Big 10 Championship Game???

**tolar** · 12-02-2006, 09:26 PM

The Big Ten needs a championship game. That would help clear up some of this BCS confusion. If OSU won, on a nuetral site, Florida would be the clear choice for the Championship game. However if Michigan was to win that would make an even more interesting title game.

Plus a few years ago, when Iowa went to the Orange Bowl, they were considered Co-Champs when there is no doubt who the real champion of the conference was (the national champs OSU, for those of you that can't remember that long ago).

**jkoo** · 12-02-2006, 09:31 PM

The Big Ten needs one more team in its conference to be eligible for a Conference Championship game (12- 2 divisions of six teams). That is why there's been talk for several years for Notre Dame to join for football, but that will most likely not happen because ND likes to have the easy schedule and set up tough matches at its own discretion (not a fan of that). That is also why there has been talk of Iowa State to possibly join the big ten and have Utah join the Big XII. that also is highly unlikely because the fact ISU officials have downplayed it from day 1, and since Utah isn't a legitimate BCS type team now with Urban Meyer at Florida. So until the Big 10 gets one more team in their conference, you won't be seeing a BIG TEN Title Game.

**HandSanitizer** · 12-02-2006, 09:33 PM

The problem is that OSU might be playing Wisconsin b/c of the divisions. Then if OSU gets beat, Wisconisin goes to BCS and so does OSU. Michigan then gets moved to Cap1. I don't see Michigan playing in the championship for the B10. Champsionship games can really make or break a conference. Look at the last few years in the Big12. Everyone knows it should really be Texas and OU playing, but their in the same division.

I don't want to see a West Divsion in the Big 10 b/c it could be very very weak and give Iowa a 1st or 2nd place finish each year.
These "could" be the teams in the west. Minn, Wis, Iowa, ILL, NW, Indiana,
East: Mich, MSU, OSU, Penn ST, Purdue, New Team.

**VII_Fe** · 12-02-2006, 09:45 PM

Notre Dame doesn't join because they are Notre Dame. They have their own TV contract they don't have to share with other teams and the BCS wrote special rules just for them. I sure would like to see them NOT get a BCS game this year, but I wouldn't blame a bowl for inviting them, they will bring the fans.

**VII_Fe** · 12-02-2006, 09:52 PM

Originally Posted by HandSanitizer

These "could" be the teams in the west. Minn, Wis, Iowa, ILL, NW, Indiana
East: Mich, MSU, OSU, Penn ST, Purdue, New Team.

I love the Big XII, but for the sake of the post I will make this arguement.

How about we join the Big 10 err 11 oh now 12.

They have better TV contracts, better bowl alignments, and I live in Illinois so the Clones would play in my neighborhood more often.

Given your split you would have

West: MN, WI, IA, IL, NW, and IOWA STATE
East: MI, MSU, IU, PU, OSU, PSU

Not that it matters, but geographicly speaking Purdue is further west than IU.

**jkoo** · 12-02-2006, 09:56 PM

cuz as mentioned you dont want OSU and big blue in the same division beating up on each other only to go up against a cream puff from the west. I'm from illinois to but as much i want that to happen it wont. Iowa State would have equally hard time in the big ten exposure/marketability wise because we'd be the western most team as opposed to the northern most team in the big XII which we are now

**HandSanitizer** · 12-02-2006, 10:01 PM

It would be nice to be on TV all the time and get about 10-15 more million a year added to our budget. I

watch CYHawk talk this week and they said the big12 is working on a Big12 Network. That would probably mean that you would have to pay more of cable, but I would if all the games are on. Has anyone heard of this???

**tolar** · 12-02-2006, 10:06 PM

As from a college football fans prespective it would add another exciting game. Plus it adds controversy which makes college football great

**tolar** · 12-02-2006, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by HandSanitizer

It would be nice to be on TV all the time and get about 10-15 more million a year added to our budget. I

watch CYHawk talk this week and they said the big12 is working on a Big12 Network. That would probably mean that you would have to pay more of cable, but I would if all the games are on. Has anyone heard of this???

I would be willing to pay more on cable to see ISU and other Big12 games. I currently pay $6 a month to listen to them on the internet. I would purchase gameplan if it would guarantee more ISU games

**michaelrr1** · 12-02-2006, 10:21 PM

Conferences that have championship games do so for one reason and one reason only - $$$$$$$$$$

**superfan** · 12-02-2006, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by HandSanitizer

It would be nice to be on TV all the time and get about 10-15 more million a year added to our budget. I

watch CYHawk talk this week and they said the big12 is working on a Big12 Network. That would probably mean that you would have to pay more of cable, but I would if all the games are on. Has anyone heard of this???

Big 10 is putting a network together, as well.

Also, if hypothetically there had been a Big 10 Championship this year, you'd just have your Michigan/OSU rematch. Who goes to Arizona if Michigan wins?

Wisconsin's getting screwed out of a BCS bowl (they're going to finish probably 6th or 7th in the standings, depending on how far USC drops) because they lost AT Michigan in the first conference game of the season. You play that game later in the season or at Camp Randall and they're getting a shot at OSU in Arizona.

**tolar** · 12-02-2006, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by michaelrr1

Conferences that have championship games do so for one reason and one reason only - $$$$$$$$$$

Without the SEC championship game, Florida's hopes for getting into the title game are diminished greatly

**spanny** · 12-02-2006, 10:33 PM

Championship games only lead to more goofy BCS talk. I think that adding championship games are reactive and not proactive. All more title games do is give more people a chance at the BCS, while bumping another team out. I think it is similiar to post season basketball tourneys, when a non sure thing wins it, it bumps perhaps a more deserving team out, does that make sense?

**superfan** · 12-02-2006, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by spanny

Championship games only lead to more goofy BCS talk. I think that adding championship games are reactive and not proactive. All more title games do is give more people a chance at the BCS, while bumping another team out. I think it is similiar to post season basketball tourneys, when a non sure thing wins it, it bumps perhaps a more deserving team out, does that make sense?

I think one of the commentators for the SEC title game put it best today.

"[Regarding Florida's win] This is the first time ever that a team may be helped out in the BCS by the championship game"