Will Conference Championship Games disappear?

[MorningCoffee13]

I see ACC commissioner is already pre selecting for SMU in case they would lose to Clemson and possibly lose badly. He says a team shouldn’t be punished.

Let’s say it does happen that SMU loses like 35-7 and gets skipped.

At some point will conferences say its not worth the risk to teams for that extra game?

 

[Slick Manager of Champs]

I see ACC commissioner is already pre selecting for SMU in case they would lose to Clemson and possibly lose badly. He says a team shouldn’t be punished.

Let’s say it does happen that SMU loses like 35-7 and gets skipped.

At some point will conferences say its not worth the risk to teams for that extra game?

I thought they were dumb even before the expanded playoff. Just a money grab and has cost some teams by losing in their conference championship. Now, with no divisions, and a 12 team playoff, I say just cancel it and get the playoffs started earlier and have the championship on NYD.

 

[Chairman Moe]

I see ACC commissioner is already pre selecting for SMU in case they would lose to Clemson and possibly lose badly. He says a team shouldn’t be punished.

Let’s say it does happen that SMU loses like 35-7 and gets skipped.

At some point will conferences say its not worth the risk to teams for that extra game?

Geez, first SMF wants to diminish rivalry games; you want to eliminate Conference Championship games; and I want to stop calling the players, students

What the f88k kind of world are we living in???

😜

 

[Burgh15]

There's no benefit of these games unless you're a team on the outside looking in. Get rid of the bowl game quarter and semifinals as well and let the teams play home games.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

How I would improve college football:

1) Each team plays 9 conference games, 1 G5 game, and 1 non-conference "rivalry game" (they're all called that regardless of whether it's actually a rivalry or not)

2) CFP is expanded to 24 teams

3) The top 6 or 8 teams teams in each P4 conference that don't make the CFP may elect to participate in the postseason tournament. So, for example, the ACC Postseason Tournament could look like this if SMU, Clemson, and Miami would hypothetically make the 24-team CFP:

1. Syracuse
8. Pitt

4. Duke
5. Virginia Tech

2. Louisville
7. NC State

3. Georgia Tech
6. Boston College

That could scratch the postseason itch for anyone who doesn't make the CFP. These can be the new bowl games - played at the current bowl sites. Round one, all four teams play at separate bowl sites; week two, one site can host a day/night doubleheader; week three, have your ACC Postseason Championship in Charlotte.

 

[Burgh15]

I like the format of games. You need these teams playing against other P4 teams with 1 preseason game against a G5. In fact, have it be a preseason game so you can play depth players. Doesn't count toward the overall record.

What is the incentive to play in the conference postseason tournaments? That's a lot of extra games unless there is some money or something for winning each round.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I see ACC commissioner is already pre selecting for SMU in case they would lose to Clemson and possibly lose badly. He says a team shouldn’t be punished.

Let’s say it does happen that SMU loses like 35-7 and gets skipped.

At some point will conferences say its not worth the risk to teams for that extra game?

I dont understand this notion that a championship game loss shouldn't penalize you. Huh? Its a football game. If you lose, that should be taken into account as one of the 13 games you played that year. If you are afraid of a loss keeping you out then opt out of the game. But then the CFP can come up with a rule where any team who opts out of a CCG cannot make the CFP.

If SMU loses, they are out. 11-2. Only 1 good win. At Louisville and that's not a great one. As the great Pat McAfee once said "Give me Alabama."

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I thought they were dumb even before the expanded playoff. Just a money grab and has cost some teams by losing in their conference championship. Now, with no divisions, and a 12 team playoff, I say just cancel it and get the playoffs started earlier and have the championship on NYD.

I mean, getting a bye is pretty important.

 

[Burgh15]

I mean, getting a bye is pretty important.

It'll be interesting to see how teams getting a bye playing at a neutral site respond. A team getting a bye from not playing the conference championship may get into "game mode" and energized playing the home game. Also, the top 4 teams aren't even getting byes, so there should be some good possibilities for "upsets" playing on a neutral field.

