Author
Topic: Potential Change for Next Year
(Read 1833 times)

Cincydawg · « **Reply #42 on:** December 17, 2024, 05:42:59 AM »

Without looking it up, I don't know which pastries are which.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 17, 2024, 03:50:00 PM »

Quote from: LittlePig on December 16, 2024, 09:02:54 AM

I think the Big Ten should just set up a flex schedule the week of the CCG.

Everybody up until to that week would have played 8 conference games (4 home, 4 away) and 11 overall games. By then everybody should have played all its annual rivalry games too. Then on CCG weekend, everybody plays it's 12th game.

The Big Ten can then decide the best lineup based on what has happened that year.

I think this is a fantastic idea with the top game being the CG and the rest being as closely matched as reasonably possible while maintaining an even number of home games in the long run and avoiding rematches to the extent possible.

Using this years' final standings (I realize it would actually be after 8 games but I'm using final for the example):

Penn State 8-1 at Oregon 9-0 - CG
Illinois 6-3 at Ohio State 7-2 (because tOSU already played both IU and IA)
Iowa 6-3 at Indiana 8-1
Rutgers 4-5 at Michigan 5-4 (because M already played MN, UWash, and USC)
Washington 4-5 at Minnesota 5-4
Michigan State 3-6 at USC 4-5 (because USC already played UCLA, UNL, and UWisc)
UCLA 3-6 at Wisconsin 3-6 (UCLA already played UNL)
Northwestern 2-7 at Nebraska 3-6
Purdue 0-9 at Maryland 1-8

No rematches. The biggest mismatch by record is the two game difference between Iowa and Indiana. The other eight games match teams that finished within one game of each other in the standings. And there are big stakes in multiple games:

PSU/Oregon are both in the CFP but this is for a bye.
tOSU is playing for a CFP berth. If they lose they are out.
Indiana is playing for a CFP berth. If they lose they are out.

Depending on how things went in the first 11, some or all of Michigan, Minnesota, Rutgers, Washington, USC, Nebraska UCLA, MSU, and UWisc could be playing for bowl eligibility.

Even the crap game (PU at UMD) should at least be a good competitive game.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #44 on:** December 17, 2024, 04:18:11 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 17, 2024, 03:50:00 PM

I think this is a fantastic idea with the top game being the CG and the rest being as closely matched as reasonably possible while maintaining an even number of home games in the long run and avoiding rematches to the extent possible.

Using this years' final standings (I realize it would actually be after 8 games but I'm using final for the example):
Penn State 8-1 at Oregon 9-0 - CG
Illinois 6-3 at Ohio State 7-2 (because tOSU already played both IU and IA)
Iowa 6-3 at Indiana 8-1
Rutgers 4-5 at Michigan 5-4 (because M already played MN, UWash, and USC)
Washington 4-5 at Minnesota 5-4
Michigan State 3-6 at USC 4-5 (because USC already played UCLA, UNL, and UWisc)
UCLA 3-6 at Wisconsin 3-6 (UCLA already played UNL)
Northwestern 2-7 at Nebraska 3-6
Purdue 0-9 at Maryland 1-8
No rematches. The biggest mismatch by record is the two game difference between Iowa and Indiana. The other eight games match teams that finished within one game of each other in the standings. And there are big stakes in multiple games:
PSU/Oregon are both in the CFP but this is for a bye.
tOSU is playing for a CFP berth. If they lose they are out.
Indiana is playing for a CFP berth. If they lose they are out.
Depending on how things went in the first 11, some or all of Michigan, Minnesota, Rutgers, Washington, USC, Nebraska UCLA, MSU, and UWisc could be playing for bowl eligibility.

Even the crap game (PU at UMD) should at least be a good competitive game.

I do think it would make for compelling games, but doesn't this just have the capacity to end up knocking teams out of the CFP by forcing them to play tougher competition than perhaps they had already scheduled? After all, I'm quite sure Indiana would rather have played Purdue in the final game this year than Iowa...

One of my old coworkers had an idea back in the BCS days... First 10 games (probably over 11 weeks to allow byes), teams schedule themselves. For the final 2 games of the season, a committee sets the schedule, such that every team will have both a home and an away game (which should help for ticket sales obv). The goal would be similar to what you've proposed, to essentially sort out the teams to determine who is worthy of a BCSCG slot, and weaker teams would be paired with weaker teams for compelling matchups as well.

This was back in the 2008-2012 timeframe before many conferences had moved to the CCG model, so it wasn't going to conflict with that much. And it was in the days of the BCS, where we were trying to restrict the teams to 2, so it would be silly in a 12-team CFP world. And of course the SEC would bitch because they like their FCS cupcakes to tune up in their 11th game before rivalry week

But I thought it was an interesting thing that would have worked well with the BCS model. Of course he was a Boise State guy so he wanted high-profile games to allow for an "unworthy" team like BSU that doesn't get the benefit of the doubt to have a route to force their way in...

