CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on December 06, 2021, 11:45:42 AM
-
In the eight years from 2014-2021 the B1G-E holds are rather slim 77-70 advantage in regular season cross-over games. That amounts to a little less than one game per season and all but one of the seasons have been either tied or within one game:
- 2014: 7-7
- 2015: 7-7
- 2016: 11-10 B1G-W
- 2017: 13-8 B1G-E
- 2018: 11-10 B1G-E
- 2019: 11-10 B1G-E
- 2020: 7-7
- 2021: 11-10 B1G-E
That is obviously really close but the elephant in the room is the B1G-E's dominance of the B1GCG. In these eight years the Buckeyes have won five B1GCG's while PSU, MSU, and M have won one each. That is all eight. the B1G-W is 0-8 with UW losing four and Iowa and Northwestern losing a couple each.
Here are the regular-season cross-over game records:
(https://i.imgur.com/thECkQr.png)
I would group these as follows:
- tOSU and M are 11+ games ahead.
- IA, PSU, and UW are 5-7 games ahead.
- MSU and NU are a game down.
- UNL, MN, IU, and IL are 2-5 games down.
- UMD, PU, and RU are 7+ games down.
The reason for the B1GCG disparity shows up here pretty clearly. Four of the seven B1G-E teams are in the top or bottom group (tOSU, M, UMD, RU) while only one of the B1G-W teams is in the bottom group and none in the top.
Including the CG, here are the cross-overs:
(https://i.imgur.com/QCYQbn1.png)
So the top-3 and bottom-3 teams include five of the seven B1G-E teams and only one B1G-W team while the middle eight include the other two B1G-E teams and six of the seven B1G-W teams. As we all already knew, the B1G-E has a better top and a worse bottom and the B1G-W is more competitive.
-
idk...i say leave it how it is.
-
maybe should try some other way, that avoids rivalries and has ridiculous names... something like... leaders and legends maybe?
-
No.
The geography is the geography.
Leave it alone.
-
No.
The geography is the geography.
Leave it alone.
but... but legends.
and leaders.
come on, at least think about it.
-
IMHO the problem you run into is the problem you always run into. Michigan and Ohio State.
Put them in the same division, and that division is automatically going to be the stronger division. Split them up, and suddenly you have to find a way to keep their annual rivalry and ALSO to keep their annual rivalry from resulting in a 2-game series the final week of the regular season and the CCG.
If you keep Michigan and OSU in the same division and put PSU, MSU, and Wisconsin in the opposite division, you're as close as you can get to competitive balance as possible, but the winner of that division will likely always be an underdog to those two. On top of it, if you stack the rest of the M/OSU division with patsies, you'll get criticized for basically making their division come down to the M/OSU winner every year and giving them an easy road to the CFP.
If we go to 16 and do the pods thing, this will all sorta resolve itself IMHO. UM and OSU can be in the same pod, and because their pod will rotate "division" alignment with the other three pods, they won't constantly be paired with the strongest of the other three pods, if there is one.
-
IMHO the problem you run into is the problem you always run into. Michigan and Ohio State.
Put them in the same division, and that division is automatically going to be the stronger division. Split them up, and suddenly you have to find a way to keep their annual rivalry and ALSO to keep their annual rivalry from resulting in a 2-game series the final week of the regular season and the CCG.
If you keep Michigan and OSU in the same division and put PSU, MSU, and Wisconsin in the opposite division, you're as close as you can get to competitive balance as possible, but the winner of that division will likely always be an underdog to those two. On top of it, if you stack the rest of the M/OSU division with patsies, you'll get criticized for basically making their division come down to the M/OSU winner every year and giving them an easy road to the CFP.
If we go to 16 and do the pods thing, this will all sorta resolve itself IMHO. UM and OSU can be in the same pod, and because their pod will rotate "division" alignment with the other three pods, they won't constantly be paired with the strongest of the other three pods, if there is one.
if it goes to 16, who are the two teams? that's the $64,000 question.
-
if it goes to 16, who are the two teams? that's the $64,000 question.
Don't really want to rehash that one again. We've debated, and debated, and debated on that.
