Author
Topic: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?
(Read 6364 times)

MrNubbz · « **Reply #28 on:** December 07, 2021, 09:17:58 PM »

How about leaders/legends?

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #29 on:** December 07, 2021, 09:56:44 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on December 06, 2021, 01:17:26 PM

Good point. If someone can right that ship, it would help the balance greatly. But, that is now a tall order.

No conference titles in this century. Nobody in HS remembers the 1990's.

Are they officially Gophered? Fallen helmet?

Mdot21 · « **Reply #30 on:** December 07, 2021, 10:39:17 PM »

Quote from: LittlePig on December 07, 2021, 09:04:32 PM

Personally I like in order

1. scrapping the divisions and going to a schedule with 5 protected rivals. Top 2 teams go to the CCG

2. Keeping East-West as is. But have a rule that the top 2 teams go to the CCG, regardless of what division they are in. Being a division winner can be 1 of the tie-breakers if 2 teams have the same record.

3. Splitting into 3 divisions. 5-5-4 each. For example

West - Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW
Central - Mich, MSU, Pur, Ind, ILL
East - OSU, PSU, Rut, MD

But top 2 teams go to CCG regardless what division they play in.

4. Move Mich and MSU to West. Move Purdue and ILL to east. OSU-Mich and ILL-NW have annual cross-over games.

disagree with all this. I don't like protected cross-overs, I want rotation and to play different teams from the other division- not have one the same every year. And Michigan-OSU cannot be split up. Have to keep them in the same division. I don't like this "top 2" teams go to CCG regardless of division. With expansion of playoff, if you did this sort of conference set up, you could possibly be setting up teams to play 3 times in one season. That is absurd. If you did that this year and there was an expanded playoff- you could be looking at Michigan beating OSU in Ann Arbor- then having to turn around and play them again in the CCG- and then potentially having to play them in a playoff again. Hell to the no. Cheapens the series/rivalry. The fact that the stakes are so high and winner takes all is what make games like that when both are ranked top 5 so freaking incredible. The joy of the win is indescribable and the pain of a loss is crushing. F that rematch crap. Which is why I honestly wasn't thrilled about Georgia making the playoff- they had their shot- and they blew it. Problem is every other team that had it's shot wet the bed, so Georgia kinda back-doored in.

Since Nebraska doesn't seem to be getting it's shit together ever, I think they should move Michigan State and Penn State over to the west. Michigan does not need to play Michigan State every single year. That rivalry is not that important. They can see each-other every couple years on rotation.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #31 on:** December 08, 2021, 08:00:37 AM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on December 07, 2021, 09:56:44 PM

Are they officially Gophered? Fallen helmet?

Not yet. Another 2 decades of this, well yes.

LittlePig · « **Reply #32 on:** December 08, 2021, 09:37:29 AM »

Mdot, since you hate rematches with a passion, maybe this is an argument to get rid of the CCG altogether, and just have the conference champion be the team with the best record. I could see this eventually happen anyway if the playoff ever expands to 16 teams, then the odds of both teams in the CCG making the playoffs are pretty high, and the game becomes unimportant

Looking back, getting rid of the CCG would not change much in the East-west era, with a few notable exceptions.

2021 - Mich would still be champs and would still be in the playoffs

2019, 2020 - OSU still the champs, still in the playoffs

2018 - OSU still the champs, still don't make the playoffs

2017 - Wisc is the champs instead of OSU. Nobody makes the playoffs and both Wisc and OSU still go to major bowls

2016 - PSU stil the champs, OSU still makes the playoffs over PSU

2015 - Iowa is the champs instead of MSU. Iowa probably goes to playoffs instead of MSU. MSU goes to Rose Bowl instead of playoffs. Given that MSU and Iowa both got blown out, switching the 2 teams bowl games could not have been any worse than what actually happened.

2014 - OSU is still the champs but I am not sure OSU gets in the playoffs without their 59-0 blowout win against Wisc. OSU still goes to a major bowl.