I dont understand this notion that a championship game loss shouldn't penalize you. Huh? Its a football game. If you lose, that should be taken into account as one of the 13 games you played that year. If you are afraid of a loss keeping you out then opt out of the game. But then the CFP can come up with a rule where any team who opts out of a CCG cannot make the CFP.

If SMU loses, they are out. 11-2. Only 1 good win. At Louisville and that's not a great one. As the great Pat McAfee once said "Give me Alabama."

A loss should penalize you. I think SMU should be in as long as it isn't a blowout loss. Are they really going to put another 3-loss SEC team in instead--yes, I know they will.

Opting out of a game that penalizes you makes complete sense and it puts bubble teams at a disadvantage that other bubble teams don't have to face because they weren't as good. It's a dumb system.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It'll be interesting to see how teams getting a bye playing at a neutral site respond. A team getting a bye from not playing the conference championship may get into "game mode" and energized playing the home game. Also, the top 4 teams aren't even getting byes, so there should be some good possibilities for "upsets" playing on a neutral field.


A loss should penalize you. I think SMU should be in as long as it isn't a blowout loss. Are they really going to put another 3-loss SEC team in instead--yes, I know they will.

Opting out of a game that penalizes you makes complete sense and it puts bubble teams at a disadvantage that other bubble teams don't have to face because they weren't as good. It's a dumb system.

Make your case for 11-2 SMU over 9-3 Bama. Bama has worse losses at Vandy and at OU. At TN isnt a bad loss. SMU's losses to BYU and Clemson (if it happens) are better but they haven't beaten anyone. Have to go with Bama here.

 

[USN_Panther]

Make your case for 11-2 SMU over 9-3 Bama. Bama has worse losses at Vandy and at OU. At TN isnt a bad loss. SMU's losses to BYU and Clemson (if it happens) are better but they haven't beaten anyone. Have to go with Bama here.

Good wins should count for more than good losses.

 

[LeftCoastPanther]

SMU is not in if it loses. It should be at 11-2 but its jersey patch reads “ACC” instead of Big Ten or SEC.

And yes, eliminate these games. Both Georgia and Texas are in the playoffs so this game is just played for money. Texas already won the SEC with just one conference loss. So that game, the B10 title game are being played to see who gets a bye?

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

I dont understand this notion that a championship game loss shouldn't penalize you. Huh? Its a football game. If you lose, that should be taken into account as one of the 13 games you played that year. If you are afraid of a loss keeping you out then opt out of the game. But then the CFP can come up with a rule where any team who opts out of a CCG cannot make the CFP.

If SMU loses, they are out. 11-2. Only 1 good win. At Louisville and that's not a great one. As the great Pat McAfee once said "Give me Alabama."

It's because it sucks that an SMU loss would keep them out, while Indiana and Tennessee are in just because they didn't make their conference championships (an extra loss would also knock them out).

Plus if you're the loser of the Texas/Georgia game, for instance, it's the worst of both worlds. You played an extra game and didn't get a bye.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Good wins should count for more than good losses.

I agree but this committee seems to reward/penalize losses based on how "good" they are. So this favors SMU instead of Bama. I'm taking Bama. They beat UGa, SC, and at LSU. SMU hasnt come close to that.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It's because it sucks that an SMU loss would keep them out, while Indiana and Tennessee are in just because they didn't make their conference championships (an extra loss would also knock them out).

Plus if you're the loser of the Texas/Georgia game, for instance, it's the worst of both worlds. You played an extra game and didn't get a bye.

A loss doesnt knock Tennessee out. It probably knocks out Indiana. But it is what it is. Opt out of it then if you are that afraid of a loss. Its funny because PSU got the B10CG on like the 10th tiebreaker since they didnt play and had few common opponents. PSU got in because the winning percentage of their B10 opponents were better than IU's. But IU was probably extremely happy about this.

