B1G Championship Game - A terrible idea

[WilliamsArenaGuy]

Completely agree. I get so sick of hearing how all college football games "count." It's patently false.

I don't have a problem with the conference championship game. If Wisconsin wins, then they deserve to go to the Rose Bowl. It beats what happened last year where Wisconsin went because of a tie-breaker.

As far as the BCS championship goes, I'd love to hear from those who like the current system "because every game matters." This year just proves that that's not true. LSU could lose to Georgia this weekend and still play for the NC. And all Alabama had to do the first time against LSU was not get blown out at home.

The whole current system just blows my mind. I know it's about money. But why can't they keep all the bowl games and still have some kind of a playoff? Eight team playoff, 1st round at the higher seeds home stadium. Rotate the four BCS bowls for the semifinals. So for instance this year the Sugar and Fiesta Bowls host the semifinals, and Rose and Orange host the four teams who lost the first round. Then have the championship game two weeks later.

How wouldn't they make more money under a system like that? BCS Bowl games are still big (two of them mean even more than they do now), and you have four additional games that would get big time ratings.

This set up also makes seeding important as getting a first round home game is huge. Plus, a bunch of teams would be in the running to get one of the last playoff spots all the way to the end of the season. Right now, this weekend means nothing as far as the BCS championship goes, but if there were a playoff in place, there are many spots still up for grabs.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't know how this wouldn't make even more money for the schools involved. Imagine a "Super Saturday" of four first round games. The ratings would be crazy.

 

[dpodoll68]

Whether an NFL teams goes 16-0 or 10-6 doesn't really matter as long as they get in the playoffs.

Sure it does. Years and years of statistics showing that home teams win far more often than road teams prove that it does.

 

[RodentRampage]

Put like this, every game used to matter more in college football than any other sport. In most years, your chances are pretty slim to go to the BCS championship game if you lose during the regular season. Whether an NFL teams goes 16-0 or 10-6 doesn't really matter as long as they get in the playoffs.

The 16-0 team is getting a bye and home field advantage up to the conference championship. The 10-6 team is not.

 

[John Galt]

The odds are better, but you can still win the Super Bowl if you were 10-6 in the regular season. When is the last time a college football team was 8-3 and won the national championship?

 

[RailBaronYarr]

The 16-0 team is getting a bye and home field advantage up to the conference championship. The 10-6 team is not.

I'm in the camp that the idea of the BCS system is the route to go, with the lone exception to be allowing a 4 team playoff. The 2007 NE Patriots went undefeated in the regular season, won their playoff games (with the bye and home field advantage), and then lost to a 10-6 New York Giants team they had already beaten. I'm not saying the Giants didn't have an amazing run in the playoffs, but the Patriots were clearly the much better team. They proved that during the regular season (including a win over the Giants) and through the playoffs. Again, it proved that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, even 7 losses (9-7 teams, even 8-8 making the playoffs isn't unheard of) don't count as you can still have a shot at the superbowl (and not that long a road, I might add). Yes, 1 loss in college football doesn't rule you out. But 2 losses is almost assuredly a nail in the coffin under the BCS system. So yes, the season does really matter. It's why when Iowa St beats Oklahoma State it is a total upset, bedlam, craziness. In the NFL it would just be a ho-hum disappointing loss and move on to the next week. How often does the final week of the NFL mean anything to anyone? In college football the last game will NEVER have 0 meaning or benched starters (so long as the BCS system is how it is). For 2 reasons: the games are typically rivalry games (that MEAN something), and you simply cannot afford to take a loss if you have title hopes.

I could see a 4 team playoff system because it keeps the regular season meaningful, relevant, exciting while eliminating 95% of the argument over if the best 2 teams in the country are still in title contention. Beyond that is playoffs for the sake of playoffs. The best teams have already gone 0 to 1 loss on the season in a typically grueling schedule (tough schedule actually matters in the BCS system unlike a 12-4 cupcake schedule in the NFL being rewarded over a 10-6 difficult schedule). Don't make the teams have to play 3 more to prove their worth.

 

[Nokomis]

Another weekend of B1G football? Sounds good to me.

