CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on December 01, 2022, 09:00:11 AM
-
Apparently the 12 team CFP will start soon. Assuming that it does, maybe we should keep divisions after all.
What got me thinking about this was the current situation with 8-4/6-3 Purdue playing 12-0/9-0 Michigan in the CG while 11-1/8-1 Ohio State sits at home.
A lot of people feel that our best teams should be in the CG and scrapping divisions facilities that. However, it might be bad strategy in the 12-team playoff era.
As is, if we had the 12-team playoff now:
Ohio State would be safely in as would Michigan (even if they lose to Purdue) and Penn State would be basically a "bubble team".
Penn State is currently the #4 at-large behind tOSU, Bama, and TN. The risk for them is is that three CG upsets out of four (UGA, M, TCU, USC) would knock them back to the #7 at-large or "first team out".
With divisions there is very little risk for yhe league as a whole. A Michigan loss costs them a bye but might get Purdue into the playoff along with M, tOSU, and possibly PSU. A Michigan win gets them a bye and actually helps both tOSU and PSU because their loss to M is to a 13-0 P5 Champion.
Without divisions tOSU would get a second crack at Michigan and while that might be nice for tOSU, I'm thinking it is bad for the league as a whole. Obviously there are two possibilities:
- Michigan wins again: In this case Ohio State's playoff situation becomes precarious at best. Giving a team a second chance may make some sense (see UGA last year) but if you already lost to a playoff participant twice, do we really need to see that again?
- Ohio State wins the rematch: In this case it is possible that neither gets a bye (they would this year).
I'm thinking that divisions are a better strategy going forward.
-
divisions are good regardless of playoff format
divisions are essentially conferences - a round robin division schedule actually can determine somethin
all 8 division members play each other - that's good
all 16 conference members just playing 8 or 9 random teams? WTH?
-
Yeah, I think you need divisions, and I see little real benefit in having an 11th place team make the playoffs ($$$?). With 20 team conferences ahead, possibly, they would be required.
-
Yeah, I think you need divisions, and I see little real benefit in having an 11th place team make the playoffs ($$$?). With 20 team conferences ahead, possibly, they would be required.
With the proposed format providing a bye for the top league Champions, Purdue actually might have a prayer at winning a first round game.
First, would they get in as a 9-4 B1G Champion? What league Champions would be ahead of them?
- SECCG winner between #1 UGA and #14 LSU
- B12CG winner between #3 TCU and #10 KSU
- P12CG winner between #4 USC and #11 Utah
- ACCCG winner between #9 Clemson and #23 UNC
- AACCG winner between #18 Tulane and #22 UCF
That is it and #5 is debatable so Purdue is in with an upset of Michigan in Indy.
Assuming Purdue wins and there are no other upsets the playoff seeds are:
- UGA
- TCU
- USC
- Clemson (jumps PSU, TN, Bama, and tOSU because byes go to league champs only)
- M
- tOSU
- Bama
- TN
- PSU
- Washington
- Tulane
- Purdue
So the first round games are:
- Purdue at Michigan, winner v Clemson
- Tulane at Ohio State, winner v USC
- Washington at Bama, winner v TCU
- PSU at TN, winner v UGA
-
The same analysis is true in the SEC I think this year. UGA would have to play Bama (or Tenn, it's not clear yet). Both would be lesser dogs than LSU.
I guess LSU might make it if they win the CG at 10-3, probably would. Then you have four SEC teams out of 12 in the mix. Does anyone really want that?
-
- Purdue at Michigan, winner v Clemson
- Tulane at Ohio State, winner v USC
- Washington at Bama, winner v TCU
- PSU at TN, winner v UGA
It's more football which is nice, but some of these are not very interesting.
-
If you have a championship game there should be divisions.
-
if yer gonna git rid of divisions, just schedule the top 4 teams to play the bottom 4 teams each season to enhance playoff seeding - no champ game
just send Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St. and the lucky #4 to do battle in the playoff. Reshuffle the schedule each season to accommodate this.
no need for those teams to ever play each other in conference play
-
- Purdue at Michigan, winner v Clemson
- Tulane at Ohio State, winner v USC
- Washington at Bama, winner v TCU
- PSU at TN, winner v UGA
It's more football which is nice, but some of these are not very interesting.
Rethinking this, they probably would put Purdue ahead of Tulane just to avoid a Michigan/Purdue rematch so those first two would probably be:
- Tulane at Michigan, winner vs Clemson
- Purdue at Ohio State, winner vs USC
-
if yer gonna git rid of divisions, just schedule the top 4 teams to play the bottom 4 teams each season to enhance playoff seeding - no champ game
just send Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St. and the lucky #4 to do battle in the playoff. Reshuffle the schedule each season to accommodate this.
no need for those teams to ever play each other in conference play
I'm glad you are finally catching on
-
CGs make money. They won't go away.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/l6wWlrI.png)
-
very important items
ya don't say
-
The problem with divisions is that you’re always going to have ups and downs of each division over time. When the Big 12 was formed the N Division was considered to be very strong. At the end, it was pretty weak IMO. The south division was very strong, maybe the best in D1.