LittlePig · « **Reply #45 on:** December 17, 2024, 04:41:39 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on December 17, 2024, 03:50:00 PM

Depending on how things went in the first 11, some or all of Michigan, Minnesota, Rutgers, Washington, USC, Nebraska UCLA, MSU, and UWisc could be playing for bowl eligibility.

That is the tricky part in this hypothetical. Which of the 9 conference games gets left out in the schedule. I assume all the Thanksgiving week games would be the same and all teams will still play all their fixed rivals

Also the Big Ten might have to tweak it's rotation to only play everybody twice in 6 years instead of 2 times in 5 years.

LittlePig · « **Reply #46 on:** December 17, 2024, 04:54:29 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on December 17, 2024, 04:18:11 PM

I do think it would make for compelling games, but doesn't this just have the capacity to end up knocking teams out of the CFP by forcing them to play tougher competition than perhaps they had already scheduled? After all, I'm quite sure Indiana would rather have played Purdue in the final game this year than Iowa...

I am more of a fan of the idea that a team should want to earn their way in, instead of running away from completion. Indiana playing and beating Iowa would be the perfect way for Indiana to prove they deserve a spot in the CFP. And if Indiana can't beat Iowa, they probably never did deserve a spot in the CFP anyway.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #47 on:** December 17, 2024, 04:59:15 PM »

Quote from: LittlePig on December 17, 2024, 04:41:39 PM

That is the tricky part in this hypothetical. Which of the 9 conference games gets left out in the schedule. I assume all the Thanksgiving week games would be the same and all teams will still play all their fixed rivals

Also the Big Ten might have to tweak it's rotation to only play everybody twice in 6 years instead of 2 times in 5 years.

I agree on all the Thanksgiving weekend games needing to be played. That weekend we had:

Minnesota at Wisconsin
Nebraska at Iowa
Washington at Oregon
Michigan at Ohio State
Maryland at Penn State
Notre Dame at USC
Purdue at Indiana
Illinois at Northwestern
Rutgers at Michigan State
Fresno State at UCLA

There are 10 instead of nine because of USC finishing with Notre Dame and consequently UCLA having to schedule an OOC as well.

With the exceptions of UMD/PSU and RU/MSU these are all rivalries. Those are the exceptions because PSU's and MSU's biggest rivals are already taken.

You are right that it would mean less scheduled play but the games you'd add would almost all be compelling match-ups where at least some of the games you deleted wouldn't. I think it makes for a more fun season overall. The bigger problem is probably this:

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on December 17, 2024, 04:18:11 PM

doesn't this just have the capacity to end up knocking teams out of the CFP by forcing them to play tougher competition than perhaps they had already scheduled? After all, I'm quite sure Indiana would rather have played Purdue in the final game this year than Iowa...

As I drew it up, Ohio State and Indiana would probably have been playing for playoff berths with basically no upside for the conference because they would have faced elimination but neither Iowa nor Illinois could have gotten in by beating them.

My question is whether that would be a one year situation or if that would be the norm. If you look at the final rankings, the "last four in" were:

#11 seed SMU 10-2 loser of ACCCG
#10 seed IU 11-1
#9 seed Tennessee 10-2
#8 seed Ohio State 10-2

The first four out were:

#11 Alabama 9-3
#13 Miami 10-2
#14 Ole Miss 9-3
#15 USCe 9-3

So at least for the first year of the CFP, three losses was fatal even for Alabama which had good SoS and has a HUMONGOUS helmet.

Indiana with two losses or Ohio State with three would need the extra quality opponent. Indiana with one loss or Ohio State with two is MUCH better off just standing pat and heading to the CFP.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #48 on:** December 17, 2024, 05:05:32 PM »

Quote from: LittlePig on December 17, 2024, 04:54:29 PM

I am more of a fan of the idea that a team should want to earn their way in, instead of running away from completion. Indiana playing and beating Iowa would be the perfect way for Indiana to prove they deserve a spot in the CFP. And if Indiana can't beat Iowa, they probably never did deserve a spot in the CFP anyway.

Hey, I'm not saying this is a bad thing from the fan perspective. And watching Indiana lose to Iowa and getting knocked out of the CFP is something I wholeheartedly support. Especially if it means Purdue doesn't have to suffer a 66-0 curb-stomp from them to end the season.

But you have to ask, since you suggested the "Big Ten" should do this... Why would this be in the Big Ten's interests as a conference? It wouldn't. The conference wants as many teams in the playoff as possible.

