"National Champions"

[GatorGrad]

In reference to the USC thread below regarding our system. First, let me say that I agree that the system is flawed, there should be a playoff, and recognize that the NCAA does not actually crown an NCAA Football National Champion in Bowl Division Football.

That said, the one good thing about our current system that relies on the BCS is that it would be very very rare for a team crowned BCS Champs (or past AP / Coaches Poll Voted Champs) to not be considered a deserving team. To finish #1 in either poll, or the BCS, it usually requires either an unbeaten season or one-loss at the most.

So while you can always argue that deserving teams are left out of our current 2-team BCS Playoff, you cannot argue that our current system produces teams that are not deserving of playing for a national championship. There is no chance of a 4-loss team winning the BCS Title. If there were a playoff, there could be. I still would prefer a playoff, but we must also recognize one of the few positives that the current system provides.

Just look at the history of teams that have been crowned "National Champions" by the BCS, AP Poll, or Coaches Poll. Look at their records and season results. There aren't that many teams that did not have fantastic seasons that should be rewarded. So while we cannot by definition call them NCAA Champions, and it is true that other teams could have been deserving but did not get a chance, these teams certainly deserve the "praise" that they get.

[buckeyejim]

I could not have said it any better. Sure, we would all like a system that includes 4, 8 or 16 teams in a post season tournament but you're right, the teams that HAVE been voted as national champions were all pretty darned desering. I guess the BYU team that were voted #1 is probably the weakest I've ever seen but BYU didn't force writers and coaches to vote for them so congratulations to BYU.

This is why I've always said that the term "mythical" is the wrong word and that the regular season AND the post season are far from being exhibition games.

[Blue Hen]

"mythical' is the absolute 'right on' terminology. There have been over 500 assorted , so called, 'national champions' in major CF in only 138 years of the sport !!!!!!... as selected by the various polls, rankings, and assorted systems. Yipeee...what a great system.
There are 11 league champions and 120 teams and the concept of only two of them being worthy to compete for a so called 'national championship'...based on opinions !!!!....is nothing short of ABSURD.

Sure, any team, that ascends to the top of these polls certainly is a terrific team..........but not a 'proven' champion.

[EvilVodka]

Sure, any team, that ascends to the top of these polls certainly is a terrific team..........but not a 'proven' champion.

Thats because college football awards the championship to the team that comes closest to the perfect season, not the team that can overcome bad play in the first part of the season with a run in the tournament

[GatorGrad]

"mythical' is the absolute 'right on' terminology. There have been over 500 assorted , so called, 'national champions' in major CF in only 138 years of the sport !!!!!!... as selected by the various polls, rankings, and assorted systems. Yipeee...what a great system.
There are 11 league champions and 120 teams and the concept of only two of them being worthy to compete for a so called 'national championship'...based on opinions !!!!....is nothing short of ABSURD.

Sure, any team, that ascends to the top of these polls certainly is a terrific team..........but not a 'proven' champion.

But Hen, there are also more conference champs than seasons of conference play. I agree that co-championships are silly, but they are not exclusive to the national championship race. I am starting to think that all conference championships that were not won via a CCG format, round robin, or with one team having the best record all to themselves are as mythical as the national title race. Although the fact that conference races are actually based on standings separates the two IMO. But I don't know where you're getting this 500+ MNC claims. I think most people only recognize the AP or Coaches Poll (or the current BCS) when talking about the MNC. That would trim down your list considerably, no?

[H.I.]

Thats because college football awards the championship to the team that comes closest to the perfect season, not the team that can overcome bad play in the first part of the season with a run in the tournament

that's the problem with the current system. last year a team was awarded the mythical national championship that was close to perfect, while a team that was ACTUALLY PERFECT sat at home.

[CJHawkeyes]

While there is nothing wrong with favoring a format for determining a champion that places greater emphasis on long term success rather than short team success, the BCS format is inherently worthless because it is unfair and unaccountable and because its own rules produce an arbitrary and disputed result.

[Blue Hen]

' most people recognize'..... so what ? Most people recognized that the world was flat in our history. Can you prove that the coaches, AP or BCS formula is more accurate than the less 'popular' systems ? That's the problem with make believe, opinionated championships. It's all guess work...and what happened before the AP or so called 'coaches poll' (what a joke). Were there no MNCs between 1869 and 1936 ?
BTW my '500' estimate for MNCs is way off. It's actually about 338 mythical national champs in 138 years of major CF....according to the NCAA CF records book. Big time CF has averaged 2.449 pretend national champs per season.

[Don]

that's the problem with the current system. last year a team was awarded the mythical national championship that was close to perfect, while a team that was ACTUALLY PERFECT sat at home.

And if that "PERFECT" team had actually played even a decent schedule THEY would have played in the NC game.

[GatorGrad]

Hen - I don't disagree with you on any of that. What do you think of the conferences that average more than one "champion" per season? Are they legit since they are based on actual standings or no? Just curious...

Since the SEC expanded in 1992 to 12 teams with a CCG, there has been exactly 15 seasons of play and exactly 15 SEC Champs have been crowned. What a beautiful thing!

[Blue Hen]

I'm with you 100%, GG. The SEC does it nicely. 15 seasons-15 champs. ...and you know what's really "beautiful" about it ? None of those 15 champs were 'voted' or 'computed' or determined in any way by any assorted 'mythical' $hit.
Round robin scheduling is fine too..as far as determining a conf champ. Conference championships are better than national championships, simply because they are not opinionated or 'poll' driven.

[Blue Hen]

Don, buddy, you're completely lost on your 'scheduling' views. You make it sound like Boise State can call up USC, Florida, Michigan and Texas and say " we've decided to play H&Hs with you guys...be here on such and such dates" Doesn't work that way. The mega powers decide who gets to play them.....not the 'off brands'. And the 'mids' have no choice but to play their assigned conference schedules.
Also, if the BSU's of CF were even allowed to play n/c schedules like that they still would not be permitted to be pre-season highly ranked in polls. It's a two class system and only one of those 'classes' has access to mythical national championships........common knowledge.

