Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Divisons?
Author Message
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,040
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 65
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #21
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 05:39 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I'm not exactly sure how all Big Ten teams feel about divisional play. From me as an Illinois fan and being pro East I want to see Illinois play more of the big boys more often, especially if they come to Champaign and sell more tickets. W/L record doesn't mean as much to Illinois these days. On the other hand, Penn State in the East Division gets annual games with Ohio State and Michigan every year. If the Big Ten did away with divisions, that could go away (I assume OSU-PSU would be protected but Mich-PSU might not). It might also force Penn State to have to travel to Nebraska and Iowa more often than they do now. The Big Ten of course is geographically stretched out. Having divisions keeps the Eastern schools and Western schools away from each other so they might want to keep divisions for that reason. On the other hand, the middle schools don't benefit as much from divisions. Since Ohio State is the "valuable" brand (and Michigan and Penn State aren't far behind), the border schools in the West Division are the ones that like divisions the least. Iowa and Nebraska don't get to play Ohio State and Michigan that often but also don't have to travel to Maryland and Rutgers that often either. Illinois is 519 miles from Nebraska and 620 miles from Penn State, PSU isn't that much further away. Ohio State (296 miles) and Michigan (342) are closer to Champaign than Lincoln is.

That all makes sense, except for this thing called "parity" scheduling in the Big Ten. For the 6 years from 2016-2021 every school gets a cross-division opponent they play every single year.

Neb-OSU
Wisc-Mich
Iowa-PSU
NW-MSU
MINN-MD
ILL-Rut
PUR-Indy

So Neb actually has been playing OSU every year and PSU has been playing Iowa every year. Meanwhile ILL has been playing Rutgers every year. The main reason they do this, is Purdue and Indiana need to play every year.

Now as an Iowa fan, I like that Iowa gets to play a team like PSU every year. Except I would prefer a little more Mich, MSU, and OSU and still play PSU often but not every year. That's why I would prefer to scrap divisions and go with a schedule with 5 permanent rivals. Permanent rivals that make sense. For all the other teams, playing them 50% of the time seems about right to me.

Now when the Big Ten starts its new rotation in 2022, each team gets a new cross-division rival that It plays for 6 straight years. Some make sense but some don't at all

WISC-OSU
Neb-Mich
Iowa-Rut
NW-MD
Minn-MSU
ILL-PSU
Pur-Indy

As you might imagine, as an Iowa fan I am not happy. It simply makes no sense for Iowa and Rutgers to be playing every year. They are not geographically close and not competitively close. I don't understand this decision at all. Well, At least ILL gets PSU every year.
07-06-2021 06:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 4,161
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 129
I Root For: common sense
Location: common sense
Post: #22
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 06:24 AM)goofus Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 05:39 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I'm not exactly sure how all Big Ten teams feel about divisional play. From me as an Illinois fan and being pro East I want to see Illinois play more of the big boys more often, especially if they come to Champaign and sell more tickets. W/L record doesn't mean as much to Illinois these days. On the other hand, Penn State in the East Division gets annual games with Ohio State and Michigan every year. If the Big Ten did away with divisions, that could go away (I assume OSU-PSU would be protected but Mich-PSU might not). It might also force Penn State to have to travel to Nebraska and Iowa more often than they do now. The Big Ten of course is geographically stretched out. Having divisions keeps the Eastern schools and Western schools away from each other so they might want to keep divisions for that reason. On the other hand, the middle schools don't benefit as much from divisions. Since Ohio State is the "valuable" brand (and Michigan and Penn State aren't far behind), the border schools in the West Division are the ones that like divisions the least. Iowa and Nebraska don't get to play Ohio State and Michigan that often but also don't have to travel to Maryland and Rutgers that often either. Illinois is 519 miles from Nebraska and 620 miles from Penn State, PSU isn't that much further away. Ohio State (296 miles) and Michigan (342) are closer to Champaign than Lincoln is.

That all makes sense, except for this thing called "parity" scheduling in the Big Ten. For the 6 years from 2016-2021 every school gets a cross-division opponent they play every single year.

