Maybe the Big Ten will get rid of their football divisions and do this.

The biggest beneficiaries of that would be Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers. Without the divisions, they wouldn't have to play all four of Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, and Penn State every year. Would give them more of a chance to be bowl eligible, or in Rutgers' case, at least do better than 0-9 or 1-8 in conference games.

And allow the West teams to have the Big 4 visit more than once every 6 years.

Protect 5 for each team (leaving 4/8) and everyone’s guaranteed to have PSU, OSU, UM, or MSU visit annually.

what the biggest beneficiaries are gonna be OSU, Mich, PSU, MSU, Wis
there not doing anything for Rutgers, MD, Minn, Perdue

there gonna take Rutgers & MD away
so the big 4 can play Wisc & Neb
i don't think so
OSU is out of playoff because they lost to Perdue
rearanging the chairs is not gonna fix that
B-10 had 3 loses to the MAC, 1 to SB & Kansas
you want fix the B-10, build dome stadiums

Bring back Leaders and Legends

Going divisionless and matching the top 2 teams has pros and cons. The pro part is that their CCG will be relevant to TV. The con part is that the loser of that game might get knocked out of a NY6 bowl. Take a 11-1 Ohio State for instance. They just made Michigan who just kicked a 10-2 Michigan's butt. They might have had to play again. It really stinks to have to do that. Just ask Auburn about having to come back and tee it up with Georgia after 2 weeks.

The CCG won't suffer like it did this year. But if you lose a couple of million by having a a thrice beaten and twice kicked Michigan getting knocked out of a NY6 bowl what have you gained?

It devalues The Game. I's already gone from being part of the decision of who goes to the Rose Bowl almost every year ... whether both teams were in the hunt or only one ... to being part of the decision who goes to the play-in game for the Rose Bowl or CFP almost every year, but it's still the biggest game in the Big Ten final regular season weekend in almost any year.

Setting it up so that a do-over for the loser is a regular occurrence is going to face a lot of resistance.

(12-07-2018 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Going divisionless and matching the top 2 teams has pros and cons. The pro part is that their CCG will be relevant to TV. The con part is that the loser of that game might get knocked out of a NY6 bowl. Take a 11-1 Ohio State for instance. They just made Michigan who just kicked a 10-2 Michigan's butt. They might have had to play again. It really stinks to have to do that. Just ask Auburn about having to come back and tee it up with Georgia after 2 weeks.

The CCG won't suffer like it did this year. But if you lose a couple of million by having a a thrice beaten and twice kicked Michigan getting knocked out of a NY6 bowl what have you gained?

The other con is that it is stupid. The schedules are going to be very different so its not a reasonable way to sort teams. Each will only play 9 of the other 13 teams. Tiebreaks will get really convoluted.

(12-08-2018 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Going divisionless and matching the top 2 teams has pros and cons. The pro part is that their CCG will be relevant to TV. The con part is that the loser of that game might get knocked out of a NY6 bowl. Take a 11-1 Ohio State for instance. They just made Michigan who just kicked a 10-2 Michigan's butt. They might have had to play again. It really stinks to have to do that. Just ask Auburn about having to come back and tee it up with Georgia after 2 weeks.

The CCG won't suffer like it did this year. But if you lose a couple of million by having a a thrice beaten and twice kicked Michigan getting knocked out of a NY6 bowl what have you gained?

The other con is that it is stupid. The schedules are going to be very different so its not a reasonable way to sort teams. Each will only play 9 of the other 13 teams. Tiebreaks will get really convoluted.

They could do a 5-4 schedule with 5 annual rivals and flip the other 8 every other year

(12-08-2018 12:03 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Going divisionless and matching the top 2 teams has pros and cons. The pro part is that their CCG will be relevant to TV. The con part is that the loser of that game might get knocked out of a NY6 bowl. Take a 11-1 Ohio State for instance. They just made Michigan who just kicked a 10-2 Michigan's butt. They might have had to play again. It really stinks to have to do that. Just ask Auburn about having to come back and tee it up with Georgia after 2 weeks.

