AAC and MWC shouldn't have championship games. Here's why:

1) It will usually have a negative effect on the odds of getting a team in the Access Bowl. The committee can only choose conference champions to be in the access bowl. Take this year as an example: if there was no championship game in the MWC, the debate would be between CSU and Boise. But because they have a championship game, if Boise loses both are disqualified.

2) Ratings. Boise plays Fresno at 10 pm Eastern this Saturday. Everyone will be watching KSU-Baylor (7:45), FSU-GT (8), or OSU-Wisconsin (8:17). Some people might catch the very end of Boise-Fresno, but they'd do that no matter who Boise played this week. You can't tell me that the ratings for the MWC championship are better than moving a whole slate of games to the weekend when the SEC, ACC, PAC, and Big 10 don't play.

If the AAC had a championship this weekend, when would it be? It would probably get about the same ratings as the UC-Houston game will this weekend. But since the AAC doesn't have a championship game, we get several timeslots all to ourselves. The American has 2 of the only three noon games on Saturday, the only 7:30 game on Saturday (so at least people might watch the start of that), and the only Thursday night game.

How do you make up the revenue from some of the deals they have in place with CBS for those CCG's? Just cross your fingers that you are the highest ranked team despite playing only a 12 game schedule?

The MW likes having the CCG. It's extra TV revenue (and also ticket revenue) that the MW wouldn't be getting without it. This year, with Fresno playing, I don't think the risk is really there for BSU.

But sure, there could be the risk of the team with a better record losing but doesn't seem to stop all of the other conferences from not having one.

I bet back in 2011, the MW wishes there was a CCG so that BSU could possibly have a rematch against TCU to count as the champion. BSU still had a top 12 ranking but becasue TCU beat them and won the MW title, they could be counted for the BCS bowl.

(12-01-2014 03:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The MW likes having the CCG. It's extra TV revenue (and also ticket revenue) that the MW wouldn't be getting without it. This year, with Fresno playing, I don't think the risk is really there for BSU.

But sure, there could be the risk of the team with a better record losing but doesn't seem to stop all of the other conferences from not having one.

I bet back in 2011, the MW wishes there was a CCG so that BSU could possibly have a rematch against TCU to count as the champion. BSU still had a top 12 ranking but becasue TCU beat them and won the MW title, they could be counted for the BCS bowl.

This year the AAC places all tiebreakers in the hands of the committee. If they have the same record, the team with the highest ranking by the playoff committee is considered the champion.

(12-01-2014 03:11 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  How do you make up the revenue from some of the deals they have in place with CBS for those CCG's? Just cross your fingers that you are the highest ranked team despite playing only a 12 game schedule?

It's called 'Taking the Big 12 approach'.

Also known as, 'One True Champion'*

*Unless we think it helps to have co-champions, then we'll just pass the buck to someone else to decide.

(12-01-2014 03:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-01-2014 03:28 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The MW likes having the CCG. It's extra TV revenue (and also ticket revenue) that the MW wouldn't be getting without it. This year, with Fresno playing, I don't think the risk is really there for BSU.

But sure, there could be the risk of the team with a better record losing but doesn't seem to stop all of the other conferences from not having one.

I bet back in 2011, the MW wishes there was a CCG so that BSU could possibly have a rematch against TCU to count as the champion. BSU still had a top 12 ranking but becasue TCU beat them and won the MW title, they could be counted for the BCS bowl.

This year the AAC places all tiebreakers in the hands of the committee. If they have the same record, the team with the highest ranking by the playoff committee is considered the champion.

Except that year, TCU was 8-0 and the clear cut conference champ. In 2012, there was 3 co-champs but BSU had an 11-1 record...so maybe the committee may have chosen them despite sharing the title 3 ways.

It doesn't make much difference at the G5 level. A championship game seems to make the regular season more interesting---so, I'd keep it. It downside (eliminated runner up and upset possibility) are as strong as it's up side (provides champ with an extra victory over a solid G5 opponent). Most of the time I think the game won't affect the AAC champ at all, so the fact it makes the conference race more interesting is worth the occasional upset.