Personally, I like the division setup and CCG. Adds another level of intrigue. I'll be rooting my damnedest for MSU to keep WI from the conference championship Saturday. It's college football; love it for what it is and quite being such a wah-wah.

 

[GopherinFlorida]

The idea that a Champion can be named without playing and in the past winning their final game is purely a NCAA Men's Football Tradition. MN has a National Championship on their when losing their last game of the year...so it is traditional, but that doesn't make it right. FCS, DII, DIII, JC all have playoffs...only FBS does not. The argument about the splendor and tradition of bowl games being the reason for no national championship is idiotic...they could have just as many bowl games with a championship...top 8 teams play, losers in the first round play in 2 bowls, losers in second round play in 1 bowl and then the winners play in NC bowl game. 4 BCS bowls, 8 team playoff. And all other teams not in top 8 play in their normal affiliation bowls. It ain't that hard to figure out.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

The idea that a Champion can be named without playing and in the past winning their final game is purely a NCAA Men's Football Tradition. MN has a National Championship on their when losing their last game of the year...so it is traditional, but that doesn't make it right. FCS, DII, DIII, JC all have playoffs...only FBS does not. The argument about the splendor and tradition of bowl games being the reason for no national championship is idiotic...they could have just as many bowl games with a championship...top 8 teams play, losers in the first round play in 2 bowls, losers in second round play in 1 bowl and then the winners play in NC bowl game. 4 BCS bowls, 8 team playoff. And all other teams not in top 8 play in their normal affiliation bowls. It ain't that hard to figure out.

Who is advocating for picking a champion without having the top 2 teams play? The question and argument that arises is whether or not the BCS ranking system (including humans, coaches, and computer ratings) can accurately pick the top 2 teams in the country to play for a title. I think 50+% of the seasons it does, 75% of the time a third team would be all you need to know you have the top 2 in the country, and 95% of the time a 4 team subset has the best 2 teams in the country.

People get in an argument over what's fair (ie allowing more teams the chance to prove their worth by means of a playoff - 4, 8, 16 teams depending on how accurate they think the BCS inherently is) vs. what makes for the best fan experience over the course of a season, including the championship game.

My personal opinion is that college football is great how it is and I would only tweak it slightly to include a 4 team field for the championship game. Top 4 BCS rankings. This eliminates all but the random fluke season of more than 4 undefeated teams or conundrums while still keeping every single game meaningful during the regular season. Conference rivalries are still big games. A loss could still kill your title hopes. No sitting starters at the end of the season to coast your way in to the playoffs.

I ALSO think (yes, my personal opinion) that the ability of humans to judge is one of the best things about sports. Yes, it can sometimes screw a team or person (terrible calls by refs or umps costing a victory or perfect game) which sucks for that team or fanbase, but that's part of the fun of watching sports. Disagreement with rivals, heartbreak over bad calls, camaraderie with fans over shared disappointment makes sports great. In the same vein, the ability of humans to judge one teams strengths vs others in a ranking rather than just a record of W-L is what makes college football polls great.

If you go to an 8, 16, whatever team playoff system, what's to stop it from becoming 24? 32? 64? NCAA Basketball keeps adding more, and the end result is final fours and championships that are lacking the best teams but including the hottest ones and also a regular season where anywhere from 1 to 10 losses may not matter.

Just my opinion, but it is absolutely why I love watching tons of college football teams from across the country who I don't necessarily care about but love the drama of upsets and heartbreaks.

 

[John Galt]

Well put RailBYarr! I'm one of the few that likes the Bowl games and there are all kinds of problems that would come up with a playoff system, such as who gets selected. If the BCS can be scaled back so it simply allows the top two teams to play, I think it will work ok.

 

[dpodoll68]

Teams aren't going to sit starters to "coast" into a playoff. This isn't the NFL. The difference between being 16-0 and a #1 seed or 15-1 and a #1 seed in the NFL is pretty much non-existent, except for historical bragging rights. Nearly all of the time, the difference between 12-0 and 11-1 (or 11-1 and 10-2) is enormous. You're drawing 4 (or 8, or 12, whatever) teams out of a pool of, realistically, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40 teams at the start of the season. The NFL is drawing a pool of 6 teams out of 16. Further, a 15-0 NFL team is going to be playing a team that most of their fans don't really care about defeating. Rivalries don't really mean that much in the NFL, especially compared to the NCAA. A team in contention for a national title is almost always going to be playing a historical rival on its last weekend - a team about which its fans care greatly, or at the very least a conference/divisional rival. Pride/job security won't let coaches coast through games like OSU/Mich, Aub/Ala, Ga/Fl, etc.