Neb-OSU
Wisc-Mich
Iowa-PSU
NW-MSU
MINN-MD
ILL-Rut
PUR-Indy

So Neb actually has been playing OSU every year and PSU has been playing Iowa every year. Meanwhile ILL has been playing Rutgers every year. The main reason they do this, is Purdue and Indiana need to play every year.

Now as an Iowa fan, I like that Iowa gets to play a team like PSU every year. Except I would prefer a little more Mich, MSU, and OSU and still play PSU often but not every year. That's why I would prefer to scrap divisions and go with a schedule with 5 permanent rivals. Permanent rivals that make sense. For all the other teams, playing them 50% of the time seems about right to me.

Now when the Big Ten starts its new rotation in 2022, each team gets a new cross-division rival that It plays for 6 straight years. Some make sense but some don't at all

WISC-OSU
Neb-Mich
Iowa-Rut
NW-MD
Minn-MSU
ILL-PSU
Pur-Indy

As you might imagine, as an Iowa fan I am not happy. It simply makes no sense for Iowa and Rutgers to be playing every year. They are not geographically close and not competitively close. I don't understand this decision at all. Well, At least ILL gets PSU every year.

I get where you are coming from Goofus, and I agree with you. It doesn't really make sense that Iowa is playing Rutgers every year for six years. The two states (Iowa and New Jersey) don't border each other and Iowa really doesn't have much of a history in playing Rutgers. I'm not even sure if Rutgers likes the idea of playing Iowa every year for six years.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
07-06-2021 07:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,941
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 165
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #23
RE: Divisons?
I guess if someone has to have a rivalry, everyone has to (see SEC and ACC as well).

To get rid of awkward permanent rivals, the Big Ten should just add Texas and Oklahoma, move Purdue to the East, and there wouldn't need to be any permanent rivals.
07-06-2021 07:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 4,161
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 129
I Root For: common sense
Location: common sense
Post: #24
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 07:23 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I guess if someone has to have a rivalry, everyone has to (see SEC and ACC as well).

To get rid of awkward permanent rivals, the Big Ten should just add Texas and Oklahoma, move Purdue to the East, and there wouldn't need to be any permanent rivals.

There is a better way Schmolik, and it is called giving conferences the option of going divisionless and still having a conference championship game. Those who like divisions can keep them and those that don't like them can get rid of them.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
07-06-2021 07:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,040
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 65
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #25
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 07:23 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I guess if someone has to have a rivalry, everyone has to (see SEC and ACC as well).

To get rid of awkward permanent rivals, the Big Ten should just add Texas and Oklahoma, move Purdue to the East, and there wouldn't need to be any permanent rivals.

Except if there is a preference for teams to play all the other teams in the conference st least 50% of the time. Keeping divisions and adding even more teams does not help that goal at all.
07-06-2021 07:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,941
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 165
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #26
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 07:51 AM)goofus Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 07:23 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I guess if someone has to have a rivalry, everyone has to (see SEC and ACC as well).

To get rid of awkward permanent rivals, the Big Ten should just add Texas and Oklahoma, move Purdue to the East, and there wouldn't need to be any permanent rivals.

Except if there is a preference for teams to play all the other teams in the conference st least 50% of the time. Keeping divisions and adding even more teams does not help that goal at all.

I'm under the assumption that they won't get rid of the "division" rule. I'm in favor of getting rid of it myself.