[AJBuckeye]

I'm not so sure that it is better. In the Big 10 PAC 10 it is certainly possible that 2 teams will be tied for the title. In most cases it is teams with 2 or less losses. The team that will be represented in the BCS has always had no more than 2 losses.

In the ACC SEC B12, you have the potential of a 4/5 loss team making it to the Championship Game like FSU who had 4 losses a few years back. In this case you have a 4 loss team winning the Championship without being close to having the best record in the league.

Personally, I am perfectly fine with the way the B10 does it. ND has no desire to come to the B10 and I don't think adding a school like Syracuse or Missouri will help the conference. The only change I would make is the move back the date of the last game of the season. This year OSU UM play on November 17. They play 12 straight weeks then sit through 3 more weeks of games and CCG then wait for Bowl Season to Start and by the time many of the teams play again 7 weeks have passed.

[GatorGrad]

I'm not so sure that it is better. In the Big 10 PAC 10 it is certainly possible that 2 teams will be tied for the title. In most cases it is teams with 2 or less losses. The team that will be represented in the BCS has always had no more than 2 losses.

In the ACC SEC B12, you have the potential of a 4/5 loss team making it to the Championship Game like FSU who had 4 losses a few years back. In this case you have a 4 loss team winning the Championship without being close to having the best record in the league.

Personally, I am perfectly fine with the way the B10 does it. ND has no desire to come to the B10 and I don't think adding a school like Syracuse or Missouri will help the conference. The only change I would make is the move back the date of the last game of the season. This year OSU UM play on November 17. They play 12 straight weeks then sit through 3 more weeks of games and CCG then wait for Bowl Season to Start and by the time many of the teams play again 7 weeks have passed.

Don't take this personally, but I am wondering why you are perfectly fine with the way the B10 does it. How can you be fine with a system that can produce two 8-0 teams and call them both "champions" without playing each other? That is a huge flaw IMO. Round robin or CCG is the way to go.

As for the CCG format "flaw" that you pointed out, this is no different than an NFL team winning the NFC North Division by going 9-7 while the 2nd place NFC South Division team misses out on the playoffs while going 10-6 just because their division champ was 13-3 and there were two other 2nd place teams going 11-5 to take the only two wildcards.

The point is that with a CCG format, there is a system in place where each team controls its own destiny to become the one and only true undisputed champ. You know exactly what you have to do to make the conference championship game playoff - win your division. It's that simple. Finish 1st in your division, and you play for the ring!

[jeff4bucks]

Don, buddy, you're completely lost on your 'scheduling' views. You make it sound like Boise State can call up USC, Florida, Michigan and Texas and say " we've decided to play H&Hs with you guys...be here on such and such dates" Doesn't work that way. The mega powers decide who gets to play them.....not the 'off brands'. And the 'mids' have no choice but to play their assigned conference schedules.
Also, if the BSU's of CF were even allowed to play n/c schedules like that they still would not be permitted to be pre-season highly ranked in polls. It's a two class system and only one of those 'classes' has access to mythical national championships........common knowledge.

your completely right, Hen. Definetely a two class system. (Don tends to use scheduling as a defense.) The mids like BSU, TCU, etc. don't drive OOC scheduling, OSU, UT, USC, etc. do.


I would also agree that the coaches poll is a joke. Over the course of the season, when does a coach, or any of his assistants, have time to analyze dozens other teams when there preparing for games?? Who actually gives the head coach his information on who to vote for?

good point AJBuckeye. You have less redemption when losing a game in a conference that doesn't have a CG.

[AJBuckeye]

Here is why I am fine with it. The rivalry of OSU and UM is arguably the best and most intense in all of football. It is always the last game of the year and usually has major implications on the outcome of the Big 10. I am a traditionist in the sense that our season ends playing our biggest rival and IMO playing a CCG after this game serves no purpose.

Having 2 teams finishing 8 - 0 does not bother me as it has happened to OSU in recent history. In this case you have co-champions and both teams will be headed for good bowl games. On the other hand when you have a CCG and one team has 4 or 5 losses such then you run the risk of have a team like FSU who made it with 4 losses over teams that are more deserving.

Based on that scenario, you tell me what format is more flawed.

[EvilVodka]

Here is why I am fine with it. The rivalry of OSU and UM is arguably the best and most intense in all of football. It is always the last game of the year and usually has major implications on the outcome of the Big 10. I am a traditionist in the sense that our season ends playing our biggest rival and IMO playing a CCG after this game serves no purpose.

Having 2 teams finishing 8 - 0 does not bother me as it has happened to OSU in recent history. In this case you have co-champions and both teams will be headed for good bowl games. On the other hand when you have a CCG and one team has 4 or 5 losses such then you run the risk of have a team like FSU who made it with 4 losses over teams that are more deserving.

Based on that scenario, you tell me what format is more flawed.

Thats easy, the scenario that can't produce a clear cut champion is flawed...seriously, I haven't heard more rationalized nonsense just so you can preserve the Ohio State-Michigan game

As for the FSU reference, FSU has made it to the BCS twice with 4 losses...In 2002, when they only had 1 conference loss, and in '05, when they had 3 conferences losses...LSU also made it to the BCS with 3 conference losses in '01, and went on to stomp the Big 10 champ

Theoretically, you could lose your entire OOC, and make it to the BCS by running your entire conference slate with an 8-4 record

[GatorGrad]

Here is why I am fine with it. The rivalry of OSU and UM is arguably the best and most intense in all of football. It is always the last game of the year and usually has major implications on the outcome of the Big 10. I am a traditionist in the sense that our season ends playing our biggest rival and IMO playing a CCG after this game serves no purpose.

Having 2 teams finishing 8 - 0 does not bother me as it has happened to OSU in recent history. In this case you have co-champions and both teams will be headed for good bowl games. On the other hand when you have a CCG and one team has 4 or 5 losses such then you run the risk of have a team like FSU who made it with 4 losses over teams that are more deserving.

