OT: Change in Football Conference Title Games?

[Goose85]

Looks like the ACC is leading the charge, along with the Big 12, to "deregulate" college football championship games.

To have a championship game now, you must have at least 12 teams and two divisions, with the division winner meeting for the title. This was one of the drivers for conferences to expand to 12, the lucrative conference championship game.

The ACC is proposing a rule change to get rid of divisions and have conference pick who they want in the title game.
I guess the ACC is tired of title games like Florida State v. Duke and Florida State v. Ga Tech.

The Big 12, with 10 teams, may get to have a title game after all, and only share the cash with 10 teams as opposed to 14.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...ason-structure

[TheSultan]

But most of the expansion to 12 and beyond recently was about expansion of geographic territory more than it was about the addition of a championship game, which has become relatively less lucrative as part of a television contract. What football fans like about this is that you can play more teams more often....and not just the same division opponents every year.

[MUMac]

But most of the expansion to 12 and beyond recently was about expansion of geographic territory more than it was about the addition of a championship game, which has become relatively less lucrative as part of a television contract. What football fans like about this is that you can play more teams more often....and not just the same division opponents every year.

The initial reason for expansion was to get the Conference Championship Game. The SEC and Big 12 saw a boom in revenue from these and the networks wanted the other major leagues to follow. the footprint, that you mention, was more for the Big 10 than any other, as they had their own TV Network. They wanted to have members in the different geographical territory to be able to charge the premium $ to the cable systems. $ to the league. The others expanded for TV reasons, but not necessarily geographical.

[TheSultan]

The initial reason for expansion was to get the Conference Championship Game. The SEC and Big 12 saw a boom in revenue from these and the networks wanted the other major leagues to follow. the footprint, that you mention, was more for the Big 10 than any other, as they had their own TV Network. They wanted to have members in the different geographical territory to be able to charge the premium $ to the cable systems. $ to the league. The others expanded for TV reasons, but not necessarily geographical.

Yes you are correct. My larger point is that the motivation to move to 12 to get a conference championship game was a lot greater 20 years ago than it is now.

[Goose85]

Yes you are correct. My larger point is that the motivation to move to 12 to get a conference championship game was a lot greater 20 years ago than it is now.

That was the big driving factor for the Big 10 to add Nebraska.

Nebraska itself didn't add more money to the pot, probably a negative. But adding Nebraska and a Big 10 championship game was big money for the conference, and they really wanted the "prestige" of having a conference championship game.

Rutgers and Maryland were for added tv / cable money and new markets.

Pac 10 now 12 did the same, added Utah and Colorado so they could have a championship game. Adding Utah didn't bring in millions nor did adding Colorado. But adding the championship game more than made up for it.

Only conference now without the championship game is Big 12, and if they can have one in the future, no need to add anyone that doesn't bring in a ton of money by themselves.

[TheSultan]

That was the big driving factor for the Big 10 to add Nebraska.

Nebraska itself didn't add more money to the pot, probably a negative. But adding Nebraska and a Big 10 championship game was big money for the conference, and they really wanted the "prestige" of having a conference championship game.

I'm sorry, but that was not the primary reason for adding Nebraska. If the Big Ten was so interested in the revenue for a championship game, why did they stay at 11 schools for 20 years? They could have added Missouri or Rutgers at anytime during that timeframe, but never did.

They added Nebraska to add another traditional power, which brings eyeballs to television sets, and because they can charge a premium rate for the BTN in Nebraska.

[Goose85]

I'm sorry, but that was not the primary reason for adding Nebraska. If the Big Ten was so interested in the revenue for a championship game, why did they stay at 11 schools for 20 years? They could have added Missouri or Rutgers at anytime during that timeframe, but never did.

They added Nebraska to add another traditional power, which brings eyeballs to television sets, and because they can charge a premium rate for the BTN in Nebraska.

Possible, but I disagree. TV money for championship games was not what it is now, or has been over the past 5 years. The TV money for a championship game is probably more than what BTN cable fee increase in Nebraska is worth. Alvarez used to complain about others getting a big game opportunity after the Big 10 was done, hurting prestige and possible BCS chances.

That combination, plus what looked to be the falling apart of the Big 12, as many did not care for the Big 12 financial arrangements, made it a great time to pluck Nebraska.

[MUMac]

The real reason for the expansion was because Nebraska fit in culturally with the Big 10 with academics and research ...

Sultan and Goose are both right. TV is the answer to both. The conference needed the 12th program for the football championship. Nebraska brought in a football name and was a good fit for that reason. As for the cable subscriptions adding Nebraska, not so much. That footprint is not that impressive. If that were the answer, they would have swallowed up Mizzou at any chance they could have gotten. Mizzou added St. Louis and Kansas City to the cable platform. Nebraska does not add much. Omaha is nice, but it certainly does not equal St. Louis and Kansas City.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=4745381

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Wouldn't want to have teams actually earn the right to play in the conference championship game when you can just line up the two biggest eyeball draws every year. Cue the national FSU/Miami, Michigan/OSU, and USC/Oregon games

[Goose85]

Wouldn't want to have teams actually earn the right to play in the conference championship game when you can just line up the two biggest eyeball draws every year. Cue the national FSU/Miami, Michigan/OSU, and USC/Oregon games

Yes they would, but a conference could determine the rules for who gets to play instead of having two divisions with the division champs going.

Conferences would likey make the rule that the two highest ranked BCS teams will play. This would give the winner a big boost in the BCS type poll and a better shot at an invite to the playoffs.

ACC is trying to avoid having a top 5 Florida State team having to play a .500 team just because they won a weak division or were third in a division that had two schools on NCAA probation.

Another benefit is it would get rid of the divisions, so you would not have to play a set group of teams each year, thus allowing schools to play everyone in their conference both home and away over a four year period (not the case now).