The issue with divisions is that if Team A and Team B aren't in the same division they don't play as often. In the Pac-12 with only 12 teams and 9 game schedules, divisions are no big deal since teams still play pretty often. In the Big Ten, there's 14 teams and 9 game schedules so teams play less often but still fairly often. But in the SEC it's 14 teams and 8 game schedules and worse they have permanent rivals so if you are not in the same division you play twice in 12 years. Who wouldn't want to see Alabama and Georgia play more often? Alabama and Florida? And if you move Alabama to the East, then Alabama wouldn't play LSU or Texas A&M (they can play one as a permanent rival but not the other). In the ACC, North Carolina and Wake Forest are in the same state but have to use a non conference game just to play each other. Meanwhile North Carolina has to play Pittsburgh every season. Why? At least the SEC divisions are East/West (well Missouri in the East makes no sense). We all know the ACC divisions make no sense whatsoever. So why have them? You want teams like Alabama and Auburn or Georgia and Florida to play each other every year. You don't need Florida and Missouri or Clemson and Boston College to play each other every year and deny us better games more often.

(02-04-2021 12:21 PM)schmolik Wrote:  The issue with divisions is that if Team A and Team B aren't in the same division they don't play as often. In the Pac-12 with only 12 teams and 9 game schedules, divisions are no big deal since teams still play pretty often. In the Big Ten, there's 14 teams and 9 game schedules so teams play less often but still fairly often. But in the SEC it's 14 teams and 8 game schedules and worse they have permanent rivals so if you are not in the same division you play twice in 12 years. Who wouldn't want to see Alabama and Georgia play more often? Alabama and Florida? And if you move Alabama to the East, then Alabama wouldn't play LSU or Texas A&M (they can play one as a permanent rival but not the other). In the ACC, North Carolina and Wake Forest are in the same state but have to use a non conference game just to play each other. Meanwhile North Carolina has to play Pittsburgh every season. Why? At least the SEC divisions are East/West (well Missouri in the East makes no sense). We all know the ACC divisions make no sense whatsoever. So why have them? You want teams like Alabama and Auburn or Georgia and Florida to play each other every year. You don't need Florida and Missouri or Clemson and Boston College to play each other every year and deny us better games more often.

Solution? Play 10 conference games.

10 conference games is where we are headed. For the SEC and Pac-12 you could see a 9th and 10th conference game respectively as each want to maximize their next contracts. The ACC will be under pressure to grow their contract and a 9th game is one of the few ways to trigger a positive adjustment in their very long ESPN contract.

As the number of contests in conference increases the value of divisions declines. Conferences will want to do what the B12 does, send the highest two ranked schools to the CCG.

The B1G had a year where tOSU went to the playoff but not the CCG. Clemson faced no hope for playoffs schools like Duke in the CCG for years. The P12 has had many useless CCGs as a result of divisions as well. These changes are inevitable, it's just how soon.

(02-03-2021 04:01 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  No Divisions.

Pods are a joke. Just lock down three rivals, put the rest in rotation. At this level travel costs are not important.

I think the same for the SEC and B1G. It allows you to go "odd" adding an Oklahoma only. The future is an additional conference game. When you go to 9 or even 10 for the SEC and ACC and perhaps 10 for the P12 and B1G, divisions mean even less.

Divisions have been discarded by these conferences for Basketball and Volleyball, since the regular season just seeds the Tournament. All are in, not a single CCG.

The only place they seem to have value is when there is a strong geographic split like in the Pac-12 for Baseball.

In Football they are vestigial from when the CCG decided who would go to the Rose, Sugar, Citrus or Cotton Bowl, and gave the conferences an extra big game, before the playoff made then less important (except in a negative way as they could keep a school that loses out).

"Pods" are just another name for divisions. They are just 4 team divisions instead of 8 team ones.

We could call the AFC North or NFC South a pod.

Rotating pods is one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard.

The irony is that rotating pods are championed by some of the same people who say that they don't know who is in what ACC division, for instance.

So...yeah, lets "musical chair" them every single year.

