are you in favor of eliminating the SEC championship game?

[HoopS]

I just can't see why the Southeast Conference, the Big 12 and ACC would not call BS on what seems to be an uneven playing field.   Those 3 conferences are the progressive thinkers and in the long run will be credited with having the foresight to initiate these games, that will later resemble first round national tournament games.   Until then, it is a risk/reward situation.   If you have a team run undefeated and then win that game, you should almost guarantee a spot in the top 2, save Auburn.  If you play the game and your best BCS team loses, it should knock them out of the Natl Title game, save Oklahoma. 

The other conferences could end the season with 2 undefeated teams if the schedule falls just so.  Impossible for us, the B12 and ACC.  Eventually, they will follow.

[BigPapaHawg]

NO!

[Chinese Emperor]

I think we need to go to more than one of them a decade before we are entitlted to have an opinion.

I think every conference should have one.

I'll take this a step further.  If your conference doesn't have a championship game, your team is not eligible to play in the BCS.  This would solve the "at'large" debate over who gets in.  Of course, the NCAA would have to make an exception for ND.

Better yet let's don't make an exception for ND.  They can keep their independent arsess at home.

[werehog]

Yes. This real purpose of this game is to pad the revenue stream for the Conference, The same goes for the Big 12.

[Brand X Hog Fan]

Every conference should have a title game and then the top 6 power conference champions should have a play-off.

[BleedRazrBackRed]

I tend to believe either everyone should have one, or no one should have one. It's illogical to have certain conferences risk playing an extra team, and undoubtably good one, considering they are a division champion, when it could totally compromise their chance at a NC. Unless the Pac 10, Big East, and Big 10 pick up title games, I say everyone else drops theirs.

[Oklahawg]

No, every conference should have one if they wish to send a team to the BCS.

And, when we make it to a BCS bowl I don't want the moment tainted by having gotten there without the BCS system affecting our invitation.

[Oklahawg]

Having every conference with a championship game is a step in the right direction--a playoff system.

[DirkPiggler]

Having every conference with a championship game is a step in the right direction--a playoff system.

I agree wholeheartedly with this.  Here's my plan for a successful playoff system.  It will never happen because the NCAA has no balls, and college ADs/ presidents don't generally realize when they've got the power in a relationship (see SEC bowl tie-ins). 

Right off the bat you need to remove the automatic bid for the Big East.  Sorry guys, but you're a mid-major conference that inflates records by playing nobodies.  Lump them in with the rest of the secondary conferences, which I'll address in a second.

Next, mandate that only schools with conference tie-ins will be allowed to participate in the playoff system.  Touchdown Jesus, welcome to the Big 10.  If Notre Dame doesn't want to participate let them and NBC get together and set up a travelling team like the Washington Generals from Globetrotters fame to take the whipping each week.  The Irish might balk at first because of the big TV deal, but they'll come around soon because they couldn't stand the thought of not being allowed to compete for a national championship.

Given those assumptions, you could keep the current BCS system as the framework for the playoff system.  This would allow the corporate sponsors and the bowls to keep their revenues.  The following conferences get automatic bids:  SEC, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10.  There's five of your eight teams.  A sixth automatic bid would go to the secondary conference team (CUSA, Mountain West, Big East, etc.) with the highest BCS ranking.  This leaves two at-large spots which go to the two schools with the highest BCS ranking that are not conference champions.  Seed the teams 1 through 8, and match them up 1 vs. 8, 2 vs. 7, 3 vs. 6, and 4 vs. 5.

The first round games would be played on January 1, same as the current bowls.  The current BCS bowls would rotate the championship game, with the other BCS bowls comprising the second round and one of the first round games in the years in which they do not get the championship.  The four first round games would be as follows:

Capital One Bowl:  Gets the easternmost team out of the top four seeds.
Cotton:  Gets the most centrally located team out of the top four seeds.
Holiday Bowl:  Takes the westernmost team out of the top four.
Orange/Fiesta/Sugar/Rose Bowls:  Takes the most geographically sensible of the top four seeds, superseding all the other bowls.   

Round two would take place the following week, and would be the two bowls that were not the championship game or the traditional BCS bowl that rotates into the first round.  Again determine who plays where by sending the higher seeded teams to the bowls that are located the closest to their campuses.

The championship game would rotate between the four current BCS bowls, and would take place two weeks after the second round.  This would set it up the week before the Super Bowl most years, and would allow the networks and sponsors additional time to hype the game and make some money. 

As I said above, I realize this will never happen.  The schools and the NCAA are too afraid of losing corporate sponsorship and offending the bowls.  They have never realized that they hold the power over the bowls, which need the NCAA and its teams a hell of a lot more than the teams need them.  The NCAA should mandate that this is how it will be done, and that those who don't like it (most likely the bowls, some conferences, and Notre Dame) will be left behind.  Within a couple of years this system will bring in more money than the traditional bowls ever have.

[Carolinas Hog]

Good thoughts...you do realize this is a hypothetical question right.  Or maybe you're woman...stereotypically speaking, women do not do well with hypothetical situations.

Actually it would be a woman who would pose a hypothetical ignoring facts. Sort of like thinking that buying $500 shoes for $300 is making money.

Can't agrue with the last part there.  However, that's not a hypothetical...it's called incorrect.  The example you gave, seems to happen more often than it should.

The hypothetical part of this question/thread is, if the respective responding poster was given the ultimate say, what would you do about the SEC Champ. game.  Not how can we develop an executable plan to actually eliminate this game accounting for all the various issues and roadblocks which may hinder our success.

[WarEagle]

I like the SECCG.

Back in the old days there were many years when the SEC championship was split b/c teams had the same record.  I like it now that things are settled on the field.

True, it can hurt NC title hopes and the loser does get a raw deal, but on the other hand, if a team wins the SECCG it should (thoeretically) boost that team in the BCS standings (even though we got screwed in 2004).

I also like the idea of maybe alternating the location.  It was originally at Legion Field in Birmingham, but I don't think that place is in good enough shape to host it anymore.  New Orleans or Jacksonville would be cool though.  Maybe even Nashville or Memphis...

[HognotinMemphis]

eliminate all conf championship games and have playoffs like every other football division of NCAA does.

[bill_bakerDW]

Either every should have it or no one should have it.

[BPPig]

No. Unless we win one. Then they should ban it so I can talk smack to my MS and AL friends that AR was the last true champion of the SEC! I would love that to happen.

[bigyellowdog]

Do not drop the SECCG.  The conferences that do not have one need add one or forfiet a BCS spot.  I do agree that the site needs to be rotated every year.