Quote:The B1G needs to get rid of divisions badly.
Not with so many teams. You want divisions when you have WAY too many teams. 2 more USC/UCLA joining them soon. That said, you could mix them up, and they will at least slightly with those 2 coming in.
I'm not a fan of the Top 2 playing each other for the Conf Championship, regardless. In basketball -- whomever wins it, wins it. The Conference Tourney is 100% separate, and is the Conference Tournament Championship. One of the reason conferences in basketball, IMO, took away divisions is because of added games from yesteryear (and others were doin' it; doesn't have as big a factor).
B12 had a conf championship game only because it needed one for their top team for a Nat Champ try (13th game W against a good team).
Going this route with conferences -- what other sport does this when it's beyond a tie-breaker game for the conference/division title?
If you have tons of teams in one conference but so few games -- it doesn't make a better argument than the notion of one division's always better than the other (which you can tweak).
EAST:
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Maryland
Northwestern
Indiana
Rutgers
WEST:
USC
Wisconsin
Iowa
UCLA
Minnesota
Nebraska
Purdue
Illinois
I don't see that so lopsided once they come in anyway if they move NW or Illinois over to the EAST. 7/12 games for the whole season, including non-conf has to be played within division. That's better to have symmetry and representation within an Over-Sized conference with such few games -- and fight for a championship.
Much better than: OSU up 2 games over the 2nd best, tied with 2 others for a distant 2nd place. Thru tie-breakers the "2nd" place plays OSU for it? (shakes head)
A set Winner of a divison vs a set Winner of a division is the best with such few games & so many teams under the same umbrella. Otherwise, make two difference conferences (after 2 more P12 teams join).