Championship Game Benefit to Huskers?

B

BornNBredRed

New member
From my understanding, Tom Osborne was never a fan of the Big XII having a championship game when there were other conferences like the Pac-10/Big Ten that did not. The reason being that a championship game lessened the probability that a team would receive a bid to the National Championship game. This discussion hasn't come up as much as the BCS system debate, but does get it's fair share of play. There have been multiple teams that have had their NC opportunity dashed by a loss in the conference championship game.

I've been waiting to pose this until after the game was played this year.

Was it a benefit to us this year? Year in year out is the championship game a benefit or hindrance to the Huskers?

What's your take...

 
It certainly hurt our win loss record. But we also competed with a very good sooner team that was actually very close to playing in the MNC game. So whether the team that plays in the game benefits or not depends on whether or not the team itself is on the way up or down. Nebraska is moving up. The CCG helps us. We rolled up 366 yards against a very good sooner defense all while our QB was having a bad day. A late come from behind win against A&M, a fumble away from beating Texas. These things are happening because we are getting better and better. Next year we win the close ones instead of losing them. Ever notice how great teams seem to find a way to win? Pretty soon that will be us. The CCG is a great measuring stick for the program. But it does hurt the Big 12 when a team is competing for a national title.

 
IMO- If you can't beat the top teams, and stay focused enough to win your own conference, then

you don't deserve to be in the National Championship game.

I think it is unfair for the people who don't play that extra game and get leapfrogged in the polls.

(Michigan) even though I'm all for the Florida match up..based on how tough their schedule was.

Overall, I think that the Championship game was good for the huskers. One extra game on National T.V.

exposure wise, and recruiting wise, probably a plus. Plus it drills in some peoples minds,(recruits) that the Huskers are the raising tide in the North Division.

IMO,

:bonez

 
Here's my unbiased opinion coming from the SEC where we have that same type of conference championship. We don't have the opportunity to play everyone in our conference. In our conference we have the east/west divisions as you have the north/south. Imagine you didn't play a certain team from the south and you both were unbeaten at the end of the year. Who's the big 12 champ? Or if there were several one loss teams in both the north or south. Who's the champ? Without that playoff, the Big 12 champ is based on someone's opinions and votes instead of being determined on the field. We all know how biased that can be.

The Big 10 got lucky this year without a playoff. Wisconsin had only one loss. They didn't play Ohio St. If they would have beaten Michigan, they would have been unbeaten too.

I think if college football is going to be fair across the board. I think all conferences should be structured the same way to determine the conference champ. If you can't win your conference, you don't deserve to play for the national title. Media darling automatic preseason BCS bid Notre Dame? How do you figure them in being an independent? Force them into a conference maybe? I sure don't know. Boise St who went 12-0?? Sure we know they didn't play a tough schedule. But heck, they are in a BCS conference. If they are not going to be recognize for their season, don't allow that conference to be in the BCS.

Every player, coach, school and fan should have to opportunity to win their way to the national title. And you don't lose that chance until you lose. If there is not going to be a playoff to determine the national champ. Just make it fair across the board for all teams and conferences.

WARRRRR EAGLE!!!!!!!

 
BornNBredRed said:
From my understanding, Tom Osborne was never a fan of the Big XII having a championship game when there were other conferences like the Pac-10/Big Ten that did not. The reason being that a championship game lessened the probability that a team would receive a bid to the National Championship game. This discussion hasn't come up as much as the BCS system debate, but does get it's fair share of play. There have been multiple teams that have had their NC opportunity dashed by a loss in the conference championship game.

I've been waiting to pose this until after the game was played this year.

Was it a benefit to us this year? Year in year out is the championship game a benefit or hindrance to the Huskers?

What's your take...
Click to expand...
i like it, and here is why.

One, the big12 typically gets a lot of credit for being a difficult conference to play in. A large part of why it is so difficult to get through this conference is because of the championship game. Take it away and i'm not sure how our conference fairs when compared to the Pac 10, Big 10 or Big East.

Two, this year we've seen with Florida how a championship game can give a much needed boost to a team trying to get in at the end of the season. i look at that game as giving us a sort of tie breaker over other conferences.

