CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on November 25, 2022, 10:25:27 AM
-
If the league goes to a divisonless CG structure, THE GAME has to be moved off of the final weekend.
I know this is not a popular argument around here but this year makes a great example so I'm going to use it. If we had a divisonless structure, here would be the top of the standings heading into THE GAME:
- 8-0 Michigan
- 8-0 Ohio State
- 6-2 Penn State (lost to tOSU and M)
- 5-3 Iowa (lost to tOSU, M, and IL)
- 5-3 Purdue (lost to PSU, UW, and IA)
Ohio State and Michigan would have already clinched. Actually, both would have clinched before last week's games because neither Maryland (3-4 heading in) nor Illinois (4-3 heading in) could have caught either so the only team that could have would have been PSU which both already defeated.
Why I think you can't have tOSU/M the week before a divisonless CG / Imagine that we had a divisonless CG this year:
Assume for a minute that you are Jim Harbaugh or Ryan Day. You are presented with two consecutive games against the other. From a fan perspective we want to win both, of course but from Day/Harbaugh's perspective the second one matters and the first one doesn't. This will be even more true when we go to a 12-team CFP with the top-4 league champs getting a bye. The winner of the SECOND tOSU/M game gets a bye. The winner of the first . . . gets to play in the second. The second game gets you a bye. The first game might potentially matter a little bit for seeding, maybe. Oh, winning the first also gets you bragging rights . . . for a week.
If this was the situation this year then none of the banged up players would play this week because it would be MUCH more sensible to let them rest and recover and get them back for the game that matters, the second tOSU/M game. On top of that, from a game-planning perspective there would be no reason to utilize (and thus give away) any advantage you thought you had discovered in game #1, it would make MUCH more sense to keep those cards in your hand and just basically play a vanilla gameplan with half your starters out in game #1.
-
just one reason I prefer divisions if ya don't play a round robin cause ya got too many teams
-
I think it would have to be moved to October, probably mid-month. Otherwise it's a disaster waiting to happen.
Michigan can play Sparty the week prior, and OSU can play Wisconsin.
Move UW and Minnie back to October like it should be.
-
just keep the divisions
especially when the beach bums climb aboard
round robin with each 8-team division - a couple cross overs just for fun
winners play for a title of some sort
"the game" is saved
-
Michigan can play Sparty the week prior, and OSU can play Wisconsin.
I like this - ANNUALLY of course
-
I think it would have to be moved to October, probably mid-month. Otherwise it's a disaster waiting to happen.
Michigan can play Sparty the week prior, and OSU can play Wisconsin.
Move UW and Minnie back to October like it should be.
I like the Axe game as a season ending game and this really wouldn't fix things.
I think the best teams (historically but about 20 years not 100+) need to not play each other in the last few weeks.
These are all opponent records but here are 2002-2021:
- #1 Ohio State .850
- #8 USC .720
- #9 Wisconsin .719
- #18 Iowa .660
- #19 Penn State .657
- #20 Michigan .655
- #29 Michigan State .610
- #38 Nebraska .571
- #53 Northwestern .528
- #57 Minnesota .524
- #58 UCLA .520
- #78 Maryland .475
- #81 Rutgers .451
- #86 Purdue .440
- #101 Indiana .370
- #108 Illinois .347
Maybe 20 years isn't quite enough but if we are scrapping divisions then Ohio State's final game opponent should be a team from the bottom half and, if possible, the bottom quarter so Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, or Rutgers.
There is actually some history with Illinois. Here is Ohio State's final regular season game as a progression starting when tOSU joined the league in 1913:
- Northwestern from 1913 until WWI
- Camp Sherman and Michigan during WWI
- Illinois 1919-1930
- Minnesota 1931
- Illinois 1932-1933
- Iowa 1934
- Michigan 1935-present
I would NOT want Purdue because they tend to upset the Buckeyes a LOT more than they "should" (should meaning statistically) anyway and if you stuck them in the week before the CG I would just expect that to get worse.
Indiana would be a border-state thing and by far the closest of the four geographically.
Rutgers would have the theoretical benefit (for the league in general and tOSU also) of putting a frequently highly ranked team in the nation's #1 media market in late November.
The problem is that Indiana, Purdue (each other), and Illinois (Northwestern) already have season-ending rivalries that DO NOT need to be broken up for CG reasons.
Thus, the most logical end of season games are probably:
- #1 tOSU VS #13 Rutgers
- #2 USC VS #11 UCLA
- #3 Wisconsin VS #10 Minnesota
- #4 Iowa VS #8 Nebraska
- #5 Penn State VS #12 Maryland
- #6 Michigan VS #7 Michigan State
- #9 Northwestern VS #16 Illinois
- #14 Purdue VS #15 Indiana
-
ANALLY?
