Do Conference Championship Games make it harder to go undefeated??

lol... you make me smile at this wee hour of the morning....

Here's a good site if you're into silly stuff like undefeated conference champs, etc...

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/champions_sec.html
(you have to go midway down to see each conference champ by year/record)

As most know, I seem to get my feathers (Hawkeye) up every time I hear "Well (USC, Michigan, Texas... insert name) couldn't go undefeated in the SEC (insert year)....
I'm not denying it wouldn't be a tough row to hoe, but there is nothing statistically to suggest it's any harder to run the conference table in the SEC than any other conference.
I like to use 1992 as a starting point because (1) it's the year the SEC started their championship game, (2) the year the NCAA started their effort to create a champion through play... the coalition, then the alliance, then the BCS, (3) the year Penn State started a Big Ten rotation (semi), etc.
It seems, in an odd way, to be the year things started to toughen up in college football.
I believe 6 SEC teams have run the conference table since then, which is remarkably about the same as the other major conferences... each conference somewhere between four and six.
Historically (and yes, I have been to many SEC games dating back to the very early '70's... being old and all), no conference has had more undefeated, untied champions (in conference play) than the SEC.

Undefeated, untied (conference play) Champs last 50 years:
SEC.... 30
ACC.... 23
Big 12/SWC... 20
Big Ten... 18
PAC-10... 14

So my point is this...
You guys have a very tough conference... and probably the deepest conference in any given year... you recruit the best of the best... all very valid arguments.... suggesting that another great team from another conference would play hell running the table in the SEC statistically isn't one of them.
To my old eyes, the great teams of the past (Miami, FL State, USC of late) would have done quite well in any conference... and deserve that type of respect.

Deep Thoughts from Hawker Handey

 

If you assume that 50% of all participants in CCG's will lose then why would it not be harder than not playing at all.

Simple certainty vs. uncertainty. Regardless of whether the CCG results in a win the portential for loss exist. The run up to a NCG is is not a zero sum game nor can anyone really qualify or quantify "harder", you just know it, like being in love.

My favorite complaint is when critics state a team didn't win convincingly in a CCG and therefore should not go in the place of a non-CCG team.

Later,
Fur

 

Probability of an undefeated team being undefeated going into a bowl game if there is no conference championship game = 1.00

Probability of an undefeated team being undefeated going into a bowl game if they lose a conference championship game = 0.00

No other research needed.

 

I agree with Tirk's point that an extra game makes it harder to go undefeated. The fact that it is against the best team in the other division obviously makes it much more difficult.

 

Bottom line is that LSU would not be a conference champion and in my opinion would not be worthy of playing in the national championship game. Just like how I felt with OU in 2003. No exceptions. If you are national championship worthy, you should be at least able to win your conference and beat your SECCG opponent.

Also, if UF were to beat us to finish 11-2, they would NOT be considered for the title game as a 2-loss team.

 

Exactly... remember last year when Cry Baby Carr was suggesting Michigan should still be considered for the BCS Championship because they lost at #1 tOSU for their only regular season loss...and both USC and Florida also had a loss....
If you don't win your conference, you shouldn't play in the NCG under any condition.
Hell, I didn't even like it when Florida got a rematch against FSU to claim their crown.... diversity, my friends, diversity... that's what bowls are for....

 

only four times has a team lost their unbeaten season: Alabama in 1994, Nebraska in 1996, Kansas State in 1998, and Oklahoma in 2003. Four times, out of 14 possible chances. What does this mean? Unbeaten seasons are lost during the regular league season, NOT the championship game.

Not for those four teams, it wasn't

 

Edit: I should have typed faster, I was beat to this point:

Question: Re: Do Conference Championship Games make it harder to go undefeated??

On the right track but veers off into a logical abyss:
Quote:
only four times has a team lost their unbeaten season: Alabama in 1994, Nebraska in 1996, Kansas State in 1998, and Oklahoma in 2003. Four times, out of 14 possible chances. What does this mean? Unbeaten seasons are lost during the regular league season, NOT the championship game.

Answer:
If only one team ever lost an undefeated season in a championship game the answer is an unequivocal yes.