I personally think a Championship game is a good thing. At least for us "bubble" conferences. By bubble I mean both bottom of P5 and top of G5. I can see how it would hurt SEC especially when a "committee" chooses the players. But when the SEC is going to get favoritism I think it helps us to have two undefeated teams or near undefeated teams playing a championship so that there's no way they can deny the winner a slot.

What say you?

I like Championship games, but hosted only at the highest ranked teams stadium.

"The American" will have to get to 12 teams first. 2015 should be the first one and until then it's all academic.

Always a championship game i despise shared titles, like last years 4 conference champions in the BE, how is half the conference the champion.....

Having another quality win will also be an asset to the AAC champ when they are fighting for the Access Bowl slot.

2nd or 3rd in your division sounds better than 5th in your conference.

(10-08-2013 05:35 PM)PGPirate Wrote:  I like Championship games, but hosted only at the highest ranked teams stadium.

This. We should also do away with the stupid "no home field advantage" stipulations that conferences want to put in place.

I would only favor a championship if it means more money from our TV partners.

Otherwise why risk our undefeated conference champion getting knocked out by 7-5 division winner looking for an upset? Upsets happen all the time in college football so I'd hate to put at risk the chance lose a potential conference shot at a playoff game.

In addition, adding a conference championship could be a bargaining chip for our next TV contract...so why would we give it away for free?

A championship game would be a good idea for the AAC, though only if it's at a home stadium. We've seen how the ACC and Big Ten have drawn mediocre crowds (in comparison to the SEC) in recent years, it wouldn't be a good idea to try and find a neutral site to compromise between the diverse locations of your conference. What if the championship game were held between Tulane and Temple in a geographically central location like Nashville? It wouldn't be good for the box office numbers, and it wouldn't project well to the college football audience as a whole.

Now it's not like I can talk too much, the MAC brings fairly sparse crowds to Ford Field every year (has ranged between 25,000 and 12,000 since we started in 2004) and it'll stay that way unless we have a game between BG and EMU/Toledo. Nevertheless, weather is an issue for every MAC school, whereas it would only be for about a third of the AAC.

(10-08-2013 07:25 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  A championship game would be a good idea for the AAC, though only if it's at a home stadium. We've seen how the ACC and Big Ten have drawn mediocre crowds (in comparison to the SEC) in recent years, it wouldn't be a good idea to try and find a neutral site to compromise between the diverse locations of your conference. What if the championship game were held between Tulane and Temple in a geographically central location like Nashville? It wouldn't be good for the box office numbers, and it wouldn't project well to the college football audience as a whole.

Now it's not like I can talk too much, the MAC brings fairly sparse crowds to Ford Field every year (has ranged between 25,000 and 12,000 since we started in 2004) and it'll stay that way unless we have a game between BG and EMU/Toledo. Nevertheless, weather is an issue for every MAC school, whereas it would only be for about a third of the AAC.

Snow at UConn would be good tv.

As of today, the AAC plans to have a championship game in 2015 at the home of the highest ranked division winner.

(10-08-2013 07:43 PM)flyintiger Wrote:  

(10-08-2013 07:25 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  A championship game would be a good idea for the AAC, though only if it's at a home stadium. We've seen how the ACC and Big Ten have drawn mediocre crowds (in comparison to the SEC) in recent years, it wouldn't be a good idea to try and find a neutral site to compromise between the diverse locations of your conference. What if the championship game were held between Tulane and Temple in a geographically central location like Nashville? It wouldn't be good for the box office numbers, and it wouldn't project well to the college football audience as a whole.

Now it's not like I can talk too much, the MAC brings fairly sparse crowds to Ford Field every year (has ranged between 25,000 and 12,000 since we started in 2004) and it'll stay that way unless we have a game between BG and EMU/Toledo. Nevertheless, weather is an issue for every MAC school, whereas it would only be for about a third of the AAC.

Snow at UConn would be good tv.

The AAC can either play at a half-full NFL stadium (indoors/theoretically decent weather) or play on-campus, where you run the risk of crappy December weather if the game is played at a northern AAC school. If you chose a neutral location like Houston or Tampa, you would catch lightning in a bottle occasionally and fill the stands with plenty of local fans. In some years you would risk drawing MAC-like crowds if you had division winners that are far away and didn't travel well in the first place, just putting that out there.

