I understand a bowl ban, but no conference championship? Really? Last year when Oregon had to play UCLA in the Pac-12 was an absolute joke. Now we've got Wisconsin who finished 4 games behind OSU and 2 behind Penn State going to the B1G Championship to play Nebraska. Also North Carolina who won the Coastal division in the ACC has lost their spot as well ushering in 7-5 Miami. It does not help college football at all to keep schools out of their own league's title games

so you'd like OSU (or Southern Cal last year) to play in the conference title game, win it, and then have the league send the runner up to represent them in the BCS?

Classyposter58;1328623 wrote:I understand a bowl ban, but no conference championship? Really? Last year when Oregon had to play UCLA in the Pac-12 was an absolute joke. Now we've got Wisconsin who finished 4 games behind OSU and 2 behind Penn State going to the B1G Championship to play Nebraska. Also North Carolina who won the Coastal division in the ACC has lost their spot as well ushering in 7-5 Miami. It does not help college football at all to keep schools out of their own league's title games

Yes. Let's just allow teams who can't play in their conference's bowl game to win the conference championship and send the LOSER of said conference championship to play in the bowl game.

bans are for cheaters

Better yet, don't cheat and don't get a ban.

Georgia Tech beat North Carolina and is also 5-3. They beat out Carolina anyway...

If you dont win your division, you shouldnt be allowed to play in the conference championship. Should go to champion of other divison by default. a 6-6 Georgia Tech team possibly in a BCS bowl? GTFO.

I agree. This is an argument to simply get rid of divisions everywhere...just play the top 2 teams in the title game. Nothing drives me crazier than terribly unbalanced divisions with undoubtedly unbalanced schedules.

Pick6;1328889 wrote:If you dont win your division, you shouldnt be allowed to play in the conference championship. Should go to champion of other divison by default. a 6-6 Georgia Tech team possibly in a BCS bowl? GTFO.

This is a good suggestion. I like that.

Pick6;1328889 wrote:If you dont win your division, you shouldnt be allowed to play in the conference championship. Should go to champion of other divison by default. a 6-6 Georgia Tech team possibly in a BCS bowl? GTFO.

Or a slight variation. If a team doesn't win it's division then the other slot for the championship game should go to the next best record on the league regardless of division (of course teams with a post-season ban aren't eligible).

wildcats20;1328634 wrote:Yes. Let's just allow teams who can't play in their conference's bowl game to win the conference championship and send the LOSER of said conference championship to play in the bowl game.

No send instead the highest ranked remaining team

I don't understand the Conference Championship ban either. In college basketball if you are banned from the NCAA tournament, you still get to play in your conference tournament and can still win your conference. Why can't the same be true in college football? Also, if this were the pre-Nebraska B1G, OSU would have the B1G championship trophy in their trophy case right now and Nebraska would be going to the Rose Bowl. And to answer I question someone posed earlier, yes, I'd rather see a banned team win the conference and send the championship game loser to the Rose Bowl than see a team than finished sixth over all in the conference (Wisconsin) have a shot at going to the Rose Bowl to represent the conference instead of the second place team.

CCG in football is considered post season. In basketball, it's not. Why? I don't know.

Azubuike24;1328893 wrote:I agree. This is an argument to simply get rid of divisions everywhere...just play the top 2 teams in the title game. Nothing drives me crazier than terribly unbalanced divisions with undoubtedly unbalanced schedules.

While I agree with this, you need to have divisions for scheduling reasons. You're not going to play 11 conference games every year (and if you did, you wouldn't really need a title game), so you need divisions for scheduling. Even if you took the two best records regardless of their division, that still isn't exactly fair because the other four teams in their division may be the worst four in the conference, leading to their better records. In a conference this size there really is no perfect solution.

WebFire;1329391 wrote:CCG in football is considered post season. In basketball, it's not. Why? I don't know.

That's stupid. I would assume that it's because every team gets into their conference tournament, but I know that in years past teams had to qualify for the Big East Conference Tournament because of how big the conference was.

krambman;1329395 wrote:That's stupid. I would assume that it's because every team gets into their conference tournament, but I know that in years past teams had to qualify for the Big East Conference Tournament because of how big the conference was.

That is more than likely the reason, which makes sense. In football, it is essentially a playoff game.

How about we get rid of the gimmick-y conference championship games altogether? If I was an Ohio State fan I wouldn't want to play Nebraska again. You already proved you could beat them, why should Nebraska get a second shot at you?

UCLA and Stanford are playing 2 weeks in a row. Please tell me why having conference championship games are better from a competitive standpoint.

Mooney44Cards;1329401 wrote:How about we get rid of the gimmick-y conference championship games altogether? If I was an Ohio State fan I wouldn't want to play Nebraska again. You already proved you could beat them, why should Nebraska get a second shot at you?

UCLA and Stanford are playing 2 weeks in a row. Please tell me why having conference championship games are better from a competitive standpoint.

It's almost a necessity now that the conferences are 12+ teams. Too many teams you don't have to play to go with a straight-up W-L record.

WebFire;1329414 wrote:It's almost a necessity now that the conferences are 12+ teams. Too many teams you don't have to play to go with a straight-up W-L record.

If you think conference championship games are about anything but money, you're living in another world.

Mooney44Cards;1329430 wrote:If you think conference championship games are about anything but money, you're living in another world.

Haha. Well, everything in CFB these days is about money. But if it weren't, I would stand by my comment.

Mooney44Cards;1329430 wrote:If you think conference championship games are about anything but money, you're living in another world.

It is about money, but it is also a necessity. Once a conference gets so big in college football, there are teams that just won't play each other so the championship game helps take care of that. But it is also about money as it is an extra game but also allows conferences to expand (more TV $$$).