I'm just saying that with the current roster of 14 teams and two divisions, it's going to be hard to find anything that fixes the issue that medina has raised.
-
IMHO the problem you run into is the problem you always run into. Michigan and Ohio State.
Put them in the same division, and that division is automatically going to be the stronger division. Split them up, and suddenly you have to find a way to keep their annual rivalry and ALSO to keep their annual rivalry from resulting in a 2-game series the final week of the regular season and the CCG.
If you keep Michigan and OSU in the same division and put PSU, MSU, and Wisconsin in the opposite division, you're as close as you can get to competitive balance as possible, but the winner of that division will likely always be an underdog to those two. On top of it, if you stack the rest of the M/OSU division with patsies, you'll get criticized for basically making their division come down to the M/OSU winner every year and giving them an easy road to the CFP.
If we go to 16 and do the pods thing, this will all sorta resolve itself IMHO. UM and OSU can be in the same pod, and because their pod will rotate "division" alignment with the other three pods, they won't constantly be paired with the strongest of the other three pods, if there is one.
Yup. No good solution unless/until you go to pods.
-
I personally like the idea of no divisions, 2-3 protected rivals, rotate everyone else through. Top 2 teams play in the CCG. Downside is the pearl-clutching possibility of OSU/UM in back-to-back weeks.
Also, it should not be considered until we have an expanded playoff. No need to cannibalize yourself out of a playoff spot.
-
I personally like the idea of no divisions, 2-3 protected rivals, rotate everyone else through. Top 2 teams play in the CCG. Downside is the pearl-clutching possibility of OSU/UM in back-to-back weeks.
Also, it should not be considered until we have an expanded playoff. No need to cannibalize yourself out of a playoff spot.
agreed. SEC does a great job of ensuring they get two teams in by only playing 8 conference game schedules + 1 FCS tune-up.
B1G should follow that lead until they expand the playoff.
-
agreed. SEC does a great job of ensuring they get two teams in by only playing 8 conference game schedules + 1 FCS tune-up.
B1G should follow that lead until they expand the playoff.
And the SEC Cupcake weekend is late in the season, while other conferences are playing conference games, which further protects the ranked SEC teams from taking an unnecessary late season loss and ensures higher late-season rankings compared to their peers in other conferences.
If the goal is to try and place multiple teams into the playoff, then every conference should have started doing this long ago.
-
Leave it alone.
-
This is only an issue because Nebraska has been so down
-
Good point. If someone can right that ship, it would help the balance greatly. But, that is now a tall order.
No conference titles in this century. Nobody in HS remembers the 1990's.
-
Its fine as is.
-
I don't want to cheapen the conference by dropping to 8 games and scheduling FCS games late (or at all).
-
I don't want to cheapen the conference by dropping to 8 games and scheduling FCS games late (or at all).
doesn't seem to cheapen the SEC
-
I personally like the idea of no divisions, 2-3 protected rivals, rotate everyone else through. Top 2 teams play in the CCG. Downside is the pearl-clutching possibility of OSU/UM in back-to-back weeks.
It is an interesting idea and one that I think has a lot of merit. Here is what it would have resulted in during the entire B1G-E/B1G-W run:
- 2021: M/tOSU rematch instead of M/IA. Iowa was 7-2 as was MSU but M and tOSU were both 8-1. That would have been a higher ranked CG but a rematch from one week prior in which one of two things would necessarily have to have happened: 1) Michigan wins again thus making the whole process of playing again redundant, or 2) Ohio State wins thus making Michigan's win in the first game effectively irrelevant.
- 2020: tOSU vs either IU or NU depending on tiebreaker. tOSU was 5-0 while both IU and NU were 6-1 and hadn't played each other. IU's loss was to tOSU while NU's was to MSU.
- 2019: tOSU vs PSU, UW, or MN instead of tOSU/UW. tOSU was 9-0 while the other three were 7-2.
- 2018: some combination of tOSU, M, or NU instead of tOSU vs NU. All three were 8-1. Ohio State's loss was to Purdue, Michigan's was to tOSU, and NU's was to M.
- 2017: tOSU vs UW as it was. UW as 9-0 and tOSU was 8-1 and nobody else was above 7-2 (PSu, MSU, NU).
