Conference Championship Games HAVE TO GO!

I think CCG should stay and ND be forced to join the ACC with some compromises between the two parties about the NBC deal. I think without CCGs you run the risk of dual champs

As for 8 team playoffs.... no expand it to 6 and be done with it. I’ve harped on it over and over how the #1 seed is at a disadvantage because the #4 seed is almost always the most dangerous team. Clemson just got rewarded for being 2nd and we got punished for being #1. An 8 team playoff further makes being #1 a disadvantage.

Elefantman said:

I agree with the OP. I would not give an automatic birth to the P5 champions. 1st it would be hard to determine who is conference champ when you have two or more teams with the same record, 2nd, the conference champ may have several non conference losses and ranked low. Have a committee select 1 through 8 and the top four play the first round at home the week after the regular season. What did we learn by watching Clemson and tOSU play unranked teams Saturday?

And the level of SECCG attendance is not repeated everywhere.

"The Huskies earned their Rose Bowl berth, but a Pac-12 championship game played in front of a half-empty Levi's Stadium did nothing to improve the conference's perception nationally."

Click to expand...

This

Go Bama said:

Does anyone really want to see UCF/Bama? I’d rather see Georgia/Bama.

Click to expand...

No, but who wanted to see Clemson and Pitt play or tOSU and NW?

crimsonaudio said:

I bet both Clemson and OSU are proud to have won their conferences and hoisted those trophies in the air. I know Bama coaches and players are.

Click to expand...

I'm sure they are. But I would think most OSU players would have rather played ND for the chance to progress in the playoff instead of playing NW, hope that OU loses, the playoff committee smiles on them and lets them in the dance.

Personally I don't want an eight team playoff. But I would prefer it over the current method. If the playoff is expanded, the conference championship games should go. Otherwise it's too many games to play.

crimsonaudio said:

So maybe instead of trashing 100 years of traditional conference champs just so we could make some teams feel better we could encourage teams like OSU to not lose by 29 to a 6-6 team...

Click to expand...

So how did we crown conference champs before 1992? Somehow the Rose bowl was able to pick champs from the Big10 and the PAC for years. We can crown a champ without the game.

I’m not so sold on the idea of all P5 Confrence champs getting an automatic bid, because for one, what if you get two 9-3 or 7-5 teams playing each other, or a 7-5 pulls an upset? Would the winner be considered one of the 8 best teams in the nation? And that would steal a spot from a team that is clearly better than a multiple-loss Confrence champ. And really if you look at the committee’s criteria, they keep selling the idea of the “4 best teams” and not the best “4 CCG winners”. Bama and Ohio St. both got in without that distinction, so I say keep it.

Unless it makes $$$ sense to these Conferences and these networks, they will keep it right where it is and I don’t think either side wants to dramatically overhaul the entire system. Plus, how can you determine a Confrence champion in a scenario where Alabama and Georgia are both 8-0 and cannot play every team in the SEC or each other in a CG?

No matter how many teams you expand it to, #5-6 (current system) and #9-10 (possible system) will complain and and all the talking heads, coaches, and networks will be screaming the system in place will is flawed like the BCS and 4-team playoffs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

GeorgiaTider said:

Does this apply to all other sports or just football? Without CCG then why have a conference at all? Just let the committee do all the work.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and just let them pick the best teams based on metrics and teams with the best athletes who can pass the eye test and not even play any games at all! Sounds great! Hahaha, I am still of the belief that conference championships are important and that the results on the field matter. Yes, it is true that teams will sometimes struggle and barely win, but I say a team that finds a way to win when they struggle is better than a team that finds a way to lose when they play well. Many said our 2010 team was better than 09 because almost everyone returned, and they had more experience. I think they started worrying about the NFL and did not play as well as a TEAM. They showed they could be great at times, but they were not a great team. Heck, these people who are so "sure" that UGA is one of the best four were also saying Michigan was one of the best four just a few weeks ago. I'm glad they at least looked at the results of OSU crushing them because some of them were saying that Michigan should go in front of Notre Dame even though Notre Dame beat them on the field. What? If Michigan had lost a close game to OSU and had no conference championship, would anyone think they should be in the playoff? I wouldn't, but that's just me. Roll Tide!

I for one , would not be in favor of a plan that automatically qualifies conference champions. Not every conference is created equal.

There are only 2 ways the OP’s plea works, and they both are horrible ideas.

1) the GrayTide way:

A) cut all conferences to 10, put ND in a conference, and eliminate 1 P5 school from the ones weeded out from a conference ( probably someone like Maryland)

B) have 6 automatic bids and two at large bids.

C) eliminate all non P6 schools from competition


Issue 1) ranking these schools appropriately and determining the two at large bids. You are going to have so much hell determining the most deserving at large bids

Issue 2) you will never get the Rose Bowl to comply with the new bowl lineup because of its tradition

2) go back to the old conference league ways of thinking

A) force a 10 game conference season

Issue 1) you could realistically have a situation in where a 12-0 Alabama and a 12-0 UGA don’t play each other and the scores between the 6 conference opponents are identical

Issue 2) ranking appropriately is still going to be hell because you are taking away two OOC games to distinguish who is better

On the elimination of conference championships, it seems utterly ridiculous to do away with these games out of fear that it might eliminate us from the playoffs. While we are at it, let's get rid of the Auburn game as well. We've lost that game too many times recently in seasons where we were undefeated going into it. If you take away the competitive aspect of college football then what are you left with? What makes it even more absurd is that we have made the playoffs every year, and only this year faced an SEC East team capable of knocking us out of the playoff.