Based on that scenario, you tell me what format is more flawed.

Easy...the scenario where two teams can go unbeaten at 8-0 and be called co-champs is more flawed because it does not guarantee one undisputed clear-cut champion. But this is of course just my opinion. You are of course looking at it from your OSU-UM rivalry point of view which is fine...but I don't think it's the best way to determine a conference champ at any level of sport.

[AJBuckeye]

From my perspective, I put more emphasis on the OSU-UM game than I do having a clear-cut champion. Again this is just my opinion and has nothing to do with rationalized nonsense from EV. The only point that I was making is that there is greater chance of a team that has 3 or more losses make the BCS because of the CCG. Is this point worth arguing... probably not.

That being said I certainly understand how you come to the conclusion that you feel it is flawed. Another issue is that the B10 can't have a CCG until they add another team. Personally, I am completely against adding a team like Syracuse or Missouri for the sake of having a CCG game. If they attract another powerhouse like ND, Nebraska, Texas then I think my opinion may differ.

If you want to talk about rationalized nonsense then just look at the BCS and how they select teams. They change the criteria every year because they see how screwed up the system is then try to tweak it.

[Don]

Don, buddy, you're completely lost on your 'scheduling' views. You make it sound like Boise State can call up USC, Florida, Michigan and Texas and say " we've decided to play H&Hs with you guys...be here on such and such dates" Doesn't work that way. The mega powers decide who gets to play them.....not the 'off brands'. And the 'mids' have no choice but to play their assigned conference schedules.
Also, if the BSU's of CF were even allowed to play n/c schedules like that they still would not be permitted to be pre-season highly ranked in polls. It's a two class system and only one of those 'classes' has access to mythical national championships........common knowledge.

are completely wrong in your scheduling view. The problem is Boise's. They are the ones in the lousy conference and therefore the burden is on THEM to come up with decent opponents. If they can't get home-and-home with decent opponents, tough, schedule them one way. Keep scheduling them that way until you ARE in a position to demand home-and-home. I repeat the problem is Boise's NOT everyone else's problem. And, no one should be force to give in to Boise.

[Don]

From my perspective, I put more emphasis on the OSU-UM game than I do having a clear-cut champion. Again this is just my opinion and has nothing to do with rationalized nonsense from EV. The only point that I was making is that there is greater chance of a team that has 3 or more losses make the BCS because of the CCG. Is this point worth arguing... probably not.

That being said I certainly understand how you come to the conclusion that you feel it is flawed. Another issue is that the B10 can't have a CCG until they add another team. Personally, I am completely against adding a team like Syracuse or Missouri for the sake of having a CCG game. If they attract another powerhouse like ND, Nebraska, Texas then I think my opinion may differ.

If you want to talk about rationalized nonsense then just look at the BCS and how they select teams. They change the criteria every year because they see how screwed up the system is then try to tweak it.

is that the Big Ten method sucks for college football as a whole. Imagine if the Michigan-OSU game were actually the PSU-Wisconsin game instead. So last year Michigan and OSU would have ended up 12-0 and THEN the Michigan -OSU game would have been played in Arizona on Jan 8. Then one of them would be the current NC. That's what's wrong with the Big Ten "method".

[GatorGrad]

Don - Actually, that situation almost happened last year. If Wisconsin would have beaten Michigan, both Wisconsin and Ohio State would have finished unbeaten and likely played in the BCS Title Game. So the Big Ten would have essentially used the BCS Title Game as their own Big Ten Championship Game. Talk about nonsense. What a mockery that would have been. Just because the Big Ten didn't have a round robin or CCG format, a deserving champion of another conference would have been left out. I almost wish it happened just to hear the uproar. The other great thing about a CCG or Round Robin Format: it is impossible for more than ONE team to go unbeaten.

[Blue Hen]

yeah Don.........Boise St. should announce next week that it has decided to join the P10, B10 , B12 or SEC so to play a tougher conference schedule....nothing to it . Any 'mid' can do that anytime it wants.

[Blue Hen]

I've wondered about that for years, jeff..... who actually votes in that idiotic 'coaches' poll ?...........or who instructs the voting HC on how to vote ?

It could be anyone in the athletic dept.....voting the FB team's opponents highly in a self serving manner..or inflating rankings of fellow league members for increased post season shared revenue. Or, it could be a secretary or some office assistant ...maybe the FB janitor or groundskeeper. They'd probably all get to see more teams play than a head football coach would.

[Seven]

From my perspective, I put more emphasis on the OSU-UM game than I do having a clear-cut champion.

Exactly right. Probably the rest of the college football world, the other nine in the B10 included, don't or won't agree, but this game means more than any other. I would be opposed to any proposal that diminished the importance of "the game".

As to the scheduling debate going on, IMO, every team has the opportunity to build a program the way that FSU did. They went on the road and played anyone, anywhere, and ended up winning a great deal of those games. I know they schooled tOSU a few times, in the shoe. In my view, they built their program to elite status the right way. They earned it on the field. Those same opportunities exist today for any team willing to pay the price to succeed.

[Blue Hen]

Really, Seven ? Any mid can do what FSU did anytime it wants ?

What conference was FSU 'tied' too back in the 70's when it started to become really strong under Bowden ? What bowls were the Seminoles contracted to as conference champions ?
Are you suggesting than any 'mid' that wants to become a 'brand name' national power, immediately withdraw from its conference and become independent ?
Are you also suggesting that any aspiring 'mid' completely throw all standards and academic integrity out the window and start stockpiling kids that read on the 6th grade level....but can fly...like Bowden did ?
Both Hawaii and Fresno State have announced that they will play anybody, anytime but the 'name brand' powers have not lined up to eagerly schedule them. Some of 'em used to go to Hawaii for a vacation and automatic 'w' but after Alabama, Michigan State, Arizona State, Purdue and others got their asses kicked out there, they somehow quit going on that vacation....and Hawaii ends up with a schedule like this season's.
There was no 'official' two class BCS type system in FSU's budding years. It would be far more difficult to do today what FSU did back then. The CF climate and structure is different....not to take anything away from FSU...that's a great story.
It's also somewhat of a myth that FSU , under the power building years of Bowden spent all its time on the road. Of it's 145 regular season FB games played in the 70s and 80's, 82 were 'home' games.....57%....including lots of H&Hs with the 'brand names'. That isn't going to happen today with the scheduling ideology out there. Only ND can get arrangements like that among today's independents.

