No Conference Title Game = No BCS

Originally written December 1, 2007

Watching SEC, Big 12, ACC, and Big East title games on ‘Championship Saturday’, I can’t help but wonder why the Pac 10 and Big 10 get away with not having to play a final game. Ohio State gets to sit and watch after their win over Michigan. USC gets to play a rivalry game versus UCLA that everyone else played last weekend on ‘Rivalry Weekend’. Pac 10 and Big 10 have no conference title games, but still have the opportunity to play in the BCS. Every other major conference must play a game theoretically versus the second best team in their conference. It is simply not fair to the other conferences that some do not have to play a final game. If their conference is not big enough to have one, then they should expand the conference an extra team or two to create better competition in the conference.

If there were no conference title games, the national championship game would be set with Missouri versus West Virginia. The BCS should have a section of their contract saying that all conferences must have a title game if they want a chance to play in any BCS bowl. Of course, if Ohio State does play in the national championship and lose, everyone will blame it on their long layoff. Sportswriters will somehow try to blame this on the BCS because it is the easy thing to do, writing that the BCS sets the championship game too late after the season. The BCS or better yet, the NCAA should make a statement that says all teams must play a conference championship game by 2012 if they want to play in BCS bowl games. The BCS contract will be up before then, so it would be better if the NCAA made the rule.

I wonder if USC and Ohio State would have been in as many recent games for a national championship if they had to actually play for their conference championship first.