Should a team be punished for losing in a conference title game?

Should teams be punished for loss in conference title games?

  • yes

    Votes: 135 45.8%

  • no

    Votes: 78 26.4%

  • only if it's Bama

    Votes: 82 27.8%
  • Total voters
    295
#76
#76
Typically I’d say no in the SEC. But if it comes down to us and Bama and they’ve got 3 losses including head to head with us then we hundred percent deserve it over them. Right now they are ranked ahead of us because of the giant log jam . If they lose it gets cleared up
 
#77
#77
bpalmer28 said:
I understand what you and others with this argument saying. It seems unfair, but if you don't "punish" the loser all you're doing is delaying the inevitable. If you let the loser into the playoffs, they'll have a tough road game, and if they win they'll be right back where they were on championship game weekend - playing a great team on a neutral field - except this time, if you lose you go home.

I don't think of it as a punishment or an "extra game". It's an opportunity to avoid a road game in the playoffs. If I'm Alabama, Ole Miss, or Tennessee - I'm begging for a shot at Texas on a neutral field. Win and you avoid a road trip to Ohio State, Miami, Oregon, etc and rest up during round 1. That's well worth the risk, IMO.

You can't avoid tough games on the way to a natty... if you're a 2-loss team at the end of the regular season you're either going to play in a conference championship game where if you lose you MIGHT go home or you're going to play a road playoff game where if you lose you are DEFINITELY going home. I'm taking the conference championship game every time.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely punishing a team for coming in 2nd place in their conference if they lose but I do understand it being a "playoff" game.
 
#78
#78
Teams have to be punished for the loss. It’s the only way to avoid corruption.

Example: Miami could easily throw the conference championship game (rest all of their starters) to give the auto bid to another ACC team (who is not among the top 12) if their rank will not be affected. That’s more shared revenue for the ACC and a guaranteed home game for Miami (more revenue), since they are in the top 8 but would not have earned a bye.

Until we get rid of auto bids, we cannot have the conference loser avoiding penalty.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and OHvol40
#79
#79
Depends on how they perform, just like every other game. Cant ignore a terrible performance, cant punish a valiant performance even if it results in a loss.
 
#80
#80
Question: How much does a conference earn for each team in the 12 team CFP? Does the money go to the schools, to the conference, or a percentage/split between the two?

If the SEC earns TV revenue for the CCG, does it benefit by ditching the CCG in favor of possibly adding another team to the CFP? Richer schools=better for conference? Just asking since I don't know how the revenue works in all this.
 
#84
#84
Well, if they lose 24-23 on a last-second 60-yard FG, then no they shouldn't drop any, especially if the team they lose to is ranked above them.

If they lose 35-6 to a team ranked below them, they should drop a lot.

Basically, I think it should go into their body of work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam.vol
#85
#85
A couple of thoughts on this:

The conference (any conference, whichever conference) might not agree with the national pollsters or the CFP committee on who the second-best team in the conference is. For example, currently A&M is nationally ranked #20 in the country--below six other SEC teams! Even if they beat Texas and rise 10 spots, they could still be nationally ranked as the 4th-best team in the SEC. But according to the SEC's internal rules, they're the #2 team.

So how far should the NATIONAL (not SEC) polls let them fall if they're blown out in the SEC CG? Should they be "penalized" by falling out of the CFP slate?

The conference involved might say "no way," but the national polls/CFP committee might respond, "hey, we knew all along they weren't your second best team, regardless of how your tiebreaker rules played out."

Who's right?

I dunno. There are good arguments both ways.

But the key point is, the national playoff system is not 100% rationalized with the various conference title systems. So there are gonna be friction and logical breaks.

End result: we'll muddle through, with significant gnashing of teeth (or tooth, in Bama's case) in some quarters.

Go Vols!
 
#86
#86
Just get rid of them, increase playoff teams to 16, no byes, 1-8 seeds are home teams to start then home team is the higher ranked team.
 
Last edited:
#87
#87
As long as four teams get byes, there will need to be a way for the conferences to select their conference winner. Most have decided to do that with one final game as all teams (1) do not play each other and (2) the likelihood of multiple teams having the same conference record is high.

As such the selection committee clearly indicated that only those teams considered "champions" of a conference would be considered for the "bye". Then the other teams are at large based on ranking.

Either the rankings are used, or you throw them out the door. Expand to 16. Dictate that all teams must belong to one of the 9 conferences. Then each conference sends its champ and there are 7 at large teams selected, or you take the 7 "championship game losers" for what is considered the top conferences based on a ranking. 7 conferences get two teams, the other 2 get 1 team. Ideally if you could reduce the conferences to 8, then you could just take the top two and play the games. BUT this doesn't ensure the best 12 or 16 or whatever it is, teams will get in. Many of the better teams will be on the outside looking in.

The question becomes whether you want the 12 or 16 best teams playing for a championship or not.

The playoff games are also still trying to keep the "Bowl Games" intact - but undoubtedly the bowls are going to be less of what they were because there is no opportunity to create marquee type matches anymore.
 
#88
#88
My first reaction is no. But I definitely think there are variables. If the loss is by 20, then definitely. These championship games are meaningless now anyway. People will be playing to get seeded around them.
 
#91
#91
The outcome of a conference championship game should not cause the losing team to have a lesser ranking than they had prior to game. The winning team however should be able to move up.
 
#92
#92
I think conf champ game loser shouldn’t be knocked out of playoffs, but if it’s say- Texas - and they get beat to shreds, then they should drop a few spots - like six or seven.
 
#96
#96
I think it should be situational. If UGA loses tonight and then loses again next week, no way they deserve to be in the playoff. I don't think they lose tonight though.
 
#100
#100
DaddyChad said:
Just wondering what other Vol fans thoughts were on this subject? Personally I think a team that finishes first or second in the conference should not be punished for a loss in a conference title game. I post this likely knowing Bama will be one of the two teams in the conference title game.
Click to expand...
Every game counts in college football and when you lose matters. Teams have been punished for losing conference championship games for decades. At least now if you play a conference championship game, it gives you the opportunity at a first round bye in the playoffs. That's enough of a reward. It comes with a risk but so does the playoffs in general. If you're going to automatically qualify the losing team, you open the door for the losing team in a conference like the Big 12. That team could have 4 losses.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top