The CCG won't suffer like it did this year. But if you lose a couple of million by having a a thrice beaten and twice kicked Michigan getting knocked out of a NY6 bowl what have you gained?

The other con is that it is stupid. The schedules are going to be very different so its not a reasonable way to sort teams. Each will only play 9 of the other 13 teams. Tiebreaks will get really convoluted.

They could do a 5-4 schedule with 5 annual rivals and flip the other 8 every other year

Last year's games don't count to this year's tie breakers, so that doesn't help. It helps conference cohesion, but accidents of scheduling could eg, put two teams in a CCG that have each lost to 3 and 4, but 1 & 2 happened to be in the creampuff richer cycle of their schedule.

(12-08-2018 10:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 12:03 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Going divisionless and matching the top 2 teams has pros and cons. The pro part is that their CCG will be relevant to TV. The con part is that the loser of that game might get knocked out of a NY6 bowl. Take a 11-1 Ohio State for instance. They just made Michigan who just kicked a 10-2 Michigan's butt. They might have had to play again. It really stinks to have to do that. Just ask Auburn about having to come back and tee it up with Georgia after 2 weeks.

The CCG won't suffer like it did this year. But if you lose a couple of million by having a a thrice beaten and twice kicked Michigan getting knocked out of a NY6 bowl what have you gained?

The other con is that it is stupid. The schedules are going to be very different so its not a reasonable way to sort teams. Each will only play 9 of the other 13 teams. Tiebreaks will get really convoluted.

They could do a 5-4 schedule with 5 annual rivals and flip the other 8 every other year

Last year's games don't count to this year's tie breakers, so that doesn't help. It helps conference cohesion, but accidents of scheduling could eg, put two teams in a CCG that have each lost to 3 and 4, but 1 & 2 happened to be in the creampuff richer cycle of their schedule.

I've heard that argument posed before, but it's a false argument. Consider this:
* For 1 & 2 to be at the top despite losing to 3 & 4, they must've won the remaining games (in the case of the Big Ten than means 8-1 in conference) AND they didn't play each other - thus eliminating 4 teams (1,2,3 and 4).
* for 3 & 4 to be behind 1 & 2, they had to have lost at least 2 games each to teams other than 1 & 2, since you said they beat them - so for the sake of argument we'll say they lost to teams 5, 6, 7 and 8.
* for teams 5 - 8 to be behind 3&4 they must've lost 3 or more games each. NOW...
* which is really better: teams 1&2 who only lost 1 game each (to 3 & 4 respectively), OR teams 3 & 4 who lost 2 games each - and lost them to teams which themselves have 3 or more losses?

See the fallacy? We might say that 1 & 2 played an "cream puff" schedule because their opponents had more total losses, but the fact is they beat those teams, whereas 3&4 did not...

BOTTOM LINE: There is nothing conceptually wrong with simply taking the 2 teams with the best records, assuming equal and significant number of pseudo-random conference games.

(12-07-2018 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Going divisionless and matching the top 2 teams has pros and cons. The pro part is that their CCG will be relevant to TV. The con part is that the loser of that game might get knocked out of a NY6 bowl. Take a 11-1 Ohio State for instance. They just made Michigan who just kicked a 10-2 Michigan's butt. They might have had to play again. It really stinks to have to do that. Just ask Auburn about having to come back and tee it up with Georgia after 2 weeks.

The CCG won't suffer like it did this year. But if you lose a couple of million by having a a thrice beaten and twice kicked Michigan getting knocked out of a NY6 bowl what have you gained?

Good point. But conferences like the SEC and B1G, if they chose to go that route, would likely have team #3 at the very least and more likely teams #3 and #4 ready to jump in and replace #2 in NY6 bowls.

If the B1G did choose to go that route the immediate question I think they would need to answer is keep the Ohio State-Michigan game for the last week or move it to mid-to-late October?