Actually appearing in Georgia or Virginia for recruiting purposes matters to NC State. In the current system we are in Georgia once every 12 years and in Va once every 6. There are few recruits in NY, Mass, and Kentucky. No one in the ACC Coastal has a dead talent state in their division. (Dead meaning very few P-5 kids on average)

While Duke is about 10 miles away and we only play them now every six years, it's UVa, VT, Pitt, and GT that matter more.

No one south of Pitt really wants to go to Syracuse or Boston more than once every four years. It's a logistics ***** to get to Syracuse and domes suck. The window for upstate NY for scenery is closing by early October the winter sets in. Parking a car in Chestnut Hill is worse than trying to park one in Chapel Hill. That means rail travel as the best way their from Downtown Boston. Louisville sucks in November. NC State could get by only playing WF on an annual basis since 1910 and a 114 total since 1895. We've played UNC 110 times. Our fans would like to see something where Duke and Clemson flipped every year. We've played Duke 83 times despite only playing 4 times in the last two decades. We've played VT and UVa 50 and 59 times and we should be flipping them every year. Our biggest annual game used to be South Carolina and we had been in the same conference with MD since 1911. The schools in the Coastal have no reason to change. They have the best recruiting footprint and have never had a top 5 program in their division so naturally they are happy.

With the larger conferences, if the goal is to play more schools regularly, then dumping the divisions would be one way to accomplish this.

In the SEC/ACC/B1G (14 schools), if you protect three games for each school, then you can play everyone in your conference home/away every four years with an 8-game schedule. Five of the non-protected schools in years 1 & 2, the other five schools in years 3 & 4. If you went to a 9-game schedule, you could protect five games per year, and play everyone in your conference home/away every four years by playing four of the non-protected schools in years 1 & 2 and the other four in years 3 & 4.

The conference championship game would pit the top 2 teams against each other every year. Guessing most schools would be happy if they could protect three games a year and almost all should be happy if they could protect five.

I'm a Big Ten West guy, but would be perfectly happy division-less with 5 protected schools each year. Gives you that regional feel while being able to play all the schools more often.

Nebraska examples:
8-Game schedule
Protected: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Years 1 & 2: Ohio State, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue, Maryland
Years 3 & 4: Penn State, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers

9-Game schedule
Protected: Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Penn State
Years 1 & 2: Ohio State, Indiana, Maryland, Illinois
years 3 & 4: Michigan, Michigan State, Rutgers, Purdue

(02-04-2021 03:38 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 04:01 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  No Divisions.

Pods are a joke. Just lock down three rivals, put the rest in rotation. At this level travel costs are not important.

I think the same for the SEC and B1G. It allows you to go "odd" adding an Oklahoma only. The future is an additional conference game. When you go to 9 or even 10 for the SEC and ACC and perhaps 10 for the P12 and B1G, divisions mean even less.

Divisions have been discarded by these conferences for Basketball and Volleyball, since the regular season just seeds the Tournament. All are in, not a single CCG.

The only place they seem to have value is when there is a strong geographic split like in the Pac-12 for Baseball.

In Football they are vestigial from when the CCG decided who would go to the Rose, Sugar, Citrus or Cotton Bowl, and gave the conferences an extra big game, before the playoff made then less important (except in a negative way as they could keep a school that loses out).

"Pods" are just another name for divisions. They are just 4 team divisions instead of 8 team ones.

We could call the AFC North or NFC South a pod.

Rotating pods is one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard.

The irony is that rotating pods are championed by some of the same people who say that they don't know who is in what ACC division, for instance.

So...yeah, lets "musical chair" them every single year.

Incorrect. Pods are scheduling units that comprise parts of divisions, unlike the distinct 4-team divisions of the NFL. Rotating pods between divisions decreases the amount of time it takes to play everyone in the conference, which some people value, and reasonably so. And if done right, it's easy to know what division you're in. Name the pods North, South, East, and West, and have Northeast and Southwest Divisions in even years and Northwest and Southeast Divisions in odd years. That's not all that difficult to remember. But FWIW, while I can understand how one might have some difficulty in remembering exactly which schools are in which ACC division, again, I don't think it's really all that hard, especially if you follow the conference.

