First, I want to emphasize that this analysis mostly applies to BCS conferences. The MAC, Conference USA, and smaller conferences utilize these games to determine their champions, but the results don't usually affect BCS and MNC considerations. So while some of these arguments can apply to these smaller games, which are usually exciting and worty watching, overall the considerations are not the same.
First, the Pro Side:
- Conference title games give us high quality football between teams who are usually good and playing well at the end of the season. This is what competition is all about: the best taking on the best with it all on the line.
- CTGs are the closest thing we have to a playoff in Division I-A football. This really is a setup where it is decided on the field.
- CTGs can boost a team on the cusp of a BCS title game appearance by giving them a timely win over a quality opponent.
- CTGs give teams without national title hopes something to strive for, a coveted Conference title and a BCS Berth. This can be a huge motivator and I think its good for the sport and its participants, as I feel too much emphasis is placed on the race for the National Title. In recent years FSU, Pittsburgh, and LSU, just to name a few, have earned conference titles and BCS berths by upsetting higher ranked teams in their CTGs.
- CTGs make a buttload of money for their conferences, which is why they will never be scrapped.
- Title games can hurt a team which would otherwise already be in the National Championship game. For teams like this, the risk outweighs the reward. Why should a team that is already undefeated and ranked high have to risk its national title chance by playing, at a neutral site, a fired up team hell bent on playing spoiler? Especially if the top team has previously beaten the lower ranked team? Off the top of my head I can think of Kansas State, Nebraska, Texas and Tennessee as schools who were locks for the BCS Title game but were nipped in the CTG and instead had to settle for a lesser bowl and no shot at the MNC. Granted, a MNC should beat good teams to earn their title, but how much is too much to ask and how much is fair? Bizarrely, the one time this didn't hurt a team was in 2003, when Oklahoma was whipped 35-7 by Kansas State and yet still weaseled its way into the National title game, which it lost. This set up the Split title of 03, something which is still bitterly hated by LSU and SEC fans to this very day despite the fact that USC got screwed out of their rightful place in the Sugar Bowl against LSU.
- This argument is often heard coming from SEC fans, who claim that their title game, combined with their overall conference strength, makes it unfair for their poor suffering football factories in pursuit of the MNC. They especially curse the "weakness" of the Big and Pac 10, conferences with no title games. The counter to this is that NCAA rules require 12 teams in a conference to have a title game, something that neither the Big or Pac 10 have. Also, these conferences play 9 in-conference games, as opposed to the Sec which plays only 8. In the Pac-10, you cannot duck any opponent in any year. So, in effect, the Conference Title Game is the 9th inter conference game. Given the reputation of SEC teams to schedule home games against patsies to ensure out of conference success, its questionable how unfair this really is. On the other hand, not all SEC teams are so easy on their OOC scheduling. And of course a win in a CTG could actually elevate a borderline team into the National Championship game, so this can only be judged on a case by case basis.
- Title games shield undeserving teams and hurt more deserving teams when it comes to bowl selection. For example, last year Georgia was the "hottest" team in football at the end of the year. But due to their very poor start they failed to even win the SEC East, and as such didn't get a shot at the SEC title game against LSU. Granted, I'm sure they would have loved to play. They would likely have been favored, and a win might have propelled them to the BCS title game (see Pro argument # 3 above). But in failing to even win their division, Georgia was shielded from a potential loss to LSU, which would have pushed them down the polls and out of the Sugar Bowl. So by standing pat (actually, by failing) Georgia was rewarded with a consolation prize of a BCS bowl. The exact same thing happened to LSU the year before, where they failed to win their division but were shielded from a potential loss against eventual MNC Florida, and so they slid right into the Sugar Bowl. A similar situation happened with Mizzou and Kansas. Both were top 5 teams, with Kansas undefeated going into their matchup. Mizzou won a thriller, and earned a spot in the Big 12 title game, where they lost to Oklahoma. Because Mizzou lost "last", they were pushed below Kansas in the final rankings, and when the BCS bowls were announced Kansas was Orange Bowl Bound while Mizzou had to settle for the Cotton Bowl. This despite the fact that the Tigers has just beaten the Jayhawks a week prior! It seems especially unfair to punish teams who were good enough to make it to the big game and reward those who fell short.
- Conference Championship games can make a mess of the bowl season. The winners are given automatic berths into BCS games, and due to rules about how many teams a conference can have in the BCS and the convoluted process of awarding bowl selections deserving teams can often get screwed. Also, the matchups can suffer as well, though this is a lesser concern as the team has earned their bowl trip on the field.
- CTGs may seem hollow in their outcomes. Consider two teams, A and B. Both are good and in the same conference but different divisions. Team A beats team B in their regular season matchup and is undefeated in conference play (never mind MNC considerations in this example). Team B wins their division and meets Team A again in the CTG. This time, Team B wins, and is declared the champ. Maybe this is fair, maybe not. Why should Team A, undefeated in Conference and previously a victor over Team B, have to put it all on the line again? What if Team B is only 5-3 (or worse) in conference but manages to win the rematch? Is Team A's 8-1 really worse than Team B's 6-3? Especially considering that the teams are 1-1 with no rubber match? Why should Team B get another bite at the apple, and walk away with the hardware and a BCS berth? One could argue that this is what happens in playoff systems, so if you advocate for deciding things on the field then you have to embrace these possibilities. Last year the Giants earned their Super Bowl ring by beating Dallas, as team which had twice beat them in the regular season. But the difference is that the Giants had to earn their third chance by both making the playoffs and winning in round 1, while the Cowboys had the benefit of Home field advantage and a bye week prior to the game. In this Team A/B situation, Team B gets another shot without having to work their way through a playoff systems and team A gets no advantage earned from prior performance. Its just a straight up re-do. Granted, there may also be mitigating factors. Maybe Team A had a cakewalk conference schedule while Team B had a bear. Or B was on the road in their previous meeting, or had key injuries, or what screwed by the refs or whatever. But for each legitimate example I'm sure there is just as strong a counter example as to why this setup doesn't seem right.
As you can see, this is a thorny issue to sort through with a lot of different viewpoints and counterarguments. Whatever your decision, its clear that Conference Title Games are here to stay. It might seem from my lopsided amount of text in this article that I am on the con side, but actually I am (mostly) happy with Conference Title Games, as I believe we can always enjoy more exciting football.
No comments:
Post a Comment