 

[Maximus]

No sitting starters at the end of the season to coast your way in to the playoffs.

Are you suggesting that in 2006, #2 Michigan and #1 Ohio State would've rested their starters during the final week of the regular season?

 

[GophersInIowa]

Well put RailBYarr! I'm one of the few that likes the Bowl games and there are all kinds of problems that would come up with a playoff system, such as who gets selected. If the BCS can be scaled back so it simply allows the top two teams to play, I think it will work ok.

Isn't there already that problem? I'd much rather there be debate and controversy over who should take the 4th or 8th spot in a playoffs than who the #2 team is.

 

[Gopherprof]

I think it's a wonderful idea. It's just that Indianapolis was a bad choice, which I've felt all along.

Either do it like that Pac 12 does it, and play the game on the home field of one team or the other, or play the game in the heart of "Big Ten country" and the largest metro in the Midwest: Chicago.

The idea that fans won't watch a game in Chicago in December is flat wrong. Fans won't watch a meaningless game in cold weather, but I think that game would sell much better in Chicago, and have a much larger pool of alumni to draw from.

 

[John Galt]

Are you suggesting that in 2006, #2 Michigan and #1 Ohio State would've rested their starters during the final week of the regular season?

They wouldn't right now because if they are undefeated, they have a chance to play in the BCS championship game. Imagine this scenario if we have conference championships and a playoff. Both OSU and Michigan are 7-0 in the B1G going in to their final game against each other and have cliniched their divisions. They would already be guaranteed to play 2 weeks in a row, so why would they play their starters in a meaningless game at the end of the season?

 

[RodentRampage]

They wouldn't right now because if they are undefeated, they have a chance to play in the BCS championship game. Imagine this scenario if we have conference championships and a playoff. Both OSU and Michigan are 7-0 in the B1G going in to their final game against each other and have cliniched their divisions. They would already be guaranteed to play 2 weeks in a row, so why would they play their starters in a meaningless game at the end of the season?

If they did that, the coaches would be burned, and if they were very, very lucky, they would only be burned in effigy. It is simply unimaginable that Ohio State and Michgan would sit their starters. Even if the fans would stand for it (unlikely enough), there are other reasons why they wouldn't do it. It could knock them right out of playing for a national championship. If they don't win the conference championship, throwing the game could result in a less desirable bowl game. If there was a playoff, throwing that game would likely result in a less desirable seed.

 

[dpodoll68]

They wouldn't right now because if they are undefeated, they have a chance to play in the BCS championship game. Imagine this scenario if we have conference championships and a playoff. Both OSU and Michigan are 7-0 in the B1G going in to their final game against each other and have cliniched their divisions. They would already be guaranteed to play 2 weeks in a row, so why would they play their starters in a meaningless game at the end of the season?

Are you serious with this post? What coach in his right mind isn't going to do everything possible within legal bounds to win every single conference championship he can?

 

[John Galt]

Are you serious with this post? What coach in his right mind isn't going to do everything possible within legal bounds to win every single conference championship he can?

Because each team already would have won their division and would be guaranteed to play each other in the conference championship game. We'd have OSU/Michigan scheduled two weeks in a row.

 

[John Galt]

If they did that, the coaches would be burned, and if they were very, very lucky, they would only be burned in effigy. It is simply unimaginable that Ohio State and Michgan would sit their starters. Even if the fans would stand for it (unlikely enough), there are other reasons why they wouldn't do it. It could knock them right out of playing for a national championship. If they don't win the conference championship, throwing the game could result in a less desirable bowl game. If there was a playoff, throwing that game would likely result in a less desirable seed.

So what if their playoff seed was already locked up? Point is, they could have nothing to play for.