I'm also under the assumption adding Texas + Oklahoma will give the Big Ten a ton more cash.
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2021 09:56 AM by schmolik.)
07-06-2021 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
westwolf Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 814
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation: 6
I Root For: CFB
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Divisons?
The configurations most mentioned are:

No divisions
8 conference games instead of 9
3 annual rivals
5 rotating games against remaining 10; play all every two seasons
so each team visits all others during a traditional 4 year term

I hear that PAC AD's are already discussing it with new Commish
07-06-2021 10:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Thiefery Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 654
Joined: Feb 2020
Reputation: 27
I Root For: TEXAS
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 10:15 AM)westwolf Wrote:  The configurations most mentioned are:

No divisions
8 conference games instead of 9
3 annual rivals
5 rotating games against remaining 10; play all every two seasons
so each team visits all others during a traditional 4 year term

I hear that PAC AD's are already discussing it with new Commish

..and here I am thinking the Big12 should move to divisions and drop one conference game. Give most schools an additional win so it will look good when they begin to cannabilize themselves
07-06-2021 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,404
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 837
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Charlotte, NC
Post: #29
RE: Divisons?
(07-05-2021 01:11 PM)schmolik Wrote:  
(07-05-2021 12:40 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  I don't think TV lets them go division less.
2 division races instead 1

I think TV would in certain cases rather the two most attractive teams play in the conference championship game. In the Big Ten, Northwestern, a private school with probably the smallest alumni base, played in it two of the last three years. You don't think the Big Ten/FOX wouldn't rather have Penn State play Ohio State or a Michigan/Ohio State rematch? The only people that care about the Big Ten West are the schools that are in the Big Ten West. The Big Ten West has literally NEVER won the Big Ten Championship Game. When Wisconsin won the Big Ten Championship Game they were in the Leaders Division. ACC? If you're not an ACC fan, you barely know who's in what division. Last year the ACC Championship Game was way better when they didn't have divisions and Clemson played a team that had a chance of beating them (and did in the regular season) as opposed to a 7-5/8-4 team that had no chance of doing so.

^^^ THIS ^^^

Plus, I'd add that in most conferences, one of the divisions (if not both) are sewn up way before the end of the season, so this idea that TV is getting two division races doesn't really hold up. Better to have one race with multiple horses...
07-06-2021 10:25 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,941
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 165
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #30
RE: Divisons?
I would never want the Big Ten to drop down to 8 conference games. Maybe if PSU traded away a conference game away for an annual game with Pittsburgh I could be talked into it. Most of the Big 10 doesn't have any "permanent non conference rivals" worth trading in a 9th conference game for (Iowa already plays Iowa State annually even with nine conference games). Who would Michigan play annually instead of the 9th conference game? Eastern Michigan, Central Michigan, or Western Michigan? Is that better than playing Wisconsin, Illinois, or Iowa? Not every school has a Florida/Florida State for that "9th game", might as well play a 9th conference game. I'm not even sure every SEC team wants just 8 conference games. Sure, Florida and Georgia might not want to play 9 conference games and their permanent rival on top of that. What about Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and the Mississippi twins that already play their rivals as a conference game?
07-06-2021 10:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SoCalBobcat78 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,425
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 117
I Root For: TXST, UCLA, CBU
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Divisons?
(07-05-2021 01:20 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Every conference is under pressure to do away with them. They will be gone by the start of 2023 when the expanded playoffs begin. For sure the Pac-12 and ACC will ditch them, likely also the Mountain West as they all see them as detrimental to their best schools playoff chances. The American thinks that way as well, and they are working off a waiver. Divisions are artificial in the Sun Belt (exist only for football so they don't have to play 9 games), so they would be ditched at the first chance. The Big 12 doesn't have them, and of course doesn't support them.

There is no empirical data to show that divsions would be detrimental to the Pac-12 or ACC in the new proposed playoff system. Clemson has won six consecutive conference titles. Divisions have not kept them out or led to a unranked team winning the conference. As for the Pac-12, below are the CCG matchups from 2014 through 2019 with the team's CFP ranking before the game:

2014 – Oregon No. 2 vs Arizona No. 7 (Oregon won 51-13)
2015 – Stanford No. 7 vs USC No. 20 (Stanford won 41-20)
2016 – Washington No. 4 vs Colorado No. 8 (Washington won 41-10)
2017 – USC No. 10 vs Stanford No. 12 (USC won 31-28)
2018 – Washington No. 11 vs Utah No. 17 (Washington won 10-3)
2019 – Utah No. 5 vs Oregon No. 14 (Oregon won 37-15)

Every single season, the Pac-12 winner in the CCG would have made the playoffs under the proposed new system. In 2019 after beating Utah, Oregon jumped to No. 6 in the CFP rankings. In 2015, USC had one G5 school ahead of them, which was Houston at No. 19. Houston won their CCG and moved up to No. 18. Had USC won, they would have still would have made the top six and they would have moved past Houston in the rankings.