Cheers,
Neil

(12-08-2018 10:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 10:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 12:03 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Going divisionless and matching the top 2 teams has pros and cons. The pro part is that their CCG will be relevant to TV. The con part is that the loser of that game might get knocked out of a NY6 bowl. Take a 11-1 Ohio State for instance. They just made Michigan who just kicked a 10-2 Michigan's butt. They might have had to play again. It really stinks to have to do that. Just ask Auburn about having to come back and tee it up with Georgia after 2 weeks.

The CCG won't suffer like it did this year. But if you lose a couple of million by having a a thrice beaten and twice kicked Michigan getting knocked out of a NY6 bowl what have you gained?

The other con is that it is stupid. The schedules are going to be very different so its not a reasonable way to sort teams. Each will only play 9 of the other 13 teams. Tiebreaks will get really convoluted.

They could do a 5-4 schedule with 5 annual rivals and flip the other 8 every other year

Last year's games don't count to this year's tie breakers, so that doesn't help. It helps conference cohesion, but accidents of scheduling could eg, put two teams in a CCG that have each lost to 3 and 4, but 1 & 2 happened to be in the creampuff richer cycle of their schedule.

I've heard that argument posed before, but it's a false argument. Consider this:
* For 1 & 2 to be at the top despite losing to 3 & 4, they must've won the remaining games (in the case of the Big Ten than means 8-1 in conference) AND they didn't play each other - thus eliminating 4 teams (1,2,3 and 4).
* for 3 & 4 to be behind 1 & 2, they had to have lost at least 2 games each to teams other than 1 & 2, since you said they beat them - so for the sake of argument we'll say they lost to teams 5, 6, 7 and 8.
* for teams 5 - 8 to be behind 3&4 they must've lost 3 or more games each. NOW...
* which is really better: teams 1&2 who only lost 1 game each (to 3 & 4 respectively), OR teams 3 & 4 who lost 2 games each - and lost them to teams which themselves have 3 or more losses?

See the fallacy? We might say that 1 & 2 played an "cream puff" schedule because their opponents had more total losses, but the fact is they beat those teams, whereas 3&4 did not...

BOTTOM LINE: There is nothing conceptually wrong with simply taking the 2 teams with the best records, assuming equal and significant number of pseudo-random conference games.

+3

Still haven't accumulated enough posts to give you actual rep points for this post.

Cheers,
Neil

Big Ten just needs Nebraska to get back or Wisconsin not crap the bed.

(12-08-2018 10:45 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 10:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  Last year's games don't count to this year's tie breakers, so that doesn't help. It helps conference cohesion, but accidents of scheduling could eg, put two teams in a CCG that have each lost to 3 and 4, but 1 & 2 happened to be in the creampuff richer cycle of their schedule.

I've heard that argument posed before, but it's a false argument. Consider this:
* For 1 & 2 to be at the top despite losing to 3 & 4, they must've won the remaining games (in the case of the Big Ten than means 8-1 in conference) AND they didn't play each other - thus eliminating 4 teams (1,2,3 and 4).

No, eliminating 3 teams, if you are counting "not playing yourself" as eliminating a team, eliminating 2 teams if counting more normally. You skip 4 teams playing 9 games in a 14 team division ...

Quote: * for 3 & 4 to be behind 1 & 2, they had to have lost at least 2 games each to teams other than 1 & 2, since you said they beat them - so for the sake of argument we'll say they lost to teams 5, 6, 7 and 8.

They were the teams that HAD the tougher schedule, so 4 lost to 3. They both played 5, 6, and 7, 3 lost to 5 and 7, 4 lost to 7 in addition to 3. By the original assumption, these three include the other two skipped by 1 & 2, so 5 lost to 1, 6 lost to 2, and 7 lost to 3, 5, and 6.

Quote: * for teams 5 - 8 to be behind 3&4 they must've lost 3 or more games each.

Not true, not in a 9 games out of 13 opponents schedule. 8 could be one of the cupcakes that never beat anybody 1-7, and 5&6 could both be two loss schools in those spots by head to head.