My main point is this: By adding conference championship games and a playoff system, it reduces the importance of regular season games. College football in the past has had the most meaningful games regular season games of any major sport. They have now become less important with conference championship games, and would become even less important if we added a playoff system.

 

[mplsbadger]

I am one who loves the regular season where 'every game counts', the conference championships, and the bowls. Yet I'd like a better resolution of who's #1. I would never be in favor of any resolution of #1 that weakens or eliminates the bowl season.

So how about the following:

- Go back to the old bowl season with a stipulation that nobody can play after January 1st . Traditional bowl alignments are put back in place (Rose = B10/P12, Fiesta = B12, Sugar = SEC, Orange = ACC). This will result in favorable treatment for conference champions and will make the conference championships effective ‘play in’ games without necessarily preventing good non-champion teams from AQ conferences from playing for a title. There are enough at large spots to also accomodate teams from non-AQ schools.
- After the bowls, the following week the top 4 ranked teams play a four team tournament for the title. These four teams don't necessarily have to be the winners of the 'BCS' bowls, but they have to be bowl game winners. The semi-final games are played at the home site of the top two seeds. This is for two reasons, first this will prevent people from skipping the big bowl games to preserve their travel dollars for the latter games. Second, I would love to see Florida play a January game in Minnesota for once instead of the reverse.
- The championship is hosted one week later on a rotating basis at a ‘super bowl’ like location.

 

[MNfootballfan]

Teams aren't going to sit starters to "coast" into a playoff. This isn't the NFL. The difference between being 16-0 and a #1 seed or 15-1 and a #1 seed in the NFL is pretty much non-existent, except for historical bragging rights. Nearly all of the time, the difference between 12-0 and 11-1 (or 11-1 and 10-2) is enormous. You're drawing 4 (or 8, or 12, whatever) teams out of a pool of, realistically, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-40 teams at the start of the season. The NFL is drawing a pool of 6 teams out of 16. Further, a 15-0 NFL team is going to be playing a team that most of their fans don't really care about defeating. Rivalries don't really mean that much in the NFL, especially compared to the NCAA. A team in contention for a national title is almost always going to be playing a historical rival on its last weekend - a team about which its fans care greatly, or at the very least a conference/divisional rival. Pride/job security won't let coaches coast through games like OSU/Mich, Aub/Ala, Ga/Fl, etc.

Amen! Was it John Cooper who was let go from tOSU for failing to beat Michigan?

 

[John Galt]

I am one who loves the regular season where 'every game counts', the conference championships, and the bowls. Yet I'd like a better resolution of who's #1. I would never be in favor of any resolution of #1 that weakens or eliminates the bowl season.

So how about the following:

- Go back to the old bowl season with a stipulation that nobody can play after January 1st . Traditional bowl alignments are put back in place (Rose = B10/P12, Fiesta = B12, Sugar = SEC, Orange = ACC). This will result in favorable treatment for conference champions and will make the conference championships effective ‘play in’ games without necessarily preventing good non-champion teams from AQ conferences from playing for a title. There are enough at large spots to also accomodate teams from non-AQ schools.
- After the bowls, the following week the top 4 ranked teams play a four team tournament for the title. These four teams don't necessarily have to be the winners of the 'BCS' bowls, but they have to be bowl game winners. The semi-final games are played at the home site of the top two seeds. This is for two reasons, first this will prevent people from skipping the big bowl games to preserve their travel dollars for the latter games. Second, I would love to see Florida play a January game in Minnesota for once instead of the reverse.
- The championship is hosted one week later on a rotating basis at a ‘super bowl’ like location.

Love it! Best idea I've heard yet.

 

[4four4]

So what if their playoff seed was already locked up? Point is, they could have nothing to play for.

My main point is this: By adding conference championship games and a playoff system, it reduces the importance of regular season games. College football in the past has had the most meaningful games regular season games of any major sport. They have now become less important with conference championship games, and would become even less important if we added a playoff system.

Unless of course only the conference champions make the national tourney.

 

[MNfootballfan]

So what if their playoff seed was already locked up? Point is, they could have nothing to play for.

My main point is this: By adding conference championship games and a playoff system, it reduces the importance of regular season games. College football in the past has had the most meaningful games regular season games of any major sport. They have now become less important with conference championship games, and would become even less important if we added a playoff system.