[Don]

yeah Don.........Boise St. should announce next week that it has decided to join the P10, B10 , B12 or SEC so to play a tougher conference schedule....nothing to it . Any 'mid' can do that anytime it wants.

one said that they could! But they sure as heck could schedule OOC better than Weber State. They have 4 ooc games and also have 7 home games. Call up USC, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Michigan, Ohio State, etc. and ask them for a one way series at their stadiums and see what they say. If they get turned down THEN I will join you in saying that the big schools are conspiring to keep BSU out.

[Blue Hen]

Why one way ? Why do some 1A schools have right to have all N/C games at home and others have to hit the road for 'big name' opponents.

USC, Neb, OKLA etc......those guys do the 'calling'. Why don't you believe that ?

[GatorGrad]

Speaking of Hawaii, Florida plays them OOC next season (2008) along with Miami and FSU...and the normal SEC schedule. Yikes.

As for Boise St, I think what Don is saying is that teams that want to step up as elite need to be willing to hit the road and play top teams AND WIN those games. "Win" being the key word. Boise St played at Georgia two years ago and got stomped. Beating Oklahoma in the bowl last year was huge. Now, I hope they follow that up with playing more national powers on the road. If they win, good things will happen to the program over time.

I'm not saying that it is FAIR that they have to work harder to reach elite program status, but that's just what it takes. Winning the WAC while going unbeaten playing a soft OOC schedule won't change any perceptions. Going to places like Athens, Lincoln, Norman, etc AND WINNING a fair share will certainly change the perception over time and recruiting, scheduling, competing for MNC's, etc will all become easier.

[GopherGuy]

Don - Actually, that situation almost happened last year. If Wisconsin would have beaten Michigan, both Wisconsin and Ohio State would have finished unbeaten and likely played in the BCS Title Game. So the Big Ten would have essentially used the BCS Title Game as their own Big Ten Championship Game. Talk about nonsense. What a mockery that would have been. Just because the Big Ten didn't have a round robin or CCG format, a deserving champion of another conference would have been left out. I almost wish it happened just to hear the uproar. The other great thing about a CCG or Round Robin Format: it is impossible for more than ONE team to go unbeaten.

So, your position is that we should be forced to use a terribly flawed method of determining our champion just because once every 50 years it could be mildly inconvenient for greedy conferences that decided to cash in on a loophole in the NCAA rules and create CCG's? Like it or not, if Wisconsin had beaten Michigan earlier in the year, then Wisconsin and Ohio State would have deserved the title shot because they both would have been undefeated. The fact that they happen to play in the same conference would have been irrelevant. Both would have played 12 games schedules in a major conference and both would have won every game they played.

I still don't understand why fans like you are so resentful of how we determine our champion. You don't like co-champions - so be it. Enjoy the fact that you can't have them. Revel in the idea of a 4-4 team being named conference champion. I really hate the way that you determine your champion, but I don't endlessly rant on and on about it, demanding a change. The NCAA rules allow you to have a CCG and that's what you've decided to do. Good for you. Have fun. Nobody forced you to adopt the CCG - you made that choice. The NCAA rules also allow us to determine our champions the way that we do it. We're following the rules. Leave us alone.

[Blue Hen]

Sure, theoretically, that's right, GG, but realistically, that would leave the good folks of the Boise area and BSU fans with 4 home games a season.....ridiculously unfair.

It's still not a matter of Boise calling up Tennessee and Michigan and scheduling them. Those big name guys , ultimately, decide who can come to their big stadiums. The scheduling domino effect starts at the top, not at the bottom...don't you think ? Don, somehow, thinks that the mids can 'schedule' anybody they want to at any time.

[CJHawkeyes]

The scheduling argument is nonsense. Due to the lopsided system, BCS schools face less parity in conference and out of conference. There is no more incentive for a BCS school to play Boise State than Florida International. If the goal of a competition is to determine a champion in a fair manner that challenges everyone, playing Boise State on the road should be more desirable than hosting a I-AA opponent. However, this sport is more about maximizing profit than legitimate competition. If it is so easy for nonBCS schools to acquire the necessary schedule to compete for the national title such that recruits know an unbeaten season means as much to them as a BCS school, there would be no two-class system. That said, it would appear that Boise State is expected to play 4 home games and eight road games on the off chance they could attract the talent needed in a system where going 13-0 still has you looking up at teams with two losses.

[GatorGrad]

So, your position is that we should be forced to use a terribly flawed method of determining our champion just because once every 50 years it could be mildly inconvenient for greedy conferences that decided to cash in on a loophole in the NCAA rules and create CCG's?

I still don't understand why fans like you are so resentful of how we determine our champion. You don't like co-champions - so be it. Enjoy the fact that you can't have them. Revel in the idea of a 4-4 team being named conference champion. I really hate the way that you determine your champion, but I don't endlessly rant on and on about it, demanding a change. The NCAA rules allow you to have a CCG and that's what you've decided to do. Good for you. Have fun. Nobody forced you to adopt the CCG - you made that choice. The NCAA rules also allow us to determine our champions the way that we do it. We're following the rules. Leave us alone.

Yes, that is my position. How is a CCG or round robin format "terribly flawed?" Certainly not more flawed than any system where two teams in the same conference can finish unbeaten and both claim a "championship." And I don't recall an SEC Champion going 4-4 in conference in the modern CCG Era. The worst SEC Division Champ has been 5-3, and even that never guaranteed that team an SEC Championship - there was still a title game to be played. Most SEC Title Game Winners have had very good records.