847badgerfan · « **Reply #33 on:** December 08, 2021, 09:44:49 AM »

2017 UW went into the CCG weekend at #3. They probably get in.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 08, 2021, 10:53:43 AM »

Quote from: LittlePig on December 07, 2021, 09:04:32 PM

Personally I like in order
1. scrapping the divisions and going to a schedule with 5 protected rivals. Top 2 teams go to the CCG

With 14 teams there are 13 to play. This model has five every year and (assuming we are sticking with nine games) the other eight every other year, or would you do two-year rotations so you played half of the others H&H then the other half H&H? I think I'd prefer the latter but it is a minor difference.

Quote from: LittlePig on December 07, 2021, 09:04:32 PM

2. Keeping East-West as is. But have a rule that the top 2 teams go to the CCG, regardless of what division they are in. Being a division winner can be 1 of the tie-breakers if 2 teams have the same record.

I'm confused by this. Other than the odd tiebreaker, what is the purpose of having divisions if you aren't using them to determine CG eligibility?

Quote from: LittlePig on December 07, 2021, 09:04:32 PM

3. Splitting into 3 divisions. 5-5-4 each. For example
West - Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW
Central - Mich, MSU, Pur, Ind, ILL
East - OSU, PSU, Rut, MD

I'm confused by this too. What function do the divisions serve?

Quote from: LittlePig on December 07, 2021, 09:04:32 PM

4. Move Mich and MSU to West. Move Purdue and ILL to east. OSU-Mich and ILL-NW have annual cross-over games.

B1G-E from 2014-2021 including CG's is 85-70 against the B1G-W and the B1G-W is obviously 70-85 against the B1G-E:

85-70
17-5 Michigan's record in cross-over games
11-11 MSU's record in cross-over games
57-54 subtotal
6-14 Purdue's record in cross-over games
8-13 Illinois' record in cross-over games
71-81 Total with this change.

Functionally, this would be GREAT for PSU and tOSU because they would hardly have any competition other than each other for the B1G-E title.

Look at this year for example. Michigan won the B1G-E but it was by tiebreaker and they were also only one game ahead of a team that they lost to H2H. My point being that there was a serious race for the B1G-E title with three teams in the race until the last two weeks and two in the race until the final weekend.

Iowa won the B1G-W but they were only one game ahead of three teams two of which they lost to. My point being that there was a serious race for the B1G-W title with four teams in the race until LATE in the season.

With your proposed divisions, B1G-E:

8-1 tOSU
6-3 PU
4-5 PSU
4-5 IL
3-6 UMD
2-7 RU
0-9 IU

The Buckeyes would have clinched with their win over PU and spent the last two weeks tuning up for the CG.

B1G-W:

8-1 M
7-2 IA
7-2 MSU
6-3 MN
6-3 UW
1-8 UNL
1-8 NU

There'd have been five teams in the hunt almost the whole season. Granted records would obviously have been different with the requisite schedule changes but that is really my point. The tOSU/PSU winner would be almost guaranteed of a CG berth while in the B1G-W you'd have a lot more competition.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #35 on:** December 08, 2021, 11:06:03 AM »

Quote from: Mdot21 on December 07, 2021, 10:39:17 PM

The fact that the stakes are so high and winner takes all is what make games like that when both are ranked top 5 so freaking incredible. The joy of the win is indescribable and the pain of a loss is crushing.

I know I'm in the minority here but I think you (and most tOSU and M fans) are trying desperately to hold onto something that, in fact, is already gone.

I went to the 2002 and 2006 tOSU/M games that Ohio State won. In 2006 both teams were playing for:

A win in THE GAME.
An outright league title.
A spot in the NCG.

The equivalent of that today is:

THE GAME.
A win in the B1GCG.
A win in the CFP semi-final.

Fifteen years ago those three things were all rolled into ONE game, now they are split out into three games. It was the same for tOSU in 2002.