.
Scheduled rematches are the dumbest dumb.
-
I believe many have made the argument that the significance of Michigan and Ohio State playing on the final game of the regular season has been greatly diminished for the following reasons.
The Game used to be the week before Thanksgiving so many of the game-week traditions were done while students were still on campus. When The Game and other Big Ten rival games were moved to the Saturday after Thanksgiving, that screwed up rival week for a lot of rival games.
The Game is not really the final game or the only important game of the season anymore for OSU or Mich. Now the CCG and bowls and CFP are other important games that still need to be played after The Game.
-
there's certainly great significance this season
-
just one reason I prefer divisions if ya don't play a round robin cause ya got too many teams
Agreed.
The problem is if you put UM/OSU in one division, that will be the hardest.
Say you have...
Ohio State, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Rutgers, Maryland
Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Northwestern
So you have OSU/UM and probably the 5 worst teams of the 14 team era in one, and teams #3-#9 in the other, and you ask USC and UCLA which division they want to join. Anyone think they choose #1? So then you split up those two? Then you still have to move the game off the final weekend, because they could still rematch
-
I believe many have made the argument that the significance of Michigan and Ohio State playing on the final game of the regular season has been greatly diminished for the following reasons.
The Game used to be the week before Thanksgiving so many of the game-week traditions were done while students were still on campus. When The Game and other Big Ten rival games were moved to the Saturday after Thanksgiving, that screwed up rival week for a lot of rival games.
The Game is not really the final game or the only important game of the season anymore for OSU or Mich. Now the CCG and bowls and CFP are other important games that still need to be played after The Game.
And it was the last you saw your team for like 6 weeks, in a bowl game. And if you lost, maybe not even then. Now, you hope to have 3 more games, and soon 4. It's not really the "end" of the season anymore. You could potentially still have a quarter of your season left
-
It is interesting to think how this weekend would be different if, say Mich and OSU play in October and OSU-PSU + Mich-MSU play on Thanksgiving weekend.
PSU could be playing OSU for a chance at the CCG.
-
Agreed.
The problem is if you put UM/OSU in one division, that will be the hardest.
what's the problem?
I don't see the problem with this season
So, one division is stronger than the other. That's almost always going to be the case
put the beach boys in the west and hope they can bring some competition
hope Wisconsin and Nebraska rise again
-
Hope is a great strategy
-
well, adding two historically good teams from LA is more than hope
Wisconsin and Nebraska with new coaches is more than hope
-
what's the problem?
I don't see the problem with this season
So, one division is stronger than the other. That's almost always going to be the case
put the beach boys in the west and hope they can bring some competition
hope Wisconsin and Nebraska rise again
Yes, but whenever you put the two both historically and currently best programs in one division, it's going to be inherently lopsided. It's worse now because they also have one of the two historical helmets, and then probably the historical (and current?) #5 school. But like I said, if you put OSU-UM and #10-#14 in one division, and #3-#9 in the other, and gave USC the choice, they'd pick the #3-#9.
If you look at historical/current tiers, it would be...
- 1. Ohio State
- 2. Michigan
- ----------------------------------------
- 3. USC
- 4. Penn State
- ----------------------------------------
- 5-8. Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, Iowa
- ----------------------------------------
- 9-12. UCLA, Maryland, Illinois, Purdue
- ----------------------------------------
- 13-14. Northwestern, Minnesota
- ----------------------------------------
- 15-16. Indiana, Rutgers
So I would start with OSU/PSU and UM/Ohio State, then divide the rest to preserve the rivalries we could
Division 1: Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern, Rutgers
Division 2: Michigan, USC, Michigan State, Wisconsin, UCLA, Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana
Who says no?
-
and reshuffle the divisions every ten seasons to try to keep them balanced?
I say, "no"
east & west
the beach boys join the west
Purdue goes east
-
What if they did an "A Division" and a "B Division"? Initially divide it up by brand names for ratings, but then have maybe a promotion and relegation system so that if a team like Nebraska goes stale for a while then they can go sort it out in the B Division, while the top team in the "B Division" gets their spot at the big boy table.
A Division
- Ohio State
- Michigan
- Penn State
- USC
- UCLA
- Nebraska
- Wisconsin
- Iowa
B Division
- Michigan State
- Maryland
- Rutgers
- Indiana
- Purdue
- Minnesota
- Illinois
- Northwestern
-
no
-
Yes, but whenever you put the two both historically and currently best programs in one division, it's going to be inherently lopsided. It's worse now because they also have one of the two historical helmets, and then probably the historical (and current?) #5 school. But like I said, if you put OSU-UM and #10-#14 in one division, and #3-#9 in the other, and gave USC the choice, they'd pick the #3-#9.
