B1G Championship Game - A terrible idea

Donate To GopherHole
John Galt

John Galt

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
11,631
Reaction score
2,654
Points
113
Does anyone even care about this game outside of Wisconsin? Sounds like they are letting 30,000 people in off the streets and telling them to wear green or red.

The beauty of college football has always been playing teams one time per year so that every game truly matters. A championship game between divisions only makes sense if there are enough teams in each division so that there are no cross-divisional games in the regular season, ensuring that the "championship game" will be a unique meeting between the schools.

My guess is it will take about 5 minutes until a Badger fan is on here telling us how great a re-match will be...
 


It would be interesting to make them part of a playoff structure. Essentially your first-round would be all BCS conf title games, winner moves on. Otherwise they're kind of pointless.
 

It's all about the money and at the end of the day only the #1vs#2 in the BCS mean anything to national fans. The teams involved are interested, but this years slate is terrible.

Alabama is set in the title game and does anyone think LSU will lose? I like the idea of playing 13 games, 9 conference and 4 non-conference. Having tie-breakers decide the conference champ and the top two teams in the BCS that have not played that year in the title game. If you don't win your conference you can't play for the title.
 

The Championship games would mean more if the winning team got an automatic bid to an 8 team national tournament.
 


It sure beats the old big ten tiebreak rules. It seemed like the conference always had ties,sometimes a 3 way, and the team who had not been to the rose bowl the longest went, the others get screwed. Sure, it's all about money but the most watched game this weekend will be MSU vs. Wis. which will bring more attention to the conference. Who ever wins will need to run the ball and control the clock because the Ducks will make it a blow out by halftime otherwise.
 

It's the same concept with having to see LSU and Alabama again the national championship game. I enjoyed the first game, loved the defense that those two teams play, but no one in the country cares to see this game again outside of Tuscaloosa. If LSU wins on Saturday, they should cancel the BCS title game and give LSU the championship. Just like the B1G should cancel Saturday's game and give MSU the championship.
 

ESPN's experts have Michigan projected in the BCS. That alone makes the game less attractive. Either go 100% by standings or tie-breakers or 100% by the BCS standings.
 

Conference title games are here to stay. If I had my way, I'd do away with overtime and bring back the tie. but that boat has sailed.

I think we need to take the divisions and conferences seriously. If you can't win your conference - or even your division - then you shouldn't be able to play in the national title game.
 




I like football. It is infinitely better then watching some basketball games that mean even less then this game.
 

John Galt said:
Does anyone even care about this game outside of Wisconsin? Sounds like they are letting 30,000 people in off the streets and telling them to wear green or red.

The beauty of college football has always been playing teams one time per year so that every game truly matters. A championship game between divisions only makes sense if there are enough teams in each division so that there are no cross-divisional games in the regular season, ensuring that the "championship game" will be a unique meeting between the schools.

My guess is it will take about 5 minutes until a Badger fan is on here telling us how great a re-match will be...
Click to expand...
It's not like every game mattered before. MSU beat Wisconsin last season but Wisconsin still went to the Rose Bowl over them because OSU was also a co-champion. Did their head to head game matter then?

I don't care one way or the other. Part of me like that it eliminates the nonsense of co-champions (which sometimes means 3 teams claim a title) and it is more money for the schools (something that is always good for MN). But there is also the fact that it does make the road to the Rose Bowl tougher for MN (though it already got harder once they removed the "longest Rose Bowl drought" tiebreaker for co-champions a couple of years ago). Personally, the neutral location and empty seat things don't matter to me at all.
 

John Galt said:
If LSU wins on Saturday, they should cancel the BCS title game and give LSU the championship. Just like the B1G should cancel Saturday's game and give MSU the championship.
Click to expand...
Are you actually serious? That's asinine.
 



MaxyJR1 said:
ESPN's experts have Michigan projected in the BCS. That alone makes the game less attractive. Either go 100% by standings or tie-breakers or 100% by the BCS standings.
Click to expand...
They will be going by the BCS standings in this case. Either MSU or Wisconsin will fall out of the Top 14 with a loss making them ineligible for an at large selection. That said, it's likely that Michigan would still get selected over the CTG loser even if all the B1G teams had better BCS rankings.
 

GoAUpher said:
Are you actually serious? That's asinine.
Click to expand...

Dead serious. They play in the toughest conference and are the only undefeated team. What's more asinine would be a re-match with Alabama on a neutral filed, having Alabama win by 3, and giving the Tide the national championship.

The BCS only makes sense when you have two undefeated teams that normally wouldn't play each other in the regular season or a bowl game. Last year was a perfect example of the BCS working to perfection with the Auburn/Oregon match-up.
 

John Galt said:
Dead serious. They play in the toughest conference and are the only undefeated team. What's more asinine would be a re-match with Alabama on a neutral filed, having Alabama win by 3, and giving the Tide the national championship.

The BCS only makes sense when you have two undefeated teams that normally wouldn't play each other in the regular season or a bowl game. Last year was a perfect example of the BCS working to perfection with the Auburn/Oregon match-up.
Click to expand...
I agree, the postseason in FBS is a complete cluster...
 

John Galt said:
Dead serious. They play in the toughest conference and are the only undefeated team. What's more asinine would be a re-match with Alabama on a neutral filed, having Alabama win by 3, and giving the Tide the national championship.

