(05-01-2015 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  the thing that is annoying is that if a 12-team or 14-team conference wants to set up a schedule where you get 3 permanent rivals and rotate the rest, they could easily do that under the current rules.

all they need to do is set up non-permanent rotating divisions. Its not that hard to do. But the larger conferences have decided they want permanent alignments where the divisions are the same each year. so is that it is proof thats what they prefer?

It isn't just the conferences that want permanent alignments. It's the Networks. Strong rivalries make for good programming. If the conference is continuously reshuffling, that wouldn't be seen as a positive thing by the Networks.

Sometimes strong rivalries make for good programming, and sometimes they don't. I expect that a once in a blue moon regular season game between Oklahoma and Oregon, with both teams highly ranked, would be far more interesting to a network than a strong rivalry game between UNC and Duke (or Virginia) or even Pitt-West Virginia.

The Big Ten schools want to keep their traditional rivalries, but games like Indiana-Purdue or Minnesota-Iowa aren't always must see TV.

I believe strongly in maintaining regional rivalries, but not necessarily because of TV.

Fair point.

To further illustrate, it comes down to divisional champs competing in a post season conference tournament in football. You put those divisional games at the end of the season, as was even discussed in the article, and that makes every single one of them much more valuable than they are now. When I talk about TV I am not just talking about ESPN channels or Fox channels. I am also talking about Conference Networks.

These divisional races at the end of the season will be great for conference networks too, not just the likes of ESPN and Fox.

The division issue is the result of the ACC still playing 8 conference games. That slowed the cross division play like WF vs NC when expanding to 14. I am glad the coaches, fans and networks (along with some AD's) like divisions and it see with that amount of support, the proposal may not even make it to the floor next year.
It seems we are seeing a trial balloon being sent up to gauge the feel of how supportive the change would be. It appears that there isn't as much support as many have speculated.

(05-01-2015 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  the thing that is annoying is that if a 12-team or 14-team conference wants to set up a schedule where you get 3 permanent rivals and rotate the rest, they could easily do that under the current rules.

all they need to do is set up non-permanent rotating divisions. Its not that hard to do. But the larger conferences have decided they want permanent alignments where the divisions are the same each year. so is that it is proof thats what they prefer?

It isn't just the conferences that want permanent alignments. It's the Networks. Strong rivalries make for good programming. If the conference is continuously reshuffling, that wouldn't be seen as a positive thing by the Networks.

Sometimes strong rivalries make for good programming, and sometimes they don't. I expect that a once in a blue moon regular season game between Oklahoma and Oregon, with both teams highly ranked, would be far more interesting to a network than a strong rivalry game between UNC and Duke (or Virginia) or even Pitt-West Virginia.

The Big Ten schools want to keep their traditional rivalries, but games like Indiana-Purdue or Minnesota-Iowa aren't always must see TV.

I believe strongly in maintaining regional rivalries, but not necessarily because of TV.

The rivalry games are less valuable to TV than big intersectional games between name teams, but they are more valuable than a generic non-rivalry conference game. UNC-UVa is better for TV than UNC-BC, and Minnesota-Iowa is better for TV than Minnesota-Maryland. (Which is why football divisions based on geography or history between the teams are better than jumbled divisions.)

(05-01-2015 01:12 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  the thing that is annoying is that if a 12-team or 14-team conference wants to set up a schedule where you get 3 permanent rivals and rotate the rest, they could easily do that under the current rules.

all they need to do is set up non-permanent rotating divisions. Its not that hard to do. But the larger conferences have decided they want permanent alignments where the divisions are the same each year. so is that it is proof thats what they prefer?

It isn't just the conferences that want permanent alignments. It's the Networks. Strong rivalries make for good programming. If the conference is continuously reshuffling, that wouldn't be seen as a positive thing by the Networks.

Sometimes strong rivalries make for good programming, and sometimes they don't. I expect that a once in a blue moon regular season game between Oklahoma and Oregon, with both teams highly ranked, would be far more interesting to a network than a strong rivalry game between UNC and Duke (or Virginia) or even Pitt-West Virginia.

The Big Ten schools want to keep their traditional rivalries, but games like Indiana-Purdue or Minnesota-Iowa aren't always must see TV.

I believe strongly in maintaining regional rivalries, but not necessarily because of TV.