If you look at historical/current tiers, it would be...
- 1. Ohio State
- 2. Michigan
- ----------------------------------------
- 3. USC
- 4. Penn State
- ----------------------------------------
- 5-8. Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, Iowa
- ----------------------------------------
- 9-12. UCLA, Maryland, Illinois, Purdue
- ----------------------------------------
- 13-14. Northwestern, Minnesota
- ----------------------------------------
- 15-16. Indiana, Rutgers
So I would start with OSU/PSU and UM/Ohio State, then divide the rest to preserve the rivalries we could
Division 1: Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern, Rutgers
Division 2: Michigan, USC, Michigan State, Wisconsin, UCLA, Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana
Who says no?
I think what you have laid out here is very well thought out and you did the best that could be done to maintain rivalries while achieving some chance of competitive balance.
That said, I would have a couple issues with it. The first is something that @FearlessF (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=10) already hit on. We've seen a lot of conferences where the competitive balance has flipped back and forth. Remember when Nebraska and KSU dominated and the B12-N was MUCH stronger than the B12-S? Remember when UF and UT dominated and the SEC-E was MUCH stronger than the SEC-W?
This isn't a criticism of the divisions you came up with or even your method. I actually agree with your method of looking at it on a historical basis and figuring that will be best in the long run. Sure, you might have random hiccups like Michigan completely sucking for a while under RRod/Hoke or PSU completely sucking for a while after the scandal but hopefully we've got enough balance overall that when Michigan sucks maybe USC will be really good or maybe when PSU sucks Nebraska will be really good.
My second issue is just, as a fan, that I don't like the idea of so few games against most of the teams in the other half of the league. On your model I assume we would have:
- 9 league games
- 1 fixed cross-over
- 1 rotating cross-over
I'm assuming a fixed cross-over because I assume that we would have:
- tOSU/M - We aren't ending THE GAME (even if we do move it off the last weekend)
- Iowa/UW - You just can't abruptly stop this
- PSU/USC - mostly as a fairness thing
- UNL/MSU - mostly as a fairness thing
- IL/PU - I picked this instead of UCLA for travel costs reasons. UMD/UCLA is a long trip but not much more expensive than UMD/IL
- UMD/UCLA
- NU/IU
- RU/MN
So then schedule-wise just using my team as an example it would take 14 years to play the seven teams in "Division 2" not named Michigan H&A:
- at M, vs USC
- vs M, at MSU
- at M, vs UW
- vs M, at UCLA
- at M, vs PU
- vs M, at MN
- at M, vs IU
- vs M, at USC
- at M, vs MSU
- vs M, at UW
- at M, vs UCLA
- vs M, at PU
- at M, vs MN
- vs M, at IU
As a fan I just think it sucks that my team would only visit Bloomington, Minneapolis, West Lafayette, Westwood, Madison, East Lansing, and LA once every 14 years. We'd also, of course, only host USC, MSU, UW, UCLA, PU, MN, and IU once every 14 years.
That is why I've always assumed pods (you can call them something else if you like) once we go to 16+. With pods I'm assuming that you need a "headliner" in each pod and of the 16 those are:
- Ohio State
- Michigan
- USC
- Penn State
Then you add three teams to each headliner to make a 4-team pod and your schedule each year is:
- The other three teams in your pod
- The four teams in one of the other three pods on a rotating basis
- One or two cross-overs.
That way each team would still play the non-crossovers from other pods both H&A every six years rather than 14.
-
What if they did an "A Division" and a "B Division"? Initially divide it up by brand names for ratings, but then have maybe a promotion and relegation system so that if a team like Nebraska goes stale for a while then they can go sort it out in the B Division, while the top team in the "B Division" gets their spot at the big boy table.
If?
-
Yes, but whenever you put the two both historically and currently best programs in one division, it's going to be inherently lopsided. It's worse now because they also have one of the two historical helmets, and then probably the historical (and current?) #5 school. But like I said, if you put OSU-UM and #10-#14 in one division, and #3-#9 in the other, and gave USC the choice, they'd pick the #3-#9.
If you look at historical/current tiers, it would be...