Three, i really don't see why so many think it's hurting us. Oklahoma lost and still went to the NC, as did NU. five of the previous six years we've had a team from the big 12 in the nc game.

Four, the way the big 10 determines things often ends up with co-champions... imagine if Wisky had beaten Michigan... what a mess that would be. It makes much more sense that the Big 10 should adopt a championship format rather than we drop ours. I don't have a problem with the Pac 10, because as a 10 team league each play 9 games in a round robin style. The way I look at it is their champion plays 9 conference games just as ours does. And related to two above, the way we play our 9 games is likely to give an edge in SOS over how they do theirs.

Five: How else does a 12 team league determine a conference winner? the answer is that is probably doesn't, and the removal of the championship game is probably tied to the disolving of the Big 12 conference.

Six: a championship games allows for increased revenue.

 
mbhusker13 said:
IMO- If you can't beat the top teams, and stay focused enough to win your own conference, then

you don't deserve to be in the National Championship game.

I think it is unfair for the people who don't play that extra game and get leapfrogged in the polls.

(Michigan) even though I'm all for the Florida match up..based on how tough their schedule was.

Overall, I think that the Championship game was good for the huskers. One extra game on National T.V.

exposure wise, and recruiting wise, probably a plus. Plus it drills in some peoples minds,(recruits) that the Huskers are the raising tide in the North Division.

IMO,

:bonez
Click to expand...
I don't see how it is unfair. Florida has 12 wins, Michigan 11. If teams lose their CCG and they drop, the should be allowed to rise as well.

I certainly think NU going to the CCG helped them out this year, even with a loss.

 
WarTeddy said:
Here's my unbiased opinion coming from the SEC where we have that same type of conference championship. We don't have the opportunity to play everyone in our conference. In our conference we have the east/west divisions as you have the north/south. Imagine you didn't play a certain team from the south and you both were unbeaten at the end of the year. Who's the big 12 champ? Or if there were several one loss teams in both the north or south. Who's the champ? Without that playoff, the Big 12 champ is based on someone's opinions and votes instead of being determined on the field. We all know how biased that can be.

The Big 10 got lucky this year without a playoff. Wisconsin had only one loss. They didn't play Ohio St. If they would have beaten Michigan, they would have been unbeaten too.

I think if college football is going to be fair across the board. I think all conferences should be structured the same way to determine the conference champ. If you can't win your conference, you don't deserve to play for the national title. Media darling automatic preseason BCS bid Notre Dame? How do you figure them in being an independent? Force them into a conference maybe? I sure don't know. Boise St who went 12-0?? Sure we know they didn't play a tough schedule. But heck, they are in a BCS conference. If they are not going to be recognize for their season, don't allow that conference to be in the BCS.

Every player, coach, school and fan should have to opportunity to win their way to the national title. And you don't lose that chance until you lose. If there is not going to be a playoff to determine the national champ. Just make it fair across the board for all teams and conferences.

WARRRRR EAGLE!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
I like the perspective coming from another similar conference. So, say at some point the NCAA DOES deem it necessary to rework the postseason and how a NC is determined. Wouldn't you think they would have to address the determination of conference champions as well? I think they would either make it a straight line decision across the board of a championship game OR leave an alternative for conferences who play a round-robin style conference schedule (in which EVERY team plays EVERY other opponent).

On a bit of a tangent I kind of wish Notre Dame was forced into a conference. They could even out the "Big Ten" and create a championship game such as our own. I know that will never happen, but it's just too obvious that there are glaring flaws with the current system. Tradition and the NCAA are the only two things keeping the current BCS system afloat.

 
I think the BCS either needs to have all conferences play a CCG or none. It isn't fair for Big XII schools to play 13 games (at least 1 against the other divisions top team) while the Big X doesn't have that. What would have happened if Wisconsin played Ohio St. in the CCG, or there was an Ohio St vs Michigan rematch a week later at a neutral site.

 
NU fan in Denver said:
I think the BCS either needs to have all conferences play a CCG or none. It isn't fair for Big XII schools to play 13 games (at least 1 against the other divisions top team) while the Big X doesn't have that. What would have happened if Wisconsin played Ohio St. in the CCG, or there was an Ohio St vs Michigan rematch a week later at a neutral site.
Click to expand...
that would make it "fair" to a team like michigan this year who was kinda forgotten at the end.