The MAC loses the on-campus atmosphere (and potentially higher attendance numbers) by playing in Detroit, but we have to since we would otherwise risk a disaster where only 5,000 are on hand to watch EMU play UMass in a blizzard. Fortunately our geographic footprint is close enough together that even our small fan bases will always send a loyal contingent of fans to Ford Field with the guarantee of indoor football, even if it means mediocre attendance. It's low risk, low reward when no Michigan team makes it to Ford Field.

I voted no just because fewer teams allows teams to play more often, which is important for a new conference in building tradition and history between programs. Ideally when Louisville and Rutgers left we would have only added ECU and Navy.

I like the championship game. However, consider a Top 10 and undefeated AAC team that is defeat by 11-1, 10-2 0r 9-3 AAC team. That would better much kill the AAC winner chance for a good bowl and high ranking in today's environment. I 'm not saying the AAC's image will not improve at later date, but right now this is a real concern.

(10-09-2013 04:01 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  I like the championship game. However, consider a Top 10 and undefeated AAC team that is defeat by 11-1, 10-2 0r 9-3 AAC team. That would better much kill the AAC winner chance for a good bowl and high ranking in today's environment. I 'm not saying the AAC's image will not improve at later date, but right now this is a real concern.

Then win the game. There is just as much potential for the winner to get propelled into a "higher" bowl, as there is losing and going to a "lower" bowl.

I would agree to a championship game between the winner of the MW vs winner of the AAC. But just an AAC championship game...naw.

(10-09-2013 08:15 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I would agree to a championship game between the winner of the MW vs winner of the AAC. But just an AAC championship game...naw.

See, that's a logical and good idea, which means it will never happen.

Love the Championship game and DESPISE Bye Weeks.

(10-08-2013 05:48 PM)FuzzyHasek Wrote:  Always a championship game i despise shared titles, like last years 4 conference champions in the BE, how is half the conference the champion.....

That reminds me of a funny story.

I knew a TCU fan who pointed out on a few occasions how the Frogs should've been taken seriously as a major contender for the Big XII merger in 1996 ("instead of TT or Baylor"), and how the Frogs' exile to the WAC was so horribly unjust. I thought TCU had mostly-sucked in the 30-40 years before Franchione arrived, and said that may have had something to do with it. The TCU guy said, no that's not true: "We won the SWC championship the year before it folded."

I knew I didn't remember TCU winning anything in those days, so later on I looked up the standings. He was referring to the 1994 season:

1. Texas A&M (6-0-1 conference record, 10-0-1 overall; ineligible for bowl game or conference title due to NCAA sanctions)
2. Texas (4-3, 8-4, defeated North Carolina in Sun Bowl)
3. Baylor (4-3, 7-5, lost Alamo Bowl to Washington State)
4. TCU (4-3, 7-5, lost Independence Bowl to Virginia)
5. Texas Tech (4-3, 6-6, lost Cotton Bowl to Southern Cal)
6. Rice (4-3, 5-6)
7. Houston (1-6, 1-10)
8. SMU (0-6-1, 1-9-1)

So, to recap. The SWC had one clearly dominant team, but it was on probation (No surprise there) and therefore could not claim the official "conference championship". Five of the other 7 teams all tied for second place with 4-3-0 conference records, and each was proclaimed "co-champion" of the SWC. And somewhere out there, a purple Toad was (is?) telling people that TCU was a major player in the closing years of SWC football.

Oh, and did you notice, SMU tied the Aggies that year. 21-21 in San Antonio. That had to be the highlight of the Tom Rossley era. Although the Ponies did beat TCU a couple of times under him, too.

(10-08-2013 05:48 PM)FuzzyHasek Wrote:  Always a championship game i despise shared titles, like last years 4 conference champions in the BE, how is half the conference the champion.....

Yeah...that was one of the reasons why the Big East Conf "race" was a joke...because with only 8 teams playing just 7 conf games, you ended up with champions like these

2010 Big East Football Champions:
UCONN 5-2
WVU 5-2
Pitt 5-2


2011 Big East Football Champions:
Cincinnati 5-2
WVU 5-2
Louisville 5-2


2012 Big East Football Champions:
Louisville 5-2
Cincinnati 5-2
Rutgers 5-2
Syracuse 5-2

Big East Football...when 37% - 50% are considered "Champions"...that is just likee Little League...were everyone gets one of these:



There's very good reasons why conf with 12 or more teams have Conf Championship Games....as they help build up Divisional Races...and then a Conf Championship Game...were only ONE team EARNS that cherished title.