How did the Big Ten Championship game make the Wisconsin/Penn State game any less important last week?

If a team plays well enough in a college football season that they can coast at the end of the season, so be it. If anything college football is already unfair. It is better to lose in the beginning of the year instead of the end of the season. If LSU lost to Arkansas they would have fell to #4 or #5 in the polls, and out of the National Championship race. Hypothetically, lets say LSU lost to Oregon their first game of the season. They then won the remaining games, including Alabama and Arkansas they would be ranked higher than #4 or #5, guarenteed.

Also, not to go into this discussion but a random thought, I think college football would be better if they released the first poll around October 1 and got rid of the preseason polls, etc.

 

[RodentRampage]

So what if their playoff seed was already locked up? Point is, they could have nothing to play for.

My main point is this: By adding conference championship games and a playoff system, it reduces the importance of regular season games. College football in the past has had the most meaningful games regular season games of any major sport. They have now become less important with conference championship games, and would become even less important if we added a playoff system.

The problem is the example you provided proves that it doesn't undermine the importance of regular season games. This isn't the NFL. Again, it is simply unimaginable that OSU or Michigan would sit their starters just because they had already clinched their division. The fans would never stand for it, it would be an ticket to unemployment.

Only in a system like the NFL, where rivalries mean little and where seeding is based solely on record could there be meaingful incentive to bench the starters. The conference title game is not the only thing at stake. Throw the last regular season game, and kiss playing for the national title goodbye, and you're likely throwing away a chance for an at-large BCS bid.

 

[MNfootballfan]

In my opinion, the dumbest argument about a playoff system is that it will take away the importance of the regular season. I am just going off the latest BCS top 25, but here are some of the teams currently ranked outside of the top 8 in the BCS.

Oregon, South Carolina, Michigan State, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, (USC not in BCS) all finished the year 10-2

Oklahoma, K-State, TCU all finished the year 9-2

The point I am trying to make, look how hard it is to finish in the regular season in the top 8. I think some of you are forgetting how hard it is to put together a great year. Arkansas was 3rd going into last weekend, suddenly they are sitting at 8th. Yes, I know there would have to be qualifications on who gets in and currently no big ten team is in the top 8, but that is not my point of this. There are some great teams that would be sitting on the outside looking in. Also, if LSU were to lose a game they could potentially lose a home playoff game or however the playoffs are set up.

Also, I know there would be controversy because a team might get in the playoffs instead of another team. I would much rather debate the 8th or 9th best team than the 2nd or 3rd best team got snubbed.

I actually think a 8 team playoff would add to the excitement and importance of the regular season. I feel the only team that could take a loss and not free fall very far would be LSU this year.

 

[RailBaronYarr]

The problem is the example you provided proves that it doesn't undermine the importance of regular season games. This isn't the NFL. Again, it is simply unimaginable that OSU or Michigan would sit their starters just because they had already clinched their division. The fans would never stand for it, it would be an ticket to unemployment.

Only in a system like the NFL, where rivalries mean little and where seeding is based solely on record could there be meaingful incentive to bench the starters. The conference title game is not the only thing at stake. Throw the last regular season game, and kiss playing for the national title goodbye, and you're likely throwing away a chance for an at-large BCS bid.

Really? Prove it. Seriously. The NFL used to have bitter rivals. Games the teams cared about winning more than anything. I can promise you there have been examples of starters sitting in "big rivalry games" in the NFl late in the season when playoffs spot and/or home field advantage were clinched.

Howbout this... in the last year we've seen historic rivalries like Texas/Texas A&M, Kansas/Missouri, Pitt/West Virginia, Nebraska/Oklahoma, and more die off. But THE FANS WON'T STAND FOR IT!!! Wait, it happened anyway. MN is no longer playing Wisconsin or Iowa for its last or second to last regular season game. Our final away game was Northwestern, our final home was Illinois. Great.

