Sunday, December 7, 2014

Should the Big 12 Add a Championship Game?

If they add a championship game, they need to add at least two, probably four teams.  But it's all about money so who are you going to add?  There are two important factors to consider: TV revenue and quality of the football program.  When the B1G added Penn State and Nebraska they upgraded their $ and the quality of football.  When they added Rutgers and Maryland they didn't upgrade the quality of football but they added two HUGE markets which down the road MIGHT pay big dividends. 

But who would the Big 12 add?
Here are some candidates:


Marshall
Boise St.
BYU
Fresno St.

None seem all that attractive.  Would adding all four improve the Big 12?  Probably not.  Would it raise the average revenue share?  I doubt it.  BYU is probably the most attractive because they have a national following.  Are there other better candidates? 

There's also the question of whether a championship game really does make it more likely that you get into the playoffs.  Oregon and Alabama would have gotten in without a championship game this year.  FSU would have gotten in this year without a championship game.  In fact, if they would have LOST the game; that single loss would have eliminated them. And in general we know that a late loss is less forgivable than an early one.  And if AL would have lost the championship game this year the SEC would have been locked out.

I suspect that if Baylor had LOST yesterday, TCU might have actually gotten in.  After all, a week prior TCU was ranked higher than Baylor and it's not like TCU looked worse than Baylor yesterday.  It hurt TCU's chances to get in that they lost the head to head with Baylor; but it was that combined with OSU's record breaking championship obliteration of a ranked team that did them in.  The committee wasn't going to take two Big 12 teams when there are two teams from other conferences arguably as good.  But were it not for a record setting Buckeye performance, the Big 12 would have been sending someone to the party even without a championship game.

So, Big 12 fans, take a breath and think about whether a championship game is all that important.

11 comments:

  1. The championship game is only helpful when you are on the outside looking in at the very end of the season and you need to give people an additional reason to vote you higher (which was exactly OSU's position). If you are already a lock, then championship games are a big risk. In fact, didn't SEC or Big 12 coaches complain on more than one occasion during the BCS era about conferences without a championship game having it easier, like the Big 10? That's what I remember. It definitely turned out favorably for OSU in the 2007-2008 season, when they ended the season at #5, sat idle for the last 2 weeks, and then found themselves at #1.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, that sounds right. I remember a lot of whiny SEC whiners back before the B1G had a championship game.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No one was whining. They were pointing out the obvious: this ain't soccer. So the very idea of "tying" for a conference champ'ship was S-T-U-P-I-D.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now that is some serious revisionist history, Monash! Tying for a championship is no stupider than tying a game.
    I defend the tie. Thankfully, manly hockey retains it. The NFL does too. It's a small travesty that college football fans must feel the need to declare some team a winner and some team a loser when neither team was better.

    I am for sports which eliminate luck as much as possible. I don't like fluky games. Having overtime after overtime after overtime does not tell us which team is better. It just gets us an artificial winner and loser.

    I had no problem with split national titles in D1 with over 100 teams. How likely is it that there is exactly one team that is measurably superior than all the rest EVERY year? Not that likely. Yet a single team must be crowned.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A load of nonsense on stilts. Though you're right that tying for a champ'ship is no stupider than tying a game - both are dumb in excelsis. Go to Europe.

    Playing until one team wins is no more "fluky" than any aspect of the regular game. If nothing else, it's less fluky because it also requires stamina.

    Ties are for weiners. You can have your hockey AND your soccer. You un-American filth.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ties are for weiners? Was Bear Bryant a weiner? The men who played for the Steel Curtain? Vince Lombardi? All were associated with football when football allowed for more ties, which, by the way, was most of the history of the game.

    Of course, maybe you like contemporary football better...the football controlled by a bunch of pampered liberals in ivy towers or NYC, who worry about making the game more friendly to women, who change the rules all willy-nilly, who worry about "player safety".

    You can have your contemporary football, Monash, and your Obamacare, you commie.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gentlemen, gentlemen. Let us put our passions behind us and carefully follow the dictates of reason.

    As I see it, there are three reasons for keeping the tie. (1) Tradition. The tie in football has a presumption of innocence. (2) The tie is a reminder that there will be irresolvable difficulties in life that we must bear and put up with. We should not seek an artificial feel-good resolution just because we feel bad. (3) Finally--and perhaps most importantly--the tie makes victory all the more sweet. Eliminating the tie cheapens victory. Victory becomes that much easier to attain. But we Americans recognize that there are winners and losers; we play games not just to play silly games but to WIN. Victory is the thing! Let us not cheapen it because of our feel-good sentimentality. We should NOT feel good tying! And that is the reason to keep the tie. What does not kill us will make us stronger and all the more hungry for VICTORY!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bear Bryant (and I quote): "A tie is like kissing your sister." So no, the Bear was _not_ in favor of the tie. And if ANYTHING is "commie" and "Obamacare" it is a tie, i.e., "no losers", i.e., "no winners," i.e., "WE'RE ALL THE SAME!!!!"

    And "player safety" is the PRIMARY REASON why there remains ties in the pro's as well as the PRIMARY REASON why people raised so much hell about the new overtime rules for college. It's THAT sort of namby-pamby belly-aching that is IN FAVOR of the tie.

    Borland: I'll give you (1). (2) and (3) are ad hoc rationalizations, at best. Victory can't be "that much easier to attain" whenever you simply stop playing. Nonsense. Crapola.

    "What does not kill us will make us stronger and all the more hungry for VICTORY!!!!" Hmmm...which seems to function equally as well as a reason FOR CONTINUING THE GAME.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'll throw my (2) and (3) on the alter with whatever your (2*) and (3*) are cancelling each other out. That still leaves (1). I am VICTORIOUS!!!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, I admit, (1) is pretty darned strong. ;)

    ReplyDelete