Should teams be penalized for losing their conference title games??

[MarkOU]

Nebraska 2001
Oklahoma 2003
Alabama 2011

Only non conf champs to play for the bcs title.

OU was the only one to lose the CCG and make it, Nebraska and Bama didn't play for theirs.

I think if you disqualify the loser than a non participant is also DQ'd. However if a non participant gets a shot, then so should a loser of a CCG.

It's either both or neither.

 

[TexasExes98]

Easy for you to say..... Your league doesn't have a Conference Championship game.

Doesnt need one, Big 12 plays a round robin format. Plus, Bama proved a couple of years ago just how worthless CCG's are.

 

[4down20]

Nebraska 2001
Oklahoma 2003
Alabama 2011

Only non conf champs to play for the bcs title.

OU was the only one to lose the CCG and make it, Nebraska and Bama didn't play for theirs.

I think if you disqualify the loser than a non participant is also DQ'd. However if a non participant gets a shot, then so should a loser of a CCG.

It's either both or neither.

It would be silly to automatically disqualify any team on such a hardcoded rule. Circumstances will vary quite a bit and each case can be looked upon individually. The majority of time losing that game is going to keep a team out, and it should. And the majority of time for obvious reasons as well, the conference champion is instead going to be the one who advances. And in either case it's not the title of conference champion or whatever that matters, it's basically the path that lead to it.

And yeah on both or neither.

Although I think the 2011 thing could be fixed if the SEC would just get rid of divisions and have the conference champion between the 2 best teams. Then Alabama and LSU could have rematched in the SECCG and the winner went on and played OSU. Let the teams keep their 2 or 3 main rivals, and use the rest of the conference games in rotation so that we see the other SEC teams more frequently.

 

[potzer25]

I'm guessing he is more talking about National Championship problems.

yes. did having a ccg have a negative impact a majority of the time? seems like it helped more than hurt...

 

[nddulac]

I don't believe that a #3 or #4 team in the BCS rankings ever ascended to #1 or #2 simply by virtue of winning a conference championship game. The times that happened, it was because a previous #1 or #2 lost in conjunction with the lower seed winning. But there have been several #1 or #2 teams in the BCS standings that have been knocked out of the national championship game because their lost in their conference championship. The lone exception was Oklahoma.

This is why I said that a conference championship game can only hurt a conference in terms of placing a team into the championship. I beleive that that statement held true for at-large BCS bowl berths as well. I remember one year when Kansas State dropped the Big XII championship and fell all of the way from the national championship game to the Alamo bowl - where they ended up losing to Purdue. That is but one example.

 

[HuskerinBig10]

Don't forget, the Big 12 petitioned the NCAA to have a Conference Championship game even though the Big 12 has ten teams.

Big 12 wants NCAA to allow conference title game - ESPN

What is funny is that the PAC 10 and Big Ten did not have Conference Championship games when they had less than 12 teams, but never petitioned the NCAA for them until AFTER those conferences had 12 or more teams. If those conferences have already set the precedence that you cannot have a CCG without 12 or more teams, then I am sorry, latin "Stare decisis."

I realize this will all change as soon as the P5 comes into power.

 

[GoBlueNavyNuke]

How many times has the CCG actually hurt, though?

On the flip side, how many times has it helped?

For example, would have Florida jumped Michigan in 2006 had they not had a CCG and were also idle that week?

 

[Wishbone]

I think you guys would be better off going to 12 teams. I wouldn't mind giving Missouri and A&M back to be honest. Nothing against them personally, but I don't care for the slower rotation between teams we get with 14.

Big XII plays are round robin now. We don't need a title game. OU got tired of beating Missouri and Nebraska twice every year.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

I don't think the CCG loser should go to the playoffs. With these 14 team leagues you avoid the other division, so you might have thought you were a top team, then get beat in the CCG. Look at South Carolina, They get to play a&m, and then beat up on the weak SEC east. Yeah they get Auburn on the road, but even losing that game they should still walk into the CCG. IF their only 2 loses were to auburn and say bama in the CCG, does anybody think they'd deserve another shot?

 

[nddulac]

IF their only 2 loses were to ...

Not with two losses, no.

 

[963BUSC]

Yes, the loser should be penalized, just like the winner rewarded. If your team doesn't like it they should move to a conference without a title game.

 

[nddulac]

Yes, the loser should be penalized, just like the winner rewarded. If your team doesn't like it they should move to a conference without a title game.

Or go independent.

 

[Codaxx]

I don't think the CCG loser should go to the playoffs. With these 14 team leagues you avoid the other division, so you might have thought you were a top team, then get beat in the CCG. Look at South Carolina, They get to play a&m, and then beat up on the weak SEC east. Yeah they get Auburn on the road, but even losing that game they should still walk into the CCG. IF their only 2 loses were to auburn and say bama in the CCG, does anybody think they'd deserve another shot?