Fair point.

To further illustrate, it comes down to divisional champs competing in a post season conference tournament in football. You put those divisional games at the end of the season, as was even discussed in the article, and that makes every single one of them much more valuable than they are now. When I talk about TV I am not just talking about ESPN channels or Fox channels. I am also talking about Conference Networks.

These divisional races at the end of the season will be great for conference networks too, not just the likes of ESPN and Fox.

The issues regarding divisions aren't the same for all conferences. Having more divisions with fewer teams in each works best when there are a lot of teams that are both competitive and also good in the conference. The ACC Coastal division is highly competitive, because they have great parity most years. But their top teams aren't all that good a lot of the time.

If the ACC were to add two more teams from out of the G5 pool, and have four divisions of four teams, it's quite likely that some of those divisions would have lousy (or at best, mediocre) champions. If the division games were all scheduled late in the year, some of the divisions would start division play where none of their teams have a chance to go further. That's what happens if you have 16 teams and only 4 of them are powerful.

If you try to put each of those four schools in a separate division (assuming you could even know which four to pick), you don't have much excitement at the end. If you stack them all in one division (which, in the ACC's case would be the preference of the four southern schools) you would have weak teams winning 75% of your division races.

In the ACC, and likely the Big Ten as well, you would need a significant number of under-performing teams to step up their game, and quickly, to make small divisions attractive enough to justify the change. Otherwise, the networks will be looking to promote whatever inventory they have in their camp from other conferences to hold onto viewers.

(05-01-2015 10:52 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I have told you guys that new rules is the next step, in fact I have said that for quite awhile. My estimation would be that they wait till the NBA Playoffs are over so that the sports media has that much less to talk about other than the rule changes, when they happen, and what it means for the future. The NFL Draft is over and the last big boxing fight ever will be past us after this weekend. We are getting close.

Quote:But that is not the case. The majority of ACC athletic directors and coaches want to keep their division format. Commissioner John Swofford has said repeatedly the idea behind deregulation is based on principle.

"We're not sitting around anticipating that, 'Hey, this is going to change, and we're going to have the freedom to change what we're doing, so let's change it,'" Swofford said. "The overall sense around our table right now is to maintain what we're doing.

"Could that change in the future? Sure, anything could change in the future, but right now it's very evident that's where the majority are in terms of our situation."

Now, this is Swofford's position. They are not going to vote for removing divisions. If The ACC is now publically stating that, do you really think any of the other three major conferences are going to be More open to the idea? Sorry, but no one is helping out the big 12 in that regard. The big 12 is simply playing the role they have to in order to make it look later like they have no choice but to dissolve.

The last bold sentence by Swoff made me smile.

Quote:"I'd like to know what it is people want to do," Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said. "I don't think deregulating it just for the sake of deregulation is good. We could end up with 20-team conferences and four five-team pods. What are we trying to do? If somebody wanted to identify what it is they wanted to do, and if it were reasonable, I would say, why not?

"I'm open to creativity and deregulation, but I'm not open to just a blank check to reorganize the regular season however you choose."

Remember when I told you folks that The Big Ten was looking at the idea of a 20 team conference with FOUR DIVISIONS of FIVE TEAMS? Well there you go. He didn't just pull all of that out of his ass. That was the concept before the ACC GoR. You guys keep coming up with concepts of 2 divisions per conference after expansion to 16. Now you see that other concepts are on the mind of Commish Delany. I do not mislead you guys.

That last statement of his that I put in bold is the killer statement. Delany didn't even bother to put on his hood before taking up the headman's axe.

Quote:Divisional play has its pros and cons. Schools like playing for a division title; they like forming rivalries with schools in their division, enhancing the fan experience; and they like the drama that is created with late-season matchups and division stakes on the line.

If you don't read this quote as something coming straight from me, then you aren't paying attention.

Make sure and read the ENTIRE piece folks. It's a great one. This may very well be the big propaganda piece I have been waiting for. It's chock full of coaches coming out and saying how much they love divisions and the reasons why. It says why divisions are great for the networks. It even takes on perceived negatives of the divisions and explains why such issues really aren't that big of a deal.


I am not going to show all the coach's comments because these two writers put a lot into this in regard to getting a lot of interviewing in. They were definitely tasked with this by ESPN.