As for my "ranting" about this subject, this is a message board. Message boards are for fans to share opinions. Sorry it bothers you. I enjoy discussion about this topic. This isn't about me demanding a change. Nothing we say on this silly board will change a darn thing. But as a college football fan, it is my opinion that the Big Ten format is flawed and I would like to see it fixed. That is all. Sorry if that bothers you. It doesn't bother me that you think otherwise.

[GopherGuy]

Yes, that is my position. How is a CCG or round robin format "terribly flawed?" Certainly not more flawed than any system where two teams in the same conference can finish unbeaten and both claim a "championship." And I don't recall an SEC Champion going 4-4 in conference in the modern CCG Era. The worst SEC Division Champ has been 5-3, and even that never guaranteed that team an SEC Championship - there was still a title game to be played. Most SEC Title Game Winners have had very good records.

As for my "ranting" about this subject, this is a message board. Message boards are for fans to share opinions. Sorry it bothers you. I enjoy discussion about this topic. This isn't about me demanding a change. Nothing we say on this silly board will change a darn thing. But as a college football fan, it is my opinion that the Big Ten format is flawed and I would like to see it fixed. That is all. Sorry if that bothers you. It doesn't bother me that you think otherwise.

A round-robin is as close to a perfect system as you can get - it's not 100% perfect because you can have something like a three-way tie where team A beat team B, team B beat team C and team C beat team A. In my opinion, a round-robin is the ONLY 100% proper way to crown a conference champion. If a conference doesn't play enough games to do a true round-robin, then you need to find the best possible way to determine a champion. We have chosen to play as many teams as we can and see who emerges. You have chosen to split into two divisions and have the division winners play each other for the title. Neither is perfect. Both plans have significant flaws. I simply feel that our plan is better than yours. I would like to see some more thought put into our scheduling, though - the obvious item is that nobody should ever avoid both Michigan and Ohio State in the same year.

The SEC hasn't had a 4-4 team play for its title yet, but the Big 12 has. CCG's have only been around for the last 15-20 years and we've seen mutiple 4-4 (.500) and 5-3 (.625) teams play a single game for the conference title. Eventually they'll win one of those games - it's inevitable. It has already happened in the MAC (2005 Akron went 5-3 and won the conference). The Big Ten champion has never had a conference winning pct. as low as .625 during its 111 seasons of competition. Even if you include the 5-3 team's win in the CCG into its conference winning percentage, 6-3 is .667 and no Big Ten champion has ever had that low of a winning percentage either.

I do find it amusing to see people who support the BCS's leaving undefeated teams out of the title game in favor of a one loss team who also try to talk about the importance of winning a conference title "on the field". If that is so vitally important for a conference title, why not the national title???

[CJHawkeyes]

Since winning a conference title does not guarantee a playoff berth, there is no reason for the Big Ten to guarantee one of its top teams an additional loss just to prevent co-champions. That said, I disagree with the suggestion that nobody should ever miss both Michigan and Ohio State. While I don't like that Iowa is that team this year, I don't think a conference should base its scheduling format on the assumption that Michigan and Ohio State are always good.

[GatorGrad]

I do find it amusing to see people who support the BCS's leaving undefeated teams out of the title game in favor of a one loss team who also try to talk about the importance of winning a conference title "on the field". If that is so vitally important for a conference title, why not the national title???

What "people" are you talking about here? Not me, I hope. I've long been a proponent of a real playoff system and have said since January that Boise St deserved a shot to play for a national championship...even though my own school was crowned BCS Champions.

[GatorGrad]

A round-robin is as close to a perfect system as you can get - it's not 100% perfect because you can have something like a three-way tie where team A beat team B, team B beat team C and team C beat team A. In my opinion, a round-robin is the ONLY 100% proper way to crown a conference champion. If a conference doesn't play enough games to do a true round-robin, then you need to find the best possible way to determine a champion. We have chosen to play as many teams as we can and see who emerges. You have chosen to split into two divisions and have the division winners play each other for the title. Neither is perfect. Both plans have significant flaws.

A round robin is only "perfect" when ONE team finishes with the best record, OR there is a tiebreaker in place to crown a champ should there be a tie. When 2-3 teams finish tied for first place, that is not "perfect" IMO. What if the NFL's NFC and AFC each played a 15-game round robin schedule in their conference and two teams finished 13-2...only one team in the conference can go to the Super Bowl, right? That's why there is a playoff. That's all the CCG format is - a playoff. You have to be good enough to get IN to the playoff, then good enough to win it. Just like in any other normal sport that has one. I guess the difference between us, is that you are OK with the "co-champs" thing. I personally think that the "everyone is a winner" mentality is for peewee ball. This is the Big Ten Conference we're talking about, not 5 year old soccer.

If a 4-4 record is good enough to GET IN to the playoff, what's so bad about that? Maybe sometimes 4-4 was the best any team in the division could do. This is no different than a 9-7 team winning a division in the NFL and making the playoffs over a 10-6 team. This doesn't mean that the 4-4 team is bad - maybe all of the teams in that specific division are very good and there was a lot of parity. For all we know, the top six teams in the country could all be playing in the same six team division. If the 4-4 team wins their 6-team division, they still earned it on the field by having a better record than the other 5 teams. So the actuall record is not important at all really. What's important is that teams know exactly what must be done to win the division and play in the playoff, just like any normal league. It's not a flaw, it's a beautiful thing!

[Don]

A round-robin is as close to a perfect system as you can get - it's not 100% perfect because you can have something like a three-way tie where team A beat team B, team B beat team C and team C beat team A. In my opinion, a round-robin is the ONLY 100% proper way to crown a conference champion. If a conference doesn't play enough games to do a true round-robin, then you need to find the best possible way to determine a champion. We have chosen to play as many teams as we can and see who emerges. You have chosen to split into two divisions and have the division winners play each other for the title. Neither is perfect. Both plans have significant flaws. I simply feel that our plan is better than yours. I would like to see some more thought put into our scheduling, though - the obvious item is that nobody should ever avoid both Michigan and Ohio State in the same year.

