medina, I guess your pod/groups idea seems like a caste system to me. If it were implemented in 1950, Minnesota would be a top tier team. If it was implemented in the 80s, Oregon would be way down the group list in the PAC.
We all know helmet status is slow to change, but it does change. And if you have a long-term relegation system like top soccer leagues, I just don't think college football people would sign off on that. Right or wrong, too many would just not like it, imo.
There is something that seems odd or perhaps misleading about calling my proposal a "caste system". When I think of a caste system, I think of something that is set up to help the members of the higher caste and keep the members of the lower caste down. My proposal, to the extent that it helps/hurts (which I think isn't very much overall), helps the members of the lower caste and hurts the members of the higher caste.
Consider an example:
Think of a season in which Michigan and MSU both have good but not great teams that are about equal overall while the North and East Pods are combined to form a Northeast Division.
Both the Spartans and Wolverines will have to play:
- Each other
- Purdue
- Northwestern
- Penn State
- Maryland
- Virginia
- North Carolina
The difference is that Michigan's other two opponents will be:
Michigan State's other two opponents will be:
In their four years in the conference Rutgers has never finished less than five games behind Ohio State so the Spartans get a humongous advantage in playing a team that has finished 3-5, 1-7, 0-9, and 3-6 rather than a team that has finished 8-0, 7-1, 8-1, and 8-1 in those same four years.
Nebraska/Iowa is closer. Their records the last four years:
- 2014: Iowa 4-4, Nebraska 5-3
- 2015: Iowa 8-0, Nebraska 3-5
- 2016: Iowa 6-3, Nebraska 6-3
- 2017: Iowa 4-5, Nebraska 3-6
Over the last four years Iowa/Nebraska have been comparable (within one game) every year save 2015 when Iowa was substantially better. Thus, over the last four years Michigan State's hypothetical SoS in my proposal (and with NE/SW Divisions) would have been easier than Michigan's every year save 2015 when Iowa being much better than Nebraska would have made up for Ohio State being much better than Rutgers. Even in 2015 though, this wouldn't have been an advantage for Michigan, it would simply have put M/MSU on an even footing.
With all of that said, I really don't think it is all that big of a difference and I think it is MUCH less of a difference than we have now:
In the current B1G structure we play our six divisional opponents and three opponents from the other division. Fully one-third of a team's conference games each year can be different as compared to a divisional rival.
Upthread you,
@OrangeAfroMan mentioned a situation in which your team beat all of your divisional rivals and yet still failed to get to the CG. The more non-divisional games you have the more likely this is. In the current B1G structure it isn't very unlikely. If, for example, Wisconsin goes 6-0 against the B1G-W but goes 0-3 against the three best teams in the B1G-E they finish 6-3. A B1G-W team that goes 4-2 in the division and 3-0 against the worst three teams in the B1G-E would head to the B1GCG ahead of them.
It is still possible, of course, with two non-divisional games. It is possible anytime you have more than one, but the less you have or the smaller fraction of the schedule that they make up the less likely it becomes.
Putting this all into your example:
Over the past four years, if Michigan had gone 7-0 in my hypothetical B1G-NE, in each year MSU would only have surpassed them for the B1GCG if:
2014:
- Michigan lost to 8-0 tOSU, and
- Michigan lost to 5-3 Nebraska, and
- Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
- Michigan State beat 4-4 Iowa, and
- Michigan State beat 3-5 Rutgers
2015:
- Michigan lost to 7-1 tOSU, and
- Michigan lost to 3-5 Nebraska, and
- Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
- Michigan State beat 8-0 Iowa, and
- Michigan State beat 1-7 Rutgers
2016:
- Michigan lost to 8-1 tOSU, and
- Michigan lost to 6-3 Nebraska, and
- Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
- Michigan State beat 6-3 Iowa, and
- Michigan State beat 0-9 Rutgers
2017:
- Michigan lost to 8-1 tOSU, and
- Michigan lost to 3-6 Nebraska, and
- Michigan State went 6-0 against the other B1G-NE teams, and
- Michigan State beat 4-5 Iowa, and
- Michigan State beat 3-6 Rutgers
If MSU had accomplished all of that in any of those years I would have felt that they earned their place in the B1GCG. Even though they would have gotten into the B1GCG despite a loss to Michigan in any of those situations I wouldn't see it as egregiously unfair. If a Michigan fan were complaining about it I would say:
2014: Your team lost to a 5-3 team.
2015: Your team lost to a 3-5 team.
2016: Your team lost to a 6-3 team.
2017: Your team lost to a 3-6 team.