Do you want a Sun Belt Championship Title Game in Football?
Vote.

With realignment once again taking center stage in the 2014 season, a new question has popped up. Should FBS conferences dispense with the divisional setup in football?

Next season, three of the Big Five conferences will have 14 teams each, divided into seven-team divisions. Of the 10 conferences that play FBS football, seven of them will have divisions, with their respective winners meeting in conference championship games. By 2015 (assuming there are no other changes), only the Big 12 and Sun Belt will not stage conference title games.

This is in stark contrast with college basketball. Of the 32 Division I conferences, only three (Big South, Mid-American, Ohio Valley) have divisional splits. The other 29 conferences, including all of the "Big Five," play without an internal split of teams.

College football may be moving in that direction, too.

The ACC has submitted a proposal to "deregulate" football conference championship games, according to CBS Sports' Dennis Dodd. It's seeking to discard legislation that requires conferences to have at least 12 teams divided into two divisions in order to have a conference title game.

This proposal has wide-ranging support among all FBS conferences, and it's not difficult to see why. Divisional setups have been typically arbitrary—just look at the thankfully euthanized "Legends" and "Leaders" divisions in the Big Ten or the fact that Missouri is in the SEC "East" since joining the conference when Columbia, Mo., is west of every SEC campus except Arkansas and Texas A&M.

And with the advent of the 14-team divisions, if the current legislation is upheld, a team could conceivably go 12 years between visits to the stadium of a fellow conference member that's not in its division.



Big Five Conference Scheduling Setup for 2014

Conference Teams Scheduling Setup
ACC 14 7-team divisions, with 5 teams also playing Notre Dame
Big Ten 14 7-team divisions, some teams guaranteed "rivalry games"
Big 12 10 Each team plays true 9-team round-robin schedule
Pac-12 12 6-team divisions, with Calif. schools guranteed to meet
SEC 14 7-team divisions, each with guaranteed "rivalry game"

Source: PlayoffGuru.com


Since it's obvious that conference championship games are here to stay—there's just too much money to be made from television revenue—there's no way these conferences will voluntarily discard the divisional setup unless it's no longer required to stage a title game. But if they're freed from the binds of divisions, then conferences will have a much freer hand in how they want to stage the title games.

Should FBS conferences dump divisional setup?

Yes No Depends on conference Submit Vote vote to see results

They may decide to match up the teams with the best records, thus maximizing the potential of their champions' chances of qualifying for the College Football Playoff. They also would be able to stage a title game without having 12 teams (think of the 10-team Big 12), thus eliminating the pressing need that fueled realignment in the first place.

For the fans and television executives, this is also a no-brainer. There will be more varied matchups within all conferences and theoretically the championship games would be more attractive since they won't be subject to the whimsical nature of the divisions.

It just makes too much sense. But since this is the NCAA we're talking about, the approval of the proposal is far from a sure thing.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/19957...-divisions

That's a pretty vague question.

Would I want a conference championship game if it meant we pulled in a (for example) USM, La Tech, or some school like that (note: no need to discuss the likelihood of those schools being invited, I was merely using them as an example)? Hell yeah.

Would I want a conference championship game if it meant we pulled in a (for example) Our Lady of the Smelly Flowers or Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Club university? Hell no.

I guess the championship game is a by-product. I want the right team.

I didnt vote because it wont affect WKU but if we were staying, I'd vote yes.

Was intentionally worded to keep it as simple as possible.
Doesn't say anything about adding teams in the OP question.
If you pull in this team or that team might change all sorts of things.
If you want one with what you know then it's yes.
If you are afraid that a championship game might have a nationally ranked team lose
and therefore the conference lose money, like the MAC last year or CUSA a couple of years ago, then it's probably a no vote.

If the ACC proposal passes then it will not matter about how many or what teams are in a conference for
a championship game.

Absolutely.

Exposure. Money. Interest.

Yes, with 11 or more in the conference there is no way for all teams to play each other. With a CCG, the "top" two teams could face off.

(03-17-2014 09:03 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Was intentionally worded to keep it as simple as possible.
Doesn't say anything about adding teams in the OP question.
If you pull in this team or that team might change all sorts of things.
If you want one with what you know then it's yes.
If you are afraid that a championship game might have a nationally ranked team lose
and therefore the conference lose money, like the MAC last year or CUSA a couple of years ago, then it's probably a no vote.

If the ACC proposal passes then it will not matter about how many or what teams are in a conference for
a championship game.

The short answer IS YES!

