Has this been addressed yet?

[BamaGrad03 0]

What may end up being a crappy situation (looking ahead sorry)

What if UGA and AU go undefeated and AU beats UGA in reg season and loses to UGA in the SECCG? Or vice versa?

They would essentially eliminate each other from the NC game. Thats why I hate conf champ games. Until all conf get em...they arent fair.

[WarTim 3,456]

Would a team that had a loss that late in the season be in the hunt for the mnc anyway?

[stoic-one 1,548]

Probably not, but OU was last year...

[SouthLink02 8]

Conference Championship games are a very good thing, IMO.

I will never mock it and you can save that for IF UGA beat AU then lose to them in the CG.

[Thanos 0]

Nope I agree.

Let's say UGA loses again to Fla...and then loses to Auburn,and yet makes it to the SEC chamionship game to play Auburn...they beat Auburn and they're the SEC champion?????Let's say Auburn was undefeated until that point...would it feel like they were the best??(UGA) that is.?

I don't feel two teams need to play each other after a previous meeting in the year.If LSU was to have won out their remaining games after beaten by Auburn,they wouldn't get that chance to play Auburn again, simply because of where they are located.

This is about one thing only... MONEY....

[SouthLink02 8]

My response is quite simple. It's part of the schedule. If UGA had 3 losses heading into the SECCG and Auburn was undefeated (or vice-versa)....if the undefeated team lost....it lost....as losing another game during the year would hurt.

[WarTiger 3,914]

Nope I agree.

Let's say UGA loses again to Fla...and then loses to Auburn,and yet makes it to the SEC chamionship game to play Auburn...they beat Auburn and they're the SEC champion?????Let's say Auburn was undefeated until that point...would it feel like they were the best??(UGA) that is.?

I don't feel two teams need to play each other after a previous meeting in the year.If LSU was to have won out their remaining games after beaten by Auburn,they wouldn't get that chance to play Auburn again, simply because of where they are located.

This is about one thing only... MONEY....

108265[/snapback]

I completely agree. Its all about MONEY, nothing else. I've been against the championship game and the split into two divisions since it happened. I would much prefer it go back to the way it was, even if it meant a tie for the conference championship. I absolutely detest the conference having divisions..

[AUesquire 1]

Cola, where you been? We needed some pass interference call clarification yesterday and where were you??

I'm against CCGames as well. They serve no purpose other than more revenue.

[Thanos 0]

My response is quite simple. It's part of the schedule. If UGA had 3 losses heading into the SECCG and Auburn was undefeated (or vice-versa)....if the undefeated team lost....it lost....as losing another game during the year would hurt.

108271[/snapback]

But why does only a selection of 6 v/s 6...why not the best record teams play each other again?Just because you win the east or west doesn't mean you had the 1st and 2nd best records in the SEC....this is based on location...which I don't understand.

[WarTiger 3,914]

Cola, where you been?  We needed some pass interference call clarification yesterday and where were you??

I'm against CCGames as well.  They serve no purpose other than more revenue.

108277[/snapback]

I'm still around. Not here as much as i used to be. I didn't get to see the game saturday night to offer my opinion on the PI call, but did tape it and hope to watch it soon.

[quietfan 233]

Well, I say if Auburn & Georgia split the first two games between them, then the BCS shold throw out all the other rules and let the Tigers & Bulldogs both go to the Orange Bowl to have a true "best out of three" series for the MNC!

[AURainman 6]

If your not the SEC Champ, should you play for the Nat'l Championship?

[GoAU 1,600]

I don't necessarily mind the championship, if all confrences had them. What bothers me is that two teams can be undefeated, one with and one without a conf. championship game to play - obviously the team with the championship has an extra, and very difficult game left to play and the other team doesn't. Until all confrences have championships, it would only seem fair to not count that game in determining the NC. That being said - how could you justify a NC without even winning your own confrence? The answer to me is simple - either the NCAA mandates all confrences to have a championship or none of them have one.

[CCTAU 3,336]

Its only a problem in years where you have two really good teams in opposite divisions. If we were, as in the past, not good enough to be considered for a BCS game, then we would look at the SECCG as a fitting experience. Just as in most sports, the SEC is leading the way. Every conference should have a CG. That being said, if you win the SECCG and play in the BCSCG, then there is no doubt about your place as number 1. Just as in last year, the doubt was on USC, not LSU.

[Aubie7 0]

Nope I agree.

Let's say UGA loses again to Fla...and then loses to Auburn,and yet makes it to the SEC chamionship game to play Auburn...they beat Auburn and they're the SEC champion?????Let's say Auburn was undefeated until that point...would it feel like they were the best??(UGA) that is.?

I don't feel two teams need to play each other after a previous meeting in the year.If LSU was to have won out their remaining games after beaten by Auburn,they wouldn't get that chance to play Auburn again, simply because of where they are located.

This is about one thing only... MONEY....

108265[/snapback]

I completely agree. Its all about MONEY, nothing else. I've been against the championship game and the split into two divisions since it happened. I would much prefer it go back to the way it was, even if it meant a tie for the conference championship. I absolutely detest the conference having divisions..

108272[/snapback]

You would rather Auburn go back to playing UT, UAT, UGA, AND UF every year, while UAT played Vandy, Ole Miss and Kentucky!? :huh: Not me. I like the new format. You get a real champion from the SECCG. There will be times, of course, that two teams in one division are better than the winner of the other. But,this happens all the time in major league baseball.

[tiger88 934]

One good thing is now that polls play a heavier role. Before the championship game didn't count for anything if you played a team you had already beaten.

For instance, I'm guessing, that if we or uga were lucky enough to go 13-0 and beat the other team twice that would carry some weight with voters whereas it doesn't with the comp. polls. If there was 3 undefeated teams at years end and one was from a conference w/o a championship game then the champ. game could put you over the top.

[SouthLink02 8]

My response is quite simple. It's part of the schedule. If UGA had 3 losses heading into the SECCG and Auburn was undefeated (or vice-versa)....if the undefeated team lost....it lost....as losing another game during the year would hurt.

108271[/snapback]

But why does only a selection of 6 v/s 6...why not the best record teams play each other again?Just because you win the east or west doesn't mean you had the 1st and 2nd best records in the SEC....this is based on location...which I don't understand.

108278[/snapback]

But what happens if something like the Big 10 or Pac-10 happens?

Two split teams that never get to play each other? I can't stand that.

Life isn't fair and neither is college football. If a team is really the best, it will win the SECCG like it SHOULD.

[rebdawg 5]

Georgia?

I'm getting ready for La Tech.

[WarTiger 3,914]

Nope I agree.

Let's say UGA loses again to Fla...and then loses to Auburn,and yet makes it to the SEC chamionship game to play Auburn...they beat Auburn and they're the SEC champion?????Let's say Auburn was undefeated until that point...would it feel like they were the best??(UGA) that is.?

I don't feel two teams need to play each other after a previous meeting in the year.If LSU was to have won out their remaining games after beaten by Auburn,they wouldn't get that chance to play Auburn again, simply because of where they are located.

This is about one thing only... MONEY....

108265[/snapback]

I completely agree. Its all about MONEY, nothing else. I've been against the championship game and the split into two divisions since it happened. I would much prefer it go back to the way it was, even if it meant a tie for the conference championship. I absolutely detest the conference having divisions..

108272[/snapback]

You would rather Auburn go back to playing UT, UAT, UGA, AND UF every year, while UAT played Vandy, Ole Miss and Kentucky!? :huh: Not me. I like the new format. You get a real champion from the SECCG. There will be times, of course, that two teams in one division are better than the winner of the other. But,this happens all the time in major league baseball.

108334[/snapback]

that wouldn't likely happen, because when the schedules were that way, there were two less teams in the league. With 12 teams and the new rotation that began this year, just eliminate the divisions...and the SECC game.

[Aubie7 0]

Nope I agree.

Let's say UGA loses again to Fla...and then loses to Auburn,and yet makes it to the SEC chamionship game to play Auburn...they beat Auburn and they're the SEC champion?????Let's say Auburn was undefeated until that point...would it feel like they were the best??(UGA) that is.?

I don't feel two teams need to play each other after a previous meeting in the year.If LSU was to have won out their remaining games after beaten by Auburn,they wouldn't get that chance to play Auburn again, simply because of where they are located.

This is about one thing only... MONEY....

108265[/snapback]

I completely agree. Its all about MONEY, nothing else. I've been against the championship game and the split into two divisions since it happened. I would much prefer it go back to the way it was, even if it meant a tie for the conference championship. I absolutely detest the conference having divisions..

108272[/snapback]

You would rather Auburn go back to playing UT, UAT, UGA, AND UF every year, while UAT played Vandy, Ole Miss and Kentucky!? :huh: Not me. I like the new format. You get a real champion from the SECCG. There will be times, of course, that two teams in one division are better than the winner of the other. But,this happens all the time in major league baseball.

108334[/snapback]

that wouldn't likely happen, because when the schedules were that way, there were two less teams in the league. With 12 teams and the new rotation that began this year, just eliminate the divisions...and the SECC game.

108467[/snapback]

If you eliminate the divisons and then run a schedule to play everybody, the schedules will end up the same as they are now. Which means the "winner" would not have played every other team. You could also have 2 teams with no losses, in conference. My main point in the previous post ( and it was just a anyway) was that, some teams, would go back to trying to schedule Vandy, ole Miss, and Kentucky each year.

[AUloggerhead 2,246]

I'm for the conference CG. And I don't think it's all about money either. That's not to say I don't recognize the huge amount of money generated from this game, but that (the money thing) has been a result of the SEC going to split divisions and having a conference game, not the other way around. I can't say the same for the Big XII going that route, or certainly not the (new) ACC.

The reason I'm for the CCG is this: one champion is decided and it's decided on the field, not by a consensus of votes by school presidents, ADs, or polls. No more ties, no more 3-way splits like in the past, no more disputes. In 2000, Nick Saban took an 8-3 LSU team into the SECCG and beat a 10-1 UT team by 30-21. UT fans were already talking about playing for the NC before that SECCG. Can anyone say that LSU wasn't the vastly superior team and deserved the championship title? Certainly not Lulu & Junior who were at that game:

The CCG is a good thing. Besides being a moneymaker, it most definatively decides the champion on the field where it should be decided. The other conferences will be following suit very soon. First the ACC. I predict the Big Can't Count Past 10 conference will wise up and tell Notre Dame to join the conference so they can field 12 teams and their own CCG pretty soon. Some members have already said publicly that ND benefits by playing them on their schedule but the conference doesn't get a similar benefit (equal $) in return. That dog won't hunt for very long. ND will have to join or risk losing Big Ten opponents on future schedules. The Pac-10 will come around eventually. A few years ago, they were looking to add BYU and one other to expand to 12 and a conference game. They couldn't decide on a 12th. If the other major conferences all have a CCG, they won't stay on the sidelines for very long.