Read what Les Miles said.

Quote:The Tigers have Florida as a permanent crossover. In the regular season since 2000, LSU has played Florida and Georgia a combined 19 times. Alabama has played them a total of nine times.

"You tell me, is there some disproportion?" LSU coach Les Miles said.

"If the division is more important than the traditional rivalries, then eliminate the traditional rivalries and let's play a fair schedule. Or if you have so many cross-division rivalries, maybe some school from the West should go to the East and make them happy. Or if the rivalry is more important than the division, then abolish the divisions and rotate everybody. But that would be the last thing that anybody would want to do. Certainly we wouldn't."

Look at some of the things he is saying. This should be very eye opening for many of you. He is attacking the disparity of scheduling within his own conference. The concept of four divisions will help equalize that quite a bit. Then he goes on to talk about that great taboo, eliminating traditional rivalries. These guys understand that the future is in having strong divisional rivalries and then having equal scheduling against all of the schools outside of the division. His last comment is that abolishing divisions is the "last thing anybody would want to do. Certainly we wouldn't". It doesn't get any more clear than that folks.

Many of you have been saying that you needed some media to tell you what's up and that my words weren't good enough. Well, here you go. Now you should ask yourself who I am.

Quote:Nobody is changing just yet, even though athletic directors have their own beefs with scheduling. No one is ready to take the really extreme step to abolish divisions.

Noone in the SEC is concerned about disparity in scheduling but Florida and LSU. Note that Alabama has played Tennessee every year and LSU rarely plays them. Auburn used to be concerned, but they got to drop Florida.

If it was that big a deal, you could lock Auburn-UGA and Alabama-Tennessee and float the rest like the Big 10 locks IU/PU and floats the rest.

(05-01-2015 01:42 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:59 PM)Dasville Wrote:  ESPN is really breaking down this subject the last few days. Here is another one today showing which teams are helped and hurt by conferences having divisions or not.




http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-divisions

Quote:How much does a team's division impact its conference win total? ESPN Stats & Information set out to answer this question by projecting the 2015 season for the four Power 5 conferences with divisions both in their current divisional states and in a hypothetical nondivisional format.

To project the nondivisional conference win total, preseason FPI was used to calculate each team's chance of winning a home and away game against every other team in its conference. College football is built on rivalries, so each team was assigned one rivalry game that it was guaranteed to play, and the remaining conference games were filled out with a formula that accounts for each team's chances of meeting and beating every other nonrival in their conference in a home and away setting.

Just goes to show it's the offseason and everyone needs something to talk about, whether it's here or on espn.com.

Well your right!

Thing is, what Bowlsby essentially said is that the Big 12 is going to either expand or change the system. He didn't say the Big 12 will get its way or dissolve.
ALL signs are pointing to expansion. Schools may leave later, but ALL signs are pointing to expansion. Dissolution is not even an option.

(05-01-2015 11:48 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 11:07 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Delany is asking the right question there, and he won't be the only one who asks it.

Quote:"What are we trying to do? If somebody wanted to identify what it is they wanted to do, and if it were reasonable, I would say, why not?

"I'm open to creativity and deregulation, but I'm not open to just a blank check to reorganize the regular season however you choose."

Others, including the non-P5 representatives in the rule-making process, are going to press the Big 12 (or ACC) to say exactly what they want to do if the rule is changed.

If the Big 12 says, "We just want the minimum number of teams for a conference championship game lowered from 12 to 10, but keep the two-division requirement," then they'll get a vote, and that will probably pass easily.

If the Big 12 or ACC or anyone else says, "We want there to be no restrictions, we want to be able to have zero, or two, or four divisions, or maybe have an 8-team conference championship tournament, we'll just decide what we want at some later date," then I doubt that would pass.

I can see how conferences might agree in principal that nobody should be able to tell a conference how to determine its champion, as long as they stay within the constraints of the prescribed length of season (both in terms of start and end dates and also number of games allowed). As far as I can tell, conferences are free in every other sport to determine their method of identifying their champion.

If a conference wanted to hold an 8 team tournament, as long as no team including the two finalists played more than 13 games, I would personally have no problem with that. However, you can bet the AD's who didn't get as many regular season games in order to accommodate that playoff wouldn't be very happy about it, and wouldn't approve it.