-
But should you punish a team for making the conference champ and losing, while rewarding a team that did not even make the title game. I think that is the question. What if Auburn beats Bama, but goes on to lose vs the East champ? Does it make sense that Bama gets in and Auburn doesnt? Kind of assumes that Bama would have beaten the east champ. I think this is much more complex than saying yes or no.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

-
But should you punish a team for making the conference champ and losing, while rewarding a team that did not even make the title game. I think that is the question. What if Auburn beats Bama, but goes on to lose vs the East champ? Does it make sense that Bama gets in and Auburn doesnt? Kind of assumes that Bama would have beaten the east champ. I think this is much more complex than saying yes or no.

Yeah, and i don't think teams that couldn't even win their conference should get in the playoffs. You're not even good enough to win your conf, but you can be natl champ?

 

[rmilia1]

Here is my issue. Say you have a VERY real scenario of

1. Alabama 11-0
2. Ohio State 11-0
3. Oregon 11-0
4. Auburn 10-1
5. Oklhoma 10-1
6. Wisconsin 10-1
7. UCLA 10-1
8. USCe 9-2

In this hypothetical you could easily see a situation where it is advantageous to Bama and Ohio State to LOSE their last game of the year. A loss by either likely doesnt knock them out of the top 4 AND with either USCe OR Aubrun guaranteed to lose the SEC title game and either Oregon or UCLA guranteed to lose the P12 title game you really have no way to drop out of the top 4 by losing. Say you win those last games and move to 12-0 each but then Bama loses to USCe and Ohio State loses to Wisconsin in their title games, Clearly the Badgers and Gamecocks are now in as is the winner of the P12 title game AND Oklahoma as the winner of the B12. Losing those games earlier doesnt drop you as much and even if it does you come right back up in the rankings the next when AT LEAST 2 teams ahead of you lose. By losing the last game of the year you pretty much guarantee a spot in the playoff IMO. Losing the conference title game may and probably would knock at least 1 of the 2 out.

 

[Codaxx]

Yeah, and i don't think teams that couldn't even win their conference should get in the playoffs. You're not even good enough to win your conf, but you can be natl champ?

-
LSU fans approve this message

 

[ericd7633]

Here is my issue. Say you have a VERY real scenario of

1. Alabama 11-0
2. Ohio State 11-0
3. Oregon 11-0
4. Auburn 10-1
5. Oklhoma 10-1
6. Wisconsin 10-1
7. UCLA 10-1
8. USCe 9-2

In this hypothetical you could easily see a situation where it is advantageous to Bama and Ohio State to LOSE their last game of the year. A loss by either likely doesnt knock them out of the top 4 AND with either USCe OR Aubrun guaranteed to lose the SEC title game and either Oregon or UCLA guranteed to lose the P12 title game you really have no way to drop out of the top 4 by losing. Say you win those last games and move to 12-0 each but then Bama loses to USCe and Ohio State loses to Wisconsin in their title games, Clearly the Badgers and Gamecocks are now in as is the winner of the P12 title game AND Oklahoma as the winner of the B12. Losing those games earlier doesnt drop you as much and even if it does you come right back up in the rankings the next when AT LEAST 2 teams ahead of you lose. By losing the last game of the year you pretty much guarantee a spot in the playoff IMO. Losing the conference title game may and probably would knock at least 1 of the 2 out.

The problem with that is if that scenario plays out and maybe even in general, Ohio State, or the winner of the B1G can't afford a loss at any point. An 11-0 Bama is going to be in whether they beat Auburn and lose the SECCG or lose to them. If they lose Auburn will finish 12-1 and it's the same scenario as last year. Based on SOS the winner of the Pac 12 is in. If FSU is undefeated they're in as well. If not it'll come down to, in your scenario an 11-1 OU, and a 12-1 OSU(loss to Michigan) IF that's the case I think OU gets selected. Just my opinion.

 

[Texas Jefe]

I've said for years that a title game for an AQ conference can only hurt the conference's chances of placing a team in the title game.

If a conference wants to complain about how their money-grab known as a title game hurts their conference in terms of the national champion hunt, then maybe they shouldn't have CHOSEN to go the route that created the title game. Choices have consequences - some are good, and some not so good.

exactly.

We've done it both ways.

 

[Texas Jefe]

I don't think the CCG loser should go to the playoffs. With these 14 team leagues you avoid the other division, so you might have thought you were a top team, then get beat in the CCG. Look at South Carolina, They get to play a&m, and then beat up on the weak SEC east. Yeah they get Auburn on the road, but even losing that game they should still walk into the CCG. IF their only 2 loses were to auburn and say bama in the CCG, does anybody think they'd deserve another shot?

THIS IS THE ANSWER TO THE OP.

IMO, nothing else needs to be said.

 

[4down20]

Yeah, and i don't think teams that couldn't even win their conference should get in the playoffs. You're not even good enough to win your conf, but you can be natl champ?

Both Alabama and Oklahoma St lost 1 conference game. Alabama lost their conference game to the #1 team who happened to be in the same division, Oklahoma St lost their conference game to a team that wouldn't have a winning record.

So the only reason Oklahoma St won their conference and Alabama didn't is because Oklahoma St lost to a crappy team who wasn't even in contention for their conference.

Basically, what you are claiming is Alabama should lose to a crappy team like Kentucky rather than a good team. Losing to a crappy team in your opinion makes that team more deserving.

I think that is a bunch of horseshit.