If you go back a bit further, Michigan's greatest upset win in the series was Bo's first as HC in 1969. The Buckeyes had won the league and beaten O.J. Simpson's USC Trojans in the prior year Rose Bowl for the NC and back then the league still had a no-repeat rule for the Rose Bowl AND a "no other bowls" rule so THE GAME was the end of Ohio State's season no matter the outcome. The Buckeyes came in defending National Champions and ranked #1. Thus, they were playing for:

A win in THE GAME.
An outright league title.
The National Championship.

Today that would be four games and five or more if we expand the playoff:

THE GAME.
The B1GCG.
A CFP first round game.
A CFP second round game.
Potentially a CFP third round game.
Potentially a CFP fourth round game.

Regardless of whether you or I or most of the posters here would prefer it, we aren't going back to a time like 1969 when all of that was on the line. We just aren't. Instead, that is already split out to four games (THE GAME, B1GCG, CFP, CFP) and probably about to be split out to at least five. It isn't ever going to be that big again nor even as big as it was 15 years ago when I was in the Horseshoe watching #1 Ohio State beat #2 Michigan.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #36 on:** December 08, 2021, 11:29:00 AM »

Would it be possible to have every team play Championship weekend? Using this year as an example, the teams finished:

8-1: M, tOSU
7-2: MSU, IA
6-3: MN, UW, PU
4-5: PSU, IL
3-6: UMD
2-7: RU
1-8: UNL, NU
0-9: IU

I'd start at the top and every team would play a team that they hadn't already played so:

8-1 M already played tOSU and MSU so they get Iowa.
8-1 tOSU already played MSU, MN, and PU so they get UW.
7-2 MSU already played PU so they get MN.
6-3 PU already played IL so they get PSU.
4-5 IL already played UMD, RU, UNL, and NU so they get IU.
3-6 UMD already played RU (and RU already played NU) so UMD gets NU
2-7 RU gets UNL

Conference Champion is the best team left after that. Michigan would control their own destiny because with a win they'd be no worse than tied with tOSU whom they beat. IF Michigan loses then tOSU can win by beating UW. If M and tOSU both lose then they both finish 8-2 along with Iowa and MSU (if they beat MN). I assume you'd break that tie by H2H with:

M beat tOSU, lost to IA and MSU
tOSU beat MSU, lost to M
MSU beat M, lost to tOSU
IA beat M

So in a three-way tie (M, tOSU, IA) or a four-way tie (M, tOSU, IA, MSU) the Hawkeyes win at 1-0 while the other two or three each have at least one H2H loss.

If we couldn't just do this as an "extra" game I'd love to see it to replace both the ninth conference game and the CG. Allow me to explain:

My objection to the ninth league game was always that it *COULD* be a great game that we'd have liked to see such as tOSU/IA but it also could be a game nobody would care about such as tOSU/NU. If you are selecting opponent based on record then EVERYBODY gets a fairly evenly matched game:

8-1 M vs 7-2 IA
8-1 tOSU vs 6-3 UW
7-2 MSU vs 6-3 MN
6-3 PU vs 4-5 PSU
4-5 IL vs 0-9 IU
3-6 UMD vs 1-8 NU
2-7 RU vs 1-8 UNL

All are w/in +/- one game of each other except PU/PSU (two games) and IL/IU (four games).

The H/A split would be a little tricky. I think my rule would be:

First year the team with the better record hosts. If tied, the team with the best win hosts. If still tied, second best win, etc. If still tied, coin-flip.
After the first year the team that has hosted the least hosts. if tied then revert to first-year rules.