Quote: NOW...
* which is really better: teams 1&2 who only lost 1 game each (to 3 & 4 respectively), OR teams 3 & 4 who lost 2 games each - and lost them to teams which themselves have 3 or more losses?

In this case, definitely 3&4, since they were undefeated OOC, including to ranked schools, while 2 was 2-1 winning both its buy games and losing to an unranked A5 schools, while 1 was 1-2 OOC, losing one of its buy games as well as losing to an unranked A5 school.

It's a lot easier to paint scenarios where in-conference SOS differences put the strongest school in 3rd place on an in-conference-game-only basis (and this is the Big Ten, the odds that it will be in-conference-only are very, very short odds), but skipping 4 games does make it feasible for both of the strongest schools to be 3 and 4th in the conference ladder due to a couple of unfortunate events in a couple of games.

Quote: See the fallacy? We might say that 1 & 2 played an "cream puff" schedule because their opponents had more total losses, but the fact is they beat those teams, whereas 3&4 did not...

3&4 don't necessarily have more total losses, just one more conference loss. In this scenario, the records could well be #1 9-3 (8-1), #2 10-2 (8-1), #3 10-2 (7-2), #4 10-2 (7-2), #5 9-3 (7-2), #6 9-3 (6-3){+}, #7 8-4 (6-3).
({+ Team #6 slipped up against one of the bottom 7 schools.})

Quote: BOTTOM LINE: There is nothing conceptually wrong with simply taking the 2 teams with the best records, assuming equal and significant number of pseudo-random conference games.

The more in-conference opponents are skipped, the more in-conference SOS makes that questionable. With only 2 or 3 games skipped, it's less of an issue. With 4 games skipped, the possibility of the best team getting left out starts to be noticeable. When it hits 6 games skipped, the possibility of missing the best team because of in-conference strength of record will start to be quite substantial.

The "BOTTOM LINE" is implicitly assuming that the "significant number" is a yes/no question, like flipping a light switch ... when in reality it is a continuum. 8/11 is more significant than 9/13, which is more significant than 9/15.

I think that would be a DUMB idea. I can't believe they'd be actually considering it.

Instead, put Ohio State in the lesser division, and move Northwestern into the other.

That said -- this year, IMO, was a little too off-kilter as to what to expect every year.

Nebraska started off the season as a disaster under a new coach but became REAL near the end of it. Plus, Wisconsin had a down year.

You'll end up seeing Nebraska as a title contender, and Wisconsin in the same league as them most years. Add to that, Purdue's on their way up, and Northwestern is always a solid competitor... with Minnesota on their way up with PJ.

But if you trade Ohio State -> NW -- you'd have even divisions:

1. Ohio State
2. Nebraska
3. Wisconsin
4. Iowa
5. Minnesota
6. Purdue
7. Illinois

1. Michigan
2. Penn State
3. Michigan State
4. Northwestern
5. Maryland
6. Indiana
7. Rutgers

There, I would see many years the current "weak" division being stronger. :) Again, Nebraska is on their way up and will be in the B10 elite starting next year most likely. Minnesota looks to be a divisional contender to some degree as they're improving. And you also have Wisconsin & Iowa.

You move Ohio State in there and trade them for typically 2nd-4th place in division and suddenly that division's tougher, IMO.

(12-10-2018 04:44 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  I think that would be a DUMB idea. I can't believe they'd be actually considering it.

Instead, put Ohio State in the lesser division, and move Northwestern into the other.

That said -- this year, IMO, was a little too off-kilter as to what to expect every year.

Nebraska started off the season as a disaster under a new coach but became REAL near the end of it. Plus, Wisconsin had a down year.

You'll end up seeing Nebraska as a title contender, and Wisconsin in the same league as them most years. Add to that, Purdue's on their way up, and Northwestern is always a solid competitor... with Minnesota on their way up with PJ.