Dropping divisions does not guarantee anything. If a conference does decide to go without divisions, then does it make sense to have a CCG? Just take the conference regular season winner and hope they played well in nonconference play. In the case of the Pac-12, they were just tossing ideas around. Not all ideas are good ideas. They are under no pressure to get rid of divisions. They have much bigger issues than football divisions.
07-06-2021 11:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 48,330
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1848
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 06:24 AM)goofus Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 05:39 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I'm not exactly sure how all Big Ten teams feel about divisional play. From me as an Illinois fan and being pro East I want to see Illinois play more of the big boys more often, especially if they come to Champaign and sell more tickets. W/L record doesn't mean as much to Illinois these days. On the other hand, Penn State in the East Division gets annual games with Ohio State and Michigan every year. If the Big Ten did away with divisions, that could go away (I assume OSU-PSU would be protected but Mich-PSU might not). It might also force Penn State to have to travel to Nebraska and Iowa more often than they do now. The Big Ten of course is geographically stretched out. Having divisions keeps the Eastern schools and Western schools away from each other so they might want to keep divisions for that reason. On the other hand, the middle schools don't benefit as much from divisions. Since Ohio State is the "valuable" brand (and Michigan and Penn State aren't far behind), the border schools in the West Division are the ones that like divisions the least. Iowa and Nebraska don't get to play Ohio State and Michigan that often but also don't have to travel to Maryland and Rutgers that often either. Illinois is 519 miles from Nebraska and 620 miles from Penn State, PSU isn't that much further away. Ohio State (296 miles) and Michigan (342) are closer to Champaign than Lincoln is.

That all makes sense, except for this thing called "parity" scheduling in the Big Ten. For the 6 years from 2016-2021 every school gets a cross-division opponent they play every single year.

Neb-OSU
Wisc-Mich
Iowa-PSU
NW-MSU
MINN-MD
ILL-Rut
PUR-Indy

So Neb actually has been playing OSU every year and PSU has been playing Iowa every year. Meanwhile ILL has been playing Rutgers every year. The main reason they do this, is Purdue and Indiana need to play every year.

Now as an Iowa fan, I like that Iowa gets to play a team like PSU every year. Except I would prefer a little more Mich, MSU, and OSU and still play PSU often but not every year. That's why I would prefer to scrap divisions and go with a schedule with 5 permanent rivals. Permanent rivals that make sense. For all the other teams, playing them 50% of the time seems about right to me.

Now when the Big Ten starts its new rotation in 2022, each team gets a new cross-division rival that It plays for 6 straight years. Some make sense but some don't at all

WISC-OSU
Neb-Mich
Iowa-Rut
NW-MD
Minn-MSU
ILL-PSU
Pur-Indy

As you might imagine, as an Iowa fan I am not happy. It simply makes no sense for Iowa and Rutgers to be playing every year. They are not geographically close and not competitively close. I don't understand this decision at all. Well, At least ILL gets PSU every year.

I thought they were simply going to let IU and Purdue play every year and rotate the others. You would balance out over 18 years-6 IU/PU, 8 games vs. the other 6 teams in the opposite division. You get IU/PU every 3rd year and the others almost every other year.
07-06-2021 03:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 48,330
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1848
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #33
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 10:32 AM)schmolik Wrote:  I would never want the Big Ten to drop down to 8 conference games. Maybe if PSU traded away a conference game away for an annual game with Pittsburgh I could be talked into it. Most of the Big 10 doesn't have any "permanent non conference rivals" worth trading in a 9th conference game for (Iowa already plays Iowa State annually even with nine conference games). Who would Michigan play annually instead of the 9th conference game? Eastern Michigan, Central Michigan, or Western Michigan? Is that better than playing Wisconsin, Illinois, or Iowa? Not every school has a Florida/Florida State for that "9th game", might as well play a 9th conference game. I'm not even sure every SEC team wants just 8 conference games. Sure, Florida and Georgia might not want to play 9 conference games and their permanent rival on top of that. What about Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and the Mississippi twins that already play their rivals as a conference game?

