Author
Topic: After eight years of B1G-E and B1G-W, do things need tweeked?
(Read 3488 times)

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #42 on:** December 08, 2021, 03:21:10 PM »

FWIW:
Then I'd go back to an eight-game league schedule with three permanent rivals and the other ten schools either in two year cycles or every other year (I don't have a strong preference either way). My permanent rivals would be:

Some of those seem downright goofy so I feel compelled to explain how I got there:

I thought that the four western schools (UNL, MN, IA, UW) should all play each other every year so they are each other's permanent rivals and they are off the board.
I thought that the Indiana and Illinois schools (NU, IL, PU, IU) should all play each other every year so they are each other's permanent rivals and they are off the board.
That leaves six schools. Ohio State and Michigan have to play every year.
MSU has to play Michigan every year.
PSU has to play tOSU every year.
UMD and RU should obviously play each other every year.
MSU and PSU should play each year.
The last six schools each need one more permanent rival. PSU and UMD have history, that takes them off the board.
Finally just flip a coin to decide which one of UMD/RU goes with tOSU and which goes with M and MSU gets RU.

No divisions, CG is top-2.

LittlePig · « **Reply #43 on:** December 08, 2021, 06:34:16 PM »

For the Big Ten, The challenges should be limited to 10 games total against the ACC, and 8 games total against the PAC. Then the Big Ten should have a separate challenge agreement to play 2 total games each year against ND.

This would be a total commitment of 20 ooc total games each year for the Big Ten. For each Big Ten team, this roughly means 3 challenge games every 2 years. This provides some flexibility to still occasionally schedule some Big 12 and SEC games.

I also think the PAC and ACC would push for a challenge limit so that the ACC can still schedule its rival games against the SEC and the PAC can still schedule its games against ND and BYU.

LittlePig · « **Reply #44 on:** December 08, 2021, 07:01:29 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 08, 2021, 03:21:10 PM

FWIW:
Then I'd go back to an eight-game league schedule with three permanent rivals and the other ten schools either in two year cycles or every other year (I don't have a strong preference either way). My permanent rivals would be:

Some of those seem downright goofy so I feel compelled to explain how I got there:

I thought that the four western schools (UNL, MN, IA, UW) should all play each other every year so they are each other's permanent rivals and they are off the board.
I thought that the Indiana and Illinois schools (NU, IL, PU, IU) should all play each other every year so they are each other's permanent rivals and they are off the board.
That leaves six schools. Ohio State and Michigan have to play every year.
MSU has to play Michigan every year.
PSU has to play tOSU every year.
UMD and RU should obviously play each other every year.
MSU and PSU should play each year.
The last six schools each need one more permanent rival. PSU and UMD have history, that takes them off the board.
Finally just flip a coin to decide which one of UMD/RU goes with tOSU and which goes with M and MSU gets RU.
No divisions, CG is top-2.

Lol, yes you have unintentionally/intentiinally created 3 unofficial divisions

West - Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Minn
Central - NW, ILL, Ind, Pur
East - everybody else

Even the East will play 4 out of 5 teams each year. Might as well create 3 new trophies.

LittlePig · « **Reply #45 on:** December 09, 2021, 01:23:16 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 08, 2021, 11:29:00 AM

Would it be possible to have every team play Championship weekend?

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

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.

That is a VERY interesting idea. It may not provide the clarity that a CCG would provide but would keep everybody active until the final week without worrying about a rematch.

ELA · « **Reply #46 on:** December 09, 2021, 02:09:23 PM »

Quote from: LittlePig on December 09, 2021, 01:23:16 PM

That is a VERY interesting idea. It may not provide the clarity that a CCG would provide but would keep everybody active until the final week without worrying about a rematch.

Isn't this what the Big Ten had originally proposed last year?

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #47 on:** December 09, 2021, 02:48:18 PM »

Quote from: ELA on December 09, 2021, 02:09:23 PM

Isn't this what the Big Ten had originally proposed last year?

It was and I was really intrigued by the idea then.

I like it even if it simply replaced the ninth game because of the schedule-balancing function that it provides.

Consider this year and look at the two B1G-E teams that went 8-1, Michigan and Ohio State. Michigan's three B1G-W cross-overs were:

6-3 Wisconsin
1-8 Nebraska
1-8 Northwestern

So the top team in the B1G-E ended up playing the two worst teams in the B1G-W.
The teams they missed were:

7-2 Iowa
6-3 Minnesota
6-3 Purdue
4-5 Illinois

Ohio State's three B1G-W cross-overs were:

6-3 Minnesota
6-3 Purdue
1-8 Nebraska

The teams they missed were:

7-2 Iowa
6-3 Wisconsin
4-5 Illinois
1-8 Northwestern

At the opposite end of the spectrum is Indiana who went 0-9 in conference. Their three B1G-W cross-overs were:

7-2 Iowa
6-3 Purdue
6-3 Minnesota

So the worst team in the B1G-E ended up playing three of the four best teams in the B1G-W.
The teams they missed were:

6-3 Wisconsin
4-5 Illinois
1-8 Nebraska
1-8 Northwestern.

The ninth game would be a lot more appealing to me if it was automatically a good B1G-W team for good B1G-E teams and a bad B1G-W team for bad B1G-E teams. Lets say you went back to eight, dropping Iowa for the Hoosiers, Northwestern for the Wolverines, and Minnesota for the Buckeyes. Then at the end of the year you'd have Michigan play Iowa, you'd have Ohio State play Wisconsin, and you'd have Indiana play Northwestern. You get three pretty even match-ups (at least theoretically) instead of two complete mismatches and one more even matchup.

I DO like the ninth game, I'm just not as enamored by it as most people here because I realize that while the "extra" game for Michigan might have been Wisconsin, it also might have been Nebraska or Northwestern. For Michigan, adding Wisconsin is great because both were pretty good. Adding Northwestern or Nebraska for Michigan doesn't really get you much since Nebraska and especially Northwestern were terrible. My point is that a randomly added ninth game might be a great match-up that you'd love to see or it might be a complete mismatch that nobody cares about.

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?

medinabuckeye1

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?

LittlePig

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

ELA

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?