It’s like when I asked my dad, do you like summer or winter better ? He said I like winter better in the summer and summer better in the winner.
-
While there are other ways to slice things in the Big Ten, when UCLA and USC arrive, the use of divisions are more credible. When the BTW and BTE were formed, I would argue Wisconsin, Nebraska, and to a lesser extent, Iowa, were most probably viewed as competitive with Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan. It turned out not to be so. But the time frame was limited. Over time these things change. Michigan has come back. Wisc., Neb., and to a lesser extent Iowa, regressed. Iowa has always been streaky.
-
I personally hate divisions. They help with the playoffs this one year but at a cost of not seeing teams in the other division nearly enough. That would get worse with 16. I want to play the traditional Big Ten teams, not feel like they are an occasional out of confernence opponents.
Also, with a 12 team playoff, a weaker team upsetting a higher one means no byes to the quarterfinal bowls. This is small to me compared to schedules, but an added factor.
-
I personally hate divisions. They help with the playoffs this one year but at a cost of not seeing teams in the other division nearly enough. That would get worse with 16. I want to play the traditional Big Ten teams, not feel like they are an occasional out of confernence opponents.
put the traditional teams in one division and the new comers in the other division
Penn St, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska, UCLA, USC, (Iowa Minnesoota?) ya gotta pick 2
-
I sort of like the idea of using a pod system like soccer does. Using the previous years ending 16 team standings, teams would placed into four pods changing each year by ending standings.
Pod A
Michigan, Purdue, Minn, Neb
Pod B
Ohio St, Ucla, Wis, Ind
Pod C
USC, Ill, Maryland, Rutgers
Pod D
Penn St, Iowa, Mich St, NW
Every team in each pod would play each other. Then rivalry games would be scheduled unless the game was already played inside a pod. Haven't figured out how to complete the results of the schedule yet.
-
hate it
means you only play 3 teams every season
-
Your still playing a 9 conference game schedule not just 3 games. Maybe after the first round Pod A / C and B / D would play against each other, which is 7 games and then 2 game left for the rivalrys.
-
yes, but you don't play the other 6 conference teams every season
the trophy rivalries might not have developed if they didn't play every season
Floyd of Rosedale, the bucket, the Axe, the brown jug
-
yes, but you don't play the other 6 conference teams every season
the trophy rivalries might not have developed if they didn't play every season
Floyd of Rosedale, the bucket, the Axe, the brown jug
I get the concern. Abandoning regional conferences and moving to mega-conferences is inevitably going to harm some of the tradition and history of college football. Every move, is one step closer to the NFL. And a lot of college football fans like the sport, precisely because it is NOT the NFL.
Yay, progress.
-
Wth conference standing changing every year I guess there is a mathematical chance of missing one. Look at Wisconsin in this year's standings. Pod B/D they play Iowa and in the 2 rivalry games they would play Minn and Neb.
-
As utee notes, a lot of fans want an NFL style situation, while I think most veteran fans do not. But, it's inevitable because of money.
Just like CGs, they are a good strategy for raising money.
-
at least the NFL keeps rivals together
Da Bears, Packers, Vikings, and Lions play each other twice EVERY season
it's called the Norris Division or the black & blue division
playing another team every 3 or 4 years just so you get to play them regularly is watered down
-
at least the NFL keeps rivals together
Da Bears, Packers, Vikings, and Lions play each other twice EVERY season
it's called the Norris Division or the black & blue division
playing another team every 3 or 4 years just so you get to play them regularly is watered down
Well pods would preserve those rivalries in the same way NFL divisions do, so now I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at?
The Dallas Cowboys have three main rivals-- the Giants, the Eagles, and whatever Washington is calling themselves today. As you point out, that's a result of being in the same division (or you could call it a pod) for many years. But the rest of their schedule is varied and fluid and changes year to year. There's no real rivalry with the Falcons, for example, because they're not on the schedule every year.
In a college football mega-conference, pods would exist in the same way.
Also, pretty sure that's NFC Norse, not Norris. :)
-
the PODS are too small!
Floyd of Rosedale, the bucket, the Axe, the brown jug
Iowa–Minnesota-Indiana–Purdue-Wisconsin
how about 5 or 6 team pods?
or we could just have 8-team divisions and play those 7 teams EVERY season
-
I get the concern. Abandoning regional conferences and moving to mega-conferences is inevitably going to harm some of the tradition and history of college football. Every move, is one step closer to the NFL. And a lot of college football fans like the sport, precisely because it is NOT the NFL.