I do however think Florida deserves it. :corndance

Let the big dog's duke it out in every BCS conference. Let's see who the better team is. :box

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There have been multiple teams that have had their NC opportunity dashed by a loss in the conference championship game.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, there have been teams who've slipped into the NC without either A) playing in their CCG or B) losing their CCG within the past 5 years

Me personally I like having the CCG. It's sort creates a playoff system the entire season.

 
I have heard things like if there were a playoff system the regular season games wouldn't count. Well if all conferences have a conference championship game, the regular season games would count.

Instead of a 12 game season, reduce it to a 10 game season before the conference championship game. Heck play 8 conference games and schedule two out of conference games that won't hurt you if you lose. Play the non conference games as tune ups at the first of the season prior to hitting your conference schedule.

If teams have a winning season and don't get to play in the conference championship games, put them in a bowl game. That keeps the bowl system going. However let (ONLY) the conference champs duke it out in a minature playoff system.

 
WarTeddy said:
I have heard things like if there were a playoff system the regular season games wouldn't count. Well if all conferences have a conference championship game, the regular season games would count.

Instead of a 12 game season, reduce it to a 10 game season before the conference championship game. Heck play 8 conference games and schedule two out of conference games that won't hurt you if you lose. Play the non conference games as tune ups at the first of the season prior to hitting your conference schedule.

If teams have a winning season and don't get to play in the conference championship games, put them in a bowl game. That keeps the bowl system going. However let (ONLY) the conference champs duke it out in a minature playoff system.
Click to expand...
:yeah But with make it 11. can't get enough football :restore

 
MadcatNU said:
BornNBredRed said:
From my understanding, Tom Osborne was never a fan of the Big XII having a championship game when there were other conferences like the Pac-10/Big Ten that did not. The reason being that a championship game lessened the probability that a team would receive a bid to the National Championship game. This discussion hasn't come up as much as the BCS system debate, but does get it's fair share of play. There have been multiple teams that have had their NC opportunity dashed by a loss in the conference championship game.

I've been waiting to pose this until after the game was played this year.

Was it a benefit to us this year? Year in year out is the championship game a benefit or hindrance to the Huskers?

What's your take...
Click to expand...
i like it, and here is why.

One, the big12 typically gets a lot of credit for being a difficult conference to play in. A large part of why it is so difficult to get through this conference is because of the championship game. Take it away and i'm not sure how our conference fairs when compared to the Pac 10, Big 10 or Big East.

Two, this year we've seen with Florida how a championship game can give a much needed boost to a team trying to get in at the end of the season. i look at that game as giving us a sort of tie breaker over other conferences.

Three, i really don't see why so many think it's hurting us. Oklahoma lost and still went to the NC, as did NU. five of the previous six years we've had a team from the big 12 in the nc game.

Four, the way the big 10 determines things often ends up with co-champions... imagine if Wisky had beaten Michigan... what a mess that would be. It makes much more sense that the Big 10 should adopt a championship format rather than we drop ours. I don't have a problem with the Pac 10, because as a 10 team league each play 9 games in a round robin style. The way I look at it is their champion plays 9 conference games just as ours does. And related to two above, the way we play our 9 games is likely to give an edge in SOS over how they do theirs.

Five: How else does a 12 team league determine a conference winner? the answer is that is probably doesn't, and the removal of the championship game is probably tied to the disolving of the Big 12 conference.

Six: a championship games allows for increased revenue.
Click to expand...
Seven:Probably the big benefit is the increased practice time..Imagine how flat OSU and Meechicken are going to be with so much more time off?

I can see Osborn's point,..We might have been able to score a better Bowl than the Cotton if we didn't end with a loss..I like the chance to play Auburn, though.

I think if we ever did go to a playoff(sucks) system, the Conferences should be smaller so every team could play each other and not need a Conf. Championship game.

If Wiscy would've beaten Mechicken this season, we might have seen the li'l leven have TWO teams in the MNC game..Imagine the $$$ for one conference.

We could have a similar situation with OU or TX if two of us went Undefeated during the season..The Conference Championship game eliminates that possibility.

 
Back
Top