- 1. Ohio State
- 2. Michigan
- ----------------------------------------
- 3. USC
- 4. Penn State
- ----------------------------------------
- 5-8. Nebraska, Wisconsin, MSU, Iowa
- ----------------------------------------
- 9-12. UCLA, Maryland, Illinois, Purdue
- ----------------------------------------
- 13-14. Northwestern, Minnesota
- ----------------------------------------
- 15-16. Indiana, Rutgers
So I would start with OSU/PSU and UM/Ohio State, then divide the rest to preserve the rivalries we could
Division 1: Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern, Rutgers
Division 2: Michigan, USC, Michigan State, Wisconsin, UCLA, Purdue, Minnesota, Indiana
Who says no?
Same but pods
#1 - Ohio State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota
#2 - Michigan, Michigan State, Maryland, Rutgers
#3 - USC, Nebraska, UCLA, Northwestern
#4 - Penn State, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana
-
if you have a 16 team or larger conference, there are just going to be some teams y'all don't play very often
even if you go to 10-conference games
even if you use pods
too many teams, not enough games
-
If?
LoL.
I think you can kinda see our individual biases showing through here. As an MSU fan, one of @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's concerns is having a viable path to the CG for his team. MSU is good enough that they MIGHT be able to win a division once in a while but it is very difficult when they get lumped in with tOSU, M, and PSU. They did, of course, manage to accomplish it once in the E-W era but here is what it took:
- A fortuitous upset of the Buckeyes in a monsoon in Columbus, and
- Michigan not quite recovered from a historically bad RRod/Hoke era, and
- Penn State still recovering from their own scandal and issues.
In more normal times they might knock off one but they have almost no chance of beating all three to claim the division:
- 2014 managed to beat PSU and M but finished a game and a tiebreaker behind Ohio State
- 2016 off year
- 2017 managed to beat PSU and M but finished 7-2 a game and the tiebreaker behind the Buckeyes
- 2018 managed to beat PSU but lost to the other two and finished three games out plus the tiebreaker
- 2019 off year
- 2020 goofy covid off year
- 2021 managed to knock off M and PSU but finished one game out and that isn't really as close as it seems.
2021:
This seems kinda close because they were only one game out and beat the eventual Champion but it really wasn't because IF tOSU had defeated M then they'd have been two games out plus the tiebreaker. Even if they had managed to win the PU game, that would only have created a 3-way tie that they wouldn't have won.
-
LoL.
I think you can kinda see our individual biases showing through here. As an MSU fan, one of @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's concerns is having a viable path to the CG for his team. MSU is good enough that they MIGHT be able to win a division once in a while but it is very difficult when they get lumped in with tOSU, M, and PSU. They did, of course, manage to accomplish it once in the E-W era but here is what it took:
- A fortuitous upset of the Buckeyes in a monsoon in Columbus, and
- Michigan not quite recovered from a historically bad RRod/Hoke era, and
- Penn State still recovering from their own scandal and issues.
And once when they had to play OSU, they beat them.
It has nothing to do with MSUs path. I just split OSU/UM, then the next two, then I split the next 4 by rivalries, so putting MSU with UM made sense.
-
it makes sense to only worry about protected cross overs for tradition and rivalries
if you don't play any other teams in the other division, that's OK
they're not really in your "conference"
the divisions are large enough to be conferences
-
And once when they had to play OSU, they beat them.
It has nothing to do with MSUs path. I just split OSU/UM, then the next two, then I split the next 4 by rivalries, so putting MSU with UM made sense.
Even if it isn't your specific motivation I still think it is a legitimate concern. Realistically with tOSU, M, and PSU all being in one division the chances for the other team are going to be pretty minimal. In the West or any weaker division those four might have a chance at least once in a while:
- MSU: Since joining the league the Spartans have been in the second tier I would say and occasionally been good enough to challenge the top teams. By "challenge the top teams" I'm not just talking about upsetting a great tOSU or M team or knocking off a down tOSU or M team, I mean be right there with a great tOSU or M team. The Spartans haven't been able to compete at that level with the consistency of Ohio State or even Michigan but they have been able to do it from time to time.
- Maryland: There is a lot of talent in the DC Metro area and Maryland has an overall historical profile considerably above where they have been since joining the league. With the right coach I think they could at least field a serious contender once in a while.
- Rutgers: This one is a tougher sell but there IS a lot of talent in NJ. Schiano had a far easier road when they were in the BigE but they should be able to compete at least sporadically.
- Indiana: Yeah, I don't know what to say about this one. They haven't won a league title since 1967 and that one was a pretty goofy split where Purdue was obviously the best team, then Minnesota, then Indiana but the Hoosiers got PU at home and managed to pull off the upset. That split title in 1967 was Indiana's only since WWII (well technically their 1945 title was post-war because the war ended before the season did but the talent was still mostly in the military and when the guys came home Illinois won in 1946 and Michigan won four straight after that (1947-1950). Those are Indiana's only two titles all-time which is not just terrible compared to Michigan (43) and Ohio State (39), it is terrible compared to Purdue and Northwestern (8 each), Michigan State (9 despite joining 50some years later), Iowa (11), Chicago (7 despite leaving in the 30's), Wisconsin (14), Illinois (15), Minnesota (18), and Penn State (4 despite joining about 90 years later).