- 2016: PSU vs tOSU instead of PSU vs UW. PSU and tOSU were both 8-1, UW was 7-2 as was Michigan.
- 2015: Iowa vs MSU or tOSU instead of Iowa vs MSU. Iowa was 8-0 while both MSU and tOSU were 7-1 with losses to UNL and MSU respectively. Assuming normal tiebreakers MSU goes.
- 2014: tOSU vs MSU or UW instead of tOSU vs UW. tOSU was 8-0 while both UW and MSU were 7-1. MSU lost to tOSU while UW lost to NU.
-
Downside is the pearl-clutching possibility of OSU/UM in back-to-back weeks.
Personally I am not a fan of rematches but I mind them less the longer amount of time there is between the first and the second game. For example, Ohio State played Oregon early this year and if Oregon had won the P12CG they would have met again in the RoseBowl. That, to me, isn't a big problem since game one was a LONG time before the rematch so we would get to see how the teams had evolved over the interim.
Conversely, as a tOSU fan I'd love for my team to have another shot at Michigan in round one of an expanded playoff. It would be great for the Buckeyes to get a do-over but it would suck for the sport in general and it would REALLY suck for Michigan. The Wolverines either win again (no big deal), or they lose and the first game becomes an irrelevant historical footnote.
The point I was getting at was that if we went to this I think you would necessarily have to get rid of final weekend match-ups that were reasonably likely to result in a rematch a week later. Counting every team that at least tied for a spot in the theoretical non-divisional CG from 2014-2021 those are:
- tOSU all eight years
- Wisconsin three times
- Michigan twice
- Northwestern twice
- Penn State twice
- Michigan State twice
- Iowa once
- Indiana once
- Minnesota once
tOSU/M would end up getting repeated a week later too often based on this history.
Wisconsin could probably still finish with MN because it is exceedingly unlikely that MN could make the CG in a year when they lost to UW.
Iowa/UNL is fine at least for now.
IU/PU is fine at least for now.
NU/IL is fine at least for now.
M/MSU could probably finish with each other since it is fairly unlikely that MSU would make it in a year when they lost to M.
The four remaining teams are tOSU, PSU, UMD, RU. Buckeyes/Nittany Lions is hardly any better than tOSU/M and the Nittany Lions have some history with UMD so I'd go tOSU/RU, PSU/UMD. Thus my final weekend match-ups would be:
- UW/MN the Ax Game
- IU/PU the Old Oaken Bucket
- Iowa/UNL whatever they call this
- NU/IL they have a name for this too, Land of Lincoln trophy or somesuch?
- M/MSU they have a name for this one too
- PSU/UMD the old Eastern Team throwback challenge
- tOSU/RU I'd try to sell Macy's a sponsorship deal and stick this in Yankee Stadium every year as the Macy's Thanksgiving Weekend Challenge (adding in MBB and WBB and maybe hockey all in NYC).
-
what about sending PSU and MSU west and bringing NW and Purdue east?
You cannot separate Michigan/Ohio State period- they need to be in the same division and they need to play every year. And I honestly don't really care if Michigan plays Michigan State every year- would rather that one be rotating anyway. I think you make those two moves and the divisions balance out better.
-
Of course you would because mel will prolly have them stoked and they have your team circled.Spartans on a 10-4 run i believe vs the AACC as they call 'em.Chit throw tthe ACC additions to the wind.It's just not a fit,PSU/ND and maybe Clemson will get 1st crack of east Coast talent any way so i don't see either of them getting off the canvas from a pigskin stand point
-
We could probably form a late season scheduling alliance with the MAC instead of FCS.
Wouldn't necessarily have to drop back to 8 games either.
One bye week and one MAC tune up before Rivalry Week.
-
I get tired of hearing about Cupcake Week. During week 1, when almost everyone in the country was feasting on cupcakes, the Dawgs were playing the #2 team in the country at the time, Clemson, in the Carolinas. You know, the team that had never missed the playoffs and won 2 nattys. Clemson did not live up to their billing but absolutely no one knew that when the Dawgs got on the bus to go play them. Not a cupcake by any stretch of the imagination.
