(02-06-2021 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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.

Yes, I should have worded that better. You were arguing against having no divisions, or in other words, arguing to keep divisions.

I was trying to point out that most of your examples of unequal scheduling, or problems with missing teams on a schedule, can be solved by playing a CCG which the Big Ten did not do in the old days before divisions.

If a team finishes in first because they skipped the 2 best teams, then they still need to play in the CCG to win the conference championship. If 2 teams finish undefeated because they skipped each other on the schedule, then those 2 teams now will play in the CCG.

(02-06-2021 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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.

But how the divisions are currently set up the schedules are not fair either due to crossovers both permanent and that years scheduled crossover(s).

I think division less is the way to go with three permanent rivals. I think division less makes more sense in the ACC, BIG and PAC where the recent expansion has made the conference much less cohesive.

Crayton you brought up an interesting point about the SEC not choosing to disband divisions even if they are allowed. The SEC did the best job with expansion.

(02-06-2021 07:03 PM)Arch Stanton Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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.

But how the divisions are currently set up the schedules are not fair either due to crossovers both permanent and that years scheduled crossover(s).

I think division less is the way to go with three permanent rivals. I think division less makes more sense in the ACC, BIG and PAC where the recent expansion has made the conference much less cohesive.

Crayton you brought up an interesting point about the SEC not choosing to disband divisions even if they are allowed. The SEC did the best job with expansion.

That's why Missouri is in the east! I'm not advocating for the SEC to change things but the PAC 12 probably did the best if you're looking at divisional breakdowns.

I think the Big Ten is fine with the current divisions. Who feels they currently aren't playing everyone that they would want to already? Only the Illinois and Indiana schools may want to mix it up with divisionless. What they should do is get rid of the temporarily locked cross-division opponent. Indiana-Purdue should be the only locked one and maybe Illinois-Ohio State (not currently locked).

(02-07-2021 08:42 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 07:03 PM)Arch Stanton Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 03:03 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 07:05 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

But how the divisions are currently set up the schedules are not fair either due to crossovers both permanent and that years scheduled crossover(s).

I think division less is the way to go with three permanent rivals. I think division less makes more sense in the ACC, BIG and PAC where the recent expansion has made the conference much less cohesive.

Crayton you brought up an interesting point about the SEC not choosing to disband divisions even if they are allowed. The SEC did the best job with expansion.

I think the Big Ten is fine with the current divisions. Who feels they currently aren't playing everyone that they would want to already? Only the Illinois and Indiana schools may want to mix it up with divisionless. What they should do is get rid of the temporarily locked cross-division opponent. Indiana-Purdue should be the only locked one and maybe Illinois-Ohio State (not currently locked).

Which other teams are "locked"?

(02-07-2021 04:11 PM)westwolf Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 08:42 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 07:03 PM)Arch Stanton Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 03:03 PM)goofus Wrote:  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.

But how the divisions are currently set up the schedules are not fair either due to crossovers both permanent and that years scheduled crossover(s).

I think division less is the way to go with three permanent rivals. I think division less makes more sense in the ACC, BIG and PAC where the recent expansion has made the conference much less cohesive.

Crayton you brought up an interesting point about the SEC not choosing to disband divisions even if they are allowed. The SEC did the best job with expansion.

I think the Big Ten is fine with the current divisions. Who feels they currently aren't playing everyone that they would want to already? Only the Illinois and Indiana schools may want to mix it up with divisionless. What they should do is get rid of the temporarily locked cross-division opponent. Indiana-Purdue should be the only locked one and maybe Illinois-Ohio State (not currently locked).

Which other teams are "locked"?

Indiana - Purdue is the only one locked permanently. The temporarily locked ones are:
Penn State - Iowa
Ohio State - Nebraska
Michigan - Wisconsin
Michigan State - Northwestern
Maryland - Minnesota
Rutgers - Illinois

These rotate every six years (I think).

(02-05-2021 07:49 PM)micahandme Wrote:  

(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.)

This is why I think protecting 5 games would be better than three. Most schools don't have 5 rivals and you could really protect 3 rivals while using the other 2 protected games to balance things out somewhat. Those other 2 could potentially rotate if certain schools lose steam (Nebraska) or other schools rise up (Indiana, Northwestern). At the end of the day, I think the most important aspect of scheduling is to make sure schools get to play the other schools that they want to first.

You also forget about the non-protected games. These games can help balance out schedules.

When I lay things out on paper, Minnesota seems to be the school that is left with the strongest protected games (Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska) and I slotted in Illinois (the lowest ranked Big Ten team of the past ten years based on W/L) as their 5th. You could give them Penn State instead, but I'm not sure if either UM or PSU cares about the Governor's Victory Bell, and they would be playing 50% of the seasons anyway.