I would think that the Big 12 would be more likely to say that they want to eliminate the minimum number of members needed to hold a CCG than they would be to specify that 10 should be the minimum. If 12 is an arbitrary number (and it most assuredly is), then so is 10, or even 9. If the NCAA approved a reduction to 10 teams, and then Kansas defected to the Big Ten leaving the Big 12 with only 9 members, do you think they would then be OK with giving up their CCG for a second time? I sure don't.

12 is not arbitrary.

(05-01-2015 01:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  the thing that is annoying is that if a 12-team or 14-team conference wants to set up a schedule where you get 3 permanent rivals and rotate the rest, they could easily do that under the current rules.

all they need to do is set up non-permanent rotating divisions. Its not that hard to do. But the larger conferences have decided they want permanent alignments where the divisions are the same each year. so is that it is proof thats what they prefer?

It isn't just the conferences that want permanent alignments. It's the Networks. Strong rivalries make for good programming. If the conference is continuously reshuffling, that wouldn't be seen as a positive thing by the Networks.

Sometimes strong rivalries make for good programming, and sometimes they don't. I expect that a once in a blue moon regular season game between Oklahoma and Oregon, with both teams highly ranked, would be far more interesting to a network than a strong rivalry game between UNC and Duke (or Virginia) or even Pitt-West Virginia.

The Big Ten schools want to keep their traditional rivalries, but games like Indiana-Purdue or Minnesota-Iowa aren't always must see TV.

I believe strongly in maintaining regional rivalries, but not necessarily because of TV.

The rivalry games are less valuable to TV than big intersectional games between name teams, but they are more valuable than a generic non-rivalry conference game. UNC-UVa is better for TV than UNC-BC, and Minnesota-Iowa is better for TV than Minnesota-Maryland. (Which is why football divisions based on geography or history between the teams are better than jumbled divisions.)

What people keep forgetting is that most revenue is internally generated. Rivalry games are important for gate revenue and donations.

It's a long time until the start of football season, so we do need something to talk about here.

The Big 12 has a dilemma. Do they expand by adding G5 schools, in which case they will lose money, or do they stay at 10 members and hope that there isn't an obvious playoff candidate in all four of the other P5 conferences every year?

Their ideal situation, of course, would be to add 2 teams, but not from the G5 - from one of the other P5 conferences instead. That would help them, but how do they get the other conference (not to mention their two target schools) to cooperate? That would take some really out of the box thinking, and an unprecedented amount of cooperation. It would be horse trading on an epic scale.

What are the Big 12's issues (besides the lack of a CCG)? For one, they lack eyeballs in their footprint. Outside of Texas, they are in states with fairly small populations. They don't need any more powerful football programs. They already have a high percentage of those compared with anybody but the SEC. They would like to have a logical bridge to West Virginia.

What does the Big Ten need (or, at least, where could they be improved)? Well, they already have a lot of eyeballs, and they have a lot of bragging rights about their research consortium. But they have a relatively poor ratio of good football teams to bad ones.

Could they help each other? Here is where we have to suspend our credulity and think outside the box. What if the Big Ten would part with Purdue and Illinois, trading them to the Big 12 for cash (and maybe a player to be named later). What a great bridge that would be between Morgantown, WV and Ames, IA or Manhattan, KS. A northern division could include 5 out of 6 schools basically connected by I-70.

The Big Ten's football would be strengthened by subtraction more than the B12 would be hurt by the addition. These two schools would add about 20 million people to the B12 footprint without subtracting any from the B1G's. The Big ten could sweeten the deal by allowing the two departing schools to remain members of the CIC, with the same status as former Big Ten member the U. of Chicago.

I don't know why nobody has thought of this before.

How long is it until September?

(05-01-2015 02:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  What if the Big Ten would part with Purdue and Illinois, trading them to the Big 12 for cash (and maybe a player to be named later). What a great bridge that would be between Morgantown, WV and Ames, IA or Manhattan, KS. A northern division could include 5 out of 6 schools basically connected by I-70.

The Big Ten's football would be strengthened by subtraction more than the B12 would be hurt by the addition. These two schools would add about 20 million people to the B12 footprint without subtracting any from the B1G's. The Big ten could sweeten the deal by allowing the two departing schools to remain members of the CIC, with the same status as former Big Ten member the U. of Chicago.