The BCS only makes sense when you have two undefeated teams that normally wouldn't play each other in the regular season or a bowl game. Last year was a perfect example of the BCS working to perfection with the Auburn/Oregon match-up.
Click to expand...
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.
 


John Galt said:
Dead serious. They play in the toughest conference and are the only undefeated team. What's more asinine would be a re-match with Alabama on a neutral filed, having Alabama win by 3, and giving the Tide the national championship.

The BCS only makes sense when you have two undefeated teams that normally wouldn't play each other in the regular season or a bowl game. Last year was a perfect example of the BCS working to perfection with the Auburn/Oregon match-up.
Click to expand...

Bold: That would be in a perfect world, but................................

I think the whole BCS thing is stupid, but, well............there's the money part.
The championship game is bad enough but who really cares about a game for 3rd, 5th, 7th or 9th place. Oh yeah, that money thing again.

Either have a playoff or go back to the old Bowl system - Big Ten vs. Pac ???? in Rose Bowl. Then the team with the highest paid lobbyists could be the national champ.:rolleyes:
 

First off, let's not compare basketball to football. The NCAA tournament is exciting because anything can happen in 1 game. The best team usually doesn't win the NCAA tourney. The NBA solves this dilemma by playing 7 game series that bore everyone to death, but in the end get it right because you have to beat a team 4 times out of 7. In football, it's generally accepted that 1 game is more meaningful than a basketball game and is harder for the inferior team to win. Case in point being that the NFL doesn't play a 5 game series to determine the Super Bowl winner, and for the past 100 years in college football I can never remember playing a scheduled home and home series with another school?

Regarding the championship games, you missed some of my sarcasm because I realize it's not practical to cancel them and it could never be done. What I'm saying is that Michigan St. deserves to be the B1G champion because they had the best record, won their division, and beat the best team in the other division already. Same goes for LSU with the national championship if they win on Saturday. We don't need a re-match, they already played. This isn't the NFL, we don't have a play-off system, so each regular season game should be meaningful.
 

GoAUpher said:
They will be going by the BCS standings in this case. Either MSU or Wisconsin will fall out of the Top 14 with a loss making them ineligible for an at large selection. That said, it's likely that Michigan would still get selected over the CTG loser even if all the B1G teams had better BCS rankings.
Click to expand...

I understand, but Arkansas, Oklahoma, Boise, South Carolina and K-State may not. This is likely all mute as it sounds like the BCS will just involve the title game when the contract is renewed in 2013
 

MaxyJR1 said:
I understand, but Arkansas, Oklahoma, Boise, South Carolina and K-State may not. This is likely all mute as it sounds like the BCS will just involve the title game when the contract is renewed in 2013
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Didn't get that you were looking across the conferences. I agree, it would be more fair other ways, but the bowl system has never been about fair. Whatcha gonna do?
 

On any given . . .

Day a game is played, a winner is had and so is a loser. If it is a regular game, it matters some. If it is the national championship game the winner gets a nice trophy.

Cancel that game put it back to the vote and nothing has changed.

Play the game, get a winner, get a champion.


John Galt said:
First off, let's not compare basketball to football. The NCAA tournament is exciting because anything can happen in 1 game. The best team usually doesn't win the NCAA tourney. The NBA solves this dilemma by playing 7 game series that bore everyone to death, but in the end get it right because you have to beat a team 4 times out of 7. In football, it's generally accepted that 1 game is more meaningful than a basketball game and is harder for the inferior team to win. Case in point being that the NFL doesn't play a 5 game series to determine the Super Bowl winner, and for the past 100 years in college football I can never remember playing a scheduled home and home series with another school?

Regarding the championship games, you missed some of my sarcasm because I realize it's not practical to cancel them and it could never be done. What I'm saying is that Michigan St. deserves to be the B1G champion because they had the best record, won their division, and beat the best team in the other division already. Same goes for LSU with the national championship if they win on Saturday. We don't need a re-match, they already played. This isn't the NFL, we don't have a play-off system, so each regular season game should be meaningful.
Click to expand...
 

A team only "deserves" a conference championship if it meets the criteria established by the conference for winning the championship. Those criteria are to win your division, either outright or by meeting the conference's tiebreaker rules, and then winning the conference championship game.
 


wait!what? said:
Someone told me the Big Ten Champ school gets 26 million.
Click to expand...
Since that's more than the whole conference splits if a team gets into the BCS I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. That does however sound a lot like the $$$ amount the conference was going to pull in per season for holding the game.
 

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.
 

GophersInIowa said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think all the estimates suggest that a playoff would gather more money. Which is why ESPN is against the idea and helped prop up the Big 12. The difference is that the money might have to be divided more fairly I think.

And yea, the every game matters stuff is bunk. They at least need to get to a Plus 1 model.
 

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.
 

Completely agree.

John Galt said:
Dead serious. They play in the toughest conference and are the only undefeated team. What's more asinine would be a re-match with Alabama on a neutral filed, having Alabama win by 3, and giving the Tide the national championship.

The BCS only makes sense when you have two undefeated teams that normally wouldn't play each other in the regular season or a bowl game. Last year was a perfect example of the BCS working to perfection with the Auburn/Oregon match-up.
Click to expand...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom