The Joke that IS the Unbalanced Schedule

[CDAGRIZ]

Of course those conferences are split into divisions, and even if one division is stronger, there is a pretty good chance that whichever team wins that division will win the championship, but even if not, they get to decide on the field. So, a much better setup than what the BSC has, and I know, they can't even do it that way anyhow.

I think the top 2 or even 3 SEC teams are sometimes from the same division. LSU and Alabama, West, are nos. 1 and 2 in top 25. Florida and Georgia, East, are in top 10 too. Auburn, West, behind them at 11, with losses to Florida and LSU. Florida plays Georgia this weekend.

Even if that is the case, didn't whomever win that division play them? And then even if the other division winner is considered weaker, don't they play on the field to determine the Champ?

Not sure what you are trying to say, but often the 2 best SEC teams are not playing for the conference championship. Reason is unbalanced schedules.

I think it's funny that some of you think a conference championship from 2 divisions makes up for the unbalanced schedule thing. While it may improve things, but it sure doesn't solve the "non-problem".

I hear what you're saying, PR. If you beat everyone, it doesn't matter. I do think a conference championship game settles things in those unbalanced FBS conferences, though. Not always perfect; but better.

 

[grizindabox]

Not sure what you are trying to say, but often the 2 best SEC teams are not playing for the conference championship. Reason is unbalanced schedules.

I think it's funny that some of you think a conference championship from 2 divisions makes up for the unbalanced schedule thing. While it may improve things, but it sure doesn't solve the "non-problem".

So you are assuming that the 2 best teams can be in the same division so they don't play in the Conference Championship game, which would be true, but it would also be true that they would have already played...an actual game. If you are trying to say that the second best team is in the other division, but doesn't get into the Championship game, then just maybe they aren't the second best team since they would have lost to the team that got to the Championship game from that division. It is true that some teams don't play, but I would suggest that you can not find a single example of a conference with a Championship game, didn't have the 2 best teams play during a season.

 

[PlayerRep]

Not sure what you are trying to say, but often the 2 best SEC teams are not playing for the conference championship. Reason is unbalanced schedules.

I think it's funny that some of you think a conference championship from 2 divisions makes up for the unbalanced schedule thing. While it may improve things, but it sure doesn't solve the "non-problem".

So you are assuming that the 2 best teams can be in the same division so they don't play in the Conference Championship game, which would be true, but it would also be true that they would have already played...an actual game. If you are trying to say that the second best team is in the other division, but doesn't get into the Championship game, then just maybe they aren't the second best team since they would have lost to the team that got to the Championship game from that division. It is true that some teams don't play, but I would suggest that you can not find a single example of a conference with a Championship game, didn't have the 2 best teams play during a season.

My point is that the 2 best teams should play in the conf championship. They often don't. What's the point of a conf championship if the 2 best teams don't play? No. 1 against no. 3? What's with that? No. 1 against no. 4? What's with that?

Why don't you look up the last 10 SEC, Big 10 and Pac-12 championship games, and see if your theory is correct. I bet it isn't. My billing rate is between $500 and $1,000 an hour. I don't have time to do your homework for you.

 

[PlayerRep]

I think the top 2 or even 3 SEC teams are sometimes from the same division. LSU and Alabama, West, are nos. 1 and 2 in top 25. Florida and Georgia, East, are in top 10 too. Auburn, West, behind them at 11, with losses to Florida and LSU. Florida plays Georgia this weekend.

Even if that is the case, didn't whomever win that division play them? And then even if the other division winner is considered weaker, don't they play on the field to determine the Champ?

Not sure what you are trying to say, but often the 2 best SEC teams are not playing for the conference championship. Reason is unbalanced schedules.

I think it's funny that some of you think a conference championship from 2 divisions makes up for the unbalanced schedule thing. While it may improve things, but it sure doesn't solve the "non-problem".

I hear what you're saying, PR. If you beat everyone, it doesn't matter. I do think a conference championship game settles things in those unbalanced FBS conferences, though. Not always perfect; but better.

It helps, but it doesn't work when the top 2 or 3 teams are in one division.

 

[CDAGRIZ]

Even if that is the case, didn't whomever win that division play them? And then even if the other division winner is considered weaker, don't they play on the field to determine the Champ?

Not sure what you are trying to say, but often the 2 best SEC teams are not playing for the conference championship. Reason is unbalanced schedules.

I think it's funny that some of you think a conference championship from 2 divisions makes up for the unbalanced schedule thing. While it may improve things, but it sure doesn't solve the "non-problem".

I hear what you're saying, PR. If you beat everyone, it doesn't matter. I do think a conference championship game settles things in those unbalanced FBS conferences, though. Not always perfect; but better.

It helps, but it doesn't work when the top 2 or 3 teams are in one division.

For sure. And if that happened over a period of time, there would likely be re-alignment, like the SEC did upon expansion in 2011 or 2012(?). Idk, maybe the BSC has it exactly right, or maybe it could take a look at it to improve things.

 

[PlayerRep]

Not sure what you are trying to say, but often the 2 best SEC teams are not playing for the conference championship. Reason is unbalanced schedules.

I think it's funny that some of you think a conference championship from 2 divisions makes up for the unbalanced schedule thing. While it may improve things, but it sure doesn't solve the "non-problem".

I hear what you're saying, PR. If you beat everyone, it doesn't matter. I do think a conference championship game settles things in those unbalanced FBS conferences, though. Not always perfect; but better.

It helps, but it doesn't work when the top 2 or 3 teams are in one division.

For sure. And if that happened over a period of time, there would likely be re-alignment, like the SEC did upon expansion in 2011 or 2012(?). Idk, maybe the BSC has it exactly right, or maybe it could take a look at it to improve things.

With the playoffs and number of games allowed in FCS, and period of time allowed, the conference can't do a conference championship. There isn't time. I suppose the conference could decide to play one less less game each season, and then save a weekend for the conf championship. Who would want to do that?

 

[CDAGRIZ]

I hear what you're saying, PR. If you beat everyone, it doesn't matter. I do think a conference championship game settles things in those unbalanced FBS conferences, though. Not always perfect; but better.

It helps, but it doesn't work when the top 2 or 3 teams are in one division.

For sure. And if that happened over a period of time, there would likely be re-alignment, like the SEC did upon expansion in 2011 or 2012(?). Idk, maybe the BSC has it exactly right, or maybe it could take a look at it to improve things.

With the playoffs and number of games allowed in FCS, and period of time allowed, the conference can't do a conference championship. There isn't time. I suppose the conference could decide to play one less less game each season, and then save a weekend for the conf championship. Who would want to do that?

Probably nobody would want to do that. It’s a shit fucking sandwich that we all have to accept. If the Griz get back to beating everyone in the BSC, then, it’s not our problem.

 

[Mousegriz]

I think the top 2 or even 3 SEC teams are sometimes from the same division. LSU and Alabama, West, are nos. 1 and 2 in top 25. Florida and Georgia, East, are in top 10 too. Auburn, West, behind them at 11, with losses to Florida and LSU. Florida plays Georgia this weekend.

Even if that is the case, didn't whomever win that division play them? And then even if the other division winner is considered weaker, don't they play on the field to determine the Champ?

Player Rep doesn't follow FBS. Griz beating the Cats and making the FCS playoffs are the only important things in college football.

I don't follow FBS, but my son is an SEC expert. Goes to Georgia games frequently. Went to a game at Tennessee this year. Goes to college in the southeast. Our family follows Georgia. We go to Athens every 2 or 3 years for a game, and went to the 2018 Rose Bowl to see Georgia. But you are right. I follow mainly Montana and Dartmouth, and the FCS. I love the playoffs. I used to love going to Chattanooga. Staying at the team hotel for several days, and seeing all the mingling. Seeing and sometimes talking to the Payton Award finalists who often stayed at the same hotel.

Dartmouth beating Harvard and Princeton the next two weekends is important. I saw Dartmouth beat Yale a few weeks ago. Will be in Yankee stadium for the Princeton game in 2 weeks.

Do you mainly follow NAIA basketball?

I follow most sports. Love FBS games on weekends much more than NFL. NFL is getting crazy with the reffing and replay situations. Seems every good offensive play runs the risk of being called back by a hold or some other penalty. Often wonder what London fans think of NFL compared to soccer. Soccer clock runs continually and game can flow for 10 or 15 minutes with very little disruption. Not so much with NFL.

I follow Griz and Big Sky in most sports. Went to Chattanooga and Huntington a few times back in the day. Didn't sniff any jocks at the team hotel but did watch the Griz win it all once. Only stayed one or two nights when I went to those games.... not several. Staying "several" seems kind of creepy for a 3 hour football game. I did see a Payton award finalist once but wasn't brave enough to talk to him.

NAIA bball also pretty fun to watch. Carroll gave Lady Griz a good game last night. I have a friend who has a relative on the Carroll team so went to the game to watch her play. Met Shannon Cate once. She was a Kodak All American when she played for the Lady Griz back in the day. Almost like a Payton Award finalist.

Don't follow the Ivy League much. Aren't they one of only two FCS conferences that don't play in the FCS playoffs? I'm like you, I love the FCS playoffs. Part of the reason the Ivy doesn't interest me. Why watch an Ivy game when you know the teams playing will never buck up and try out the playoffs? How can there be "important" Ivy games when there are never playoff implications? Winning the conference must be the crowning achievement for the Ivy.....and yet you argue that it shouldn't mean anything to BSC teams or fans.

 

[grizindabox]

Not sure what you are trying to say, but often the 2 best SEC teams are not playing for the conference championship. Reason is unbalanced schedules.

I think it's funny that some of you think a conference championship from 2 divisions makes up for the unbalanced schedule thing. While it may improve things, but it sure doesn't solve the "non-problem".

So you are assuming that the 2 best teams can be in the same division so they don't play in the Conference Championship game, which would be true, but it would also be true that they would have already played...an actual game. If you are trying to say that the second best team is in the other division, but doesn't get into the Championship game, then just maybe they aren't the second best team since they would have lost to the team that got to the Championship game from that division. It is true that some teams don't play, but I would suggest that you can not find a single example of a conference with a Championship game, didn't have the 2 best teams play during a season.

My point is that the 2 best teams should play in the conf championship. They often don't. What's the point of a conf championship if the 2 best teams don't play? No. 1 against no. 3? What's with that? No. 1 against no. 4? What's with that?

Why don't you look up the last 10 SEC, Big 10 and Pac-12 championship games, and see if your theory is correct. I bet it isn't. My billing rate is between $500 and $1,000 an hour. I don't have time to do your homework for you.

How often do the perceived two best teams play for the FCS championship....or meet in the BSC basketball Championship....or how often do all the #1 seeds advance to the final 4...you see, that is kind of the thing about Championship games, more times than not, the perceived two best teams don't both find themselves in them, because, you know, they lost. I guess you have a problem with all those also.

 

[PlayerRep]

Not sure what you are trying to say, but often the 2 best SEC teams are not playing for the conference championship. Reason is unbalanced schedules.

I think it's funny that some of you think a conference championship from 2 divisions makes up for the unbalanced schedule thing. While it may improve things, but it sure doesn't solve the "non-problem".

So you are assuming that the 2 best teams can be in the same division so they don't play in the Conference Championship game, which would be true, but it would also be true that they would have already played...an actual game. If you are trying to say that the second best team is in the other division, but doesn't get into the Championship game, then just maybe they aren't the second best team since they would have lost to the team that got to the Championship game from that division. It is true that some teams don't play, but I would suggest that you can not find a single example of a conference with a Championship game, didn't have the 2 best teams play during a season.

My point is that the 2 best teams should play in the conf championship. They often don't. What's the point of a conf championship if the 2 best teams don't play? No. 1 against no. 3? What's with that? No. 1 against no. 4? What's with that?

Why don't you look up the last 10 SEC, Big 10 and Pac-12 championship games, and see if your theory is correct. I bet it isn't. My billing rate is between $500 and $1,000 an hour. I don't have time to do your homework for you.

How often do the perceived two best teams play for the FCS championship....or meet in the BSC basketball Championship....or how often do all the #1 seeds advance to the final 4...you see, that is kind of the thing about Championship games, more times than not, the perceived two best teams don't both find themselves in them, because, you know, they lost. I guess you have a problem with all those also.

My point was that some posters whining about an unbalanced schedule were using the argument that it allowed lesser teams to advance to the playoffs or be conference champs. My point was the one you just made. That happens all the time. Including in the big FBS conferences. I don't have a problem with any of this. It is what it is. I understand some of the points being made about the Big Sky unbalanced schedule, but that doesn't bother me either. Just play the teams on the schedule and keep trying to beat them.

 

[grizindabox]

So you are assuming that the 2 best teams can be in the same division so they don't play in the Conference Championship game, which would be true, but it would also be true that they would have already played...an actual game. If you are trying to say that the second best team is in the other division, but doesn't get into the Championship game, then just maybe they aren't the second best team since they would have lost to the team that got to the Championship game from that division. It is true that some teams don't play, but I would suggest that you can not find a single example of a conference with a Championship game, didn't have the 2 best teams play during a season.

My point is that the 2 best teams should play in the conf championship. They often don't. What's the point of a conf championship if the 2 best teams don't play? No. 1 against no. 3? What's with that? No. 1 against no. 4? What's with that?

Why don't you look up the last 10 SEC, Big 10 and Pac-12 championship games, and see if your theory is correct. I bet it isn't. My billing rate is between $500 and $1,000 an hour. I don't have time to do your homework for you.

How often do the perceived two best teams play for the FCS championship....or meet in the BSC basketball Championship....or how often do all the #1 seeds advance to the final 4...you see, that is kind of the thing about Championship games, more times than not, the perceived two best teams don't both find themselves in them, because, you know, they lost. I guess you have a problem with all those also.

My point was that some posters whining about an unbalanced schedule were using the argument that it allowed lesser teams to advance to the playoffs or be conference champs. My point was the one you just made. That happens all the time. Including in the big FBS conferences. I don't have a problem with any of this. It is what it is. I understand some of the points being made about the Big Sky unbalanced schedule, but that doesn't bother me either. Just play the teams on the schedule and keep trying to beat them.

Here is my thoughts about the unbalanced schedule...it does matter when the schedule presents inherent unbalance based on SOS. Even if conferences like the SEC etc don't have a conference championship that matches 1 vs 2, they almost always still have the best team win..this can not be said about the current setup that the BSC is using. You can go back and compare SOS of past winners or co-winners of the BSC and see that the unbalanced schedule does make a difference. I guess you could argue that the SOS didn't matter and the best team won, but when that so called BSC auto qualifier, with the weaker conference SOS continually gets beat by what people would consider weaker opponents, then I am not so sure. But it is what it is, and you are right about a team just having to win the games they have scheduled.

 

[PlayerRep]

Even if that is the case, didn't whomever win that division play them? And then even if the other division winner is considered weaker, don't they play on the field to determine the Champ?

Player Rep doesn't follow FBS. Griz beating the Cats and making the FCS playoffs are the only important things in college football.

I don't follow FBS, but my son is an SEC expert. Goes to Georgia games frequently. Went to a game at Tennessee this year. Goes to college in the southeast. Our family follows Georgia. We go to Athens every 2 or 3 years for a game, and went to the 2018 Rose Bowl to see Georgia. But you are right. I follow mainly Montana and Dartmouth, and the FCS. I love the playoffs. I used to love going to Chattanooga. Staying at the team hotel for several days, and seeing all the mingling. Seeing and sometimes talking to the Payton Award finalists who often stayed at the same hotel.

Dartmouth beating Harvard and Princeton the next two weekends is important. I saw Dartmouth beat Yale a few weeks ago. Will be in Yankee stadium for the Princeton game in 2 weeks.

Do you mainly follow NAIA basketball?

I follow most sports. Love FBS games on weekends much more than NFL. NFL is getting crazy with the reffing and replay situations. Seems every good offensive play runs the risk of being called back by a hold or some other penalty. Often wonder what London fans think of NFL compared to soccer. Soccer clock runs continually and game can flow for 10 or 15 minutes with very little disruption. Not so much with NFL.

I follow Griz and Big Sky in most sports. Went to Chattanooga and Huntington a few times back in the day. Didn't sniff any jocks at the team hotel but did watch the Griz win it all once. Only stayed one or two nights when I went to those games.... not several. Staying "several" seems kind of creepy for a 3 hour football game. I did see a Payton award finalist once but wasn't brave enough to talk to him.

NAIA bball also pretty fun to watch. Carroll gave Lady Griz a good game last night. I have a friend who has a relative on the Carroll team so went to the game to watch her play. Met Shannon Cate once. She was a Kodak All American when she played for the Lady Griz back in the day. Almost like a Payton Award finalist.

Don't follow the Ivy League much. Aren't they one of only two FCS conferences that don't play in the FCS playoffs? I'm like you, I love the FCS playoffs. Part of the reason the Ivy doesn't interest me. Why watch an Ivy game when you know the teams playing will never buck up and try out the playoffs? How can there be "important" Ivy games when there are never playoff implications? Winning the conference must be the crowning achievement for the Ivy.....and yet you argue that it shouldn't mean anything to BSC teams or fans.

Agree with your first para, but don't watch much of either. I try to watch the Vikes some now, as my former teammate's son is the starting right tackle. He finally gave up a sack recently, He's a 2d year guy. Never new what o-lineman really did, until focusing on this kid the past couple years.

I always have taken 2 or 3 of my family to the national championship games. We have good friends in Chattanooga. It's fun to explore Chattanooga. We still go there a lot, as a son goes to school in the vicinity. We stop at Sticky Fingers occasionally. The team hotels have coaches, player families, the athletic department, boosters, FCS officials, etc. Fun to see and socialize with them. My son played catch with one of the Payton finalist receivers several times one year. That kid was terrific. What is creepy is someone like you speculating on something you know nothing about and calling it creepy. It makes me wonder if you might be creepy at heart, because that's what you like to come up with.

Agree with your 3d para. I enjoy almost all sports, and sport generally.

I assume that most who follow the Ivies went to the Ivies, live near the schools, live in the East, etc. Half of the Ivy stadiums are great stadiums too. Lots of history. I don't think the Ivies really care if lots of people not associated with the Ivies follow them. There must be a decent national following, tho, or perhaps just a wealthier demographic, as the Ivies are on national television most weeks in recent years. Even Dartmouth v Columbia, a weak game, was on ESPNU last week. I watched some of it at Tamarack.

I like that so many known or famous people have played in the Ivies, and even a good number do in the modern era.

The Ivy president's don't want want football in the playoffs. I'm fine with that. Yes, the Ivy championship is an important goal. Doing well in life after football is also an important goal. Bigger than being good in football.

 

[PlayerRep]

My point is that the 2 best teams should play in the conf championship. They often don't. What's the point of a conf championship if the 2 best teams don't play? No. 1 against no. 3? What's with that? No. 1 against no. 4? What's with that?

Why don't you look up the last 10 SEC, Big 10 and Pac-12 championship games, and see if your theory is correct. I bet it isn't. My billing rate is between $500 and $1,000 an hour. I don't have time to do your homework for you.

How often do the perceived two best teams play for the FCS championship....or meet in the BSC basketball Championship....or how often do all the #1 seeds advance to the final 4...you see, that is kind of the thing about Championship games, more times than not, the perceived two best teams don't both find themselves in them, because, you know, they lost. I guess you have a problem with all those also.

My point was that some posters whining about an unbalanced schedule were using the argument that it allowed lesser teams to advance to the playoffs or be conference champs. My point was the one you just made. That happens all the time. Including in the big FBS conferences. I don't have a problem with any of this. It is what it is. I understand some of the points being made about the Big Sky unbalanced schedule, but that doesn't bother me either. Just play the teams on the schedule and keep trying to beat them.

Here is my thoughts about the unbalanced schedule...it does matter when the schedule presents inherent unbalance based on SOS. Even if conferences like the SEC etc don't have a conference championship that matches 1 vs 2, they almost always still have the best team win..this can not be said about the current setup that the BSC is using. You can go back and compare SOS of past winners or co-winners of the BSC and see that the unbalanced schedule does make a difference. I guess you could argue that the SOS didn't matter and the best team won, but when that so called BSC auto qualifier, with the weaker conference SOS continually gets beat by what people would consider weaker opponents, then I am not so sure. But it is what it is, and you are right about a team just having to win the games they have scheduled.

I agree that SEC champ is usually the best team. I agree that the Big Sky champ may not always be the best team. But I say, who cares. The top several teams always go to the playoffs. The conference championship is not the ultimate goal. There are goals beyond that. There's nothing that can be done about it, other than making the conference much smaller, which I don't support, so why worry or whine about it.

 

[Grisly Fan]

I think the top 2 or even 3 SEC teams are sometimes from the same division. LSU and Alabama, West, are nos. 1 and 2 in top 25. Florida and Georgia, East, are in top 10 too. Auburn, West, behind them at 11, with losses to Florida and LSU. Florida plays Georgia this weekend.

Even if that is the case, didn't whomever win that division play them? And then even if the other division winner is considered weaker, don't they play on the field to determine the Champ?

Not sure what you are trying to say, but often the 2 best SEC teams are not playing for the conference championship. Reason is unbalanced schedules.

I think it's funny that some of you think a conference championship from 2 divisions makes up for the unbalanced schedule thing. While it may improve things, but it sure doesn't solve the "non-problem".

I hear what you're saying, PR. If you beat everyone, it doesn't matter. I do think a conference championship game settles things in those unbalanced FBS conferences, though. Not always perfect; but better.

A conference championship between a Big Sky A and B (whatever you want to actually call them) is not too realistic because FCS playoffs begin the week after season play ends. You would have to start the season a week earlier so the two division winners could play the conference championship game the weekend before T-Day. Getting every school to agree seems unlikely. Plus it adds yet another game to the schedule for those two teams with potentially both of them still going to the playoffs and all the extra games that might mean. And as we know some people think the season is too long already.

 

[grizindabox]

How often do the perceived two best teams play for the FCS championship....or meet in the BSC basketball Championship....or how often do all the #1 seeds advance to the final 4...you see, that is kind of the thing about Championship games, more times than not, the perceived two best teams don't both find themselves in them, because, you know, they lost. I guess you have a problem with all those also.

My point was that some posters whining about an unbalanced schedule were using the argument that it allowed lesser teams to advance to the playoffs or be conference champs. My point was the one you just made. That happens all the time. Including in the big FBS conferences. I don't have a problem with any of this. It is what it is. I understand some of the points being made about the Big Sky unbalanced schedule, but that doesn't bother me either. Just play the teams on the schedule and keep trying to beat them.

Here is my thoughts about the unbalanced schedule...it does matter when the schedule presents inherent unbalance based on SOS. Even if conferences like the SEC etc don't have a conference championship that matches 1 vs 2, they almost always still have the best team win..this can not be said about the current setup that the BSC is using. You can go back and compare SOS of past winners or co-winners of the BSC and see that the unbalanced schedule does make a difference. I guess you could argue that the SOS didn't matter and the best team won, but when that so called BSC auto qualifier, with the weaker conference SOS continually gets beat by what people would consider weaker opponents, then I am not so sure. But it is what it is, and you are right about a team just having to win the games they have scheduled.

I agree that SEC champ is usually the best team. I agree that the Big Sky champ may not always be the best team. But I say, who cares. The top several teams always go to the playoffs. The conference championship is not the ultimate goal. There are goals beyond that. There's nothing that can be done about it, other than making the conference much smaller, which I don't support, so why worry or whine about it.

But a difference in sos based on an unbalanced conference schedule doesn't necessarily give everyone the same chance at making the playoffs. 1 win can make a difference, and in the extreme example that Team A plays 3 of the top 4 finishers and Team B plays 1 of the top 4 because they get to play the bottom 2 teams instead, then is the unbalanced schedule equal to both of there chances at getting to 8 wins and into the playoffs? No, it is not, and that is the issue that people have with the unbalanced schedule in the BSC. But I am glad that you don't think it is an issue, since it will leave you more time to whine about whiners.

 

[grizindabox]

Even if that is the case, didn't whomever win that division play them? And then even if the other division winner is considered weaker, don't they play on the field to determine the Champ?

Not sure what you are trying to say, but often the 2 best SEC teams are not playing for the conference championship. Reason is unbalanced schedules.

I think it's funny that some of you think a conference championship from 2 divisions makes up for the unbalanced schedule thing. While it may improve things, but it sure doesn't solve the "non-problem".

I hear what you're saying, PR. If you beat everyone, it doesn't matter. I do think a conference championship game settles things in those unbalanced FBS conferences, though. Not always perfect; but better.

A conference championship between a Big Sky A and B (whatever you want to actually call them) is not too realistic because FCS playoffs begin the week after season play ends. You would have to start the season a week earlier so the two division winners could play the conference championship game the weekend before T-Day. Getting every school to agree seems unlikely. Plus it adds yet another game to the schedule for those two teams with potentially both of them still going to the playoffs and all the extra games that might mean. And as we know some people think the season is too long already.

Everyone here realizes that and are not suggesting that a Conference Championship game is feasible.

 

[PlayerRep]

Even if that is the case, didn't whomever win that division play them? And then even if the other division winner is considered weaker, don't they play on the field to determine the Champ?

Not sure what you are trying to say, but often the 2 best SEC teams are not playing for the conference championship. Reason is unbalanced schedules.

I think it's funny that some of you think a conference championship from 2 divisions makes up for the unbalanced schedule thing. While it may improve things, but it sure doesn't solve the "non-problem".

I hear what you're saying, PR. If you beat everyone, it doesn't matter. I do think a conference championship game settles things in those unbalanced FBS conferences, though. Not always perfect; but better.

A conference championship between a Big Sky A and B (whatever you want to actually call them) is not too realistic because FCS playoffs begin the week after season play ends. You would have to start the season a week earlier so the two division winners could play the conference championship game the weekend before T-Day. Getting every school to agree seems unlikely. Plus it adds yet another game to the schedule for those two teams with potentially both of them still going to the playoffs and all the extra games that might mean. And as we know some people think the season is too long already.

And current NCAA rules don't permit starting a week earlier. I suppose teams could give up their bye weeks. I'm not suggesting that.

 

[PlayerRep]

My point was that some posters whining about an unbalanced schedule were using the argument that it allowed lesser teams to advance to the playoffs or be conference champs. My point was the one you just made. That happens all the time. Including in the big FBS conferences. I don't have a problem with any of this. It is what it is. I understand some of the points being made about the Big Sky unbalanced schedule, but that doesn't bother me either. Just play the teams on the schedule and keep trying to beat them.

Here is my thoughts about the unbalanced schedule...it does matter when the schedule presents inherent unbalance based on SOS. Even if conferences like the SEC etc don't have a conference championship that matches 1 vs 2, they almost always still have the best team win..this can not be said about the current setup that the BSC is using. You can go back and compare SOS of past winners or co-winners of the BSC and see that the unbalanced schedule does make a difference. I guess you could argue that the SOS didn't matter and the best team won, but when that so called BSC auto qualifier, with the weaker conference SOS continually gets beat by what people would consider weaker opponents, then I am not so sure. But it is what it is, and you are right about a team just having to win the games they have scheduled.

I agree that SEC champ is usually the best team. I agree that the Big Sky champ may not always be the best team. But I say, who cares. The top several teams always go to the playoffs. The conference championship is not the ultimate goal. There are goals beyond that. There's nothing that can be done about it, other than making the conference much smaller, which I don't support, so why worry or whine about it.

But a difference in sos based on an unbalanced conference schedule doesn't necessarily give everyone the same chance at making the playoffs. 1 win can make a difference, and in the extreme example that Team A plays 3 of the top 4 finishers and Team B plays 1 of the top 4 because they get to play the bottom 2 teams instead, then is the unbalanced schedule equal to both of there chances at getting to 8 wins and into the playoffs? No, it is not, and that is the issue that people have with the unbalanced schedule in the BSC. But I am glad that you don't think it is an issue, since it will leave you more time to whine about whiners.

Big Sky teams play difference non-conference games and thus have different SOS's for that reason too. I don't recall a time that a Big Sky team didn't get into the playoffs due to the unbalanced schedule. Winning games is more important than SOS.

It's true; I never thought much of whiners. Maybe you do.

 

[Paytonlives]

It might have been stated already...

But a conference champ game means no playoffs for them...

 

[grizindabox]

It might have been stated already...

But a conference champ game means no playoffs for them...

Not sure anyone is advocating for a Championship game.