What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

[kehlis]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

Yea he said. I think it was in 2006.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seems the sarcasm went over your head.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

A few years ago the committee said that Baylor didn't get in because of their weak OOC schedule.

[B]That same year, they dropped TCU out of the playoffs the Final weekend because they didn't play a championship game. Both Baylor and TCU had one loss.

....

Yeah, but there were 6 teams with 1 or 0 losses that year in the final CFP rankings:

#1 Bama 12-1
#2 Oregon 12-1
#3 FSU 13-0
#4 OSU 12-1
#5 Baylor 11-1
#6 TCU 11-1

So they have never gone against the "fewest losses" rule, but simply augmented it back in 2014 with the "most wins" rule to break the OSU/Baylor/TCU tie. Again, this committee is not doing any sort of complex or even thoughtful analysis aside from adhering to W-L records (in pre-BCS era fashion).

Slight revisionist history here as I mentioned in the other thread. The conference title win helped OSU, but the only reason it propelled them into the playoffs was because they shellacked #13 Wisconsin 59-0 in the biggest blowout in CCG history (w/ their backup QB to top it all off).

If Ohio State beats a Wisconsin team that was playing their back-up QB 38-31 or any other variation of close score, I think Baylor/TCU are probably in at the #4 spot.

The emphatic blowout of that win is what got OSU into the playoffs.

Which is looney because the one consistent thing the committee has said is they don't consider margin of victory. So, for essentially MoV in a single game to catapult OSU over Baylor/TCU back then would've been incredibly hypocritical. Either that or there's another explanation. Maybe some of the previous committee members thought differently about MoV back then? There has been some turnover.

Whereas the CFP was originally designed to prevent against the 3-undefeateds scenario, I think it's time to design a 6/8-team playoff to solve the ~6 one-loss teams with varying degrees of conference dominance scenario that we now have. With a 6-team field, TCU and Baylor would've got in back in '14, OSU would've got in last year, and Michigan and PSU get in this time. Seems like that would placate a lot of people without diluting the field too much.

[Cardot]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

I have always liked the concept of Conference Championship games, but in reality, they generally underwhelm for a number a reasons.
1. Too often one division is weaker than the other, and the top seed faces a team that really doesn’t deserve to be there. Often a blowout here.
2. The bizarre situation where an underdog spoiler pulling an upset actually hurts their own Conference, and theoretically themselves.
3. The even more bizarre situation where CCG contenders battle for pride while a team finishing 2nd in the division gets a bye week before heading into the playoffs.
4. Rematches where either a team has to beat the same team twice, or the teams split potentially making it more difficult to rank them.

I would not mind seeing these games abandoned in favor of a quarter finals round of the playoffs.

[TheShizNo1]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

For the record, Michigan has no argument. I'd say PSU doesn't either with both teams sporting 2 losses.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

I have always liked the concept of Conference Championship games, but in reality, they generally underwhelm for a number a reasons.
1. Too often one division is weaker than the other, and the top seed faces a team that really doesn’t deserve to be there. Often a blowout here.
2. The bizarre situation where an underdog spoiler pulling an upset actually hurts their own Conference, and theoretically themselves.
3. The even more bizarre situation where CCG contenders battle for pride while a team finishing 2nd in the division gets a bye week before heading into the playoffs.
4. Rematches where either a team has to beat the same team twice, or the teams split potentially making it more difficult to rank them.

I would not mind seeing these games abandoned in favor of a quarter finals round of the playoffs.

I could get on board with this. Just crown conference champions the old way by looking at conference W-L followed by a series of well-defined tie-breakers (h2h, overall W-L, pts differential, SoS...). Divisions can remain for purposes of scheduling or divisions can be done away with; nobody really cares about that. Teams can rotate through all of their conference foes on a (2-3 year repeating) regular basis while the protected rivalries would remain untouched and be played each year.

The sticking point in removing the conference championship games, I think, would be revenue. If you were to abolish conference championship games that would result in a week where only 4 or 6 or 8 playoff teams are playing, which is much fewer than we have vying for their conference championships in the current setup. I'm not sure if this proposition would be revenue-neutral for the NCAA or for the schools.

There is also the hype around winning the conference and the huge amount of hand-wringing over entrance into a 4-team playoff that the NCAA undoubtedly loves. Both of these phenomena translate into advertising and sponsorship dollars for the NCAA and its partners. It may be more difficult to expand from a 4-team playoff than we realize.

[KSUowls]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

I like conference championship games. For one, it's an extra week in the season which is great. But it has also led to some great games. Not always, as in the cases of the SEC and Pac 12 this year, but both the ACC and Big10 resulted in close games in 2016.

Unfortunately though, the CFP committee told us yesterday that we need to get rid of these games as they do more harm than good for the teams with aspirations of the playoff. Ohio State was given a pass for not playing in the game while Alabama, Clemson, Washington, and Penn State/Wisconsin had to put their records on the line. It seems that it may not have mattered if Alabama had lost, but would Clemson have made it in if they lost? We know Washington would not have because the committee just barely put them in there even after demolishing the, then, #8 team in the country. Penn State won their game, and it didn't even matter. So what is the point in these games? The risk-reward is too great. Not only from the potential of a loss to knock you out of the playoff, but while Ohio State was at home enjoying a bye, these other teams were playing and risking injury. Alabama lost one of their best linebackers in thee SECCG. According to the committee's logic, Alabama would have been better off forfeiting the game.