UGA played 10 power 5 teams. I am not apologizing for our schedule.
And we start with Oregon next year in Atlanta.
-
what about sending PSU and MSU west and bringing NW and Purdue east?
You cannot separate Michigan/Ohio State period- they need to be in the same division and they need to play every year. And I honestly don't really care if Michigan plays Michigan State every year- would rather that one be rotating anyway. I think you make those two moves and the divisions balance out better.
Nebraska in the West was supposed to be the cure. Obviously that has not panned out. UW and Iowa are (almost) always very solid teams, matching MSU and PSU (and even Michigan sans this season). NU and Minnie can turn it on. I think BB is going to make a little noise in Champaign. Purdue could be something if they keep recruiting as they have.
Now, if we ship OSU to the SEC and grab Vandy for the East, things look better. :)
-
I get tired of hearing about Cupcake Week. During week 1, when almost everyone in the country was feasting on cupcakes, the Dawgs were playing the #2 team in the country at the time, Clemson in the Carolinas. You know, the team that had never missed the playoffs and won 2 nattys. Clemson did not live up to their billing but absolutely no one knew that when the Dawgs got on the bus to go play them. Not a cupcake by any stretch of the imagination.
UGA played 10 power 5 teams. I am not apologising for our schedule.
The SEC East is not good. Georgia Tech is not good. Auburn is not good.
-
I get tired of hearing about Cupcake Week. During week 1, when almost everyone in the country was feasting on cupcakes, the Dawgs were playing the #2 team in the country at the time, Clemson, in the Carolinas. You know, the team that had never missed the playoffs and won 2 nattys. Clemson did not live up to their billing but absolutely no one knew that when the Dawgs got on the bus to go play them. Not a cupcake by any stretch of the imagination.
UGA played 10 power 5 teams. I am not apologizing for our schedule.
And we start with Oregon next year in Atlanta.
Purdue played 9 Big Ten games, and played Notre Dame and Oregon State (week 1) OOC, so 11 P5 (or P5-equivalent) teams.
Purdue also did not play an FCS team. I mean, UConn is worse than a lot of FCS teams, but they are officially FBS.
But hey... Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back too hard.
-
Personally I like in order
1. scrapping the divisions and going to a schedule with 5 protected rivals. Top 2 teams go to the CCG
2. Keeping East-West as is. But have a rule that the top 2 teams go to the CCG, regardless of what division they are in. Being a division winner can be 1 of the tie-breakers if 2 teams have the same record.
3. Splitting into 3 divisions. 5-5-4 each. For example
West - Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW
Central - Mich, MSU, Pur, Ind, ILL
East - OSU, PSU, Rut, MD
But top 2 teams go to CCG regardless what division they play in.
4. Move Mich and MSU to West. Move Purdue and ILL to east. OSU-Mich and ILL-NW have annual cross-over games.
-
How about leaders/legends?
-
Good point. If someone can right that ship, it would help the balance greatly. But, that is now a tall order.
No conference titles in this century. Nobody in HS remembers the 1990's.
Are they officially Gophered? Fallen helmet?
-
Personally I like in order
1. scrapping the divisions and going to a schedule with 5 protected rivals. Top 2 teams go to the CCG
2. Keeping East-West as is. But have a rule that the top 2 teams go to the CCG, regardless of what division they are in. Being a division winner can be 1 of the tie-breakers if 2 teams have the same record.
3. Splitting into 3 divisions. 5-5-4 each. For example
West - Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW
Central - Mich, MSU, Pur, Ind, ILL
East - OSU, PSU, Rut, MD
But top 2 teams go to CCG regardless what division they play in.
4. Move Mich and MSU to West. Move Purdue and ILL to east. OSU-Mich and ILL-NW have annual cross-over games.
disagree with all this. I don't like protected cross-overs, I want rotation and to play different teams from the other division- not have one the same every year. And Michigan-OSU cannot be split up. Have to keep them in the same division. I don't like this "top 2" teams go to CCG regardless of division. With expansion of playoff, if you did this sort of conference set up, you could possibly be setting up teams to play 3 times in one season. That is absurd. If you did that this year and there was an expanded playoff- you could be looking at Michigan beating OSU in Ann Arbor- then having to turn around and play them again in the CCG- and then potentially having to play them in a playoff again. Hell to the no. Cheapens the series/rivalry. The fact that the stakes are so high and winner takes all is what make games like that when both are ranked top 5 so freaking incredible. The joy of the win is indescribable and the pain of a loss is crushing. F that rematch crap. Which is why I honestly wasn't thrilled about Georgia making the playoff- they had their shot- and they blew it. Problem is every other team that had it's shot wet the bed, so Georgia kinda back-doored in.