(02-04-2021 12:32 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:21 PM)schmolik Wrote:  The issue with divisions is that if Team A and Team B aren't in the same division they don't play as often. In the Pac-12 with only 12 teams and 9 game schedules, divisions are no big deal since teams still play pretty often. In the Big Ten, there's 14 teams and 9 game schedules so teams play less often but still fairly often. But in the SEC it's 14 teams and 8 game schedules and worse they have permanent rivals so if you are not in the same division you play twice in 12 years. Who wouldn't want to see Alabama and Georgia play more often? Alabama and Florida? And if you move Alabama to the East, then Alabama wouldn't play LSU or Texas A&M (they can play one as a permanent rival but not the other). In the ACC, North Carolina and Wake Forest are in the same state but have to use a non conference game just to play each other. Meanwhile North Carolina has to play Pittsburgh every season. Why? At least the SEC divisions are East/West (well Missouri in the East makes no sense). We all know the ACC divisions make no sense whatsoever. So why have them? You want teams like Alabama and Auburn or Georgia and Florida to play each other every year. You don't need Florida and Missouri or Clemson and Boston College to play each other every year and deny us better games more often.

Solution? Play 10 conference games.

(02-04-2021 06:04 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 03:38 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 04:01 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  No Divisions.

Pods are a joke. Just lock down three rivals, put the rest in rotation. At this level travel costs are not important.

I think the same for the SEC and B1G. It allows you to go "odd" adding an Oklahoma only. The future is an additional conference game. When you go to 9 or even 10 for the SEC and ACC and perhaps 10 for the P12 and B1G, divisions mean even less.

Divisions have been discarded by these conferences for Basketball and Volleyball, since the regular season just seeds the Tournament. All are in, not a single CCG.

The only place they seem to have value is when there is a strong geographic split like in the Pac-12 for Baseball.

In Football they are vestigial from when the CCG decided who would go to the Rose, Sugar, Citrus or Cotton Bowl, and gave the conferences an extra big game, before the playoff made then less important (except in a negative way as they could keep a school that loses out).

"Pods" are just another name for divisions. They are just 4 team divisions instead of 8 team ones.

We could call the AFC North or NFC South a pod.

Rotating pods is one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard.

The irony is that rotating pods are championed by some of the same people who say that they don't know who is in what ACC division, for instance.

So...yeah, lets "musical chair" them every single year.

Incorrect. Pods are scheduling units that comprise parts of divisions, unlike the distinct 4-team divisions of the NFL. Rotating pods between divisions decreases the amount of time it takes to play everyone in the conference, which some people value, and reasonably so. And if done right, it's easy to know what division you're in. Name the pods North, South, East, and West, and have Northeast and Southwest Divisions in even years and Northwest and Southeast Divisions in odd years. That's not all that difficult to remember. But FWIW, while I can understand how one might have some difficulty in remembering exactly which schools are in which ACC division, again, I don't think it's really all that hard, especially if you follow the conference.

A pod and a division are the same damn things with different names.

It is a grouping of schools in the standings within a conference.

(02-04-2021 08:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 06:04 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 03:38 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 04:01 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  No Divisions.

Pods are a joke. Just lock down three rivals, put the rest in rotation. At this level travel costs are not important.

I think the same for the SEC and B1G. It allows you to go "odd" adding an Oklahoma only. The future is an additional conference game. When you go to 9 or even 10 for the SEC and ACC and perhaps 10 for the P12 and B1G, divisions mean even less.

Divisions have been discarded by these conferences for Basketball and Volleyball, since the regular season just seeds the Tournament. All are in, not a single CCG.

The only place they seem to have value is when there is a strong geographic split like in the Pac-12 for Baseball.

In Football they are vestigial from when the CCG decided who would go to the Rose, Sugar, Citrus or Cotton Bowl, and gave the conferences an extra big game, before the playoff made then less important (except in a negative way as they could keep a school that loses out).

