Conference Championship games= Worthless money grabs

Submitted by wolverine1987 on December 3rd, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Why do we have these games? I know I know--money. But is there any rationale at all for them besides money? In every conference title game this year, one team in the matchup is either clearly inferior (UCLA), has already proven in the regular season that they are worse that the team they are playing (Georgia), is totally irelevant (any Big East squad) or has already beeaten their foe in the regular season (MSU). Even in the supposed best conference in football (SEC) the average margin of victory for the winner in the 20 championship games that have been played is two touchdowns. In a playoff scenario, playing teams you have already beaten is ok if everyone is going for the national title, but failing that, most of the teams have already proven themselves superior. The majority of teams in the title games have already played each other. Why play another game? I know...

Listen, I realize this isn't a news flash, but I have to say that I didn't pay much attention to these games (other than watching them) before because the B1G didn't have a championsip game. Now I watch most and think: why is this happening? I know I know...

But maybe I'm mistaken? Do any of you like these games and find a rationale for them? Maybe any extra college football is ok with you? 

Comments

Reader71

December 4th, 2011 at 1:46 AM ^

Imagine a 3 way tie in our division, with UM, MSU, and Neb each having 1 loss, each loss coming against one of the other teams. Tiebreakers will have to decide who goes to the Championship. Just as tiebreakers used to decide who went to the Rose Bowl.

Now, let's say the opponent in the Championship game is a 2 loss OSU.

What has the championship game done for us then? 

Sure, it will proclaim a winner, but it didn't avoid the tiebreakers and it could potentially set a 2 loss team to the Rose bowl while two 1 loss teams fuck off.

It is a stupid game made by stupid people for stupid people. The entire body of work that is the season should be enough to decide a winner. If there are multiple winners, good for them. They deserve it, because they won as many games as their rivals.

The conference championships are just as stupid as the BCS. Perhaps a bit less stupid than a playoff, which would still leave huge questions about who gets in, and just be an even bigger money grab than the crap we have now. 

Why did everyone start to hate the old Bowl/Polls system? I miss it. It didn't answer everything, but neither does the God-awful BCS. 

FSTA

December 3rd, 2011 at 8:47 PM ^

Extra college football is good with me. A lot of things in college football are about money, for sure, but I'm okay with a conference championship even if it only reinforces what was already obvious.

Now, that said,  I'll be worried when UM gets into Michigan State's situation and has to beat a tough team they've already beaten for a bigger prize.

mlax27

December 3rd, 2011 at 8:48 PM ^

I had tickets to tonight's game, but because it required a hotel stay did not go. My wife is an MSU grad and would have taken her father, but when they realized it would require a whole weekend to go, decided it wasnt worth the money. I think this is part of the reason tickets were so cheap on stubhub.

In that sense the pac12 game at least saves the home team from having to travel, making it a little more affordable.

los

December 3rd, 2011 at 9:58 PM ^

You had tickets but didn't go because you didn't want to get a hotel? I'm sure I'm not the first to say this to you, but you're cheap. It's not like you have to stay at the Ritz...

antoniobass

December 3rd, 2011 at 8:49 PM ^

I think its worth it to avoid the 3-way ties and tiebreakers for conference championships.  Try telling a spartan that they didn't deserve the rose bowl last year, and explaining the 3-way mess in the big east this year.  It is a bit of a money grab, but at least it crowns a definitive champ.

BlueDragon

December 3rd, 2011 at 8:59 PM ^

conference championships add a lot of value to the conference.  It's another week of games, more exposure, more money, more everything.
I don't care about the announcers much in general.  It's a minor detail and can be easily muted in case of incompetency.

weasel3216

December 3rd, 2011 at 9:03 PM ^

Conference championship games are fine as long as they are played at the regular season champs home field.  I understand conferences want to sell tickets well in advance for those fans that just want to go to the game regardless of the teams involved. 

The Pac-12 game actually had a nice atmosphere to the game and the SEC game (in Atlanta) had a strong showing from Georgia.

On the other side you have the MAC championship game (Nothern Illinois vs Ohio University) that had more open seats than full seats at Ford Field.  Just for numbers, there was just over 13,000 at the game and Ford Field can hold up to 65,000 for football games.  I know this is a different scale of college football but these smaller conferences should definetely use college campuses for the venue.  Look at the C-USA game today that stadium was packed, granted this was a top 25 matchup but regardless.

The B1G should take note from the Pac-12 and move the game to college campuses.  I know a lot of fans don't want to be outside during December in the midwest, but i think the 104.173 at the Big Chill prove Michigan fans will show up.  Since i see Michigan being in the B1G Championship game every year i see no problem with it.