Since Nebraska doesn't seem to be getting it's shit together ever, I think they should move Michigan State and Penn State over to the west. Michigan does not need to play Michigan State every single year. That rivalry is not that important. They can see each-other every couple years on rotation.
-
Are they officially Gophered? Fallen helmet?
Not yet. Another 2 decades of this, well yes.
-
Mdot, since you hate rematches with a passion, maybe this is an argument to get rid of the CCG altogether, and just have the conference champion be the team with the best record. I could see this eventually happen anyway if the playoff ever expands to 16 teams, then the odds of both teams in the CCG making the playoffs are pretty high, and the game becomes unimportant
Looking back, getting rid of the CCG would not change much in the East-west era, with a few notable exceptions.
2021 - Mich would still be champs and would still be in the playoffs
2019, 2020 - OSU still the champs, still in the playoffs
2018 - OSU still the champs, still don't make the playoffs
2017 - Wisc is the champs instead of OSU. Nobody makes the playoffs and both Wisc and OSU still go to major bowls
2016 - PSU stil the champs, OSU still makes the playoffs over PSU
2015 - Iowa is the champs instead of MSU. Iowa probably goes to playoffs instead of MSU. MSU goes to Rose Bowl instead of playoffs. Given that MSU and Iowa both got blown out, switching the 2 teams bowl games could not have been any worse than what actually happened.
2014 - OSU is still the champs but I am not sure OSU gets in the playoffs without their 59-0 blowout win against Wisc. OSU still goes to a major bowl.
-
2017 UW went into the CCG weekend at #3. They probably get in.
-
Personally I like in order
1. scrapping the divisions and going to a schedule with 5 protected rivals. Top 2 teams go to the CCG
With 14 teams there are 13 to play. This model has five every year and (assuming we are sticking with nine games) the other eight every other year, or would you do two-year rotations so you played half of the others H&H then the other half H&H? I think I'd prefer the latter but it is a minor difference.
2. Keeping East-West as is. But have a rule that the top 2 teams go to the CCG, regardless of what division they are in. Being a division winner can be 1 of the tie-breakers if 2 teams have the same record.
I'm confused by this. Other than the odd tiebreaker, what is the purpose of having divisions if you aren't using them to determine CG eligibility?
3. Splitting into 3 divisions. 5-5-4 each. For example
West - Neb, Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW
Central - Mich, MSU, Pur, Ind, ILL
East - OSU, PSU, Rut, MD
I'm confused by this too. What function do the divisions serve?
4. Move Mich and MSU to West. Move Purdue and ILL to east. OSU-Mich and ILL-NW have annual cross-over games.
B1G-E from 2014-2021 including CG's is 85-70 against the B1G-W and the B1G-W is obviously 70-85 against the B1G-E:
- 85-70
- 17-5 Michigan's record in cross-over games
- 11-11 MSU's record in cross-over games
- 57-54 subtotal
- 6-14 Purdue's record in cross-over games
- 8-13 Illinois' record in cross-over games
- 71-81 Total with this change.
Functionally, this would be GREAT for PSU and tOSU because they would hardly have any competition other than each other for the B1G-E title.
Look at this year for example. Michigan won the B1G-E but it was by tiebreaker and they were also only one game ahead of a team that they lost to H2H. My point being that there was a serious race for the B1G-E title with three teams in the race until the last two weeks and two in the race until the final weekend.
Iowa won the B1G-W but they were only one game ahead of three teams two of which they lost to. My point being that there was a serious race for the B1G-W title with four teams in the race until LATE in the season.
