methomps
an imbecility, a stupidity without name
A Trojan's perspective...
It was not readily apparent to me that first Saturday in December. Nor was it in early January. But each day since, it has become more clear: The Big12 and SEC are moving to monopolize the MNC table...
...politically. The Conference of Chapions, the B10, and the lessers are being outmanuevered. It isn't that they have better teams (although with the way the propoganda machine is churning in the South, I wouldn't recommend arguing this point with them if you want to make any progress). The leverage is this so-called "Conference Championship Game".
The argument seems persuasive at first glance. The teams in the B12 and SEC (and, soon, the ACC) have that much harder a road because they have to play one extra game. Nevermind that last year our season ended the same day their season did (although, to be fair, they did in total play 1 extra game) or that this season teams like Georgia, LSU, and Oklahoma will have to play in the CCG to have as many games as we do (of course, they'll just try to distract the point into an "our conference is better" argument).
Fans (at least the ones on the message boards) from the top schools in these conferences seem to have the talking points memorized. "Playing the other best team in your conference in the last game is the only way to determine a true champion." "How can you penalize a team for playing a game that other teams don't have to play?"
Before we continue, let's take a look at how the CCG has progressed through the BCS changes. The CCG was likely started for money. 12-team conferences are so big that one team can only play about 75% of the conference. So it was only logical (and profitable) to break the conferences up into divisions and have the division winners square off in December. Either intentionally or unintentionally, the CCG became a BCS pair-of-Aces.
It became an instant boost for any team whose SOS was hurting from too many DIAA feasts. As much as LSU fans love to argue that their schedule was infinitely better than USC's last year, the facts are that USC's SOS was better in the regular season. It is only with the rematch against Georgia that LSU was able to leapfrog over USC. Of course, if you let them tell the story then LSU was miles ahead before the Georgia game.
But the CCG had an added bonus. As much as the human polls favor losing early over losing late, they don't necessarily penalize you for losing the last game of the season. By that time, the polls are usually tiered into groups of 0-loss teams, 1-loss teams, 2-loss teams, etc. So when an undefeated Oklahoma team loses its CCG, it almost certainly won't fall behind any 2-loss teams. Thus you have last year where one team wins its CCG and gets in the Sugar Bowl, and another team loses its CCG and still gets in the Sugar.
Things are undeniably different this year. SOS has been removed as a stand-alone category (it is still in the computers), and the human polls now make up 66% of the calculation. Once again, the CCG conferences are already positioning themselves. They are using the CCG as leverage for any debate. Have two equal teams? Better to send the one who played a CCG. One of the top 2 teams loses a CCG? Can't punish them for playing a game the rest of the country doesn't have. 3rd place team wins its CCG? Reward them by pushing them ahead of the B10 team because the B10 team was at home watching the CCG.
It is a myth, of course, that the CCG is the only (or best) way to determine a champion. In the Big12, you play 8 teams in the regular season and miss 3. Then you go to the CCG where there is a 50-50 chance you'll have a rematch against one of the 8 teams you already played. Maybe it makes things tougher, but I just don't see how that is a better way. Tougher maybe. Not better. Of course, since the schedules are so fractured, the key to winning the division may be who you are assigned to face and not how good you are.
Compare this with the Pac10, where you play 8 teams and miss one (as soon as the NCAA make permenant 12-game seasons the PAC will have teams play everyone). From there, best conference record wins. This works since schedules are much similar in the Pac10. Each team will only differ by 1 game (not 3) from any other team. Thus, record is more meaningful.
However, the CCG approach wins arguments because it is the sexier argument. It is one last hurdle that nobody else faces. It is one more true test. If we let things stand, the BCS Championship Game will soon only take CCG winners from the B12, SEC, and ACC. But it doesn't have to be that way.
We need to carry the CCG idea to its (il)logical extreme. The Pac10 needs to host a CCT (conference championship tournament). Just like basketball, an 8-team tournament will easily trump one measily CCG. How will SEC honks be able to even mention their silly CCG win when our team just emerged from an 8-team, 2-week bloodbath? To assure that they don't one-up us, we need to make it a double-elimination deal and invite all 10 Pac teams.
Of course, to meet NCAA standards for a CCG (barring some waiver), we need to invite more teams. Adding CSU and stealing Colorado from the B12 might send a nice message. But let's also snatch Utah and BYU. Another 2 will give us 16, which means we can have a bigger tournament.
If any of this sounds ridiculous to you, consider that it is merely an extension of the CCG idea. Thus, an Orange bid shouldn't be the birthright of whoever wins a CCG. I admit, it is one more hurdle that our teams don't have to face. But your conference chose to add it. Things were just fine before your conferences became so bloated that a CCG was necessary.
Many fans from B12/SEC schools say that they weren't the ones who wanted a CCG. Rather, it was their conference. They are correct. However, the Pac10/B11 didn't want CCGs either, yet we are the ones getting screwed over it. You say that it isn't fair that not all conferences are decided equally. I say this: Don't try to legislate our conference to require us to be exactly like you. Nobody forced the B12 to add a CCG, yet its fans want to force the Pac10 to add two nobodies so we can fracture our schedule (rendering the regular season less meaningful) and play some superfluous title game. This has the added bonus of diluting the talent of our conference further (I'm sure the B12/SEC fans would love that).
The 12-team conferences now have a built-in advantage waiting for them at the end of the season. The CCG was a brilliant idea that will force our conference and the B10 to think long and hard about how we can level the playing field. If we don't, the SEC/B12 may just convince the Disney officials to make the CCGs permenant semi-finals for the ABC(s) title. Holiday Bowl, anyone?
