There was a poster on here that argued recently that SEC championships didn't mean shit before the conference championship game came into effect (it was in reference to Auburn, and some shit team like Vandy, I can't remember now). It was a weak argument, but I'd like to use it now. Last years SEC CC game came down to one horrible pass by UT's QB, when the game probably would have been won by a 3 and out. How lame is that? I don't give to much thought to CCs, since there haven't been to many instances that would have changed the outcome of the Big Ten conferece title. The only one I can think of was in 2002 when Iowa lost to Iowa State (non-conference), and OSU was perfect. Who knows who would have won that game (everything I got on the Buckeyes), but I don't think there's a real debate who best represented the conference in the bowl game (OSU beating the best team ever). The argument against a CC game in the Big Ten is evident to me. The OSU/UM game has decided more conference championships than any matchup that I"m aware of, and if there were a division of the conference, they would have to be in different divisions (destroying the best rivaly in CFB), or face a rematch nearly every year. CCs are all about money, and, to me, just prevent the best teams from playing each season. If fairness is the issue, each conference should be limited to 10 teams, with a 9 game conference schedule, which I'm all for. In my eyes, the CC format just gives more opportunity for a one game upset like we saw tonight.