Skip to main content

How sad are this week's conference championship games?

While last night's Big East game between Louisville and Rutgers wasn't actually a conference title game, it played like one - for the winner of the game would in all likelihood represent the conference in a BCS game. Going into the game, neither team was ranked. This will be the start of a trend for such games this weekend, unfortunately.

Tonight, we have more quality conference title games than we have all of tomorrow. How many games are being played tonight? Two. In the MAC title game, 21st ranked Northern Illinois will take on 17th ranked Kent State. In the Pac-12, we'll see 16th ranked UCLA face 8th ranked Stanford - yes, for the second time in two weeks. How lame is that? Especially if you're Stanford, having beaten the Bruins 35-17 just a week prior?

That brings us to Saturday, where four more conference championships will be played - including:

Conference USA: Central Florida vs. Tulsa (neither team is ranked)

ACC: #16 Florida State vs. Georgia Tech (the Yellow Jackets are 6-6)

Big Ten: #12 Nebraska vs. Wisconsin (the Badgers are 7-5 and 4-4 in Big Ten play)

SEC: #2 Alabama vs. #3 Georgia

If we include the Big East game from last night, two out of the seven conference title games are void of a ranked team; another two out of seven have one ranked team (one is a rematch from earlier this year, as Nebraska beat Wisconsin); and one of the three with two ranked teams is a rematch from last week.

The two most interesting match-ups are in the SEC and the MAC. How sad is that? The MAC's title game is more intriguing than those played in the: ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12, and Big East.

Also, think about how much could go wrong this weekend. If UCLA beats Stanford to likely win a trip to the Rose Bowl, it won't be the end of the world. However, I think most unbiased people would agree that the better of the two teams wouldn't be representing the conference in the Rose Bowl. Stanford dominated UCLA last week and now has to find a way to motivate themselves once again to beat the same team the very following week. That's easier said than done, and UCLA will likely hold a motivational edge going into tonight's contest. That potential scenario is the least of my worries, though.

On paper, most people may not believe that it matters who wins between Alabama and Georgia. Whoever wins should play Notre Dame in the national title game, right? As Lee Corso would say, "Not so fast my friend!" If Alabama wins, then I don't think there will be a great deal of controversy on the Crimson Tide facing the Fighting Irish in the title game. However, I think there will a great deal more chatter going on if Georgia wins. If Kansas State beats Texas tomorrow, they, Oregon, and Florida will be fighting for a shot to play Notre Dame in the BCS title game. Georgia's loss this year was a 35-7 blowout at the hands of South Carolina. They played an extremely weak non-conference schedule and a very average conference schedule. Oregon and especially Florida will have solid arguments to make if Georgia defeats Alabama tomorrow.

The two most potentially chaos-inducing games are in the Big Ten and ACC. In the Big Ten we have Nebraska against Wisconsin. Like with the Pac-12 title game between UCLA and Stanford, these two teams have already played this year - with Nebraska coming from behind to beat the Badgers 30-27 in Lincoln. Will Wisconsin hold a bit of a motivational edge in this game, like UCLA, in wanting to prove they can beat a team who beat them earlier? If Wisconsin wins, we'll see an 8-5 and unranked Big Ten team representing the conference in the Rose Bowl. Whether the Pac-12 sent Stanford or UCLA probably wouldn't be of much relevance - they'd likely defeat the Badgers and make the Big Ten look worse than they had previously.

In the ACC, we have Florida State playing Georgia Tech. Georgia Tech is an even 6-6 on the season. If they win, we'll see a 7-6 and unranked team representing the ACC in most likely the Orange Bowl. Chances are the Jackets would lose the bowl game and further damage the conference's already waning reputation in the sport. Does Florida State have the better team? Yes. Should they win? Yes. Does that mean they will win? No. These are 18-22 year old kids playing. They fought hard against in-state rival Florida last weekend, but wound up getting trampled in the second half en route to a 37-26 loss to the Gators. It's hard to say whether or not these kids' heads will be fully in the game. Who has more to prove? An unranked team like Georgia Tech, who had to fight for their lives to become bowl eligible, and playing a top 10 team for most of the season, or a team that was ranked in the top 10 for most of the year, even had aspirations of making it to the national title game, but fell short in the end?

After this weekend, the following is possible:

Rose Bowl: #15 UCLA (10-3) vs. Wisconsin (8-5)

Orange Bowl: Georgia Tech (7-6) vs. ???

Title Game: #1 Notre Dame (12-0) vs. #2 Georgia (12-1) (with 11-1 Oregon, 11-1 Kansas State, and 11-1 Florida looking on)

Yeah...when's the playoff start again? ::checks invisible watch::

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"