With your proposed divisions, B1G-E:
- 8-1 tOSU
- 6-3 PU
- 4-5 PSU
- 4-5 IL
- 3-6 UMD
- 2-7 RU
- 0-9 IU
The Buckeyes would have clinched with their win over PU and spent the last two weeks tuning up for the CG.
B1G-W:
- 8-1 M
- 7-2 IA
- 7-2 MSU
- 6-3 MN
- 6-3 UW
- 1-8 UNL
- 1-8 NU
There'd have been five teams in the hunt almost the whole season. Granted records would obviously have been different with the requisite schedule changes but that is really my point. The tOSU/PSU winner would be almost guaranteed of a CG berth while in the B1G-W you'd have a lot more competition.
-
The fact that the stakes are so high and winner takes all is what make games like that when both are ranked top 5 so freaking incredible. The joy of the win is indescribable and the pain of a loss is crushing.
I know I'm in the minority here but I think you (and most tOSU and M fans) are trying desperately to hold onto something that, in fact, is already gone.
I went to the 2002 and 2006 tOSU/M games that Ohio State won. In 2006 both teams were playing for:
- A win in THE GAME.
- An outright league title.
- A spot in the NCG.
The equivalent of that today is:
- THE GAME.
- A win in the B1GCG.
- A win in the CFP semi-final.
Fifteen years ago those three things were all rolled into ONE game, now they are split out into three games. It was the same for tOSU in 2002.
If you go back a bit further, Michigan's greatest upset win in the series was Bo's first as HC in 1969. The Buckeyes had won the league and beaten O.J. Simpson's USC Trojans in the prior year Rose Bowl for the NC and back then the league still had a no-repeat rule for the Rose Bowl AND a "no other bowls" rule so THE GAME was the end of Ohio State's season no matter the outcome. The Buckeyes came in defending National Champions and ranked #1. Thus, they were playing for:
- A win in THE GAME.
- An outright league title.
- The National Championship.
Today that would be four games and five or more if we expand the playoff:
- THE GAME.
- The B1GCG.
- A CFP first round game.
- A CFP second round game.
- Potentially a CFP third round game.
- Potentially a CFP fourth round game.
Regardless of whether you or I or most of the posters here would prefer it, we aren't going back to a time like 1969 when all of that was on the line. We just aren't. Instead, that is already split out to four games (THE GAME, B1GCG, CFP, CFP) and probably about to be split out to at least five. It isn't ever going to be that big again nor even as big as it was 15 years ago when I was in the Horseshoe watching #1 Ohio State beat #2 Michigan.
-
Would it be possible to have every team play Championship weekend? Using this year as an example, the teams finished:
- 8-1: M, tOSU
- 7-2: MSU, IA
- 6-3: MN, UW, PU
- 4-5: PSU, IL
- 3-6: UMD
- 2-7: RU
- 1-8: UNL, NU
- 0-9: IU
I'd start at the top and every team would play a team that they hadn't already played so:
- 8-1 M already played tOSU and MSU so they get Iowa.
- 8-1 tOSU already played MSU, MN, and PU so they get UW.
- 7-2 MSU already played PU so they get MN.
- 6-3 PU already played IL so they get PSU.
- 4-5 IL already played UMD, RU, UNL, and NU so they get IU.
- 3-6 UMD already played RU (and RU already played NU) so UMD gets NU
- 2-7 RU gets UNL
Conference Champion is the best team left after that. Michigan would control their own destiny because with a win they'd be no worse than tied with tOSU whom they beat. IF Michigan loses then tOSU can win by beating UW. If M and tOSU both lose then they both finish 8-2 along with Iowa and MSU (if they beat MN). I assume you'd break that tie by H2H with:
- M beat tOSU, lost to IA and MSU
- tOSU beat MSU, lost to M
- MSU beat M, lost to tOSU
- IA beat M
So in a three-way tie (M, tOSU, IA) or a four-way tie (M, tOSU, IA, MSU) the Hawkeyes win at 1-0 while the other two or three each have at least one H2H loss.
