reward for completing your conference's obstacle course.
5. Makes conference championship week more exciting.
6. Promotes a more equitable system. Some teams play 12 games, others play 13 games. Winning your conference is something consistent.

But we all know some conferences will not go for this, and demand the committee put in two of their teams.

BTW, I have looked at the last 68 college football seasons. 63/68 teams seasons we have at least 4 conference champions in the top 8. The last time we had the fourth highest ranked conference champion with more than 2 losses was in the 50s.

ND should have to join a conference full time or be left permanently out. We are on the road to super conferences and new level of NCAA play where there is no space for independents. Sucks but that is the truth.

 

[Wild Turkey]

No.

Speaking directly of the SEC, the problem in 2011 wasn't that we had a conference championship. It's the divisions, and that the divisions prevented the top 2 SEC teams from playing in the conference championship. It's happened in other conferences too.

IMO, I'd like to see more of a rotating schedule in the SEC, so that more teams from the conference are seen more often, and then the top2 overall teams in the SEC play for the championship.

If anything, the 2011 SECCG was evidence that the idea of conference champions only playoffs is extremely flawed. If Alabama had played LSU then, it wouldn't have needed to happen in the NCG.

Taking teams just because they belong to this division, or this conference is the problem. If we only had a few teams overall like the NFL it would make more sense, but that's not the way college ball works. Take the best teams always in all playoff type formats(championship games generally and usually being that).

I totally disagree if the 4 major conferences had 16 teams each and all played a conference championship game then it would work perfectly. Yes Alabama would have been out but then they would have lost a game to the champion and not be given a second chance.

You justify the choice because Alabama won but how many one lost teams have been left out that in a playoff setting could have run the table? I'm think quite a few and if you look at all sports like the NCAA basketball championship it happens all the time.

The conference championships are the way to go it is an easy way to expand the playoff field without adding more games since the championship game would be round one.

 

[night]

I would much rather expand the playoff one week and get rid of conference championships to be honest. Take #1 from each division within the conference of the automatic qualifiers (if you have a conference with 10 teams take #1 and #2 from that if it's an AQ conference). Add a few automatic bids in there and you have a decent playoff.

If you think about it all of these teams have already been tested within their conference. What we as fans want to see is whether they can compete with the best outside of their conference. Since most teams take the easy route and schedule cupcake OOC schedules, it helps with their credibility if they can knock off a highly ranked team they're unfamiliar with.

 

[theboardref]

That's my feelings exactly. Take out the conference championship and add a round.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

ND should have to join a conference full time or be left permanently out. We are on the road to super conferences and new level of NCAA play where there is no space for independents. Sucks but that is the truth.

I wouldn't go that far, but I also don't think a team should be holding up the rest of us. I have no problem with accommodating Independents, but their road must be tougher than conference teams.

 

[4down20]

I totally disagree if the 4 major conferences had 16 teams each and all played a conference championship game then it would work perfectly. Yes Alabama would have been out but then they would have lost a game to the champion and not be given a second chance.

You justify the choice because Alabama won but how many one lost teams have been left out that in a playoff setting could have run the table? I'm think quite a few and if you look at all sports like the NCAA basketball championship it happens all the time.

The conference championships are the way to go it is an easy way to expand the playoff field without adding more games since the championship game would be round one.

Here's the rub.

In 2011 Oklahoma St lost a conference game the same as Alabama. The difference between Alabama and Oklahoma St is that Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country/conference, while Oklahoma St lost to a crappy team that wasn't even in the running for their conference.

Because that crappy team had no effect on the conference championship, it was a free loss in that regard and Oklahoma St was able to get the conference championship.

Which in the case of Alabama in 2011, it's about like saying it would have been better for Alabama to lose to Ole Miss that year rather than LSU. And that is a bit backwards.

Where as if you get rid of divisions in the conference and take the best 2 teams from the conference for the conference championship, such things don't happen. And likewise, for the same reason, the best teams should be taken for the playoffs, regardless of conference.