The Sun Belt Conference the past 2 seasons has improved it's on-field product, that's a fact . . .despite this, overall perception about the conference has barely changed in the minds of the majority . . . We are still viewed as the worst of the D-1 FB Conferences. Will a championship game change this perception? In and of itself, . . NO. You know what I remember about "Championship Week" this past season? Auburn springs immediately to mind . . there were some great football games, but the really glaring thing about that week, is that there were NO Sun Belt Teams playing . . . No coverage of a Sun Belt Game, No discussion about the Sun Belt Conference and what was/may have been at steak for whatever teams may have been involved in such a game . . . in short, on the National Stage, there was only the sound of SILENCE where the Sun Belt Conference was concerned ... no a Championship Game in and of itself won't change the National Perception about the Conference, but another week of coverage, another week of "Talking Heads" talking up 2 teams ready to meet in a Championship Game, can't be bad for the teams involved, and it can't be Bad for a conference working hard to change its image . . . AND so I say "BRING IT ON."

Yes, otherwise it makes no sense to have Idaho and arguably New Mexico State in the belt.

As long as the game isn't in New Orleans, yes.

(03-18-2014 08:36 AM)GSUdpb Wrote:  As long as the game isn't in New Orleans, yes.

IF we keep to what was promised, then the game would be played at the home of the team with the best record of the 2 division winners. They will have to come up with tie-breakers.

Hope they would not set up any weird tie breakers if they ever set up a championship game.
Hate it when some fluke decides the game suddenly.
----------------------------------------------------

If the NCAA gets getting law suits makes you wonder when the P5 will form a football organization outside the NCAA. Or if that would do them any good.

http://t.foxsports.msn.com/college-footb...ful-cartel

If the deregulation matter passes, we can have a title game without adding a 12th member or using divisions.

(03-18-2014 09:26 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Hope they would not set up any weird tie breakers if they ever set up a championship game.
Hate it when some fluke decides the game suddenly.
----------------------------------------------------

If the NCAA gets getting law suits makes you wonder when the P5 will form a football organization outside the NCAA. Or if that would do them any good.

http://t.foxsports.msn.com/college-footb...ful-cartel

They could need a tie-breaker to determine who goes to the CCG. If 2 teams have the same win/loss record, then I would think head to head would be enough (this is divisional so the teams in each division would have to play each other).

Also, if no divisions are needed in the future then it sucks we added Idaho and may rush into a new member just to get to 12. But if the rule stands then it was an ok move and a 12th team would still be needed.

Having one is an absolute no brainer. Getting a chance to watch your team play another game, more exposure and money for the conference as well. Unless the P5 expands the field to at least 16 teams it is not like a G5 is ever gonna make it in the playoff. So a loss to a undefeated G5 team in a tile game is really not going to make that much difference overall. Nor will it hurt conf rankings as it is a wash. I will never get folks complaining about more football. Same goes with adding more bowl games. Nobody forces anyone to attend or watch so it is asinine to complain about the amount of bowl games.

I think the tie-breaker mentioned was for determining the host site of the championship game, if played on campus. If you had two teams with identical records who didn't meet during the regular season, then what tie-breaker(s) is/are used to determine the host?

The SunBelt don't need no stinkin' championship game.

If you want a perfect example of why it's not needed, just look at the results of Sunday's championship game in basketball. And I'm a Cajun fan.

(03-18-2014 10:19 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  The SunBelt don't need no stinkin' championship game.

If you want a perfect example of why it's not needed, just look at the results of Sunday's championship game in basketball. And I'm a Cajun fan.

Apples to bricks.

(03-18-2014 10:21 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 10:19 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  The SunBelt don't need no stinkin' championship game.

If you want a perfect example of why it's not needed, just look at the results of Sunday's championship game in basketball. And I'm a Cajun fan.

Apples to bricks.

Not at all. A champion is proven over the course of the season. All that one game is good for is an upset and screwing the entire conference. Don't believe me, ask the MAC.

If it means further dilution of the conference with another FCS move up, I'll pass.

Its not worth the rpi hit (and perception hit).

(03-18-2014 10:26 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 10:21 AM)JCGSU Wrote:  

(03-18-2014 10:19 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  The SunBelt don't need no stinkin' championship game.

If you want a perfect example of why it's not needed, just look at the results of Sunday's championship game in basketball. And I'm a Cajun fan.

Apples to bricks.

Not at all. A champion is proven over the course of the season. All that one game is good for is an upset and screwing the entire conference. Don't believe me, ask the MAC.

Still not even close. Good try. The two best REGULAR season teams are in the champ. game. Since teams do not have the same exact opponents then you cant say one is better. If NIU was deserving and "better" they should have handled a fellow MAC opponent with ease. As far as basketball it is not even close. There is no chance of a bottom dweller getting lucky and or hot at the right time taking the golden ticket.