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. Allow me to explain:
My objection to the ninth league game was always that it *COULD* be a great game that we'd have liked to see such as tOSU/IA but it also could be a game nobody would care about such as tOSU/NU. If you are selecting opponent based on record then EVERYBODY gets a fairly evenly matched game:
- 8-1 M vs 7-2 IA
- 8-1 tOSU vs 6-3 UW
- 7-2 MSU vs 6-3 MN
- 6-3 PU vs 4-5 PSU
- 4-5 IL vs 0-9 IU
- 3-6 UMD vs 1-8 NU
- 2-7 RU vs 1-8 UNL
All are w/in +/- one game of each other except PU/PSU (two games) and IL/IU (four games).
The H/A split would be a little tricky. I think my rule would be:
- First year the team with the better record hosts. If tied, the team with the best win hosts. If still tied, second best win, etc. If still tied, coin-flip.
- After the first year the team that has hosted the least hosts. if tied then revert to first-year rules.
So if 2021 had been year-1 of this:
- 7-2 IA at 8-1 M
- 6-3 UW at 8-1 tOSU
- 6-3 MN at 7-2 MSU
- 4-5 PSU at 6-3 PU
- 0-9 IU at 4-5 IL
- 1-8 NU at 3-6 UMD
- 1-8 UNL at 2-7 RU
-
With 14 teams there are 13 to play. This model has five every year and (assuming we are sticking with nine games) the other eight every other year, or would you do two-year rotations so you played half of the others H&H then the other half H&H? I think I'd prefer the latter but it is a minor difference.
IMHO the 9-game conference schedule is great, UNLESS we actually go all-in on the ACC/PAC scheduling alliance such that we play one school from each conference every year.
I don't want to see us locked into 11 scheduled P5 games. Personally I'm proud that Purdue scheduled 11 this year, but I'm also OK with that being an outlier. I think 10 is the minimum any P5 team should ever schedule, but having room for two G5 (and no FCS, ever) is important, especially for teams that are in the mid-conference range where they might need those wins for bowl eligibility. If we force everyone into 11 P5 games every year, I think we might not regularly fulfill all our bowl tie-ins.
So if we do the ACC/PAC scheduling deal, I would say that we at that point can go back to 8 conference games.
The other aspect of this is that we're at 14 teams TODAY, but that may not always be the case. So while 5 permanent games and 4 rotating makes the math work at 14 conference members with 9 conference games, it doesn't for 16. At 16 to play every team twice in 4 years you'd have to drop to 3 permanent games and 6 rotating to work in 9. Which might be fine, I don't know.
As for your question about the H&H, you can still play all 8 every two years in a 4-year H&H rotation. I.e. take your half H&H and half H&H idea, but instead of making that two consecutive two-year rotations, you'll simply alternate which group you play each year so you're still doing H&H with 4-team groups every year, but it's over a 4-year period so that you play every conference opponent at least once within every 2-year span.
-
I'm confused by this. Other than the odd tiebreaker, what is the purpose of having divisions if you aren't using them to determine CG eligibility?I'm confused by this too. What function do the divisions serve?
Lol, you get a trophy! You also get something to brag about to other teams that are in the same division. You won the division and they did not. Nah nah nah boo boo
For a team like OSU, this would not a big deal, but hey if you have not won the conference in over 40 years, hey its something.
-
With 14 teams there are 13 to play. This model has five every year and (assuming we are sticking with nine games) the other eight every other year, or would you do two-year rotations so you played half of the others H&H then the other half H&H? I think I'd prefer the latter but it is a minor difference.
I would prefer playing everybody at least once every 2 years, then the following 2 years, you flip the home and away games. Some players only start for 1 or 2 years. This way they get a chance to play against everybody.
I would also prefer a rotation where you play half your power opponents each year and half the other year. For example lets say Iowa's protected rivals are Neb, Minn, Wisc, ILL, NW. I would like to see a rotation where Iowa plays Mich, PSU, Purdue, Rutgers one year and OSU, MSU, Indy, MD the other year. Certainly not OSU, PSU, Mich, MSU in the same year.
-
IMHO the 9-game conference schedule is great, UNLESS we actually go all-in on the ACC/PAC scheduling alliance such that we play one school from each conference every year.