Testify 94 Testify......after you make your eggnogg
-
Maybe, but playing two of the pods against each other make it 8 teams. The main reason is that scheduling is fair to all teams. With the now cross over scheduling a team could be lucky and face only one powerhouse team and a powerhouse team facing upto four powerhouse teams.
-
the PODS are too small!
Floyd of Rosedale, the bucket, the Axe, the brown jug
Iowa–Minnesota-Indiana–Purdue-Wisconsin
how about 5 or 6 team pods?
or we could just have 8-team divisions and play those 7 teams EVERY season
Well there's a concept that seems to be gaining steam amongst the "pod crowd" and that concept is a "three perma-rivals" idea.
For example, in the "New SEC" you could put Texas in a pod with Arkansas, A&M, and OU, and it would be perfect for us. It would preserve all three of our traditional rivalries, all of our so-called "trophy games."
But A&M doesn't really value a game against OU in the same way that Texas does, so why should they be in a pod with them and have to play them every year? A&M would probably rather play LSU every year.
So you set up the schedule so that Texas plays A&M, OU, and Arkansas every year.
While Texas A&M plays Texas, LSU, and Arkansas every year.
And Arkansas plays Texas, Texas A&M, and Missouri every year. (just an example, I have no idea if that would be their preference).
I can't speak for the B1G, I suppose it's possible that some teams have more than three trophy games every year? But the three perma-rivals approach is at least one way to balance maintaining permanent annual rivalries, within the context of a mega-conference.
-
Maybe, but playing two of the pods against each other make it 8 teams. The main reason is that scheduling is fair to all teams. With the now cross over scheduling a team could be lucky and face only one powerhouse team and a powerhouse team facing upto four powerhouse teams.
I'm guessing the same thing will happen with pod scheduling
-
I guess in my pod scheduling the members of each pod would change ever year according to the final standing of the previous year. The Big Ten like the Sec has two powerhouse teams every year with four or five next level teams and everyone else. The five next level teams could change every year hence the reasoning for changing pod members every year to be fair to all conference members. Strength of schedule should remain consistent for all.
-
Strength of schedule should remain consistent for all.
All great points but I doubt that as the rosters won't - portaling,graduation and the NFL see to that
-
that would be ok, still gonna be tough evening up with Michigan and Ohio St., but it's better
trying to make it as fair as possible is nice, but it'll never be fair
one season Michigan st is good, the next they're not
one season Illinois is bad, the next they're not
I understand pods, just want to play the same 7 or 8 teams every season like back in the day with smaller conferences
build familiarity, relationships, history, and rivalries
you know, what made college football great
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/329765597_766058877845060_3754032195999348067_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=57reJKcRmLcAX8d-v6v&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBa6k8E7UFUZhVrpGdV39SMr3VSFGaH5uC4_60DyQ_ebA&oe=63EDDA35)
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/329765597_766058877845060_3754032195999348067_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=57reJKcRmLcAX8d-v6v&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBa6k8E7UFUZhVrpGdV39SMr3VSFGaH5uC4_60DyQ_ebA&oe=63EDDA35)
Wow. Minnesota really gets dumped on.
-
that would be ok, still gonna be tough evening up with Michigan and Ohio St., but it's better
trying to make it as fair as possible is nice, but it'll never be fair
one season Michigan st is good, the next they're not
one season Illinois is bad, the next they're not
I understand pods, just want to play the same 7 or 8 teams every season like back in the day with smaller conferences
build familiarity, relationships, history, and rivalries
you know, what made college football great
I Concur with that but Michigan State has been as competitive as anyone on the Big behind UM/tOSU they were in a vacuum last season. Mel will bring them around
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/329765597_766058877845060_3754032195999348067_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5cd70e&_nc_ohc=57reJKcRmLcAX8d-v6v&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=00_AfBa6k8E7UFUZhVrpGdV39SMr3VSFGaH5uC4_60DyQ_ebA&oe=63EDDA35)
Me no like.
-
The whole thing stinks
-
since there's little chance of going back...
I'd cut down the middle East-West
8 team divisions with two cross overs - 9 game schedule
if we could get some sense and go back a little...
uninvite UCLA & USC - kick out Gers and Maryland
6 team divisions with 4 cross overs - 9 games
Best would be going way back to the Big Ten
10 team conference - 9 games
-
I Concur with that but Michigan State has been as competitive as anyone on the Big behind UM/tOSU they were in a vacuum last season. Mel will bring them around
but it'll never be fair
-
If you have a championship game there should be divisions.
This.
Scheduling a guaranteed rematch is the worst idea possible. It drains regular-season games of any meaning, and that's what USED to make college football great.
Now Alabama can lose and still comfortably make the playoff.