"Pods" are just another name for divisions. They are just 4 team divisions instead of 8 team ones.

We could call the AFC North or NFC South a pod.

Rotating pods is one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard.

The irony is that rotating pods are championed by some of the same people who say that they don't know who is in what ACC division, for instance.

So...yeah, lets "musical chair" them every single year.

Incorrect. Pods are scheduling units that comprise parts of divisions, unlike the distinct 4-team divisions of the NFL. Rotating pods between divisions decreases the amount of time it takes to play everyone in the conference, which some people value, and reasonably so. And if done right, it's easy to know what division you're in. Name the pods North, South, East, and West, and have Northeast and Southwest Divisions in even years and Northwest and Southeast Divisions in odd years. That's not all that difficult to remember. But FWIW, while I can understand how one might have some difficulty in remembering exactly which schools are in which ACC division, again, I don't think it's really all that hard, especially if you follow the conference.

A pod and a division are the same damn things with different names.

It is a grouping of schools in the standings within a conference.

No need to get angry. They are broadly similar, but still fundamentally distinct, as I described. Another significant difference, from an administrative perspective, between pods and divisions is that only the latter is currently subject to NCAA rules.

You can have scheduling pods without making them district in the standings.

But to me, getting rid of divisions are the way to go.

I also like the idea of having week zero games for rivalry games. That way schools can choose whether or not to have a 13 week regular season. Schools place the utmost importance of having 7 home games. Week Zero helps schools accomplish both feats.

(02-04-2021 08:31 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 08:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 06:04 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 03:38 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 04:01 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  No Divisions.

Pods are a joke. Just lock down three rivals, put the rest in rotation. At this level travel costs are not important.

I think the same for the SEC and B1G. It allows you to go "odd" adding an Oklahoma only. The future is an additional conference game. When you go to 9 or even 10 for the SEC and ACC and perhaps 10 for the P12 and B1G, divisions mean even less.

Divisions have been discarded by these conferences for Basketball and Volleyball, since the regular season just seeds the Tournament. All are in, not a single CCG.

The only place they seem to have value is when there is a strong geographic split like in the Pac-12 for Baseball.

In Football they are vestigial from when the CCG decided who would go to the Rose, Sugar, Citrus or Cotton Bowl, and gave the conferences an extra big game, before the playoff made then less important (except in a negative way as they could keep a school that loses out).

"Pods" are just another name for divisions. They are just 4 team divisions instead of 8 team ones.

We could call the AFC North or NFC South a pod.

Rotating pods is one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard.

The irony is that rotating pods are championed by some of the same people who say that they don't know who is in what ACC division, for instance.

So...yeah, lets "musical chair" them every single year.

Incorrect. Pods are scheduling units that comprise parts of divisions, unlike the distinct 4-team divisions of the NFL. Rotating pods between divisions decreases the amount of time it takes to play everyone in the conference, which some people value, and reasonably so. And if done right, it's easy to know what division you're in. Name the pods North, South, East, and West, and have Northeast and Southwest Divisions in even years and Northwest and Southeast Divisions in odd years. That's not all that difficult to remember. But FWIW, while I can understand how one might have some difficulty in remembering exactly which schools are in which ACC division, again, I don't think it's really all that hard, especially if you follow the conference.

A pod and a division are the same damn things with different names.

It is a grouping of schools in the standings within a conference.

No need to get angry. They are broadly similar, but still fundamentally distinct, as I described. Another significant difference, from an administrative perspective, between pods and divisions is that only the latter is currently subject to NCAA rules.

I never get angry.

Those are distinctions without differences.

Your last line would be changed right after pods existed (which they only do on message boards like this one)

Chiming in on the pods versus divisions debate:

They are two distinct things—

2 or more pods form a division

Look at how the WAC did it from 1996-1998.

They had pods I, II, III, and IV and the idea was that every 2 years the divisions would change:

In 1996-1997 I and II formed the West and III and IV formed the East

In 1998 I and III were in the West and II and IV were in the East

The reason pods failed there was they had 4 team pods and their was a group of 5 schools who wanted to play annually.

