Should There Be A Pac-10 Championship Game?

Conditional Pro: Rematch? Say the Pac-10 expands (or it might not, you never know), BUT the teams don’t necessarily move into separate divisions—a legitimate possibility. This would provide the only legitimate 1st place versus 2nd place matchup of conference championship opponents.

What’s the point of this? The 2nd place team came in 2nd. Why should it have another chance to win “the conference championship” in a winner take all championship game? This cheapens the regular season too much.

If this championship game thing is to happen (and I’m not really a big fan), the division format is the way to go. The Big 12 and SEC examples where the “top three” (or even “top two”) teams reside in the same division doesn’t sway me. Disparity between divisions can be cyclical — heck, 10 to 12 years ago, the Big 12 North was considered more “dominant” because it had big bad Nebraska. If we’re going to do this championship game thing, better, IMHO, to have a “championship” game where both participants have won something (i.e., division champion).

I’m not really pumped about a championship game possibility, but I’m not steadfastly against it either. I guess I’m more ambivalent than anything else. But what the conference does need to do if it goes this route is to eliminate the full round robin (which it will have to do anyway if there’s expansion) and go back to an 8 game conference schedule. Give the conference members the one extra game to play a home game (or lucrative road game) to make some $$$ and get the conference some more wins instead of a guaranteed 5 losses from the extra conference game.

There are several different goals embedded within the question of a conference championship game, all of which have monetary consequences:

1) The Pac-10 wants to increase revenue. A championship game would allow for a consistent flow of additional money into the conference, however, I believe it significantly diminishes the chances for a second BCS team. Thus, the Pac-10 has a choice, a smaller but consistent stream of revenue, or larger but unreliable. I favour the smaller and more consistent.

2) Mr. Scott has said before, that as a reward, the championship game could be held at the #1 ranked teams home field. My question is, if this is true, after costs are ticket sales then redistributed equally amongst the conference or does the home team receive a disproportionate share as it is there home venue. If so,

3) You suggest that Cal and USC would most likely end up in the same divison. Although it makes geographic sense to pool the California schools into the same division, the northwest schools have stated concern over being disconnected from their recruiting grounds in Southern California. Hence, the zipper idea of splitting each of the regional pairs. I could foresee schools being divided between the U of’s (UW, UO, UC, UCLA, UA) and the state/private schools (WSU, OSU, Furd, USC, ASU), in addition to ensuring everyone a chance to recruit LA, the all-time winning percentages would be near the same for each conference. It also groups the smallest schools together (WSU, OSU, Furd) preventing their potential matchup in the final. Therefore, I am unsure if Cal would have to beat USC to enter the championship game.

I love the round robin, and I support a conference championship game (whether expansion occurs or not), I believe the Pac-10 should play both. It generates and maintains excitement during the season. A team that dominated early but fell off late, could hve a chance at redemption. Or a team that started slowly and finished surging could have a chance to spring an upset.

That empty stadium is irrelevant to the ESPN8 (The Ocho!) trucks that will deliver bundles of money to the Pac-100 schools. It shouldn’t be, but it is.

Also also, there used to be an interesting game where the regular season division winners of two 10 team divisions from geographically-diverse areas met in a game of national interest and import. I wonder whatever happened to it.

My heart said BOO! My brain said Yes. We also need to stop playing this high risk, low reward OOC games (OSU-TCU, OSU-BSU, Cal-Maryland).

I don’t like conference championship games.

However, it comes down to two things: money and tv-exposure. Which arguably simply means $$$.

To stay competitive against the other major conferences, the Pac-10 is going to have to do a number of things differently. Conference championship game + more scheduling of cupcake non-conference schedules are two of the easier/more obvious moves. I don’t like either of them, but we’re losing the arms race in terms of national perception. I suppose I see it as a necessary evil to move beyond the “’sc and 9 dwarves” stereotype.

I fear this stumbling towards a championship game is driven by fad and mimicry, more than analysis of interest, and reflects lack of any better ideas.

1. Will it really generate more money? I can see where an additional game could generate revenue, but what happens to the other revenue streams? That is, by reducing the importance of the regular season, will there be fewer viewers (live and TV) of regular season games? By taking out some conference games and replacing them with cream-puff games (if this is mindless mimicry of the model employed at the factory conferences), will there be reduced attendance at regular season games? I’m sure there are other costs, too, that should be taken into account.

I reckon the response is “it is doing great things for the SEC and other football-obsessed conferences, therefore it will work for the Pac-10, too. One is greater than zero, and this could be a sizable one.” I am not confident that the results apply – as is frequently noted interest along the left coast is not as strong as in the south or Mid-West, and there is some chance a championship game would dilute rather than strengthen the brand. Do we have analysis of how the basketball conference tournament has worked out? Different situation, but it might be interesting to see.

2. Will it really help get another team into the BCS? The SEC, Big 10 and Big 12 have championship games and have gotten extra BCS slots, but that doesn’t necessarily work for other conferences, conferences not in the ‘college football is religion’ belt.

I wonder if these are not the most likely scenarios: a dominant team (say, USC) plays in the championship game against a one or two loss team (say, Cal or Oregon). (At least this is how the last seven years would have looked.)