Hell, now a TCU can lose in their CCG and not move down at all, even to a 3-loss team. Why even play the game?
-
since there's little chance of going back...
I'd cut down the middle East-West
8 team divisions with two cross overs - 9 game schedule
if we could get some sense and go back a little...
uninvite UCLA & USC - kick out Gers and Maryland
6 team divisions with 4 cross overs - 9 games
Best would be going way back to the Big Ten
10 team conference - 9 games
The funny thing is that we CAN go back to that....by continuing forward and having 20-team conferences.
10-team divisions could be like the old AL and NL in MLB, who didn't play each other. Then the champ from each division, who had to play everyone else in their own division, would face-off to determine the conference champ.
-
yup, I'm all for that
but many/most think it's a must to play every team in a 20 team conference as regularly as possible
-
Idk, at the point of 20 teams, the words 'division' and 'conference' become irrelevant.
The 2 division champs play, so you EARN the right to play a team from the other division.
Yes, in actuality, it'd be 2 conferences, but we'll call it 2 divisions under the single umbrella of a conference.
.
Anyway, it's a unique situation in that we COULD go back by moving forward.
-
I was thnking about this in practice, with the 12-team playoff and committee.
To eliminate penalizing the loser of the CCG, CCGs would be, by rule, only for seeding purposes in determining the 4 conf champs with byes.
Ranking teams 5-12 (minus the remaining 2 conf champs) would ignore the CCGs and would be based on the regular season only.
-
I'm good with that
rank the top 12 before the CCGs
then reseed before the playoff
so, 3 conferences with 60 teams or 4 conferences with 80 teams?
I'd prefer 4 with 80.
8 team playoff with the division winners
F the 12 team playoff
-
Once you get to 20 schools, the Big Ten should go with 10 conference games and go with 3 tiers of scheduling
4 schools you play every year
6 schools you play every other year (50% of the time)
9 schools you play every 3 years (33% of the time)
4 + 3/3 + 3/3/3
-
I'd rather have 9 teams you play every year and forget about the other ten teams
unless you want to schedule one as non-con
-
B1G Western Conference
Chicago
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Northwestern
Ohio State
Purdue
Wisconsin
-
B1G Western Conference
Chicago Penn St. or Nebraska or Mich St.
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Northwestern
Ohio State
Purdue
Wisconsin
perfect
-
MSU was first in after Chicago dropped out.
-
17 team conferences, 3 divisions, 2 div with 6 teams, 1 with 5.
each div plays all other in their div, plus 3 out of div. yes, this creates uneven schedules for the 5 team div.
conf cg participants are the 2 6 team div winners, unless the 5 team div winner has the same or fewer losses as 1 of the 6 team div winners AND has a win over the 6 team div winner in the reg season.
teams within each division are rotated at least every 3 years, but sometimes sooner. division swap scenarios:
- if the situation above happens (5 team div has better record than winner of 6 team div AND beats that team in reg season) AND the 5 team div winner wins ccg, the original 6 team div winner that lost in reg season swaps divisions with the 5 team div winner.
- If any of the teams in either of the 6 team div go winless in conference in any single year, AND the 5 div winner goes undefeated in div, they swap.
- If 1 teams in both 6 team div go winless, then those 2 6 team div winners play same week as ccg to see who swaps with the 5 team div winner. if that also coincides with the 5 team div winner wins ccg and therefore the 6 team div winner should swap, the 6 team div winner would not have to swap, it would be the loser of the game between winless teams.
- if none of that happens in a 3 year span from the last division shift, then the 2 teams in the 5 team division with the best overall 3 year division record (ties decided by h2h) move to one of the 6 team divisions (team with better record choose which div, ties again h2h determined), while the team with the worst record in each 6 team division move to the 5 team div (again, ties broke by h2h).
this is all off top of my head, but i'm sure there are no holes.
i mean, if we're going to go ridiculous, might as well do it right, right?
-
A 17-team conference can not play a 9-game conference schedule. Going to 17-teams would require a switch to 8-game or 10-game conference schedules, or else would require teams to play an unequal number of conference games.
-
details
-
If you're going sideways with it, just put M, OSU, and USC in one division and everyone else in the other one.
Champs play each other.
Duh.
-
what have the Trojans done lately to deserve that?
for better or worse
-
Once you get to 20 schools, the Big Ten should go with 10 conference games and go with 3 tiers of scheduling
4 schools you play every year
6 schools you play every other year (50% of the time)
9 schools you play every 3 years (33% of the time)
4 + 3/3 + 3/3/3
They used to play an unequal # of conference games. List of Big Ten Conference football standings (1959–present) - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_Ten_Conference_football_standings_(1959–present))
-
Michigan is the only Big Ten program who does not have a Power 5 opponent on its nonconference schedule in 2023.