Rotating pods can work, you just have to create ones that make all the members happy.

(02-05-2021 10:20 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 08:31 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 08:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 06:04 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 03:38 PM)TerryD Wrote:  "Pods" are just another name for divisions. They are just 4 team divisions instead of 8 team ones.

We could call the AFC North or NFC South a pod.

Rotating pods is one of the dumbest ideas that I have ever heard.

The irony is that rotating pods are championed by some of the same people who say that they don't know who is in what ACC division, for instance.

So...yeah, lets "musical chair" them every single year.

Incorrect. Pods are scheduling units that comprise parts of divisions, unlike the distinct 4-team divisions of the NFL. Rotating pods between divisions decreases the amount of time it takes to play everyone in the conference, which some people value, and reasonably so. And if done right, it's easy to know what division you're in. Name the pods North, South, East, and West, and have Northeast and Southwest Divisions in even years and Northwest and Southeast Divisions in odd years. That's not all that difficult to remember. But FWIW, while I can understand how one might have some difficulty in remembering exactly which schools are in which ACC division, again, I don't think it's really all that hard, especially if you follow the conference.

A pod and a division are the same damn things with different names.

It is a grouping of schools in the standings within a conference.

No need to get angry. They are broadly similar, but still fundamentally distinct, as I described. Another significant difference, from an administrative perspective, between pods and divisions is that only the latter is currently subject to NCAA rules.

I never get angry.

Those are distinctions without differences.

Your last line would be changed right after pods existed (which they only do on message boards like this one)

You're objectively wrong here about there being no difference between pods and divisions, so I gather that your insistent denial is due to some agenda you're trying to push. "Conferences are bad"?

(02-04-2021 04:47 PM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  I'm a Big Ten West guy, but would be perfectly happy division-less with 5 protected schools each year. Gives you that regional feel while being able to play all the schools more often.

Nebraska examples:
8-Game schedule
Protected: Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Years 1 & 2: Ohio State, Michigan State, Northwestern, Purdue, Maryland
Years 3 & 4: Penn State, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Rutgers

9-Game schedule
Protected: Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Penn State
Years 1 & 2: Ohio State, Indiana, Maryland, Illinois
years 3 & 4: Michigan, Michigan State, Rutgers, Purdue

You began to illustrate a point I wanted to make about "pods" and having 3 protected games.

Your schedule for Nebraska would create a disadvantage for you. Why? Your rivals are better teams than, let's say, Illinois.

As a PSU fan, I'd call our rivals our "equals"...which is Michigan and Ohio State and Michigan State (and I'd gladly throw in Nebraska historically). But if you put them on our schedule each year...but give Rutgers a "rivalry" versus Maryland and Indiana and Purdue, our schedule is going to be much harder...and less fair.

I'm not saying this is a "deal breaker" on the division-less idea...it just adds a nuance of unfairness.

(Sidenote: the conferences and TV networks would love it though. UM/OSU/PSU/Nebraska is better TV money than Illinois and Purdue playing in equitably scheduled games with those teams.)

(02-04-2021 03:01 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  10 conference games is where we are headed. For the SEC and Pac-12 you could see a 9th and 10th conference game respectively as each want to maximize their next contracts. The ACC will be under pressure to grow their contract and a 9th game is one of the few ways to trigger a positive adjustment in their very long ESPN contract.

As the number of contests in conference increases the value of divisions declines. Conferences will want to do what the B12 does, send the highest two ranked schools to the CCG.

The B1G had a year where tOSU went to the playoff but not the CCG. Clemson faced no hope for playoffs schools like Duke in the CCG for years. The P12 has had many useless CCGs as a result of divisions as well. These changes are inevitable, it's just how soon.

With 9 games the SEC and ACC schools would play everyone in conference at least once in 3 years. The Pac 12 with 9 and 2 fixed rivals plays everybody every other year.

The Big 10 with 9 plays everyone 8 times in 18 years (except Purdue and Indiana who have a fixed rivalry to its 6 in 18 for them).