But if you trade Ohio State -> NW -- you'd have even divisions:

1. Ohio State
2. Nebraska
3. Wisconsin
4. Iowa
5. Minnesota
6. Purdue
7. Illinois

1. Michigan
2. Penn State
3. Michigan State
4. Northwestern
5. Maryland
6. Indiana
7. Rutgers

There, I would see many years the current "weak" division being stronger. :) Again, Nebraska is on their way up and will be in the B10 elite starting next year most likely. Minnesota looks to be a divisional contender to some degree as they're improving. And you also have Wisconsin & Iowa.

You move Ohio State in there and trade them for typically 2nd-4th place in division and suddenly that division's tougher, IMO.

If you're going to move any team from the Big Ten West to the East, it should be Purdue. And moving just OSU to the West is problematic, since Penn State (and likely MSU) wants to play OSU annually, but you can only protect Michigan.

(12-10-2018 08:38 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(12-10-2018 04:44 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  I think that would be a DUMB idea. I can't believe they'd be actually considering it.

Instead, put Ohio State in the lesser division, and move Northwestern into the other.

That said -- this year, IMO, was a little too off-kilter as to what to expect every year.

Nebraska started off the season as a disaster under a new coach but became REAL near the end of it. Plus, Wisconsin had a down year.

You'll end up seeing Nebraska as a title contender, and Wisconsin in the same league as them most years. Add to that, Purdue's on their way up, and Northwestern is always a solid competitor... with Minnesota on their way up with PJ.

But if you trade Ohio State -> NW -- you'd have even divisions:

1. Ohio State
2. Nebraska
3. Wisconsin
4. Iowa
5. Minnesota
6. Purdue
7. Illinois

1. Michigan
2. Penn State
3. Michigan State
4. Northwestern
5. Maryland
6. Indiana
7. Rutgers

There, I would see many years the current "weak" division being stronger. :) Again, Nebraska is on their way up and will be in the B10 elite starting next year most likely. Minnesota looks to be a divisional contender to some degree as they're improving. And you also have Wisconsin & Iowa.

You move Ohio State in there and trade them for typically 2nd-4th place in division and suddenly that division's tougher, IMO.

If you're going to move any team from the Big Ten West to the East, it should be Purdue. And moving just OSU to the West is problematic, since Penn State (and likely MSU) wants to play OSU annually, but you can only protect Michigan.

Put both Michigan and MSU in the West, both Indiana and Purdue in the East. Protect just one crossover: Ohio State vs. Michigan. Rotate everybody else.

You're welcome. (Note: Delaney can send the check to Hokie Mark, c/o CSNBBS.com)

(12-08-2018 10:06 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 12:03 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(12-08-2018 08:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-07-2018 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Going divisionless and matching the top 2 teams has pros and cons. The pro part is that their CCG will be relevant to TV. The con part is that the loser of that game might get knocked out of a NY6 bowl. Take a 11-1 Ohio State for instance. They just made Michigan who just kicked a 10-2 Michigan's butt. They might have had to play again. It really stinks to have to do that. Just ask Auburn about having to come back and tee it up with Georgia after 2 weeks.

The CCG won't suffer like it did this year. But if you lose a couple of million by having a a thrice beaten and twice kicked Michigan getting knocked out of a NY6 bowl what have you gained?

The other con is that it is stupid. The schedules are going to be very different so its not a reasonable way to sort teams. Each will only play 9 of the other 13 teams. Tiebreaks will get really convoluted.

They could do a 5-4 schedule with 5 annual rivals and flip the other 8 every other year

Last year's games don't count to this year's tie breakers, so that doesn't help. It helps conference cohesion, but accidents of scheduling could eg, put two teams in a CCG that have each lost to 3 and 4, but 1 & 2 happened to be in the creampuff richer cycle of their schedule.

It actually happened quite frequently that someone competed or even won during the 8 game 11 team era. Whoever didn't have Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedule was a contender. Purdue had a pretty bad team one year and would have won had they been able to pull off an upset of Penn St. late in the season. Northwestern had a couple of titles, one without playing either and I think the other they only played Michigan.

With 9 games out of 13, it would happen even more.