I sort of do get that feeling that SMU is in regardless because the committee wants to protect these games but man, they shouldn't be.

 

[TheWerewolfFromTwilight]

A loss doesnt knock Tennessee out. It probably knocks out Indiana. But it is what it is. Opt out of it then if you are that afraid of a loss. Its funny because PSU got the B10CG on like the 10th tiebreaker since they didnt play and had few common opponents. PSU got in because the winning percentage of their B10 opponents were better than IU's. But IU was probably extremely happy about this.

I sort of do get that feeling that SMU is in regardless because the committee wants to protect these games but man, they shouldn't be.

Tennessee is basically 9th when you consider Boise and the Big 12 are effectively ahead of them (Miami will likely drop behind them). So it's possible a drubbing could knock them out.

Regardless, yes - it's more obvious in the case of Indiana. Losing to Oregon by 3+ touchdowns would be all she wrote for them. They lucked out by not making a conference title game, which isn't how it should be.

Nor should Oregon have to beat Ohio State twice (I realize they're playing Penn State, but they almost played Ohio State) to procure a bye when they've been #1 all season and have already beat them once. They'd still be in the top 4, rankings-wise, but they'd end up giving their bye to like Iowa State or something.

I'd be in favor of the top 6 SEC teams making in, the top 6 Big 10 teams making it, top 3 ACC, top 3 Big 12, highest two G5 conference winners, and 4 at large.

 

[Burgh15]

Make your case for 11-2 SMU over 9-3 Bama. Bama has worse losses at Vandy and at OU. At TN isnt a bad loss. SMU's losses to BYU and Clemson (if it happens) are better but they haven't beaten anyone. Have to go with Bama here.

SMU only lost to BYU, another playoff-caliber team. I'm not penalizing SMU for an undefeated conference season losing in a dumb conference championship game that shouldn't exist anymore. Are we knocking Penn State out to another 3-loss team after Oregon pounds them in the Big 10 title game?

 

[Jsr862]

Simple solution.. JUST WIN! PLAIN AND SIMPLE. bunch of overthinking cry babies. This is COMPETITION, COMPETE TO WIN. IF YOU WANT SIMPLE WAY OF THINGS JOIN THE MFING BAND!

I DON'T WANT TO PLAY A GAME BECAUSE I MIGHT LOSE. WAAAAHHHH .. THEN DONT PLAY THE SPORT., DONT BE ASSOCIATED WITH SPORTS.

When did everything get so dang soft. Win. Win. Win. It solves everything. Either your good enough or your not. You can't help the rules and parameters that are placed around you or the situation, but if you win, you don't have to worry about any of that.

 

[JD1976]

The Conference Championship games aren’t going anywhere. Anyone who thinks that they should doesn’t understand the business of college sports. The football conference title game is a major revenue generator for the conferences through ticket sales, sponsorships, hospitality, etc. Plus, above all, the TV networks want the championship games and if the TV networks want the games, the conferences ultimately benefit financially.

 

[Burgh15]

The Conference Championship games aren’t going anywhere. Anyone who thinks that they should doesn’t understand the business of college sports. The football conference title game is a major revenue generator for the conferences through ticket sales, sponsorships, hospitality, etc. Plus, above all, the TV networks want the championship games and if the TV networks want the games, the conferences ultimately benefit financially.

One of the hosts on CBS suggested play in games instead. Give me a game where everything is on the line instead.

 

[HOF Coach]

 

[HailtoPitt]

I see ACC commissioner is already pre selecting for SMU in case they would lose to Clemson and possibly lose badly. He says a team shouldn’t be punished.

Let’s say it does happen that SMU loses like 35-7 and gets skipped.

At some point will conferences say its not worth the risk to teams for that extra game?

Not sure what his problem is. If they eliminate the conference game, then only SMU gets in. 1 ACC team either way.