The Wolverines are also 1 of only 9 FBS teams nationally where that applies. the other programs who won’t face Power 5 opposition outside of conference play are: Air Force, Boston College, Houston, Liberty, Oklahoma, Oregon State, UCF and UCLA. That’s according to an analysis from FBSchedules.com.
Of course, Michigan was originally scheduled to face UCLA in 2022 and 2023. However, the Wolverines canceled the series back in 2019 — prior to the Bruins’ agreement to join the Big Ten.
Michigan replaced UCLA with a home game vs. East Carolina for this upcoming season. This will be the Wolverines’ 1st-ever meeting with the Pirates in football.
Michigan also did not play a P5 regular season nonconference game in 2022. Instead, it took on UConn, Hawaii and Colorado State. Michigan won those 3 games by a combined score of 166-17.
-
Wow, 2 years in a row?
UM fans are never allowed to talk shit about SEC scheduling ever again.
-
Wow, 2 years in a row?
UM fans are never allowed to talk shit about SEC scheduling ever again.
Not like I want to carry water for the Wolverines, but they play 9 conference games and have no FCS teams on the schedule.
Come back at us when the SEC has 9 conference games and no FCS.
I will say, at least your Gators scheduled their FCS bodybag game early in the season. Not like 'Bama who have it the week before the Iron Bowl.
-
Wow, 2 years in a row?
best two years for Jimmy - ever
-
Florida has played the 12th-game cupcake the week before FSU, so that's no different.
I love the idea that an FCS team is 'worse' than a MAC team.
Either a team has a <1% chance of beating you or it doesn't. All MAC, Sun Belt, and FCS teams belong in that group. They are practically all the same that way. Distinguishing between them is a waste of time and unproductive.
The age-old 9 conf games vs 8 conf games is stupid. The B1G has chosen to play 9 conf games WITH NO ONE TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO.
That's on them. Inventing an extra obstacle to a great season is a strange way of trying to have a great season.
-
As far as chances to win, yes. As far as taxation on the opposing roster, particularly that deep into the season, no
-
I've just never experienced so much bitching about something that didn't break any rules.
-
are you sure about that?
I think not
-
Michigan is the only Big Ten program who does not have a Power 5 opponent on its nonconference schedule in 2023.
Appy St and Toledo say hello
-
I love the idea that an FCS team is 'worse' than a MAC team.
Either a team has a <1% chance of beating you or it doesn't. All MAC, Sun Belt, and FCS teams belong in that group. They are practically all the same that way.
Eh. I'd say the number of MAC upsets vs FCS upsets is meaningful.
I can say for my own team, I'm fairly certain that Purdue has NEVER lost to an FCS team. We have lost to MAC teams. And we're basically low-P5, not like Michigan.
-
Do the research, find out.
But again, a Purdue can have lost to a couple of MAC teams over the decades and zero FCS teams, but both may be below 1%.
-
Not like I want to carry water for the Wolverines, but they play 9 conference games and have no FCS teams on the schedule.
Come back at us when the SEC has 9 conference games and no FCS.
I will say, at least your Gators scheduled their FCS bodybag game early in the season. Not like 'Bama who have it the week before the Iron Bowl.
This shit again? The SEC already plays the toughest schedule in the toughest league. No need to make it any more difficult than it already is. Besides, the 9th game would not mean anything when it's Vanderbilt or South Carolina.
I'm assuming we do go to a 9 game schedule soon with UT/OU coming on-board, but I have never had any issues with the current setup.
-
the argument has always been that, the 9th game would mean something to Vanderbilt & South Carolina.
-
Another loss?
-
The Cocks had some nice wins last season. They beat aTm too.
They are not in the same realm with Vandy, which beat Florida.
-
Another loss?
how'd you guess?
-
This shit again? The SEC already plays the toughest schedule in the toughest league. No need to make it any more difficult than it already is. Besides, the 9th game would not mean anything when it's Vanderbilt or South Carolina.
Might want to ad A & M at the end of that sentence
-
Not like I want to carry water for the Wolverines, but they play 9 conference games and have no FCS teams on the schedule.
Come back at us when the SEC has 9 conference games and no FCS.
I will say, at least your Gators scheduled their FCS bodybag game early in the season. Not like 'Bama who have it the week before the Iron Bowl.
sec did that in 2020. 10 conf games, no fcs, for all sec teams. seemed to work out just fine.
(https://media.tenor.com/nnUyxuqaeNcAAAAM/actually-nerd.gif)
-
Florida has played the 12th-game cupcake the week before FSU, so that's no different.
I love the idea that an FCS team is 'worse' than a MAC team.
Either a team has a <1% chance of beating you or it doesn't. All MAC, Sun Belt, and FCS teams belong in that group. They are practically all the same that way. Distinguishing between them is a waste of time and unproductive.