The SEC hasn't had a 4-4 team play for its title yet, but the Big 12 has. CCG's have only been around for the last 15-20 years and we've seen mutiple 4-4 (.500) and 5-3 (.625) teams play a single game for the conference title. Eventually they'll win one of those games - it's inevitable. It has already happened in the MAC (2005 Akron went 5-3 and won the conference). The Big Ten champion has never had a conference winning pct. as low as .625 during its 111 seasons of competition. Even if you include the 5-3 team's win in the CCG into its conference winning percentage, 6-3 is .667 and no Big Ten champion has ever had that low of a winning percentage either.

I do find it amusing to see people who support the BCS's leaving undefeated teams out of the title game in favor of a one loss team who also try to talk about the importance of winning a conference title "on the field". If that is so vitally important for a conference title, why not the national title???

Please tell me how comparing the possibility of the SEC having a 4-4 (actually 5-4) champion is worse than having two 12-0 co-champions. The two 12-0 co-champs will play in the NC (and cheat other conferences out of the opportunity) but the 4-4 SEC champ has NO WAY in $#@% to play for the NC.

How can someone from a conference which has a champion that has a CONFERENCE record of 1-0 complain about anyone else's way of determining champions? No team in the SEC has won fewer than 3 times and won the SEC (1943 Bama won with a 3-0 record but that was a War year when only 4 schools fielded teams.) No team has won the SEC with a record worse than 6-2.

[CJHawkeyes]

How is it cheating other conferences? While I wouldn't have placed an unbeaten Wisconsin in the title game, I fail to see why the Big Ten is obligated to eliminate all but one member from national title contention. Members could play the same schedules and not even officially exist as a conference. The national race has no relation to conference races. Both competitions operate independently as if the other does not exist. The national race matches the top two teams based on ALL GAMES. Even if a conference race does not produce a tie, should the second place team be eliminated from the national top two no matter their OOC results. Suppose a second place team beats the next two highest rated conference champs?

I can respect if someone thinks a Big Ten CCG would be exciting or simply objects to co-champions, but the idea that the Big Ten is cheating other conferences that have chosen their format for monetary purposes is ridiculous. The SEC used to only play six conference games, were they cheating then? Even if the Big Ten set it up so the top two teams missed each other the next year in an effort to produce two unbeaten teams to play in the BCS title game, how likely is it that the plan would work once in 100 years?

[Don]

The scheduling argument is nonsense. Due to the lopsided system, BCS schools face less parity in conference and out of conference. There is no more incentive for a BCS school to play Boise State than Florida International. If the goal of a competition is to determine a champion in a fair manner that challenges everyone, playing Boise State on the road should be more desirable than hosting a I-AA opponent. However, this sport is more about maximizing profit than legitimate competition. If it is so easy for nonBCS schools to acquire the necessary schedule to compete for the national title such that recruits know an unbeaten season means as much to them as a BCS school, there would be no two-class system. That said, it would appear that Boise State is expected to play 4 home games and eight road games on the off chance they could attract the talent needed in a system where going 13-0 still has you looking up at teams with two losses.

this #$%@? NO ONE said they should schedule 4 home and 8 away. They play 8 conference games and non are ranked home or away. They have 4 non conference games. All I'm asking for is 2 ranked teams on the road.

Look at it this way. During the regular season, in the "BCS era" 1998-2006 there have been 135 teams that ended up ranked in the AP top 15 (you will see later why I picked top 15). There have been 124 BCS schools and 11 non-BCS schools ranked. The 124 BCS schools have played 216 opponents that ended up in the top 25 either away or at neutral venues or 1.73 per team. Only 11 of the 124 BCS teams played zero ranked opponents.

Virginia Tech ACC 1
West Virginia BE 1
Penn State Big Ten 1
Ohio State Big Ten 2
Arizona PAC 10 1
Oregon PAC 10 1
Southern Cal PAC 10 1
Auburn SEC 1
Notre Dame IND 2


Note: ND has been ranked twice and in both years played zero ranked opponents away or at neutral sites.

The 11 non-BCS schools have played a total of 6 ranked opponents away or at neutral sites or 0.545 per team.

Each of the following have been ranked once in the top 15 with the number of top 25 ranked opponents played either away or at a neutral site listed after.

So Mississippi CUSA 3
Miami OH MAC 2
TCU MWC 1
Marshall CUSA 0
Tulane CUSA 0
Air Force MWC 0
Colorado St MWC 0
Utah MWC 0


Boise State has ended up ranked 3 times in the BCS era (all 3 times in the top 15) and has NEVER played any ranked team away or at a neutral site.

[Don]

I can respect if someone thinks a Big Ten CCG would be exciting or simply objects to co-champions, but the idea that the Big Ten is cheating other conferences that have chosen their format for monetary purposes is ridiculous. The SEC used to only play six conference games, were they cheating then? Even if the Big Ten set it up so the top two teams missed each other the next year in an effort to produce two unbeaten teams to play in the BCS title game, how likely is it that the plan would work once in 100 years?

the Big Ten could be accused of scheduling for money instead of for competition. IF they had a championship game then one of their 2 best teams would end up with an additional loss and eliminate them from the BCS bowls. In in the interest of pure greed they skip the championship game so they can get 2 teams into BCS bowls.

[GopherGuy]

What "people" are you talking about here? Not me, I hope. I've long been a proponent of a real playoff system and have said since January that Boise St deserved a shot to play for a national championship...even though my own school was crowned BCS Champions.

No, I wasn't specifically talking about you, just making the general comment about how some people hold to both positions despite how obviously hypocritical they are.