For PSU, I had Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers, Maryland and ?

(02-06-2021 07:00 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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.

Yes, I should have worded that better. You were arguing against having no divisions, or in other words, arguing to keep divisions.

I was trying to point out that most of your examples of unequal scheduling, or problems with missing teams on a schedule, can be solved by playing a CCG which the Big Ten did not do in the old days before divisions.

If a team finishes in first because they skipped the 2 best teams, then they still need to play in the CCG to win the conference championship. If 2 teams finish undefeated because they skipped each other on the schedule, then those 2 teams now will play in the CCG.

But who gets into the CCG is not "fairly" determined.

(02-07-2021 07:51 PM)Eggszecutor Wrote:  

(02-05-2021 07:49 PM)micahandme Wrote:  

(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.)

This is why I think protecting 5 games would be better than three. Most schools don't have 5 rivals and you could really protect 3 rivals while using the other 2 protected games to balance things out somewhat. Those other 2 could potentially rotate if certain schools lose steam (Nebraska) or other schools rise up (Indiana, Northwestern). At the end of the day, I think the most important aspect of scheduling is to make sure schools get to play the other schools that they want to first.

You also forget about the non-protected games. These games can help balance out schedules.

When I lay things out on paper, Minnesota seems to be the school that is left with the strongest protected games (Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nebraska) and I slotted in Illinois (the lowest ranked Big Ten team of the past ten years based on W/L) as their 5th. You could give them Penn State instead, but I'm not sure if either UM or PSU cares about the Governor's Victory Bell, and they would be playing 50% of the seasons anyway.

For PSU, I had Ohio State, Michigan State, Rutgers, Maryland and ?

Or better, go back to 12 teams! These are problems created by excessive expansion to create a conference network.

(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)

I understand the concept of “pods”, but I believe Terry is correct insofar as the WAC never used the term “pods” during the WAC16 era. They were just rotating divisions. I couldn’t find anything written back then referring to their rotating divisions as “pods”. I’d like to see something.

I am not sure “pods” has ever been used by the NCAA or conferences at the D1 level. Of course, I could be wrong. The term does seem to be used mainly by realignment nerds and articles based on message board fodder.

(02-08-2021 12:47 PM)esayem 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)

I understand the concept of “pods”, but I believe Terry is correct insofar as the WAC never used the term “pods” during the WAC16 era. They were just rotating divisions. I couldn’t find anything written back then referring to their rotating divisions as “pods”. I’d like to see something.

I am not sure “pods” has ever been used by the NCAA or conferences at the D1 level. Of course, I could be wrong. The term does seem to be used mainly by realignment nerds and articles based on message board fodder.

Regardless of whether you call them pods or something else, the point is that it's a distinct concept from divisions, albeit related of course.

(02-07-2021 05:46 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 04:11 PM)westwolf Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 08:42 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 07:03 PM)Arch Stanton Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 05:02 PM)bullet Wrote:  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.

But how the divisions are currently set up the schedules are not fair either due to crossovers both permanent and that years scheduled crossover(s).

I think division less is the way to go with three permanent rivals. I think division less makes more sense in the ACC, BIG and PAC where the recent expansion has made the conference much less cohesive.

Crayton you brought up an interesting point about the SEC not choosing to disband divisions even if they are allowed. The SEC did the best job with expansion.

I think the Big Ten is fine with the current divisions. Who feels they currently aren't playing everyone that they would want to already? Only the Illinois and Indiana schools may want to mix it up with divisionless. What they should do is get rid of the temporarily locked cross-division opponent. Indiana-Purdue should be the only locked one and maybe Illinois-Ohio State (not currently locked).

Which other teams are "locked"?

Indiana - Purdue is the only one locked permanently. The temporarily locked ones are:
Penn State - Iowa
Ohio State - Nebraska
Michigan - Wisconsin
Michigan State - Northwestern
Maryland - Minnesota
Rutgers - Illinois

These rotate every six years (I think).

Yes, thank you. I found the following new "locks" for 2022-2027:

Indiana-Purdue of course
Maryland-Northwestern
Michigan-Nebraska
Michigan St-Minnesota
Ohio St-Wisconsin (yea)
Penn St-Illinois (boo)
Rutgers-Iowa

apparently they were picked by random

(02-08-2021 12:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 12:47 PM)esayem 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:  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)

I understand the concept of “pods”, but I believe Terry is correct insofar as the WAC never used the term “pods” during the WAC16 era. They were just rotating divisions. I couldn’t find anything written back then referring to their rotating divisions as “pods”. I’d like to see something.

