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

It favors a team that misses a game that is a probable loss. Missing a game that is a probable win while keeping a game that is a probable loss is bad.

For example, let's say that Purdue is likely to finish, for example, 5-3 with a win over Indiana and a loss to Wisconsin. Consider the outcomes:

• Play Wisconsin, miss Indiana: Finish at 4-3, for a 57% win percentage, and an extra loss against your record (loss column being more important than win column).
• Play both: Finish 5-3, or 62.5% win percentage.
• Play Indiana, miss Wisconsin: Finish 5-2, for a 71% win percentage, for an advantage in the loss column AND in the win percentage.

Obviously this doesn't account for the chance of getting upset in the game you were a probable win, but that would be bad regardless.

For Wisconsin, I don't think they gain by missing the Huskers. If they wanted to duck any team on their schedule, it would be Michigan as that would be their most probable loss IMHO.


Of course if they're down 6 starters and 6 coaches, if it turns a game against the Huskers that was a probable win into a much more probable loss, then maybe it's better to miss the game.

I get what you are saying but the lack of a win simply doesn't matter because of the way the B1G set up the rules. 

For example, suppose that we expected:

• Wisconsin to finish 7-1 with a loss to Michigan, and
• Purdue to finish 7-1 with a loss to Wisconsin. 

Now Wisconsin isn't playing Nebraska (an expected win) so our new expectation is that they will finish:

• 7-1 (.875) Purdue
• 6-1 (.857) Wisconsin

If they went by winning percentage that missed game would hurt Wisconsin but they don't.  If two teams are tied in the loss column but have a different number of wins (as in this example) then the H2H result prevails and UW would go to the B1GCG despite Purdue's superior winning percentage. 

Thus, missing the UNL game can only help Wisconsin.  If they had played one of two things would have happened, either:

• They would have won, finished 7-1, and tied with Purdue, and gone to the B1GCG based on their H2H win over Purdue, or
• They would have lost, finished 6-2, and missed the B1GCG. 

I think that all of us (even @FearlessF ) think that UW would probably win a game against UNL but there is still at least a chance of an upset anytime a team plays.  Last year Wisconsin lost to Illinois despite being an obviously superior team.  It happens.

As I mull it over, I can't come up with any scenario in which not playing Nebraska is worse for Wisconsin than beating Nebraska.  Well, there is one.  If Wisconsin ends up missing two more games, then it becomes an issue due to the eligibility threshold. 

In what way?

guessing UNL and OSU would play if the Big Ten allowed - no matter how many tested positive

the rest of the conference would sit out the game if a dozen people test positive early in the week

agreed

I'm REALLY  tired of losing to the Badgers, but I'd rather watch a close loss Saturday than play golf in wind and 55 degrees

The whole weirdness of this season sort of ruined it, but I think I might actually be happier without MSU football.

When they are good, I stress; when they are bad, it just bothers me.

I think, aside from 2013, 2007 has been my favorite season ever.  7-5, some fun wins, the losses didn't get me down that much, and I was happy as hell to get to the Champs Sports Bowl.  Honestly, it wasn't that different from the past two seasons, but it felt so good.

Sorry, I meant Wisconsin.  I'll fix it. 

No, leave it. I also caught it, but didn't say anything, because it's funnier that way. 

That said, I get what you're saying. In the case of tiebreakers, the best option for any team would be to go 0-0 because you would be equal to an 8-0 team in the loss column. Heck, depending on your philosophical view of math, you may have an infinite winning percentage too, which would be better than 100%!

I realize they put in the 6 game rule, so maybe you can make an argument that it's better for a team to play only 6 games rather than 8 because it reduces their chances for having an upset loss vs an inferior team. 

But all of this only affects the tiebreaker, and only against teams that Wisconsin plays.

Let's say Wisconsin can't play Nebraska and then can't play Purdue, and goes 5-1. 

Wisconsin then finds themselves in a "tie" against 6-1 Purdue. All other teams in the B1G West have 2 or more losses.

In that case, they have the same number of losses, but no H2H result. And thus Purdue would win the tiebreaker due to win%. If Wisconsin had played Purdue they'd likely be 6-1 while Purdue would be 6-2. 

At the very least, if Wisconsin plays a team, they control their own destiny with that team re: H2H. If they don't, then they have to hope they win the farther down tiebreakers.

"We believe the flexibility to play non-conference games could have been beneficial not only for Nebraska, but other Big Ten teams who may be in a similar position as the season progresses. The ability for all Big Ten members to play a non-conference game if needed could provide another data point for possible College Football Playoff and bowl consideration.

The only think a non-con game for Nebraska could do to affect the CFP would be to lose to a terrible team, thus reducing Ohio State's SOS.

the non-con could give Nebraska much needed game reps, it would also be a nice bump to the local economy and AD account

The league’s Council of Presidents/Chancellors shooting down NU’s proposal to fill a gap in its schedule — left by Wisconsin canceling its trip to Huskerville because of COVID-19 — with Tennessee-Chattanooga, a team ready, willing and able to play in Memorial Stadium on a moment’s notice.

The Big Ten, officially silent on the matter Thursday, voted no in an early-morning meeting. The vote was 11-3.

_________________________________________________ ________

first, UNL, OSU, and who's the 3rd?  Iowa?

2nd - what's the logic?  The conference makes more money if Nebraska plays.