On playoff expansion, I hope we never see it. You know what we aren't arguing about today? We aren't arguing over whether it should have been us, Clemson or ND in the BCS championship, which is exactly what the playoff was designed to eliminate, the 2 v 3 argument. Could you imagine if that was the case? Instead we are arguing over whether it should have Oklahoma, UGA or Ohio St. All very good teams, but each did something that left them at the mercy of the committee to decide their fate.

We are also not arguing today over whether it should have been 3 loss Washington or LSU for the final spot in the playoff. Two teams that have no business even entertaining the notion that they could be national champions if things go their way.

I think the playoffs and championship games are perfect as they are with the exception that Notre Dame should be forced to join a conference or not be included. That's also my personal bias of being genuinely mean spirited towards Notre Dame.

Go to top 6.

1&2 byes

3:6
4:5 at higher seeds campus as play in games.

Then you have your final four.

Current format will be here for at least a few more years. I’m thinking it’s like 2026 before they’ll revisit. ESPN would have to be bought out of the rest of the contract and it’s a LOT!!!

I like CCGs but do think that divisions should be abolished. I like the Big 12 model where you try to play the conference teams. I know we couldn’t but I’d love it if we tried.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Elefantman said:

I'm sure they are. But I would think most OSU players would have rather played ND for the chance to progress in the playoff instead of playing NW, hope that OU loses, the playoff committee smiles on them and lets them in the dance.

Personally I don't want an eight team playoff. But I would prefer it over the current method. If the playoff is expanded, the conference championship games should go. Otherwise it's too many games to play.

Click to expand...

OSU didn’t earn the right to play ND because they were soundly beaten by Purdue. IOW, all games are important. With your expanded field the Purdue/OSU game would have been inconsequential. If it doesn’t matter, why play the game at all?

Elefantman said:

So how did we crown conference champs before 1992? Somehow the Rose bowl was able to pick champs from the Big10 and the PAC for years. We can crown a champ without the game.

Click to expand...

Sure we can crown champs without a game. Before the BCS the national champion was crowned without a game.

Conference championships are a game within a game. Personally I love watching Bama win the SEC and don’t care at all for co-champs.

crimsonaudio said:

Every team pretty much played every other team because there were only 10 teams. Can't do that with 14 teams.

Click to expand...

Exactly, that's why we should all go back to 10 team conferences and play everyone in conference plus 3 non conference games each year. This way you would not end up with a pointless Clemson v Pitt type of game. I would rather have seen the top 8 teams in 4 playoff games last weekend. And the losers of the 1st round of playoff games can still go to a bowl at the end of the month.

crimsonaudio said:

So essentially you're wanting to throw away all the tradition of conference championships so you can watch games that interest you more. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Conference championships still mean something to some of us.

Click to expand...

The B1G Championship is actually more important to me than national championships. At least, it was until they came up with the BCS. Why? Because it was clearly earned on the field of play, and because you had to beat the teams that were your rivals to get there. Back then, national championships relied on a lot of factors that had nothing to do with the play on the field.

In today's college football world, the B1G Championship is still important, but not as important. Why? Because National Championships are now earned on the field, making a conference championship a second level priority. You can lose your conference championship and still get into the playoff and win the higher prize.

Do I still value the B1G Championship? Absolutely. But I would give up the GAME (game only) if it made it more likely that the right teams made it into the CFP. There are other ways to name a conference champion. What I want to preserve is a system that places value on the conferences, but not at the expense of ensuring that the best teams all get a chance to win a national championship on the field.

One way to do that is what Saban suggested. End the CCGs, but add an additional round to the playoffs. The first round - home games for the higher seeds. This gives the fans another home game without the absurd travel expenses and ticket costs. You replace one playoff game with another (because they already are playoff games, if not in name), but all 4 top teams have to play a similarly difficult opponent.

All that said, I am fine with things the way that they are. I love college football and will continue to watch no matter how they change these things.

crimsonaudio said:

So essentially you're wanting to throw away all the tradition of conference championships so you can watch games that interest you more. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Conference championships still mean something to some of us.

Click to expand...

The CCG started in 1992 and in my mind is not a tradition. We won many SEC championships prior to 1992. My main concern is expanding the playoffs and adding another game to play. The regular season was increased from 11 to 12 games. Now with the CCG and CFP two teams will play 15 games. Expanding the playoff to 6 or 8 teams will most likely happen. If so, we need to keep the total number of games played to 15 and the best way to accomplish this is to eliminate CCG's. If that happens, we should go back to a ten team conference and play every other team in the conference. That's the best way to decide who is champ.

Now for SEC size reduction, I would toss Mizzo, USC, Arky and Vandy. aTm is the only team that added any value to this conference IMO.