I don't know why nobody has thought of this before.

I could think of several G5 programs I'd look at first before those two Big 10 schools.....

(05-01-2015 02:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 01:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 01:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 12:39 PM)goofus Wrote:  the thing that is annoying is that if a 12-team or 14-team conference wants to set up a schedule where you get 3 permanent rivals and rotate the rest, they could easily do that under the current rules.

all they need to do is set up non-permanent rotating divisions. Its not that hard to do. But the larger conferences have decided they want permanent alignments where the divisions are the same each year. so is that it is proof thats what they prefer?

It isn't just the conferences that want permanent alignments. It's the Networks. Strong rivalries make for good programming. If the conference is continuously reshuffling, that wouldn't be seen as a positive thing by the Networks.

Sometimes strong rivalries make for good programming, and sometimes they don't. I expect that a once in a blue moon regular season game between Oklahoma and Oregon, with both teams highly ranked, would be far more interesting to a network than a strong rivalry game between UNC and Duke (or Virginia) or even Pitt-West Virginia.

The Big Ten schools want to keep their traditional rivalries, but games like Indiana-Purdue or Minnesota-Iowa aren't always must see TV.

I believe strongly in maintaining regional rivalries, but not necessarily because of TV.

The rivalry games are less valuable to TV than big intersectional games between name teams, but they are more valuable than a generic non-rivalry conference game. UNC-UVa is better for TV than UNC-BC, and Minnesota-Iowa is better for TV than Minnesota-Maryland. (Which is why football divisions based on geography or history between the teams are better than jumbled divisions.)

What people keep forgetting is that most revenue is internally generated. Rivalry games are important for gate revenue and donations.

That's another good reason why Minnesota-Iowa should be played much more often than Minnesota-Maryland, and why teams in the larger conferences want to hold onto those "permanent crossovers" like Alabama-Tennessee or Cal-UCLA.

(05-01-2015 02:51 PM)ken d Wrote:  It's a long time until the start of football season, so we do need something to talk about here.

The Big 12 has a dilemma. Do they expand by adding G5 schools, in which case they will lose money, or do they stay at 10 members and hope that there isn't an obvious playoff candidate in all four of the other P5 conferences every year?

Their ideal situation, of course, would be to add 2 teams, but not from the G5 - from one of the other P5 conferences instead. That would help them, but how do they get the other conference (not to mention their two target schools) to cooperate? That would take some really out of the box thinking, and an unprecedented amount of cooperation. It would be horse trading on an epic scale.

What are the Big 12's issues (besides the lack of a CCG)? For one, they lack eyeballs in their footprint. Outside of Texas, they are in states with fairly small populations. They don't need any more powerful football programs. They already have a high percentage of those compared with anybody but the SEC. They would like to have a logical bridge to West Virginia.

What does the Big Ten need (or, at least, where could they be improved)? Well, they already have a lot of eyeballs, and they have a lot of bragging rights about their research consortium. But they have a relatively poor ratio of good football teams to bad ones.

Could they help each other? Here is where we have to suspend our credulity and think outside the box. What if the Big Ten would part with Purdue and Illinois, trading them to the Big 12 for cash (and maybe a player to be named later). What a great bridge that would be between Morgantown, WV and Ames, IA or Manhattan, KS. A northern division could include 5 out of 6 schools basically connected by I-70.

The Big Ten's football would be strengthened by subtraction more than the B12 would be hurt by the addition. These two schools would add about 20 million people to the B12 footprint without subtracting any from the B1G's. The Big ten could sweeten the deal by allowing the two departing schools to remain members of the CIC, with the same status as former Big Ten member the U. of Chicago.

I don't know why nobody has thought of this before.

How long is it until September?

I have to assume this is tongue in cheek, because it's completely ludicrous. For one, no one is leaving the Big Ten for a lesser conference like the Big 12. Secondly, conferences don't have the power to "trade" schools. If they do and I'm mistaken, when and where can the AAC make an offer to buy LSU and Bama?

(05-01-2015 03:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That's another good reason why Minnesota-Iowa should be played much more often than Minnesota-Maryland, and why teams in the larger conferences want to hold onto those "permanent crossovers" like Alabama-Tennessee or Cal-UCLA.