Really. It just weakens the schedule. And I don't think TV is going to provide the money for the Big 10/Pac 12 and Big 12 to reduce the number of conference games.
07-06-2021 03:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crayton Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 892
Joined: Feb 2019
Reputation: 73
I Root For: Florida
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 03:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  I thought they were simply going to let IU and Purdue play every year and rotate the others. You would balance out over 18 years-6 IU/PU, 8 games vs. the other 6 teams in the opposite division. You get IU/PU every 3rd year and the others almost every other year.

Almost. The top 3 and bottom 3 (sans IU/PU) from each division play that 9th game against each other.

So, Ohio State rotates through the "bottom 3" of the West like clockwork (Minnesota, Northwestern, and Illinois) ad infinitum. They then have a "temporary" permanent rival for a 6 year stretch from among the "top 3", Nebraska this most recent go, and rotate through the remaining 3 (Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue) like clockwork. Next, Wisconsin tags out with Nebraska and assumes the "temporary" permanent spot in Ohio State's rotation.

Now, why the Big Ten altered the top/bottom guideline by pairing Penn State with Illinois and Iowa with Rutgers? I couldn't tell ya.
07-06-2021 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,941
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 165
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #35
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 10:22 AM)Thiefery Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 10:15 AM)westwolf Wrote:  The configurations most mentioned are:

No divisions
8 conference games instead of 9
3 annual rivals
5 rotating games against remaining 10; play all every two seasons
so each team visits all others during a traditional 4 year term

I hear that PAC AD's are already discussing it with new Commish

..and here I am thinking the Big12 should move to divisions and drop one conference game. Give most schools an additional win so it will look good when they begin to cannabilize themselves

Go ahead and tell the Big 12 team that isn't playing Texas that they aren't playing Texas. Repeat with Oklahoma.

I created another thread to further discuss 8 conference games vs. 9.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-924730.html
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2021 06:09 PM by schmolik.)
07-06-2021 06:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,941
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 165
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #36
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 05:45 PM)Crayton Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 03:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  I thought they were simply going to let IU and Purdue play every year and rotate the others. You would balance out over 18 years-6 IU/PU, 8 games vs. the other 6 teams in the opposite division. You get IU/PU every 3rd year and the others almost every other year.

Almost. The top 3 and bottom 3 (sans IU/PU) from each division play that 9th game against each other.

So, Ohio State rotates through the "bottom 3" of the West like clockwork (Minnesota, Northwestern, and Illinois) ad infinitum. They then have a "temporary" permanent rival for a 6 year stretch from among the "top 3", Nebraska this most recent go, and rotate through the remaining 3 (Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue) like clockwork. Next, Wisconsin tags out with Nebraska and assumes the "temporary" permanent spot in Ohio State's rotation.

Now, why the Big Ten altered the top/bottom guideline by pairing Penn State with Illinois and Iowa with Rutgers? I couldn't tell ya.

I know it would increase Penn State's travel budget but Penn State/Nebraska does have some history to it. Maybe these would have made more sense:

Indiana/Purdue
Ohio State/Wisconsin
Penn State/Nebraska
Michigan/Iowa
Michigan State/Minnesota
Maryland/Illinois
Rutgers/Northwestern (Someone had to get Rutgers)

It could be lopsided but Michigan/Minnesota (Little Brown Jug) could also work.

As for having no other "permanent" rivals other than Indiana/Purdue, my guess was the scheduling is easier to give everyone else a permanent rival. At least they switch them off. Maybe the SEC and ACC should switch some of them after a few years.
07-06-2021 06:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,040
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 65
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #37
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 03:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  I thought they were simply going to let IU and Purdue play every year and rotate the others. You would balance out over 18 years-6 IU/PU, 8 games vs. the other 6 teams in the opposite division. You get IU/PU every 3rd year and the others almost every other year.