A round robin is only "perfect" when ONE team finishes with the best record, OR there is a tiebreaker in place to crown a champ should there be a tie. When 2-3 teams finish tied for first place, that is not "perfect" IMO. What if the NFL's NFC and AFC each played a 15-game round robin schedule in their conference and two teams finished 13-2...only one team in the conference can go to the Super Bowl, right? That's why there is a playoff. That's all the CCG format is - a playoff. You have to be good enough to get IN to the playoff, then good enough to win it. Just like in any other normal sport that has one. I guess the difference between us, is that you are OK with the "co-champs" thing. I personally think that the "everyone is a winner" mentality is for peewee ball. This is the Big Ten Conference we're talking about, not 5 year old soccer.

Hold on here - "everyone is a winner"? So two teams tie at 7-1 and we're apparently giving a trophy to the 2-6 teams too? Wow - you like to REALLY go overboard with your propaganda spin, don't you??? I'll say this again (and you'll conveniently ignore it) - yes, we award co-championships when teams end up in a tie, but the automatic BCS berth goes to ONE team only! That team is our "playoff" winner.

And can you honestly say that you don't find fault with a system where a 4-4 team gets to the CCG despite being beaten by the 7-1, 6-2 and 5-3 teams from the other division??? Talk about giving awards to teams that don't deserve it...

If a 4-4 record is good enough to GET IN to the playoff, what's so bad about that? Maybe sometimes 4-4 was the best any team in the division could do. This is no different than a 9-7 team winning a division in the NFL and making the playoffs over a 10-6 team. This doesn't mean that the 4-4 team is bad - maybe all of the teams in that specific division are very good and there was a lot of parity. For all we know, the top six teams in the country could all be playing in the same six team division. If the 4-4 team wins their 6-team division, they still earned it on the field by having a better record than the other 5 teams. So the actuall record is not important at all really. What's important is that teams know exactly what must be done to win the division and play in the playoff, just like any normal league. It's not a flaw, it's a beautiful thing!

First of all, don't compare college football to the pros. The talent differences between teams in the NFL are tiny and 38% of the teams in the league get into the playoffs. Because of the parity, the records are not comparable. If the best NFL team plays the worst NFL team at home, you'd expect a line of 10-14 points and a win by the bad team would be surprising but not all that big a deal. If the best college football team played the worst FBS college football team at home, the line would be 40-50 points and a win by the bad team would immediately be one of the most memorable moments in college football history.

I wouldn't mind a championship game, but only if it matched two teams in a conference who ended up tied and hadn't played each other. If one has a better record or if they've already played there's no point in playing another game - one of the teams has already won the championship on the field. By playing them again, you're giving a team that missed its opportunity to win another chance that they don't deserve.

[EvilVodka]

And can you honestly say that you don't find fault with a system where a 4-4 team gets to the CCG despite being beaten by the 7-1, 6-2 and 5-3 teams from the other division??? Talk about giving awards to teams that don't deserve it...

First of all, don't compare college football to the pros. The talent differences between teams in the NFL are tiny and 38% of the teams in the league get into the playoffs. Because of the parity, the records are not comparable. If the best NFL team plays the worst NFL team at home, you'd expect a line of 10-14 points and a win by the bad team would be surprising but not all that big a deal. If the best college football team played the worst FBS college football team at home, the line would be 40-50 points and a win by the bad team would immediately be one of the most memorable moments in college football history.


Just for the record, has there actually been a 4-4 team (conf. record) in a conference championship game? the worst I've seen is 3-loss teams (LSU '01, FSU '05)

And you're right in the difference between #1 and #119, but we're talking conferences here, and IMO, you can have alot of parity within conference play, similar to the NFL

[Blue Hen]

"ranked, ranked, ranked, ranked, ranked, ranked "....chuckling

[GopherGuy]

Please tell me how comparing the possibility of the SEC having a 4-4 (actually 5-4) champion is worse than having two 12-0 co-champions. The two 12-0 co-champs will play in the NC (and cheat other conferences out of the opportunity) but the 4-4 SEC champ has NO WAY in $#@% to play for the NC.

Why do people have it in their heads that the national championship game has some kind of "two different conferences" requirement??? If the best two teams are from the same conference, they should play for the title. Have you forgotten that there was a REAL chance that Michigan might have made it into the title game against Ohio State despite the two of them having played already? Would you have whined about that too despite the fact that we had a clear conference champion?

How can someone from a conference which has a champion that has a CONFERENCE record of 1-0 complain about anyone else's way of determining champions? No team in the SEC has won fewer than 3 times and won the SEC (1943 Bama won with a 3-0 record but that was a War year when only 4 schools fielded teams.) No team has won the SEC with a record worse than 6-2.

OK - you've just lost ALL credibility here in my book - this is like when someone here was claiming that USC sucked because they used to play high school teams back in the early 1900s. HELLO? Something that happened 100 years ago affects how teams are today???

I guess I'll have to understand that being a fan from a conference that didn't get started until trailblazers like the Big Ten had been doing it for decades wouldn't understand that in the early days of college football it was kind of expensive and time consuming for teams to travel long distances. See, back then, airplanes hadn't been invented yet. Once the were, they were still a LONG way from being available to transport football teams around. Automobiles were still in their infancy. Traveling from Minneapolis to Ann Arbor was a BIG DEAL and was not something that could be taken lightly.

I can't believe I'm actually responding to someone who is trying to claim that fans of the Big Ten's credibility rests on the fact that the war time (yes, there was a world war before the 1940's) 1918 Purdue team (the last 1-0 team to tie for the Big Ten title) during our conference's 23rd year of competition (and years before the SEC came into existence) only played one conference game.

the Big Ten could be accused of scheduling for money instead of for competition. IF they had a championship game then one of their 2 best teams would end up with an additional loss and eliminate them from the BCS bowls. In in the interest of pure greed they skip the championship game so they can get 2 teams into BCS bowls.

And I absolutely love seeing fans of teams that added a CCG purely out of greed try to claim that conferences that don't add one are somehow greedy?!?!? It's not as silly as his attacks on Big Ten fans, but it's still mighty amusing!