Potentially from the conference's standpoint, they get more TV revenue from that weekend... But then lose TV revenue and monetary gains if teams get knocked out of the CFP, and lose conference pride and a collective belief in the strength of the conference if teams get knocked out of the CFP.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #49 on:** December 17, 2024, 05:10:21 PM »

Quote from: LittlePig on December 17, 2024, 04:54:29 PM

I am more of a fan of the idea that a team should want to earn their way in, instead of running away from completion. Indiana playing and beating Iowa would be the perfect way for Indiana to prove they deserve a spot in the CFP. And if Indiana can't beat Iowa, they probably never did deserve a spot in the CFP anyway.

You are not wrong and there is an additional problem with Indiana getting in. The B1G had four CFP teams (Ore, PSU, tOSU, IU) and even the SEC only had three so all of our other teams got moved up a slot in competition in the bowls, thus:

7-5 Rutgers is playing 8-4 KSU
6-6 USC is playing 8-4 aTm
6-6 UNL is playing 7-5 BC
8-4 Iowa is playing 9-3 Mizzou
7-5 M is playing 9-3 Bama
6-6 UWash is playing 8-4 L'Ville
9-3 IL is playing 9-3 USCe
7-5 MN is playing 6-6 VaTech

Minnesota is the ONLY (non-CFP) B1G with a bowl opponent that has a worse record and only IL is playing a team with the same record. All the rest are playing teams a game or two better than themselves. That contributes to the fact that only MN and UNL are favored.

If Indiana had missed the CFP then everybody moves down a slot and gets easier competition. It has an even bigger impact in the bowls against whatever conference happened to snag IU's spot. Ie, if Bama had gotten IU's CFP spot then maybe Michigan gets USCe and IL gets an SEC team further down the pecking order.

That said, this is all about MONEY and the CFP pays really well so we are all better off with IU in the CFP even if they do get drilled by Notre Dame. Much as @betarhoalphadelta hates seeing rival PU in the CFP, his school cashes a check for that too.

LittlePig · « **Reply #50 on:** December 17, 2024, 06:20:26 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on December 17, 2024, 05:05:32 PM

Hey, I'm not saying this is a bad thing from the fan perspective. And watching Indiana lose to Iowa and getting knocked out of the CFP is something I wholeheartedly support. Especially if it means Purdue doesn't have to suffer a 66-0 curb-stomp from them to end the season.

Some thoughts

I am pretty sure Indiana would still play Purdue during Thanksgiving week just like OSU-Mich, Wisc-Minn, Iowa-Neb, etc would still play that week. It's some other random game in the middle of the season that would get cut from the schedule.

I am also a big fan of Indiana this season and think they would have no problem beating Iowa if they had to play Iowa.

Also all I said was leave the flex schedule to the Big Ten that week. They can decide what's best for the conference. Although it would be handy to have some rules in place like Medina suggested. No rematches, etc.

Also as an alternative thought, maybe they should have had PSU and Indiana play each other since they were tied for 2nd. Oregon could play one of the west coast teams instead. Illinois could play Iowa for 5th place and the Citrus Bowl.

LittlePig · « **Reply #51 on:** December 17, 2024, 06:30:19 PM »

Another option with a flex week is to let the teams decide starting at the top of the pecking order. They can choose to either host a game or else challenge a higher ranked team as a road team.

So Oregon as #1 gets to host a game. PSU #2 then can choose to either be a host for a game, or challenge by traveling to Oregon. So let's say PSU chooses to host.

Next Indiana #3, gets a choice to host, or travel to Oregon, or travel to PSU. Indiana chooses to travel to Oregon.

Next Ohio St at # 4, can either host or travel to PSU. OSU chooses to host.

Next Iowa at #5, can either host or travel to PSU or OSU. Iowa chooses to host.

Next Illinois at #6, Illinois chooses to travel to Iowa

And so on, until you have 9 teams hosting, then the remaining teams have to choose to travel.

Of course, maybe there would need to be some rules in place to make sure there are no rematches and you can't choose somebody more than 3 spots above or below you in the rankings.

FearlessF · « **Reply #52 on:** December 17, 2024, 10:26:25 PM »

there is absolutely zero potential for a "flex" week next year

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: Potential Change for Next Year

Cincydawg

Re: Potential Change for Next Year

medinabuckeye1

Re: Potential Change for Next Year

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Potential Change for Next Year

LittlePig

Re: Potential Change for Next Year

LittlePig

Re: Potential Change for Next Year

medinabuckeye1

Re: Potential Change for Next Year

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Potential Change for Next Year

medinabuckeye1

Re: Potential Change for Next Year

LittlePig

Re: Potential Change for Next Year

LittlePig

Re: Potential Change for Next Year

FearlessF

Re: Potential Change for Next Year