So if 2021 had been year-1 of this:

7-2 IA at 8-1 M
6-3 UW at 8-1 tOSU
6-3 MN at 7-2 MSU
4-5 PSU at 6-3 PU
0-9 IU at 4-5 IL
1-8 NU at 3-6 UMD
1-8 UNL at 2-7 RU

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #37 on:** December 08, 2021, 12:34:52 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 08, 2021, 10:53:43 AM

With 14 teams there are 13 to play. This model has five every year and (assuming we are sticking with nine games) the other eight every other year, or would you do two-year rotations so you played half of the others H&H then the other half H&H? I think I'd prefer the latter but it is a minor difference.

IMHO the 9-game conference schedule is great, UNLESS we actually go all-in on the ACC/PAC scheduling alliance such that we play one school from each conference every year.

I don't want to see us locked into 11 scheduled P5 games. Personally I'm proud that Purdue scheduled 11 this year, but I'm also OK with that being an outlier. I think 10 is the minimum any P5 team should ever schedule, but having room for two G5 (and no FCS, ever) is important, especially for teams that are in the mid-conference range where they might need those wins for bowl eligibility. If we force everyone into 11 P5 games every year, I think we might not regularly fulfill all our bowl tie-ins.

So if we do the ACC/PAC scheduling deal, I would say that we at that point can go back to 8 conference games.

The other aspect of this is that we're at 14 teams TODAY, but that may not always be the case. So while 5 permanent games and 4 rotating makes the math work at 14 conference members with 9 conference games, it doesn't for 16. At 16 to play every team twice in 4 years you'd have to drop to 3 permanent games and 6 rotating to work in 9. Which might be fine, I don't know.

As for your question about the H&H, you can still play all 8 every two years in a 4-year H&H rotation. I.e. take your half H&H and half H&H idea, but instead of making that two consecutive two-year rotations, you'll simply alternate which group you play each year so you're still doing H&H with 4-team groups every year, but it's over a 4-year period so that you play every conference opponent at least once within every 2-year span.

LittlePig · « **Reply #38 on:** December 08, 2021, 12:42:15 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 08, 2021, 10:53:43 AM

I'm confused by this. Other than the odd tiebreaker, what is the purpose of having divisions if you aren't using them to determine CG eligibility?I'm confused by this too. What function do the divisions serve?

Lol, you get a trophy! You also get something to brag about to other teams that are in the same division. You won the division and they did not. Nah nah nah boo boo

For a team like OSU, this would not a big deal, but hey if you have not won the conference in over 40 years, hey its something.

LittlePig · « **Reply #39 on:** December 08, 2021, 01:09:15 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 08, 2021, 10:53:43 AM

With 14 teams there are 13 to play. This model has five every year and (assuming we are sticking with nine games) the other eight every other year, or would you do two-year rotations so you played half of the others H&H then the other half H&H? I think I'd prefer the latter but it is a minor difference.

I would prefer playing everybody at least once every 2 years, then the following 2 years, you flip the home and away games. Some players only start for 1 or 2 years. This way they get a chance to play against everybody.

I would also prefer a rotation where you play half your power opponents each year and half the other year. For example lets say Iowa's protected rivals are Neb, Minn, Wisc, ILL, NW. I would like to see a rotation where Iowa plays Mich, PSU, Purdue, Rutgers one year and OSU, MSU, Indy, MD the other year. Certainly not OSU, PSU, Mich, MSU in the same year.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #40 on:** December 08, 2021, 02:38:44 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on December 08, 2021, 12:34:52 PM

IMHO the 9-game conference schedule is great, UNLESS we actually go all-in on the ACC/PAC scheduling alliance such that we play one school from each conference every year.

I don't want to see us locked into 11 scheduled P5 games. Personally I'm proud that Purdue scheduled 11 this year, but I'm also OK with that being an outlier. I think 10 is the minimum any P5 team should ever schedule, but having room for two G5 (and no FCS, ever) is important, especially for teams that are in the mid-conference range where they might need those wins for bowl eligibility. If we force everyone into 11 P5 games every year, I think we might not regularly fulfill all our bowl tie-ins.

So if we do the ACC/PAC scheduling deal, I would say that we at that point can go back to 8 conference games.