-
if you have a 16 team or larger conference, there are just going to be some teams y'all don't play very often
even if you go to 10-conference games
even if you use pods
too many teams, not enough games
If you use pods, you will play all 15 other teams every 2 years and home-and-home vs everyone every 4 years.
I don't think you understand pods.
-
even I understand pods
-
ANALLY?
.
Scheduled rematches are the dumbest dumb.
Who said that?
-
Afro said anally
-
No but he stated it like making a point,dafuq - too much egg nogg
-
NO YES, but he stated it like making a point,dafuq - too much egg nogg
fixed
-
even I understand pods
You said "there are teams you don't play very often."
.
And a 16-team conference with pods, you play 3 teams every year and EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE CONFERENCE every other year.
.
I don't think you understand what 'understand' means.
-
Don't get analy with Fearless
-
You guys should go 2 divisions:
Legends: the best 8 programs
Leaders: the crap left over
.
Hear me out: the expected top 4 of the Legends division all play each other in September, so the losers have time to work their way back up the rankings, flooding the 12-team playoff.
.
You're welcome.
-
You said "there are teams you don't play very often."
.
And a 16-team conference with pods, you play 3 teams every year and EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE CONFERENCE every other year.
.
I don't think you understand what 'understand' me
gee sounds so great I wonder why it's not popular now
it's almost like playing other teams in the conference or division every year isn't important
why not simply have a media rights agreement?
-
Forgot "You're Welcome"
-
I didn't forget that, "pods suck"
didn't think it was needed
ya know, for those that understand things
-
gee sounds so great I wonder why it's not popular now
it's almost like playing other teams in the conference or division every year isn't important
why not simply have a media rights agreement?
You're now moving on to a different point without acknowledging what you said was dead wrong.
.
I guess it's better to play Indiana and Rutgers EVERY year than EVERYONE on alternating years. You're right. Way better. Because of popularity.
At what point and in what conference would pods be a thing before now? I'll hang up and listen.
-
At what point and in what conference would pods be a thing before now? I'll hang up and listen.
never, because it's a crap idea
-
never, because it's a crap idea
Like a few others, you provide such crap responses because they focus on shitting on me instead of debating the actual point.
.
A pod makes the most sense with a square number of teams, a la 16. Conferences are only approaching that number nowadays.
-
I've never focused on shitting on you
pods have never been used because they aren't a great idea
why so much talk about pods if there's never been a 16-team conference?
because a 16-team conference hasn't ever been a good idea
-
This is not a good example but the WAC-16 from 1996 to 1998 basicly had a pod system. The divisions rotated every 2 years. Since this experiment lasted only 3 years, before 8 teams split off to form the MWC, I guess that tells you how popular it was.
Still I think the main problem was they had to make 2 8-team divisions each year. If the WAC-16 would have had today's options to go without divisions and still have a CCG, that would have made the schedule a little more flexible.
-
Ed Zachery
thanks
-
I've never focused on shitting on you
pods have never been used because they aren't a great idea
why so much talk about pods if there's never been a 16-team conference?
because a 16-team conference hasn't ever been a good idea
There HAS been a 16-team conference, but only for a brief time.
-
possibly for a good reason they didn't go to pods
-
unfortunately we shall never know
I hope not
I hate the pod concept
-
unfortunately we shall never know
I hope not
I hate the pod concept
Because...?
-
Who needs reasons?? Not him.
-
USC - UCLA - UNL - IOWA
MN - WIS - ILL - NW
IU - PU - UM - OSU
MSU - PSU - RU - MD
.
Sample OSU scheduling:
2024 or whatever:
@ IU, UCLA, @ Iowa, Wis, @NW, PSU, @Md, PU, @ UM
.
2025
IU, @USC, UNL, @MN, ILL, @MSU, RU, @PU, UM
.
OH THE HORROR!
-
Because...?
because I prefer to play the same 7 or 8 teams on an annual basis
if it's a good idea for Oho St/Michigan and Michigan/Michigan St and Wisconsin/Minnesoota then it's a good idea for other teams
Ohio St - Michigan got to this point by playing every season, not just regularly
-
Who needs reasons?? Not him.
I always have a reason
-
He comes across as a pod kinda guy.Too many teams missing each other to have a true process of elimination