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.