October 7, 200916 yr Like I said, the NCAA should be allowed to assign teams one game per year, if they are going to continue with the current rules. With that teams that want to try for the BCS will have a quality opponent on their schedule, and teams that struggle to win games against FCS competition will get a game against a team on their level. It's not fair for a team like Alabama to have to open with VT, play against the vaunted SEC, and then take on UF in the SEC title game and miss out on the BCS championship or BCS because they lost a game or two, when many teams play no one. Call it dictatorship or whatever, it would end the SOS argument and possibly the whole argument over which teams should get in. I’m all for a Big Ten championship game (see my proposed college football playoff thread). The Big Ten and Pac Ten lose creditability by not having a conference championship when the other major conferences have to play that additional game.
October 7, 200916 yr I’m all for a Big Ten championship game (see my proposed college football playoff thread). The Big Ten and Pac Ten lose creditability by not having a conference championship when the other major conferences have to play that additional game. No conference HAS to play a championship game. They choose to because it is a huge pay day...
October 7, 200916 yr No conference HAS to play a championship game. They choose to because it is a huge pay day... Your right they don’t, but IMO the Big 10 should as well as all the conferences. If the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 have championship games then either they all should or they all shouldn’t. I think the Big 10 and Pac 10 are at a disadvantage for not having a conference championship. In the Big 10s case they end the season way too early compared to the other confernces, they have a shared champion about 50% of the time, and they lose in the court of public opinion when the other major conferences have to play one more tough game before the BCS bowls start.
October 7, 200916 yr Your right they don’t, but IMO the Big 10 should as well as all the conferences. If the SEC, ACC, and Big 12 have championship games then either they all should or they all shouldn’t. I think the Big 10 and Pac 10 are at a disadvantage for not having a conference championship. In the Big 10s case they end the season way too early compared to the other confernces, they have a shared champion about 50% of the time, and they lose in the court of public opinion when the other major conferences have to play one more tough game before the BCS bowls start. By NCAA rule both the Pac 10 and Big 11 would have to expand to 12 teams first...
October 7, 200916 yr No conference HAS to play a championship game. They choose to because it is a huge pay day... And it is awesome.
October 7, 200916 yr By NCAA rule both the Pac 10 and Big 11 would have to expand to 12 teams first... Although I’ve never heard of that rule, it could be changed if they went to a playoff system. For the Big Ten it would be easy, add Notre Dame. For the Pac Ten, Big East, Mountian West, and WAC it would require restructuring or just revoke the rule. I would think changing the rule would be much easier.
October 7, 200916 yr Author They don't have to open with VT. But I understand your point. Have was the wrong word choice. Thanks.:thumb:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.