[DaImmaculateONe]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

Does anybody have the simulated Bcs ranking of where the teams would have been positioned?

[Sportsbuck]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

Does anybody have the simulated Bcs ranking of where the teams would have been positioned?

Per @BCSKnowHow...

1. Bama
2. OSU
3. Clemson
4. Washington
5. PSU

[ImTellinTim]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

Nothing but an additional revenue stream - and a way to crown a "champion" when the schedules are unbalanced.

Every year my opinion that we have to go to at least 8 teams (which I've had since talk of a playoff started) is only solidified. This is slightly better than the BCS. Slightly.

People complained that going to more teams would make the regular season/conferences meaningless. They already are, so why not make the ending more fun?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

I like conference championship games. For one, it's an extra week in the season which is great. But it has also led to some great games. Not always, as in the cases of the SEC and Pac 12 this year, but both the ACC and Big10 resulted in close games in 2016.

Unfortunately though, the CFP committee told us yesterday that we need to get rid of these games as they do more harm than good for the teams with aspirations of the playoff. Ohio State was given a pass for not playing in the game while Alabama, Clemson, Washington, and Penn State/Wisconsin had to put their records on the line. It seems that it may not have mattered if Alabama had lost, but would Clemson have made it in if they lost? We know Washington would not have because the committee just barely put them in there even after demolishing the, then, #8 team in the country. Penn State won their game, and it didn't even matter. So what is the point in these games? The risk-reward is too great. Not only from the potential of a loss to knock you out of the playoff, but while Ohio State was at home enjoying a bye, these other teams were playing and risking injury. Alabama lost one of their best linebackers in thee SECCG. According to the committee's logic, Alabama would have been better off forfeiting the game.

Bingo and very well stated.

If there's only a small chance that winning a conf. championship will even matter (for seeding?), it doesn't feel fair for a team that earned the right to play for the conf. championship to be put at extra risk relative to a team that didn't earn the same right. Especially since the committee is basically using number of overall losses (P5 teams only) as its governing entrance criterion.

I imagine if either Clemson or UW had lost, they probably would've been jumped by Michigan and/or PSU and we'd be [rightfully] hearing a lot more outrage about this type of inequality.

[LowerWolf]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

I really do wish we could back to 10-team conferences with a nine-game conference schedule and get rid of championship games.

The championship game served a purpose in the pre-BCS ERA. As a fan of an SEC school, the goal every year was to win the SEC and go to the Sugar Bowl. The championship game added a little bit of panache to that. The national championship just sorted itself out since it was really out of a team's control.

In the BCS and now playoff era, it's just another opportunity to get knocked out of contention. You could argue Washington solidified its playoff position by winning the PAC 12, but Alabama/Clemson gained absolutely nothing, and Clemson likely would have fallen out with a loss; Washington definitely would have.

On the flip side, Florida, Virginia Tech and Colorado had no chance of making the playoff with a win. And losing the championship game hurt their bowl standing. Shouldn't division champs Florida and Colorado be in the Sugar and Rose bowls over non-division champs Auburn and USC?

There's no chance of going back to 10-team conferences. If we don't get an eight-team playoff, then I hope we eventually go to a Power 4 with 16-team super conferences. The four conference championship winners are your playoff teams. That's far from perfect as well, but at least there's some standard criteria to get in.

[mb625]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

The big numbers I see are 2 and 1. As in, two losses for Penn State and one for OSU. Even though that one loss was to Penn State, OSU had to be in the playoff for that exact reason. 2>1.

Conference titles should matter, but consistent on-field success should matter more.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[KSUowls]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

The big numbers I see are 2 and 1. As in, two losses for Penn State and one for OSU. Even though that one loss was to Penn State, OSU had to be in the playoff for that exact reason. 2>1.

Conference titles should matter, but consistent on-field success should matter more.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Would OSU have finished with 1 if they played Wisconsin in the Big10 title game? We can't really say that they for sure that they would have considering how good Wisconsin was all year and that they took OSU to overtime earlier in the season. So it's kind of unfair to say 2>1 in this case when OSU was able to sit idle instead of putting their record and team health on the line.

[mb625]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

Would OSU have finished with 1 if they played Wisconsin in the Big10 title game? We can't really say that they for sure that they would have considering how good Wisconsin was all year and that they took OSU to overtime earlier in the season. So it's kind of unfair to say 2>1 in this case when OSU was able to sit idle instead of putting their record and team health on the line.

Hmm... good point. Hadn't thought about it that way. The way I'd defend it is by pointing out that PSU's 2 losses were a pre-existing condition. They had 2 in 12 vs. 1 in 12. But that is an angle that hadn't occurred to me.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[Sportsforever]

Re: What purpose does a Conference Championship game serve?

Would OSU have finished with 1 if they played Wisconsin in the Big10 title game? We can't really say that they for sure that they would have considering how good Wisconsin was all year and that they took OSU to overtime earlier in the season. So it's kind of unfair to say 2>1 in this case when OSU was able to sit idle instead of putting their record and team health on the line.

Everyone acts as if OSU just blitzed through the B1G schedule with ease...NW gave them all they could handle, Wisky played them tough, PSU beat them, Michigan took them to OT, and they escaped MSU. It gets completely ignored that they benefited by NOT PLAYING in their conference championship game. Who knows if they would have won? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills on this one...