The age-old 9 conf games vs 8 conf games is stupid. The B1G has chosen to play 9 conf games WITH NO ONE TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO.
That's on them. Inventing an extra obstacle to a great season is a strange way of trying to have a great season.
1% seems low. It also sort of undercuts the range of each category.
-
You're right, it's more like 'outside of 2 standard deviations,' which would be around 2-4%.
But still.
I thought it incorporates the range of each well, as a strong FCS team is better than a bottom-feeder FBS squad.
Michigan is around 50-4 vs G5 teams the last 50 years. And I'll assume they're 11-1 or 20-1 or 35-1 vs FCS teams in that timeframe as well. We all know the one.....because it was a crazy outlier legendary event.
Idk how many wins vs FCS they have, but I doubt the win% is much higher than 50-4 (.925). Not enough games to get there with that 1 loss.
.
Anywho, I think my point stands. There's a cutoff between teams that have a reasonable chance at winning and those who do not. By definition, the latter group will win sometimes, but not often enough for it to be significant. For every major upset, there's 5 or 6 or 10 examples of 52-7 blowouts.
-
sec did that in 2020. 10 conf games, no fcs, for all sec teams. seemed to work out just fine.
(https://media.tenor.com/nnUyxuqaeNcAAAAM/actually-nerd.gif)
Yeah, many fans of non-SEC schools act like it's some sort of odd fear thing.
What it actually has been is an offer for some free money (extra home game), and the SEC schools shrugging and taking it.
-
And remember, the SEC was the first conference to schedule a conference champion game back in 1992. The next closest was the Big 12 in 1996. So the SEC already made it harder for their champions to make the title game.
When did they B1G get a conference championship game? 2010?
-
2011 - when UNL joined to the get to the required 12th member.
ACC started in 2005 after it raided the Big East of BC, Miami and VT.
-
Copycats
-
You're right, it's more like 'outside of 2 standard deviations,' which would be around 2-4%.
But still.
I thought it incorporates the range of each well, as a strong FCS team is better than a bottom-feeder FBS squad.
Michigan is around 50-4 vs G5 teams the last 50 years. And I'll assume they're 11-1 or 20-1 or 35-1 vs FCS teams in that timeframe as well. We all know the one.....because it was a crazy outlier legendary event.
Idk how many wins vs FCS they have, but I doubt the win% is much higher than 50-4 (.925). Not enough games to get there with that 1 loss.
.
Anywho, I think my point stands. There's a cutoff between teams that have a reasonable chance at winning and those who do not. By definition, the latter group will win sometimes, but not often enough for it to be significant. For every major upset, there's 5 or 6 or 10 examples of 52-7 blowouts.
The Wolverines are actually only 2-1 all time vs FCS opponents. Not a very good win percentage at all.
In their defense, they also didn't fare very well against the G5 there for a while, either. Toledo, pre-PAC Utes several times over, and so forth.
-
This link (https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/9buxcv/table_alltime_g5_vs_p5_winloss_records/) suggests that G5 beats P5 anywhere between 17% and 22% of the time, depending on how you slice it. (All time vs shorter more recent time durations). 22% is all time and includes WAC as G5 and Big East as P5, whereas if you go last 20, last 10, or last 5 years, including or not including WAC/BEast, it's pretty much always somewhere between 16.8% and 19%.
This link (https://fearthefcs.com/fcs-over-fbs-wins/) suggests that in all FCS vs FBS (all FBS, not just P5) matchups since 2006, the FCS team has a 7.9% win percentage. I'm assuming that win percentage is higher against G5 and lower against P5, but I can't find a clear delineation of that data. Admittedly, 2006 is chosen because that's when I-AA became FCS, and that's when FCS started scheduling 12 games, so there are a lot more matchups past that point. I'd be remiss not to mention that from 1978-2005, the win percentages were higher.
So I would argue that the odds of a P5 team losing to a G5 team are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than losing to an FCS team. At least double, because the G5 win percentages against P5 is always higher than 16.8% any way you slice it, which is more than double the 7.9% win percentage FCS has against ALL FBS. But probably even significantly beyond double, because P5 likely has better results against FCS than G5 has against FCS.
-
This link (https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/9buxcv/table_alltime_g5_vs_p5_winloss_records/) suggests that G5 beats P5 anywhere between 17% and 22% of the time, depending on how you slice it. (All time vs shorter more recent time durations). 22% is all time and includes WAC as G5 and Big East as P5, whereas if you go last 20, last 10, or last 5 years, including or not including WAC/BEast, it's pretty much always somewhere between 16.8% and 19%.