The same people who love the NFL and follow it and watch it on TV are the same people college football is now going after. If a playoff system existed with 8, 12, 16, ++ teams, I guarantee you over time (not RIGHT away.. over many years) people, teams, fans, schools, etc would care LESS about beating their rival or winning their last game if it meant not injuring a player. Scenario: Wisconsin is 11-0 heading in to last game against a 2-9 MN team. They are ranked #1 in the country. A loss would set them back to a #3-4 BCS ranking, but they're pretty confident they can beat MN anyway with starters sitting the whole game or playing maybe 1 quarter. What do you think will start to happen?

Another scenario... LSU and Bama played each other 2 weeks after they already had. Ranked #1 and #2 respectively. A loss for either one means a slight drop (read: maybe 1 to 2 spots at MOST since the strength of the team you lose to means your computer rating barely takes a hit.. see Bama this season after the LSU loss). Why would you risk playing/injuring your starters if you'd still be guaranteed home field advantage until the championship game???

 

[RailBaronYarr]

In my opinion, the dumbest argument about a playoff system is that it will take away the importance of the regular season. I am just going off the latest BCS top 25, but here are some of the teams currently ranked outside of the top 8 in the BCS.

Oregon, South Carolina, Michigan State, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, (USC not in BCS) all finished the year 10-2

Oklahoma, K-State, TCU all finished the year 9-2

The point I am trying to make, look how hard it is to finish in the regular season in the top 8. I think some of you are forgetting how hard it is to put together a great year. Arkansas was 3rd going into last weekend, suddenly they are sitting at 8th. Yes, I know there would have to be qualifications on who gets in and currently no big ten team is in the top 8, but that is not my point of this. There are some great teams that would be sitting on the outside looking in. Also, if LSU were to lose a game they could potentially lose a home playoff game or however the playoffs are set up.

Also, I know there would be controversy because a team might get in the playoffs instead of another team. I would much rather debate the 8th or 9th best team than the 2nd or 3rd best team got snubbed.

I actually think a 8 team playoff would add to the excitement and importance of the regular season. I feel the only team that could take a loss and not free fall very far would be LSU this year.

Point 1: which is exactly why teams that put together an amazing year shouldn't have to prove it any further. 8 teams means 3 additional games. That's why an amazing regular season is so hard to achieve and should be rewarded. Not an amazing 3-4 game stretch in the playoffs. Wisconsin is a VERY good team this year. GREAT/AMAZING teams don't lose to a 6 win Ohio State team AND lose to Michigan State.

Point 2: Oklahoma State lost on the road to Iowa State, a 6-win team, and only dropped from #2 to #4. Alabama lost to LSU and only dropped from #2 to #3. There's 2 teams right there that stayed in the mix.

My personal thought is it's easier to make a call between the #2 and #3 teams in the country than it is to make a distinction between the 12th best team and the 13th best team. Spots 8-20 are all very good teams but do you REALLY know who is better? There's a lot more gray to me in that range.

I think the NFL system exists to 1) Make money, and lots of it and 2) to reward the healthiest and hottest teams. The current CFB system is there to reward the 2 teams with the best body of work against the hardest competition over the entire season.

 

[Lakeville Goldy]

You made 2 asinine assertions. The BCS statement is actually the less asinine of the two. It's still silly because you don't create a system designed to match #1 against #2 and with a clause that says "except". Not to mention it's entirely impractical and never ever going to be implemented. There is also the fact that you're logic negates a playoff as well. What if the 2 teams in the championship of the NCAA basketball tourney already played once before? Do you cancel that game too even though both just went through a playoff?

The second is that the B1G CTG should be canceled if one team in the game already beat the other one.

So what happens when one division is much weaker than the other? Team A lost their cross division matchup with Team B but that was their only loss in conference. Team B proceeds to lose 2 games in their division (including to the worst team in the conference) and barely wins any other game. They look horrible. But, because their division sucks they still win their half of the conference. Are you suggesting that the clearly inferior team should be the B1G champion? There are all sorts of scenarios like this one.

Well, just to be Devil's advocate, by that same argument you're still giving team B, which is "clearly inferior" a chance to win the CTG. What if team A's star QB gets hurt first play?

Personally, I like the CTG. I have no issue if a four win team somehow wins their division and gets lucky in the CTG. The same thing happens every year in college basketball. It makes it exciting. If Georgia pulls off the upset and gets a BCS berth - that will be fantastic.