I agree with this completely and would prefer an eight game conference schedule AND two "challenge" games. I'd also throw in that I'd have one of the challenges early and the other one late with the matchups determined for the early game based on preseason expectations and the matchups for the later game determined based on something around mid-season expectations.

The reason for this caveat is to avoid giving a team that ends up substantially deviating from preseason expectations two games that they don't really belong in. This year is a great example. In our preseason power rankings IU was #4 based on their good year last year and MSU was #13 based on their appearance. If we had challenge games against both the PAC and ACC early, IU would have been in WAY over their heads against very good teams from both leagues and the Spartans would have cruised to easy victories against PAC and ACC bottom-feeders. By week-7 Indiana was down to #10 and MSU was tied for 4th/5th so if you set the second matchup based on rankings after week-7 then IU would have had one WAY too difficult challenge game early and one appropriate challenge game late while MSU would have had one WAY too easy challenge game early and one appropriate challenge game late. That way at least half of their challenge games would be reasonably evenly matched.

The beauty of this, I think, is that instead of simply adding an extra league game which could be Rutgers or could be Ohio State, Purdue would add two appropriate matchups. In a year when they are really good they'd get an extra couple games against teams like Ohio State (just from other leagues) and in a year when Purdue was terrible they'd get an extra couple Rutgers games.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 08, 2021, 03:13:29 PM »

Functionally, here is how I'd set-up the PAC and ACC Challenge games:

For the ACC they have the same number of teams but you'd have to include Notre Dame or else the B1G would dominate the thing because the ACC just doesn't have the same depth so I'd ask them to include ND and then make the numbers balance by adding a rotating MAC team or maybe Cincy or Marshall as an "honorary" B1G member and just slate them in wherever was appropriate. So for this year, our pre-season rankings were:

tOSU
- Cincy - standing in to make the #'s balance
UW
PSU
IU
IA
M
MN
NU
UMD
UNL
PU
RU
MSU
IL

Cincy was ranked between tOSU and UW so I'd have treated them as #2 and dropped everybody else down a peg. In order for the scheduling to work we'd have to each have one home and one away so I'd do that by division. Lets say this year the B1G-E and ACC-Coastal are hosts. Cincy would go with the B1G-E and Notre Dame with the ACC-Atlantic. Matchups:

Clemson at tOSU
Notre Dame at Cincy
Wisconsin at UNC
NCST at Penn State
FSU at Indiana
Iowa at Miami, FL
Louisville at Michigan
Minnesota at VaTech
Northwestern at UVA
Cuse at Maryland
Nebraska at GaTech
Purdue at GaTech
BC at Rutgers
Wake at MSU
Illinois at Dook

Then for the late-season challenge we'd play the Pac but they only have 12 and not as much depth so we'd ask them to bring say BoiseSt and SDSU along. At week-7 our rankings were:

tOSU
M
PSU
Iowa
MSU (these two are actually tied but it doesn't matter since they are in opposite divisions)
UW
MN
PU
UNL
IU
UMD
NU
IL
RU

This time B1G-W and PAC-N are the hosts with SDSU joining the PAC-S and Boise joining the PAC-N so the matchups (based on my off-the-top-of-my-head recollection of what mid-season Pac expectations were) would be:

tOSU at Utah
M at SDSU
PSU at ASU
Oregon at Iowa
MSU at UCLA
SDSU at UW
WSU at MN
ORSU at PU
Washington at UNL
IU at USC
UMD at Colorado
Stanford at NU
Cal at IL
RU at Zona

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

MrNubbz

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

Brutus Buckeye

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

Mdot21

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

847badgerfan

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

LittlePig

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

847badgerfan

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

medinabuckeye1

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

medinabuckeye1

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

medinabuckeye1

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

betarhoalphadelta

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

LittlePig

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

LittlePig

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

medinabuckeye1

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?

medinabuckeye1

Re: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?