It was not readily apparent to me that first Saturday in December. Nor was it in early January. But each day since, it has become more clear: The Big12 and SEC are moving to monopolize the MNC table...
...politically. The Conference of Chapions, the B10, and the lessers are being outmanuevered. It isn't that they have better teams (although with the way the propoganda machine is churning in the South, I wouldn't recommend arguing this point with them if you want to make any progress). The leverage is this so-called "Conference Championship Game".
The argument seems persuasive at first glance. The teams in the B12 and SEC (and, soon, the ACC) have that much harder a road because they have to play one extra game. Nevermind that last year our season ended the same day their season did (although, to be fair, they did in total play 1 extra game) or that this season teams like Georgia, LSU, and Oklahoma will have to play in the CCG to have as many games as we do (of course, they'll just try to distract the point into an "our conference is better" argument).
Fans (at least the ones on the message boards) from the top schools in these conferences seem to have the talking points memorized. "Playing the other best team in your conference in the last game is the only way to determine a true champion." "How can you penalize a team for playing a game that other teams don't have to play?"
Before we continue, let's take a look at how the CCG has progressed through the BCS changes. The CCG was likely started for money. 12-team conferences are so big that one team can only play about 75% of the conference. So it was only logical (and profitable) to break the conferences up into divisions and have the division winners square off in December. Either intentionally or unintentionally, the CCG became a BCS pair-of-Aces.
It became an instant boost for any team whose SOS was hurting from too many DIAA feasts. As much as LSU fans love to argue that their schedule was infinitely better than USC's last year, the facts are that USC's SOS was better in the regular season. It is only with the rematch against Georgia that LSU was able to leapfrog over USC. Of course, if you let them tell the story then LSU was miles ahead before the Georgia game.
But the CCG had an added bonus. As much as the human polls favor losing early over losing late, they don't necessarily penalize you for losing the last game of the season. By that time, the polls are usually tiered into groups of 0-loss teams, 1-loss teams, 2-loss teams, etc. So when an undefeated Oklahoma team loses its CCG, it almost certainly won't fall behind any 2-loss teams. Thus you have last year where one team wins its CCG and gets in the Sugar Bowl, and another team loses its CCG and still gets in the Sugar.
Things are undeniably different this year. SOS has been removed as a stand-alone category (it is still in the computers), and the human polls now make up 66% of the calculation. Once again, the CCG conferences are already positioning themselves. They are using the CCG as leverage for any debate. Have two equal teams? Better to send the one who played a CCG. One of the top 2 teams loses a CCG? Can't punish them for playing a game the rest of the country doesn't have. 3rd place team wins its CCG? Reward them by pushing them ahead of the B10 team because the B10 team was at home watching the CCG.
It is a myth, of course, that the CCG is the only (or best) way to determine a champion. In the Big12, you play 8 teams in the regular season and miss 3. Then you go to the CCG where there is a 50-50 chance you'll have a rematch against one of the 8 teams you already played. Maybe it makes things tougher, but I just don't see how that is a better way. Tougher maybe. Not better. Of course, since the schedules are so fractured, the key to winning the division may be who you are assigned to face and not how good you are.
Compare this with the Pac10, where you play 8 teams and miss one (as soon as the NCAA make permenant 12-game seasons the PAC will have teams play everyone). From there, best conference record wins. This works since schedules are much similar in the Pac10. Each team will only differ by 1 game (not 3) from any other team. Thus, record is more meaningful.
However, the CCG approach wins arguments because it is the sexier argument. It is one last hurdle that nobody else faces. It is one more true test. If we let things stand, the BCS Championship Game will soon only take CCG winners from the B12, SEC, and ACC. But it doesn't have to be that way.
We need to carry the CCG idea to its (il)logical extreme. The Pac10 needs to host a CCT (conference championship tournament). Just like basketball, an 8-team tournament will easily trump one measily CCG. How will SEC honks be able to even mention their silly CCG win when our team just emerged from an 8-team, 2-week bloodbath? To assure that they don't one-up us, we need to make it a double-elimination deal and invite all 10 Pac teams.
Of course, to meet NCAA standards for a CCG (barring some waiver), we need to invite more teams. Adding CSU and stealing Colorado from the B12 might send a nice message. But let's also snatch Utah and BYU. Another 2 will give us 16, which means we can have a bigger tournament.
If any of this sounds ridiculous to you, consider that it is merely an extension of the CCG idea. Thus, an Orange bid shouldn't be the birthright of whoever wins a CCG. I admit, it is one more hurdle that our teams don't have to face. But your conference chose to add it. Things were just fine before your conferences became so bloated that a CCG was necessary.
Many fans from B12/SEC schools say that they weren't the ones who wanted a CCG. Rather, it was their conference. They are correct. However, the Pac10/B11 didn't want CCGs either, yet we are the ones getting screwed over it. You say that it isn't fair that not all conferences are decided equally. I say this: Don't try to legislate our conference to require us to be exactly like you. Nobody forced the B12 to add a CCG, yet its fans want to force the Pac10 to add two nobodies so we can fracture our schedule (rendering the regular season less meaningful) and play some superfluous title game. This has the added bonus of diluting the talent of our conference further (I'm sure the B12/SEC fans would love that).
The 12-team conferences now have a built-in advantage waiting for them at the end of the season. The CCG was a brilliant idea that will force our conference and the B10 to think long and hard about how we can level the playing field. If we don't, the SEC/B12 may just convince the Disney officials to make the CCGs permenant semi-finals for the ABC(s) title. Holiday Bowl, anyone?