I don't want to see us locked into 11 scheduled P5 games. Personally I'm proud that Purdue scheduled 11 this year, but I'm also OK with that being an outlier. I think 10 is the minimum any P5 team should ever schedule, but having room for two G5 (and no FCS, ever) is important, especially for teams that are in the mid-conference range where they might need those wins for bowl eligibility. If we force everyone into 11 P5 games every year, I think we might not regularly fulfill all our bowl tie-ins.
So if we do the ACC/PAC scheduling deal, I would say that we at that point can go back to 8 conference games.
I agree with this completely and would prefer an eight game conference schedule AND two "challenge" games. I'd also throw in that I'd have one of the challenges early and the other one late with the matchups determined for the early game based on preseason expectations and the matchups for the later game determined based on something around mid-season expectations.
The reason for this caveat is to avoid giving a team that ends up substantially deviating from preseason expectations two games that they don't really belong in. This year is a great example. In our preseason power rankings IU was #4 based on their good year last year and MSU was #13 based on their appearance. If we had challenge games against both the PAC and ACC early, IU would have been in WAY over their heads against very good teams from both leagues and the Spartans would have cruised to easy victories against PAC and ACC bottom-feeders. By week-7 Indiana was down to #10 and MSU was tied for 4th/5th so if you set the second matchup based on rankings after week-7 then IU would have had one WAY too difficult challenge game early and one appropriate challenge game late while MSU would have had one WAY too easy challenge game early and one appropriate challenge game late. That way at least half of their challenge games would be reasonably evenly matched.
The beauty of this, I think, is that instead of simply adding an extra league game which could be Rutgers or could be Ohio State, Purdue would add two appropriate matchups. In a year when they are really good they'd get an extra couple games against teams like Ohio State (just from other leagues) and in a year when Purdue was terrible they'd get an extra couple Rutgers games.
-
Functionally, here is how I'd set-up the PAC and ACC Challenge games:
For the ACC they have the same number of teams but you'd have to include Notre Dame or else the B1G would dominate the thing because the ACC just doesn't have the same depth so I'd ask them to include ND and then make the numbers balance by adding a rotating MAC team or maybe Cincy or Marshall as an "honorary" B1G member and just slate them in wherever was appropriate. So for this year, our pre-season rankings were:
- tOSU
- - Cincy - standing in to make the #'s balance
- UW
- PSU
- IU
- IA
- M
- MN
- NU
- UMD
- UNL
- PU
- RU
- MSU
- IL
Cincy was ranked between tOSU and UW so I'd have treated them as #2 and dropped everybody else down a peg. In order for the scheduling to work we'd have to each have one home and one away so I'd do that by division. Lets say this year the B1G-E and ACC-Coastal are hosts. Cincy would go with the B1G-E and Notre Dame with the ACC-Atlantic. Matchups:
- Clemson at tOSU
- Notre Dame at Cincy
- Wisconsin at UNC
- NCST at Penn State
- FSU at Indiana
- Iowa at Miami, FL
- Louisville at Michigan
- Minnesota at VaTech
- Northwestern at UVA
- Cuse at Maryland
- Nebraska at GaTech
- Purdue at GaTech
- BC at Rutgers
- Wake at MSU
- Illinois at Dook
Then for the late-season challenge we'd play the Pac but they only have 12 and not as much depth so we'd ask them to bring say BoiseSt and SDSU along. At week-7 our rankings were:
- tOSU
- M
- PSU
- Iowa
- MSU (these two are actually tied but it doesn't matter since they are in opposite divisions)
- UW
- MN
- PU
- UNL
- IU
- UMD
- NU
- IL
- RU
This time B1G-W and PAC-N are the hosts with SDSU joining the PAC-S and Boise joining the PAC-N so the matchups (based on my off-the-top-of-my-head recollection of what mid-season Pac expectations were) would be:
- tOSU at Utah
- M at SDSU
- PSU at ASU
- Oregon at Iowa
- MSU at UCLA
- SDSU at UW
- WSU at MN
- ORSU at PU
- Washington at UNL
- IU at USC
- UMD at Colorado
- Stanford at NU
- Cal at IL
- RU at Zona
-
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/VtvUOfc.png)
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.
-
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.
-
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:
(https://i.imgur.com/VtvUOfc.png)
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.