[GopherGuy]

Just for the record, has there actually been a 4-4 team (conf. record) in a conference championship game? the worst I've seen is 3-loss teams (LSU '01, FSU '05)

And you're right in the difference between #1 and #119, but we're talking conferences here, and IMO, you can have alot of parity within conference play, similar to the NFL

2004 Colorado went 4-4 in the Big 12 regular season and lost in the CCG to Oklahoma. The south division had a 7-1 Texas, 5-3 Texas Tech, 5-3 Texas A&M and 4-4 Oklahoma State (beat Colorado head-to-head) who had to miss out on the CCG.

[CJHawkeyes]

this #$%@? NO ONE said they should schedule 4 home and 8 away. They play 8 conference games and non are ranked home or away. They have 4 non conference games. All I'm asking for is 2 ranked teams on the road.

Look at it this way. During the regular season, in the "BCS era" 1998-2006 there have been 135 teams that ended up ranked in the AP top 15 (you will see later why I picked top 15). There have been 124 BCS schools and 11 non-BCS schools ranked. The 124 BCS schools have played 216 opponents that ended up in the top 25 either away or at neutral venues or 1.73 per team. Only 11 of the 124 BCS teams played zero ranked opponents.

Virginia Tech ACC 1
West Virginia BE 1
Penn State Big Ten 1
Ohio State Big Ten 2
Arizona PAC 10 1
Oregon PAC 10 1
Southern Cal PAC 10 1
Auburn SEC 1
Notre Dame IND 2


Note: ND has been ranked twice and in both years played zero ranked opponents away or at neutral sites.

The 11 non-BCS schools have played a total of 6 ranked opponents away or at neutral sites or 0.545 per team.

Each of the following have been ranked once in the top 15 with the number of top 25 ranked opponents played either away or at a neutral site listed after.

So Mississippi CUSA 3
Miami OH MAC 2
TCU MWC 1
Marshall CUSA 0
Tulane CUSA 0
Air Force MWC 0
Colorado St MWC 0
Utah MWC 0


Boise State has ended up ranked 3 times in the BCS era (all 3 times in the top 15) and has NEVER played any ranked team away or at a neutral site.

For starters, I was being sarcastic about 4 home games, but then again, how many "ranked" BCS teams are lining up for a visit to Boise? As for the rest, of course nonBCS teams play very few ranked opponents. The system in place is self-fulfilling. If Boise State is ranked, it is very likely that they are the only ranked team in its league. That leaves four games to schedule ranked teams. Since they need to schedule 1-2 home games for their fans, that leaves 2-3 games. Now, tell me what obvious incentive exists that would lead BCS Giants to believe playing Boise State has any more value than playing FIU?

Bottom line is that I have no problem with the idea that Boise State or any other nonBCS school should play an objectively stronger schedule in order to contend for the national title. However, if the system in place leads recruits to believe you cannot win at a nonBCS school and the system in place demands Boise State play opponents that don't need them, how likely is that they will ever acquire the necessary talent and schedule to contend? Anytime a team like Boise State is successful, there seems to a large group of elitists trying to diminish their accomplishments rather than giving them a shot. The same elitists demand Boise State do what their teams do as if they are chasing the national title from the same angle. The best BCS teams face less parity in conference and out of conference. Everything comes easier for BCS teams. That is not to say their resumes should not have more value. But for BCS fans to suggest that their teams have it harder takes nerve.

[CJHawkeyes]

the Big Ten could be accused of scheduling for money instead of for competition. IF they had a championship game then one of their 2 best teams would end up with an additional loss and eliminate them from the BCS bowls. In in the interest of pure greed they skip the championship game so they can get 2 teams into BCS bowls.

First of all, the Big Ten cannot have a CCG game and there is more involved in deciding to expand then just having one. That said, the Big Ten has been operating the same way since before the BCS, but now that they haven't added just any 12th member in order to stage a CCG, they are being greedy? Ridiculous. Besides that, a CCG has not really limited the ability of such conferences to place a second team into the BCS. The Big Ten has had a second BCS team six times, the SEC four times, and the Big 12 three times. Since five of the six for the Big Ten were Michigan or Ohio State and those two always play, there doesn't appear to be a caluclated attempt to avoid giving our best teams an additional loss.

[GatorGrad]

Gopher Guy,

This has nothing to do with the BCS or National Championship race. I don't care, nor am I blaming the Big Ten for being greedy to get 2 teams into the BCS. No one forced the SEC or any other conference to have a CCG. I'm not talking about "breaking the tie" for who goes to the BCS. I'm talking about breaking the tie for the Big Ten Championship. I just think that a clear cut system to determine one and only one champion is much better than any system that can produce two unbeaten teams that don't even play each other. I am also against "co-champs." It's bad enough that we have it at the national championship level. I simply see no reason why we should have it at the conference level. How can there be more than one champion in a league? That just makes no sense. Why not have your BCS tiebreaker also apply to your Big Ten Championship? Why have the possibility for 2-3 out of 11 teams calling themselves "Big Ten Champs" in the same year?

Again, the SEC having a division champ qualify at 5-3 over another team in the opposite division that goes 6-2 is no different than in the NFL where a 9-7 team wins their division and makes the playoffs over a 10-6 team. Yes, you can compare the two cases because we're talking about the top half of a single conference which is usually a max of 5 teams, not the best D-I team and the worst D-I team. I mean given the unbalanced schedules, who is to say that a 5-3 Auburn team that finished 1st in the SEC West is less deserving than a 6-2 Tennessee team that finished 2nd in the SEC East? The point is that teams know exactly what must be done to win their conference championship: You have to finish in first place in your division, and then win the playoff championship game against the team that finished in first place in the opposite division. Simple, clear cut, easy to understand, and one champ. It's a beautiful thing. When the Big Ten adds a 12th team and goes to a CCG format, you will see what I am talking about.