It’s Time To Scrap Conference Championship Games

There are some who will tell you that the College Football Playoff has killed the regular season. I don’t particularly agree with that assessment because I co-hosted postgame shows after Ohio State’s losses to Oregon and Michigan last year and I can tell you that things sure felt pretty important at the time.

And, really, “at the time” is what matters because that’s where the emotion is.

There are also those who will tell you that any change with the CFP is going to kill this or that, but the only thing that ends up dying is the argument against change.

Very soon, the CFP is going to move to 16 teams, but one of the holdups at the moment is how those 16 teams are decided. The Big Ten and SEC floated the idea of having each of their conferences guaranteed four spots, while the Big XII and ACC were each guaranteed two spots, leaving one spot for the highest Group of Six team, and three at-large selections (aka “4-4-2-2-1”).

The Big XII and ACC have pushed back against this and have put support behind the five highest-rated conference champs and then 11 at-large teams. There is reportedly now some growing support from the SEC for this alignment, though it is important to note that the support is coming from the head coaches, who want the easiest path to the playoffs rather than the most compelling.

Rest assured, if you are a fan of being overrun by uninteresting non-conference games in the month of September, then you’re hoping the 5+11 model gets accepted. This is the path of least resistance.

And if you love the fact that the SEC only plays eight conference games, then, again, you’re gonna love 5+11.

So yeah, it’s easy to see why the SEC coaches want 5+11. It’s also easy to see why the athletic directors came out against it early on: it leaves a bunch of money on the table. And while the love of money is the root of all college football evil, that doesn’t mean it can’t also produce a more-interesting product.

If the CFP doesn’t go to a 4-4-2-2-1 model, then the SEC has no incentivized security to go to a ninth conference game. It also gives the conference no reason to join the Big Ten in a scheduling alliance. Disney, meanwhile, would always side with more — both the ninth conference game and having Big Ten games they could air on their networks.

The best solution moving forward would be to create more regular season games of national interest, which the 4-4-2-2-1 would do.

If Ohio State wants to stop having all of their biggest home games at Noon, then it would behoove them to be part of a conference that is secure in scheduling more big games.

Neither the SEC or Big Ten seems intent on doing this in mass numbers when a loss could knock a team out of an at-large spot in the playoffs. After all, if everybody is trying to create the surest path, why would anybody make that path more difficult?

With four teams from each conference baked in, however, a loss out of conference may not even affect a team’s chances at the CFP.

Programs would be more willing to create interesting matchups — especially if they have no say in the matter.

Of course, I thought expanding the playoffs to four teams and then 12 teams would lead to programs scheduling better non-conference games, but that didn’t really happen. Seemingly, the only way to make it happen is to force it to happen.

Is there a large segment of college football fans (or networks) that would be opposed to seeing an annual scheduling agreement between the Big Ten and the SEC?

Thirty years ago, the majority of non-conference games were between teams in the major conferences. Back then, the focus was on winning the conference, so a loss in the non-conference didn’t hinder that main goal. The move to the BCS and then the CFP changed the focus.

If it takes giving the Big Ten and the SEC a guaranteed eight spots that they would have likely landed anyway, isn’t that an acceptable tradeoff for a better regular season product?

Because if the CFP moves to 5+11, they may as well call that “status quo.” There will be no incentive for anything but winning enough games to make it into the top 16. Which means the incentive for more schools to create interesting non-conference games will be nil.

But I have a better plan, and it involves getting rid of conference championship games.

This idea is already being discussed by some conferences, but it is also tied into a new system of “play-in” games for conference teams.

One of the ideas the Big Ten and SEC have kicked around is for the top two teams to play each other in a conference championship game, and then the No. 3 team in the conference to host the No. 6 team, and the No. 4 team to host the No. 5 team. The winners of those two games would then round out the four autobids for the Big Ten or SEC.

I don’t think anybody doubts the excitement that a weekend like that would bring, but I think it is time to move on from the conference championship games.

Last year was only a one-year sample size, but the five conference champions in last year’s CFP went 0-5. What exactly is the incentive to win your conference again?

The straight seeding this year will attempt to eliminate the mess of last year, but the question remains — what is the benefit of winning a conference championship game? And what is the punishment of losing a conference championship game?

All eight teams that played in the four major conference championship games last year made the playoff. Nobody was actually punished for losing the game.

So again, what is the point of the game?

If you want to make finishing in the top two of the Big Ten or SEC a benefit, maybe give them the week off instead?

Conferences decided league champs for a hundred years without a championship game. They can go back to reading the standings in the newspaper on Sunday to figure out who won the conference like they used to do.

While the conferences are contractually obligated to provide championship games to certain networks, the fact that they’re even talking about it tells you they can get out of it. (And don’t worry, those NFL stadiums that will no longer have conference championship games won’t go out of business.)

Yes, FOX would lose the Big Ten Championship Game, but last year they would have gained two play-in games with actual stakes instead. Again, what’s the problem here?

Last year, instead of Penn State and Oregon in Indianapolis, the Big Ten could have had Iowa at Indiana and Illinois at Ohio State to keep their playoff hopes alive.

The SEC — instead of Georgia and Texas — could have had South Carolina at Tennessee and Ole Miss at Alabama.

All playoff games.

As for the Big XII and the ACC, if they want four guaranteed playoff teams, my plan gives that to them. Have No. 1 host No. 4, and No. 2 host No. 3. Winners take all.

Because, you see, all “play-in games” are actually playoff games.

Instead of 4-4-2-2-1, which the ACC and Big XII feel is unfair to them, my plan is actually 6-6-4-4-1. Doesn’t that seem a little friendlier?

If you are playing in a play-in game, you are controlling your own postseason destiny. If that’s not the playoffs, I don’t know what is.

And as long as you’re not playing the games in Dayton, you don’t even ever have to use the words “play-in.”

For the ACC last year, that would have meant Syracuse at SMU and Clemson at Miami. In the Big XII, it would have been Colorado at Arizona State and BYU at Iowa State.

How does this not sound better?

And even if you lose, there are still three at-large berths. For some top-rated ACC or Big XII team, the CFP could actually become double-elimination. Or, they’ll just go bowling like they always have.

There would still be drama as everyone waits on the Sunday after “Championship Weekend” to see who the final two or three at-large teams end up being.

At least two teams that lost the day or night before will still make it in, but that’s a lot better than the four who lost last year that still made up a third of the CFP invites.

There is a path forward that produces more intriguing games with higher stakes, as well as possibly higher television ratings and certainly more ad revenue.

And after all, isn’t it time we started thinking about the television ratings and ad revenue?!

If you want to make the regular season more important, make the week-to-week standings more important.

An Iowa fan wouldn’t just focus on Iowa, but about five other teams as well.

November football would never be more important than under this plan. Imagine watching half of a conference living and dying with not just their own results, but everybody else’s as well.

December football would never be more important either, which is the entire point.

It’s time to move on to a different kind of cash grab.

One that actually rewards the entire regular season in the process.

Go to discussion...