The majority of time it will be conference champions because conference champions will be the most deserving. But if it's not a conference champion, then there is a reason for it - of which taking only conference champions is not able to do anything about, while taking the best teams always can.

It's not about Alabama specifically. I'm not dumb enough to base my opinion based on 1 year, 3 years ago as if that is how it will always be. Contrary to what a few around here want to claim. That time is done with, new scenario's will get put in place and it could just as easily go against Alabama as they may end up facing a better team in the playoff etc. It's about the best method for selecting teams.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Here's the rub.

In 2011 Oklahoma St lost a conference game the same as Alabama. The difference between Alabama and Oklahoma St is that Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country/conference, while Oklahoma St lost to a crappy team that wasn't even in the running for their conference.

Iowa State was 6-6, and bowl eligible. They had an SOS over .600 that season. That's not a bad team. Mediocre? Definitely.

How exactly is losing a justification? Alabama only beat 3 teams over .500. Okie State beat 7. Because they lost their division to LSU, they did not have to play Georgia or South Carolina.

I am not saying Alabama was a bad team in 2011, but they without a doubt banked off losing their division and didn't have to play and beat "meater" teams within its own conference.

 

[4down20]

Iowa State was 6-6, and bowl eligible. They had an SOS over .600 that season. That's not a bad team. Mediocre? Definitely.

How exactly is losing a justification? Alabama only beat 3 teams over .500. Okie State beat 7. Because they lost their division to LSU, they did not have to play Georgia or South Carolina.

I am not saying Alabama was a bad team in 2011, but they without a doubt banked off losing their division and didn't have to play and beat "meater" teams within its own conference.

Iowa St was only bowl eligible because Oklahoma St lost to them. If they had played a team worth a shit that night, they would have finished 5-7.

And I don't give a crap about your win% numbers. win% is the worse measure of SoS and doesn't say anything about who they won and lost too.

As for benefiting from losing it's division. Are you unable to read the part where I say get rid of divisions and take the top2 teams? Meaning Alabama would have played LSU as a rematch in the SECCG rather than the NCG?

All in all you completely ignored the point that with conference champions it's better to lose to a bad team than a good team and that is messed up. But of course you'll never recognize that because you are more worried about getting your own conference champion into the playoffs knowing damn good and well they are likely to not make it because they play in a weak conference that doesn't really deserve it and needs a hand out.

 

[WNY_FOOTBALL_DUDE]

Iowa St was only bowl eligible because Oklahoma St lost to them. If they had played a team worth a shit that night, they would have finished 5-7.

And I don't give a crap about your win% numbers. win% is the worse measure of SoS and doesn't say anything about who they won and lost too.

As for benefiting from losing it's division. Are you unable to read the part where I say get rid of divisions and take the top2 teams? Meaning Alabama would have played LSU as a rematch in the SECCG rather than the NCG?

All in all you completely ignored the point that with conference champions it's better to lose to a bad team than a good team and that is messed up. But of course you'll never recognize that because you are more worried about getting your own conference champion into the playoffs knowing damn good and well they are likely to not make it because they play in a weak conference that doesn't really deserve it and needs a hand out.

Oklahoma State had more quality wins, higher SOS, and actually completed its conference's obstacle course. But of course, you being an Alabama homer and all, can't see it.

Getting rid of divisions would be tough, with a conference of 11 or more teams. How do you determine which two are the top 2? In 2013, Alabama, Auburn, and Missouri had 1-loss. Which two go to the conference championship game? How about the ACC side? Do you pick Duke or Clemson to play Florida State? Do you remember the Big-10 back in 2010? Wisky, Michigan State, and Ohio State tied for 1st place.

If we're talking about a larger format, like say 8 to 16 teams, then I would go for giving teams which failed to complete their obstacle course the chance to beat the conference champion, but with 4 teams, forget about it. If you're the runner-up in a tough conference, then by all means, play in the Chick-Fil-A Bowl and enjoy your chicken sandwich.