This link (https://fearthefcs.com/fcs-over-fbs-wins/) suggests that in all FCS vs FBS (all FBS, not just P5) matchups since 2006, the FCS team has a 7.9% win percentage. I'm assuming that win percentage is higher against G5 and lower against P5, but I can't find a clear delineation of that data. Admittedly, 2006 is chosen because that's when I-AA became FCS, and that's when FCS started scheduling 12 games, so there are a lot more matchups past that point. I'd be remiss not to mention that from 1978-2005, the win percentages were higher.
So I would argue that the odds of a P5 team losing to a G5 team are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than losing to an FCS team. At least double, because the G5 win percentages against P5 is always higher than 16.8% any way you slice it, which is more than double the 7.9% win percentage FCS has against ALL FBS. But probably even significantly beyond double, because P5 likely has better results against FCS than G5 has against FCS.
Who the conversation is aimed at is important. I assume we're talking about playoff contender type teams, because no one is interested in whether or not Vanderbilt's schedule is harder or easier for scheduling G5 vs. FCS. That becomes an entirely different dataset.
The Ohio States and Georgia's of the world aren't going to have that variation in losing % to G5 vs. FCS. I mean, there's going to be a variation, probably, but it will be negligible.
i.e., UGA could've replaced Samford last year with Toledo, and it wouldn't have mattered at all. This will be true most years for any upper tier P5 team.
The typical argument I see is the SEC pads or protects itself by scheduling FCS teams, and when they put those teams on the schedule. In reality, I don't believe it makes any difference as far as championships or playoff participation goes. Alabama would get exactly where they got in years past even scheduling the way other teams do. It probably makes a non-negligible difference to Vanderbilt.
-
So I would argue that the odds of a P5 team losing to a G5 team are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than losing to an FCS team. At least double, because the G5 win percentages against P5 is always higher than 16.8% any way you slice it, which is more than double the 7.9% win percentage FCS has against ALL FBS. But probably even significantly beyond double, because P5 likely has better results against FCS than G5 has against FCS.
I appreciate the research.
But I believe we're all having the discussion with the big-boy P5 programs in mind, right?
Whether NIU sneaks up and bites (no offense) a Purdue or Missouri drops a game to Tulsa, but not to UT-Martin....that's not really germane to the conversation.
A Michigan, a Florida, a UCLA, a Penn St....they're not dropping games to Troy or San Jose State or Buffalo more often than to an FCS school when they're having a good season.
Maybe it's just me, but that's the condition I've had in mind during this discussion. Maybe that's unfair or I'm alone on an island, but I guess it needs to be put out there. But I don't think anyone is suggesting a 9-3 BYU beating a 4-8 CU is a representative sample of what I mean.
-
Who the conversation is aimed at is important. I assume we're talking about playoff contender type teams, because no one is interested in whether or not Vanderbilt's schedule is harder or easier for scheduling G5 vs. FCS. That becomes an entirely different dataset.
The Ohio States and Georgia's of the world aren't going to have that variation in losing % to G5 vs. FCS. I mean, there's going to be a variation, probably, but it will be negligible.
i.e., UGA could've replaced Samford last year with Toledo, and it wouldn't have mattered at all. This will be true most years for any upper tier P5 team.
The typical argument I see is the SEC pads or protects itself by scheduling FCS teams, and when they put those teams on the schedule. In reality, I don't believe it makes any difference as far as championships or playoff participation goes. Alabama would get exactly where they got in years past even scheduling the way other teams do. It probably makes a non-negligible difference to Vanderbilt.
But if that's the argument, then what's the harm in these helmet teams scheduling G5 instead of FCS?
The only argument IMHO is that FCS will take a paycheck game while Toledo might want a 2-for-1 HHA series or something like that. But while the MAC is trying to force the B1G into 2-for-1 scheduling agreements, do you really think they wouldn't take the occasional paycheck game from UGA or Bama? And wouldn't the fans rather see a G5 cupcake instead of an FCS morsel?
I appreciate the research.
But I believe we're all having the discussion with the big-boy P5 programs in mind, right?
Whether NIU sneaks up and bites (no offense) a Purdue or Missouri drops a game to Tulsa, but not to UT-Martin....that's not really germane to the conversation.
A Michigan, a Florida, a UCLA, a Penn St....they're not dropping games to Troy or San Jose State or Buffalo more often than to an FCS school when they're having a good season.
Maybe it's just me, but that's the condition I've had in mind during this discussion. Maybe that's unfair or I'm alone on an island, but I guess it needs to be put out there. But I don't think anyone is suggesting a 9-3 BYU beating a 4-8 CU is a representative sample of what I mean.
Same reply as above... If there's no risk for the helmet teams, why not schedule a better opponent for your fans?
-
But I believe we're all having the discussion with the big-boy P5 programs in mind, right?
Whether NIU sneaks up and bites (no offense) a Purdue or Missouri drops a game to Tulsa, but not to UT-Martin....that's not really germane to the conversation.