I'm not a big fan of saying you HAVE to win your CTG to go to the national title game. I'd hate to see a scenario where an unbeaten team loses it's CTG and that puts two teams with two losses in the CTG and the only one loss team in the nation doesn't compete. I know that's an unlikely scenario, but it is possible.

Besides, if you look at this year, I think it is an example of how the CTG could benefit the Gophers. Wisconsin only had one team challenging it for the CTG. It was possible they could have gone with three B1G losses, as long as one wasn't to PSU. A similar scenario could land the Gophers in the CTG, then it's a matter of getting lucky one game and going to Pasadena.

 

[RodentRampage]

Really? Prove it. Seriously. The NFL used to have bitter rivals. Games the teams cared about winning more than anything. I can promise you there have been examples of starters sitting in "big rivalry games" in the NFl late in the season when playoffs spot and/or home field advantage were clinched.

No, the NFL did not have bitter rivalries, not comapred to collegiate rivalries. Why are you pointing out to me that teams in the NFL do bench their starters when they can't improve their playoff position. I clearly acknowledged that they did do that.

Howbout this... in the last year we've seen historic rivalries like Texas/Texas A&M, Kansas/Missouri, Pitt/West Virginia, Nebraska/Oklahoma, and more die off. But THE FANS WON'T STAND FOR IT!!! Wait, it happened anyway. MN is no longer playing Wisconsin or Iowa for its last or second to last regular season game. Our final away game was Northwestern, our final home was Illinois. Great.

What's your point? I was talking about teams THROWING games, and you bring up teams changing conferences? Coaches don't make the decisions on changing conferences, even if fans are outraged, they aren't going to come by his house with torches and pitchforks.

There have been numerous times where, without the conference championship game, a team has had the conference title wrapped up, do they throw the game? After all, it is meaningless, right?

The same people who love the NFL and follow it and watch it on TV are the same people college football is now going after. If a playoff system existed with 8, 12, 16, ++ teams, I guarantee you over time (not RIGHT away.. over many years) people, teams, fans, schools, etc would care LESS about beating their rival or winning their last game if it meant not injuring a player. Scenario: Wisconsin is 11-0 heading in to last game against a 2-9 MN team. They are ranked #1 in the country. A loss would set them back to a #3-4 BCS ranking, but they're pretty confident they can beat MN anyway with starters sitting the whole game or playing maybe 1 quarter. What do you think will start to happen?

You can guarantee anything you want, it still doesn't mean a thing. That Wisconsin team would pull their starters after the game was locked up, but losing to a 2-9 Minnesota team would cause their rankings to plummet. But even if it didn't plummet, they can kiss their national title hopes goodbye if they threw the game.

Another scenario... LSU and Bama played each other 2 weeks after they already had. Ranked #1 and #2 respectively. A loss for either one means a slight drop (read: maybe 1 to 2 spots at MOST since the strength of the team you lose to means your computer rating barely takes a hit.. see Bama this season after the LSU loss). Why would you risk playing/injuring your starters if you'd still be guaranteed home field advantage until the championship game???

That slight drop might knock you out of contention for the national title.

 

[dpodoll68]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but here's what it comes down to. The system in place ends up rewarding 11-1 Alabama for its great season, while 11-1 Oklahoma St., 11-1 Stanford, 11-1 Va Tech, and 12-0 Houston get nothing. Is a home loss to #1 LSU really that much better than a road loss to Iowa St., a home loss to #7 Oregon, a home loss to #13 Clemson, or, in Houston's case, no loss at all? Alabama has the "best loss" of the group, certainly, but is it of a sufficient margin that you can say with 100% certainty that Alabama is the 2nd-best team in the country? You can say "schedule better", and the teams do have control over that in their non-conference, but is it Houston's fault that C-USA is weak? Are they supposed to hold a gun to the Big 12's head and force their way in? Every other team sport on Earth settles it on the field every single year, except DI-A college football, which only does so on occasion. Is everyone else wrong, and DI-A is right? I need something more compelling than "that's the way it's always been done".

The current CFB system is there to reward the 2 teams with the best body of work against the hardest competition over the entire season.

If it actually did this a majority of the time, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.