I am not sure “pods” has ever been used by the NCAA or conferences at the D1 level. Of course, I could be wrong. The term does seem to be used mainly by realignment nerds and articles based on message board fodder.

Regardless of whether you call them pods or something else, the point is that it's a distinct concept from divisions, albeit related of course.

Pods are small/er divisions.

(02-08-2021 03:52 PM)westwolf Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 05:46 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 04:11 PM)westwolf Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 08:42 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 07:03 PM)Arch Stanton Wrote:  But how the divisions are currently set up the schedules are not fair either due to crossovers both permanent and that years scheduled crossover(s).

I think division less is the way to go with three permanent rivals. I think division less makes more sense in the ACC, BIG and PAC where the recent expansion has made the conference much less cohesive.

Crayton you brought up an interesting point about the SEC not choosing to disband divisions even if they are allowed. The SEC did the best job with expansion.

I think the Big Ten is fine with the current divisions. Who feels they currently aren't playing everyone that they would want to already? Only the Illinois and Indiana schools may want to mix it up with divisionless. What they should do is get rid of the temporarily locked cross-division opponent. Indiana-Purdue should be the only locked one and maybe Illinois-Ohio State (not currently locked).

Which other teams are "locked"?

Indiana - Purdue is the only one locked permanently. The temporarily locked ones are:
Penn State - Iowa
Ohio State - Nebraska
Michigan - Wisconsin
Michigan State - Northwestern
Maryland - Minnesota
Rutgers - Illinois

These rotate every six years (I think).

Yes, thank you. I found the following new "locks" for 2022-2027:

Indiana-Purdue of course
Maryland-Northwestern
Michigan-Nebraska
Michigan St-Minnesota
Ohio St-Wisconsin (yea)
Penn St-Illinois (boo)
Rutgers-Iowa

apparently they were picked by random

My alma maters (Penn State and Illinois) will meet the next six years!

(02-08-2021 03:52 PM)westwolf Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 05:46 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 04:11 PM)westwolf Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 08:42 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(02-06-2021 07:03 PM)Arch Stanton Wrote:  But how the divisions are currently set up the schedules are not fair either due to crossovers both permanent and that years scheduled crossover(s).

I think division less is the way to go with three permanent rivals. I think division less makes more sense in the ACC, BIG and PAC where the recent expansion has made the conference much less cohesive.

Crayton you brought up an interesting point about the SEC not choosing to disband divisions even if they are allowed. The SEC did the best job with expansion.

I think the Big Ten is fine with the current divisions. Who feels they currently aren't playing everyone that they would want to already? Only the Illinois and Indiana schools may want to mix it up with divisionless. What they should do is get rid of the temporarily locked cross-division opponent. Indiana-Purdue should be the only locked one and maybe Illinois-Ohio State (not currently locked).

Which other teams are "locked"?

Indiana - Purdue is the only one locked permanently. The temporarily locked ones are:
Penn State - Iowa
Ohio State - Nebraska
Michigan - Wisconsin
Michigan State - Northwestern
Maryland - Minnesota
Rutgers - Illinois

These rotate every six years (I think).

Yes, thank you. I found the following new "locks" for 2022-2027:

Indiana-Purdue of course
Maryland-Northwestern
Michigan-Nebraska
Michigan St-Minnesota
Ohio St-Wisconsin (yea)
Penn St-Illinois (boo)
Rutgers-Iowa

apparently they were picked by random

The ones for 2022-27 besides Indiana/Purdue do seem somewhat random. The 2016-21 crossovers were at least mostly based on perceived strength at the time the schedule was created. Ohio State/Wisconsin makes a lot of sense, but the others are meh to bad.

This is a bit better:
Indiana/Purdue
Maryland/Illinois
Michigan/Iowa
Michigan State/Minnesota
Ohio State/Wisconsin
Penn State/Northwestern
Rutgers/Nebraska

Existing divisions in the ACC and SEC are essentially 7 protected "rivals" for each team, with 2 more rotating conference opponents, while the Big Ten effectively has 6 annual protected games (the divisions), one semi-protected crossover which rotates after a period of years, and two more true rotating crossovers. The only difference between that and having 3 annual rivals with 5 rotating is the number of protected games - the more you have, the less flexible the schedule. A more rigid schedule also means there's less you can do to correct imbalances in strength, too (assuming that's even your goal). FWIW, the NFL effectively has just 3 annual rivals and a scheduling model to balance the remaining games - perhaps college football needs something similar.