Which gets at the "end all, be all" question of live telecast college football games: will viewers having no affiliation to the two teams or their respective universities watch a game simply because they are told that they "should" (ie, because it's a "great matchup", etc.) ?

I contend that for college football the answer is largely and widely "no". Only in very special circumstances is the answer yes. Such as the NCG.

And even last year's CFP NSFG and NCG numbers are baffling to me. I refuse to believe than an extra 10million people who didn't watch the BCS NCG two seasons ago said to themselves last season "....playoff?!? Ooooo, me watchie!!" .

I'm not denying the numbers they reported, just that explanation for them. I give humans more credit than that, I guess.


If I'm wrong, then the viewership numbers will drop off next season for the CFP as the novelty wears off. But if they continue with their step change increase from the BCS era, then there must be an explanation out there.

(05-01-2015 04:10 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-01-2015 03:40 PM)Wedge Wrote:  That's another good reason why Minnesota-Iowa should be played much more often than Minnesota-Maryland, and why teams in the larger conferences want to hold onto those "permanent crossovers" like Alabama-Tennessee or Cal-UCLA.

Which gets at the "end all, be all" question of live telecast college football games: will viewers having no affiliation to the two teams or their respective universities watch a game simply because they are told that they "should" (ie, because it's a "great matchup", etc.) ?

That's a different question. Bullet was saying that the rivalry games are important because of the "unshared" revenue, which would include ticket sales and increased donations from boosters who get fired up about rivalry games. (Example: Pre-game get-togethers for alums before "rivalry games" are popular and well-attended, and the AD and sometimes the chancellor are usually there to schmooze and size up potential large donations. Those events sometimes occur before non-rivalry games, but not as often and not as many alums bother to go.)

He's right. That's true.

But as far as the TV question goes, that's nut to crack. How do you get someone to watch the game who doesn't care about either team. Other sports leagues have managed it on a consistent basis. But I don't think it's in the cards for college football.

(05-01-2015 04:28 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  He's right. That's true.

But as far as the TV question goes, that's nut to crack. How do you get someone to watch the game who doesn't care about either team. Other sports leagues have managed it on a consistent basis. But I don't think it's in the cards for college football.

Other sports leagues have managed it on a consistent basis... because of gambling. How many would care about Jaguars-Titans, or some mid-January NBA game, in the absence of gambling?

You could follow the lead of the NBA commissioner who wants to make legal gambling more widespread and maybe even league-sponsored, but college sports are never going to go there.

(05-01-2015 04:44 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Other sports leagues have managed it on a consistent basis... because of gambling. How many would care about Jaguars-Titans, or some mid-January NBA game, in the absence of gambling?

You could follow the lead of the NBA commissioner who wants to make legal gambling more widespread and maybe even league-sponsored, but college sports are never going to go there.

That's probably right.

Perhaps expanded a bit to include other non-gambling, but obviously derivative activities. For example, fantasy sports.

(05-01-2015 12:59 PM)Dasville Wrote:  ESPN is really breaking down this subject the last few days. Here is another one today showing which teams are helped and hurt by conferences having divisions or not.




http://espn.go.com/college-football/stor...-divisions

Quote:How much does a team's division impact its conference win total? ESPN Stats & Information set out to answer this question by projecting the 2015 season for the four Power 5 conferences with divisions both in their current divisional states and in a hypothetical nondivisional format.

To project the nondivisional conference win total, preseason FPI was used to calculate each team's chance of winning a home and away game against every other team in its conference. College football is built on rivalries, so each team was assigned one rivalry game that it was guaranteed to play, and the remaining conference games were filled out with a formula that accounts for each team's chances of meeting and beating every other nonrival in their conference in a home and away setting.

This is pretty consistent with my own analysis in the past. Iowa fans had a big debate last year how much their easy schedule was going to help them in 2014 because they were trading OSU, MSU and Mich in 2013 for ILL, Indy, and MD in 2014. I correctly made the argument it would help increase the number of wins by 1, since Iowa ended up going 1-2 in 2013, and 2-1 in 2014 against those 3 teams.

So it does not surprise me ESPN predicts Wisc would have 0.8 less wins with no divisions and Iowa would have 0.6 less wins too.