- USC wins, the extra loss at the end of the season reduces Cal or Oregon’s chances for a second BCS slot.
- Cal or Oregon wins, takes the Rose Bowl slot, and then USC is in competition with Alambama/Florida or Oklahoma/Nebraska/Texas or Penn State/Ohio State for a BCS slot. Is just-losing-on-national-TV USC a stronger candidate than the pre-championship Cal or Oregon team? May be, but not for sure.

I fear the Pac-10 will continue to face the same difficulties (location, time, culture, etc.) in getting enough national attention and rankings. That is even if an undefeated USC and undefeated Cal or Oregon face off, fear the Pac-10 loser will be called an over-rated and soft team and fall out of the BCS most years. (Yeah, I know it is a stretch to say Cal is consistently the second or third ranked team in the conference. Thanks for your patience.)

3. Is the Pac-10 really in trouble of getting squeezed out somehow by the other conferences? I’m not sure what this concern is about – are they going to grow so big that they need more lebensraum and then invade? Or is this just concern that Pac-10 won’t increase revenues as fast as the others do because the conference TV package is not as attractive?

Again, I am dubious that a single decision like expansion or championship game is going to have a game-changing effect on fundamental economics of football and rankings on the west coast.

On top of that, I am biased conservative because I value the round-robin, I don’t like the pressure to schedule cupcakes, and I think Cal and most of the conference have been doing well at supporting student athletes, helping players reach their potential, developing players for the next level, and generating exciting games and an interesting conference race. So, I think the burden lies with the conference to show how this is going to be an improvement. (And, as a casual fan, it may have already presented the info and I missed it. Or maybe the conference doesn’t know I exist.)

jh

You know I promised not to be a spiteful hating bastard but…

FUCK THIS SHIT

Here is why:

1) Pac-10 fans do not travel in enough numbers to justify a 13th game at least not in the levels of the football crazy SEC, Big-10 or Big-12 fans. Do you see Cal fans doing it? I don’t. Stanfurd? Arizona? ASU? UCLA? WSU? OSU? These teams can barely fill their own stadiums! I’d say USC, Oregon and UW are probably the only ones who could give us the numbers but 3/10 is not a good number. You are going to see an ACC level of championship game.

1b) Who the fuck wants to see a championship match between Arizona and WSU if it happens?

2) Redundancy. Most teams do not want a rematch and this is what will happen unless we expand the Pac-10 (which it’s looking a lot like it won’t happen). I don’t like a Pac-10 expansion, the reasons for which I have written elsewhere. You point out how in 2004 and 2006 Cal wanted to play USC again. But did USC? I doubt it.

3) What happens when an undefeated team from the Pac-10 takes on a (say) 3-loss team and the 3-loss team wins. Not only do we not gain much (if any) revenue from the CCG we lose money from the Rose Bowl. We are not the Big-12 and we will not get a second BCS bid.

3b) Like jake88 mentions, there is the whole perception of Pac-10 is soft which will happen if there is an upset.

4) Imagine this scenario: Cal goes undefeated and gets into the CCG. Stanfurd is a 3 loss team that sneaks in. Upset. Cal misses on Rose Bowl. Do you want this to happen? If you want this risk then you are not a true Cal fan.

Every game still matters, because you need to win constantly to secure the number 2 seed. Records of the Top 3 teams in the Pac-10 the Past Five Years:

2009
..Oregon 8-1
..Arizona 6-3
..Stanfurd 6-3
..Oregon State 6-3
If Arizona loses a game, they don’t play for the championship.

2008
..USC 8-1
..Oregon 7-2
..Oregon State 7-2
Oregon and Oregon State play the final weekend of the year to determine who gets to play USC.

2007
..USC 7-2
..Arizona State 7-2
..Oregon State 6-3
If Oregon State beats Arizona State, they play in the championship

2006
..USC 7-2
..Cal 7-2
..Oregon State 6-3
If Oregon State wins, they play in the championship.

2005
..USC 8-0
..Oregon 7-1
..UCLA 6-2
Again, one game determines the divide between 2 & 3.

Furthermore, if the Pac-10 does develop a championship game to be played on the home field of the 1-seed, the 1-seed is still incredibly valuable.

Bottom line is, adding a championship game does not diminish the value of the regular season. Every game still matters in determining who goes to the championship game, AND who gets to host that game. Having a championship game, gives teams a goal after they lost their first or second conference game of the year.

Conditional Pro: Rematch? Say the Pac-10 expands (or it might not, you never know), BUT the teams don’t necessarily move into separate divisions—a legitimate possibility.

If a conference is to have a conference championship game, the NCAA Division I Operating Manual specifically requires that a conference have at least 12 schools and be divided into two divisions with the same or nearly the same numbers of school. Further, a round robin schedule within the division is also required; there does not appear to be a concomitant requirement to schedule schools in the opposing division.

Therefore, a conference championship game would necessarily pit the Division A winner against the Division B winner. It would not be possible to have everyone within the same division and simply match the 1st place and 2nd place teams in the conference championship game.

then I am 100% opposed to any conference championship game. In that scenario it would be nothing more than a naked cash grab in a sport that has too many obvious cash grabs as it is.