(02-05-2021 04:59 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 10:20 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 08:31 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 08:21 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 06:04 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Incorrect. Pods are scheduling units that comprise parts of divisions, unlike the distinct 4-team divisions of the NFL. Rotating pods between divisions decreases the amount of time it takes to play everyone in the conference, which some people value, and reasonably so. And if done right, it's easy to know what division you're in. Name the pods North, South, East, and West, and have Northeast and Southwest Divisions in even years and Northwest and Southeast Divisions in odd years. That's not all that difficult to remember. But FWIW, while I can understand how one might have some difficulty in remembering exactly which schools are in which ACC division, again, I don't think it's really all that hard, especially if you follow the conference.

A pod and a division are the same damn things with different names.

It is a grouping of schools in the standings within a conference.

No need to get angry. They are broadly similar, but still fundamentally distinct, as I described. Another significant difference, from an administrative perspective, between pods and divisions is that only the latter is currently subject to NCAA rules.

I never get angry.

Those are distinctions without differences.

Your last line would be changed right after pods existed (which they only do on message boards like this one)

You're objectively wrong here about there being no difference between pods and divisions, so I gather that your insistent denial is due to some agenda you're trying to push. "Conferences are bad"?

No, not today. I just think that even the name "pods" is dumb.

(02-03-2021 07:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 05:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. Back in the fall I did a review of the conference standings for every conference season that ended in a CCG and of those, 40 some would have ended in complete chaos if divisionless:

2 or more teams tying for 2nd with no H2H
3, 4, and even 5 way ties for 1st or 2nd

You do not want divisionless play.

Agreed.

Just look at the Big 10 season by season during their 8 game, 11 team era. Whoever managed to miss Ohio St. and Michigan competed for the title. One year Purdue would have won it if they simply upset Penn St. They didn't so they ended up 5-3 in conference. They were not a good team. Northwestern won one year when they missed them both. One year Ohio St. and Iowa both finished 8-0.

Just horrible idea for any conference over 10 teams.

This is not necessarily an argument against divisions, but more of an argument that there should be some kind of CCG at the end, regardless of whether there are divisions or not.

I am in favor of getting rid of divisions simply because it creates more flexibility in scheduling and more chance to play all the teams in the conference more often.

As an Iowa fan, I would trade getting rid of divisions for the opportunity to play OSU, Mich, MSU 50% of time while still playing Neb, Wisc, and Minn as protected rivals every year.

And I have looked at the numbers in detail, and I don't believe it will change much the number of times Iowa goes to the CCG, which would be looked at as the equivilant of a division championship.

Plus I believe there will be less debate about whether the top 2 teams will be playing in the CCG game, which I agree won't go away entirely because of unequal schedules and imperfect tiebreakers, but in the end every team will have their shot to go undefeated. Schedules can be set up to make sure you never have 3 undefeated teams.

Related note:

One of the reasons the pros keep their two halves is marketing their Championship Game. The SEC may be the only FBS conference where the two divisions have long-standing identities and where the conference may keep divisions even if offered otherwise.

(02-06-2021 03:03 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 07:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 05:46 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless is a hot mess. Back in the fall I did a review of the conference standings for every conference season that ended in a CCG and of those, 40 some would have ended in complete chaos if divisionless:

2 or more teams tying for 2nd with no H2H
3, 4, and even 5 way ties for 1st or 2nd

You do not want divisionless play.

Agreed.

Just look at the Big 10 season by season during their 8 game, 11 team era. Whoever managed to miss Ohio St. and Michigan competed for the title. One year Purdue would have won it if they simply upset Penn St. They didn't so they ended up 5-3 in conference. They were not a good team. Northwestern won one year when they missed them both. One year Ohio St. and Iowa both finished 8-0.

Just horrible idea for any conference over 10 teams.

This is not necessarily an argument against divisions, but more of an argument that there should be some kind of CCG at the end, regardless of whether there are divisions or not.

No. This is an argument against having no divisions. You don't get clear winners and the differences in schedules make comparing records less fare.