93Grad

December 3rd, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^

they aren't going away.  And frankly I think they are a bigger impediment to a play-off than the bowls.  With the conf champ games in early december it leaves little time for three or four rounds of play-offs given that there needs to be a couple weeks off for finals etc. 

An 8 team play-off is still doable, but it will take something major to happen first. 

Marshmallow

December 3rd, 2011 at 9:08 PM ^

What's really bad is that you don't even have to play (or win) in one of these games to play for a MNC.  This system blows.  I liked listening to that f*** Gary Danielson twist himself into a pretzel trying to explain why this year was different than 2006 and how OkState has somehow played a worse schedule than Bama.  The SEC is overrated and the CBS/ESPN  SEC ass-kissing fest is ruining college football.

B-Nut-GoBlue

December 3rd, 2011 at 9:39 PM ^

I agree with everything you just laid out there.  I know I'm in the minority feeling the way I do about the SEC, the BCS system, and ESPN infatuations but I just can't help it.  I don't have any stats to back the SEC argument, maybe it's just me getting sick of the ass-kissing they get and the garbage they get away with, but I don't think they deserve 3 g*d d**m teams in BCS bowls.

maizenbluedevil

December 3rd, 2011 at 10:48 PM ^

Amen, brother.

Danielson must love the feel of SEC scrote on his chin.

That was seriously painful to watch, felt like an infomercial for how great the SEC is.

What really took the cake was when he said, "Some people say Alabama had their chance, they shouldn't get a re-match.  But all these other teams had their chances to knock off Alabama, but didn't."  

.....ummm, WTF!?  

No, these other teams did NOT have a chance to knock off Alabama (or LSU), that's the point.  Alabama had it's shot, someone else should get one now.  

Lacking a playoff, the regular season IS the playoff.  If someone had a shot at the consensus #1 team, and didn't take advantage of it, they shouldn't get another one.

B-Nut-GoBlue

December 3rd, 2011 at 9:45 PM ^

I feel the same way about today for some reason.  I love me some college football so in any case I'm okay with the games today.  But for me, they seem to lack the luster they're supposed to have (especially today being the last day of the regular season and the Bowl games being divied up tomorrow night).  All of these championship games/season finale games are supposed to have so much riding on the line, going into the aforementioned bowl selection process, but personally they just doesn't "FEEL"  all that important.

Maybe it's just the fact Michigan isn't playing today and I just can't get into all of the games like I usually do any other given Saturday.

maizemama

December 3rd, 2011 at 10:09 PM ^

It's actually a step towards a playoff system (yeah, I know it won't happen but hope springs eternal).  You could have the conference champions seeded based on some rational system and culminate in the national championship game.  Everyone in the playoff system (like BCS) would be guaranteed a big payday.  Separately, every other team can go to their bowl game as usual.

Both systems coexist.  More college football.  And more money.

And since I'm in a pie-in-the-sky mood, a portion of the profits are set aside for college athletes to receive after they get their college degree.

maizenbluedevil

December 3rd, 2011 at 10:58 PM ^

This year, yes, the championship games have been mediocre.  Not much at stake, and a lot have been lopsided.  

But so far Wisconsin and MSU are doing the B1G proud, putting on a really entertaining show.  The B1G has had the best championship game of the year in our first showing.

Mr. Yost

December 3rd, 2011 at 11:38 PM ^

I started to read the first word, but then noticed the -26...and that's all I needed to know.

Thanks MGoBlog, you saved me what looks like 5-10 minutes of my day.

Reader71

December 4th, 2011 at 2:01 AM ^

The more football argument is cool, but if that is the best reason they have they should just play another week of conference games. A lot more football! Another week to decide who is better than whom!

Seriously, this year was cool because Wisconsin and MSU were clearly deserving. But what happens when Wisconsin wins their division with 3 losses and beats an undefeated UM (having already beaten Wisconsin by 14 in Madison)? Sure, you get a conference winner (no split championships! never!), but can anyone claim Wisonsin is better? Deserving of the rematch to begin with? The proper rep in the Rose Bowl? Suppose UM still gets into the BCS Championship, doesn't that shit on the B1G Championship and make its fraudulence unbearable? And what about the hypothetical playoffs which would send the conference champ from each of the 4 majors into single elimination? Should this hypothetical Wisconsin be the Big Ten rep?

The championship games are arbitrary. That is the biggest problem. You really need championship games, remove the divisions and just put the top 2 teams in it. Look at todays SEC championship. Georgia has almost no chance to win, which makes the game an aftertought. But, supposing they spring the giant upset, LSU still goes to the BCS championship against Bama (two non-champ SEC teams), thereby making the SEC championship a joke and totally unworthy of being played at all. It's a lose-lose situation that is only palatable because we haven't run into the situation that breaks it yet. We will.