That's what I originally thought when the Big Ten was setting up the East-west divisions. There was a big debate whether MSU or Purdue should go West. Ultimately it was argued that if MSU went West, then Mich would have to play MSU every year is a cross-division game, which means all the the other teams in the West would get to play Mich less often. So ultimately they decided to send Purdue West. So far so good, then later the Big Ten rolls out the 6-Year permanent rival schedule and everybody is like huh?
07-06-2021 08:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
goofus Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,040
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 65
I Root For: Iowa
Location: chicago suburbs
Post: #38
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 06:08 PM)schmolik Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 05:45 PM)Crayton Wrote:  
(07-06-2021 03:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  I thought they were simply going to let IU and Purdue play every year and rotate the others. You would balance out over 18 years-6 IU/PU, 8 games vs. the other 6 teams in the opposite division. You get IU/PU every 3rd year and the others almost every other year.

Almost. The top 3 and bottom 3 (sans IU/PU) from each division play that 9th game against each other.

So, Ohio State rotates through the "bottom 3" of the West like clockwork (Minnesota, Northwestern, and Illinois) ad infinitum. They then have a "temporary" permanent rival for a 6 year stretch from among the "top 3", Nebraska this most recent go, and rotate through the remaining 3 (Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue) like clockwork. Next, Wisconsin tags out with Nebraska and assumes the "temporary" permanent spot in Ohio State's rotation.

Now, why the Big Ten altered the top/bottom guideline by pairing Penn State with Illinois and Iowa with Rutgers? I couldn't tell ya.

I know it would increase Penn State's travel budget but Penn State/Nebraska does have some history to it. Maybe these would have made more sense:

Indiana/Purdue
Ohio State/Wisconsin
Penn State/Nebraska
Michigan/Iowa
Michigan State/Minnesota
Maryland/Illinois
Rutgers/Northwestern (Someone had to get Rutgers)

That's not bad, but given that NW has won the West 2 out of the last 3 years, it does not seem right for NW to get Rutgers. Since ILL already had a turn and since Purdue is stuck with Indy, you need to look elsewhere. Given Nebraska's poor record the last 4 years, I would say Nebraska should get Rutgers and NW should get PSU.
(This post was last modified: 07-06-2021 08:15 PM by goofus.)
07-06-2021 08:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
buckeye1022 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 7
Joined: Oct 2020
Reputation: 3
I Root For: tOSU, Toledo
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Divisons?
(07-05-2021 12:40 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  I don't think TV lets them go division less.
2 division races instead 1


I don't think TV willingly continues to roll out yearly Ohio State-Rutgers games when more Ohio State-Wisconsin is possible. Just one of many examples.

I'm all for 5 permanents and rolling through the rest of the league on a 2 on, 2 off basis.
07-06-2021 08:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,556
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 305
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Divisons?
(07-06-2021 06:24 AM)goofus Wrote:  Now when the Big Ten starts its new rotation in 2022, each team gets a new cross-division rival that It plays for 6 straight years. Some make sense but some don't at all

WISC-OSU
Neb-Mich
Iowa-Rut
NW-MD
Minn-MSU
ILL-PSU
Pur-Indy

As you might imagine, as an Iowa fan I am not happy. It simply makes no sense for Iowa and Rutgers to be playing every year. They are not geographically close and not competitively close. I don't understand this decision at all.

Nobody in the West wants to play Rutgers.

So, well, there were these straws, most of them were long, but one of them was short, and Iowa drew the short straw.

{Edit: To be clear, after OSU and Michigan swapped Nebraska and Whiskey, or Nebraska and Whiskey swapped OSU and Michigan ... and NW was excused for having drawn the short straw the first time.}
(This post was last modified: 07-08-2021 12:19 AM by BruceMcF.)
07-07-2021 08:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2021 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2021 MyBB Group.