A Michigan, a Florida, a UCLA, a Penn St....they're not dropping games to Troy or San Jose State or Buffalo more often than to an FCS school when they're having a good season.
NIU vs Purdue and Tulsa vs Mizzou is exactly what some of us are talkin bout.
Where this affects Michigan, Florida, Penn St and even Bama is the credit the big boy schools get for beating Purdue and Mizzou.
If Mizzou loses an extra game because they play a 9-game conf sched and/or because they played a better than FCS school, then Mizzou may have less than 6 wins and a losing record instead of 2 wins over cupcakes.
credit for Bama or Florida to sneak into the bottom of a 4-team playoff or 12-team playoff because of beating an 8 win Mizzou is different than beating a 6 win Mizzou
just shows a relative conference strength
-
If there's no risk for the helmet teams, why not schedule a better opponent for your fans?
real world answer, as a fan of one of those schools, there are few g5 teams that differentiate themselves enough for most fans to even know if it's g5 or fcs. the average fan aren't going to know or care that mtsu and chattanooga are in different leagues entirely. it's just cannon fodder for them. there are a few, usf, boise, utah and tcu used to be, but outside of those handful, most don't know/don't care. we are the exception (we being us idiots on this website).
fwiw, i wish we didn't play fcs. outside of the real problem of where will their (fcs and g5) funding come from. but from a competitive standpoint, i would rather play all p5 tbh.
-
But if that's the argument, then what's the harm in these helmet teams scheduling G5 instead of FCS?
If it doesn't matter either way, why hold one above the other? Put them in a bag and pick one out.
-
But if that's the argument, then what's the harm in these helmet teams scheduling G5 instead of FCS?
The only argument IMHO is that FCS will take a paycheck game while Toledo might want a 2-for-1 HHA series or something like that. But while the MAC is trying to force the B1G into 2-for-1 scheduling agreements, do you really think they wouldn't take the occasional paycheck game from UGA or Bama? And wouldn't the fans rather see a G5 cupcake instead of an FCS morsel?
There is no harm. But there's also no point in criticizing the SEC for doing exactly what it does. It comes out the same either way.
On the second part, I can only speak for myself, but it makes no difference to me if LSU plays Southern or brings in Eastern Michigan. Those games are never any good either way. LSU sleepwalks and slowly grinds them into dust in forgettable yawn-fests. As a fan, exciting games are conference games or other P5 teams, even the ones that are lopsided. The recent bowl vs. Purdue was more exciting than the bowl against UCF a few years ago, even though UCF was a better game. A P5 team like Purdue, simply by virtue of playing big boys provides me with a sense of where my team might fit in with another major conference. A team like UCF can only annoy me if we were to lose it, and forget the whole thing if we win it. Granted, bowls are not a great example of what we're talking about here because bowls are not regular season games, but the same principle applies. Some years ago we played a home and home with a hapless Arizona team. They weren't good either time, but I'd take a PAC game like that over a middling G5 team because it's simply more interesting.
-
Not sure why y'all are comparing FCS to G5.
The comparison here is moving to a 9-game conference schedule and replacing the FCS cupcake bodybag game, with another conference game.
I suppose what you're suggesting is that even with a move to a 9-game conference schedule, the SEC teams still won't get rid of the FCS cupcake bodybag game. Rather, they'll sacrifice some other OOC game that would have been G5 or P5.
And I guess that is about all that needs to be said about that.
-
That's certainly possible.
As far as it making a difference, I still say it wouldn't. If Alabama drops GSU and adds Vanderbilt or South Carolina as a 9th conference game in it's place (keeping the "better" ooc games), their record will be exactly the same. Same goes for any team having a season good enough to sniff the playoffs.
-
Not sure why y'all are comparing FCS to G5.
The comparison here is moving to a 9-game conference schedule and replacing the FCS cupcake bodybag game, with another conference game.
I suppose what you're suggesting is that even with a move to a 9-game conference schedule, the SEC teams still won't get rid of the FCS cupcake bodybag game. Rather, they'll sacrifice some other OOC game that would have been G5 or P5.
And I guess that is about all that needs to be said about that.
Well, to be fair, the B1G did away with FCS games, UNTIL they went to the 9-game conference schedule. And I believe you can only schedule FCS on the seasons that you only have 4 home conference games, thinking that it might be hard to get a paycheck game to preserve a 7-home game schedule.
I was in favor of not scheduling FCS, and not in favor of allowing it back. And I'm in favor of a 9-game conference schedule.
IMHO my ideal is 9 conference games, AT LEAST one P5 non-con opponent each season (two if you can get it), and then zero FCS. The B1G isn't living up to that "zero FCS" model right now. Which if I still followed Purdue football, would piss me off.