(02-09-2021 12:23 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Existing divisions in the ACC and SEC are essentially 7 protected "rivals" for each team, with 2 more rotating conference opponents, while the Big Ten effectively has 6 annual protected games (the divisions), one semi-protected crossover which rotates after a period of years, and two more true rotating crossovers. The only difference between that and having 3 annual rivals with 5 rotating is the number of protected games - the more you have, the less flexible the schedule. A more rigid schedule also means there's less you can do to correct imbalances in strength, too (assuming that's even your goal). FWIW, the NFL effectively has just 3 annual rivals and a scheduling model to balance the remaining games - perhaps college football needs something similar.

Teams in the ACC and SEC only have 1 rotating FB opponent each, which is why it takes an absurd 12 years for them to play everyone else home and away in the conference.

(02-08-2021 07:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-08-2021 03:52 PM)westwolf Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 05:46 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 04:11 PM)westwolf Wrote:  

(02-07-2021 08:42 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I think the Big Ten is fine with the current divisions. Who feels they currently aren't playing everyone that they would want to already? Only the Illinois and Indiana schools may want to mix it up with divisionless. What they should do is get rid of the temporarily locked cross-division opponent. Indiana-Purdue should be the only locked one and maybe Illinois-Ohio State (not currently locked).

Which other teams are "locked"?

Indiana - Purdue is the only one locked permanently. The temporarily locked ones are:
Penn State - Iowa
Ohio State - Nebraska
Michigan - Wisconsin
Michigan State - Northwestern
Maryland - Minnesota
Rutgers - Illinois

These rotate every six years (I think).

Yes, thank you. I found the following new "locks" for 2022-2027:

Indiana-Purdue of course
Maryland-Northwestern
Michigan-Nebraska
Michigan St-Minnesota
Ohio St-Wisconsin (yea)
Penn St-Illinois (boo)
Rutgers-Iowa

apparently they were picked by random

The ones for 2022-27 besides Indiana/Purdue do seem somewhat random. The 2016-21 crossovers were at least mostly based on perceived strength at the time the schedule was created. Ohio State/Wisconsin makes a lot of sense, but the others are meh to bad.

This is a bit better:
Indiana/Purdue
Maryland/Illinois
Michigan/Iowa
Michigan State/Minnesota
Ohio State/Wisconsin
Penn State/Northwestern
Rutgers/Nebraska

Before the pandemic I had this theory that the Big Ten would scrap their divisions in 2022 because the original 6-game rotation would be done and the new locked opponents for the next 6 year cycle were so awful in my opinion. (Ok I hated the idea of Iowa playing Rutgers every year while only playing OSU, Mich, MSU, PSU twice each in 6 years)

But now I wonder if the Big Ten will try to play their original 2020 schedule in 2022 instead because 1 team got missed in the rotation that they never played. For example Iowa was supposed to play OSU in Columbus in 2020, but that game got deleted from the schedule.

Then the Big Ten can officially scrap divisions in 2023.

(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.

Yeah, I don't like divisionless either. To me, the Big 12 setup, which guarantees a rematch in the CCG, is rinky-dink.

Sure, rematches can occur in conferences with divisions if you end up facing a team you play cross-division, like say LSU vs Florida. But it's much rarer.

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)quo vadis 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.

Yeah, I don't like divisionless either. To me, the Big 12 setup, which guarantees a rematch in the CCG, is rinky-dink.

Sure, rematches can occur in conferences with divisions if you end up facing a team you play cross-division, like say LSU vs Florida. But it's much rarer.

I don't have any strong feelings for or against divisionless, but it's interesting: you're both opposing it but for contradictory reasons. Muskie dislikes divisionless play because there may be teams at the top of the standings that haven't played each other, whereas Quo dislikes divisionless play because all teams in the conference play each other.

(02-09-2021 12:45 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(02-09-2021 11:40 AM)quo vadis 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.

Yeah, I don't like divisionless either. To me, the Big 12 setup, which guarantees a rematch in the CCG, is rinky-dink.

Sure, rematches can occur in conferences with divisions if you end up facing a team you play cross-division, like say LSU vs Florida. But it's much rarer.

I don't have any strong feelings for or against divisionless, but it's interesting: you're both opposing it but for contradictory reasons. Muskie dislikes divisionless play because because there may be teams at the top of the standings that haven't played each other, whereas Quo dislikes divisionless play because all teams in the conference play each other.

Quo’s scenario with the Big 12 is the oddity that you get when you go divisionless AND play full round robin—the inevitable rematch.

The inherent flaw that I pointed out regarding divisionless is what you increasingly run into in these behemoth 14+ member conferences if you do divisionless—ties in the standings between schools who never faced off and ties between 3+ schools. You can only beat the teams on your schedule.