For how many years an 18-team league without divisions?

Donate To GopherHole
Great Plains Gopher

Great Plains Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,328
Reaction score
844
Points
113
The B10 must have plans for some kind of divisions, perhaps contingent on even more new members. Why can't they keep the East-West in the meantime? For balance, add Southern Cal, Washington and Oregon to the West, UCLA to the East, and slide Illinois over to the East. You can't get more "west" than Southern Cal, Washington and Oregon. The division championships mean a lot to fans.
 

Great Plains Gopher said:
The B10 must have plans for some kind of divisions, perhaps contingent on even more new members. Why can't they keep the East-West in the meantime? For balance, add Southern Cal, Washington and Oregon to the West, UCLA to the East, and slide Illinois over to the East. You can't get more "west" than Southern Cal, Washington and Oregon. The division championships mean a lot to fans.
Click to expand...
TV/Broadcast partners do not want Divisions.
 

By sliding over Illinois you lose the Illinois/NW rivalry unless you go to 10 conference games.
 




Just follow the money. It's always, always, always about the money; nothing more and nothing less.

Simple greed.

Nothing else matters. Not fans, not schools, not education. Certainly not tradition!

"Tradition": Ha! now there's a word. That is a word that will be relegated to irrelevance soon, if it hasn't been already. We live in a world that snickers at the concept.

Does anyone think that "traditional rivalries" will mean mean jack squat anymore, if those "traditional rivalries" can't produce a constant, firehose-like stream of big bucks for the Big Cigars?

Not. A. Chance.
 
Last edited:

Great Plains Gopher said:
The B10 must have plans for some kind of divisions, perhaps contingent on even more new members. Why can't they keep the East-West in the meantime? For balance, add Southern Cal, Washington and Oregon to the West, UCLA to the East, and slide Illinois over to the East. You can't get more "west" than Southern Cal, Washington and Oregon. The division championships mean a lot to fans.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but have no idea when. Didn't the no divisions push start before we added all the west coast teams because the three power teams in the east didn't like that only one of them could make the B1G championship game? Adding four strong programs from the west coast should help solve that problem, right?

I think TV will like having more fans of more programs engaged longer into the season. You do that with divisions or, even better, 4-5 team pods where even a team like Minnesota can be in the running for the pod title further into the year, at least some years. They do it in all professional sports and, let's face it, college football is going to look more like a pro sport in the future.

I still think players start getting paid and that will increase parity because TV money will be relatively evenly split. Another article about this just hit ESPN today.

"Huma, who has been at the forefront of the push for college athletes to receive more benefits and protections, conceded that only major college football and basketball players should be considered for employment status."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports...sed-employment-status-athletes-senate-hearing
 

SeaBee_Gopher said:
I agree with you, but have no idea when. Didn't the no divisions push start before we added all the west coast teams because the three power teams in the east didn't like that only one of them could make the B1G championship game? Adding four strong programs from the west coast should help solve that problem, right?

I think TV will like having more fans of more programs engaged longer into the season. You do that with divisions or, even better, 4-5 team pods where even a team like Minnesota can be in the running for the pod title further into the year, at least some years. They do it in all professional sports and, let's face it, college football is going to look more like a pro sport in the future.

I still think players start getting paid and that will increase parity because TV money will be relatively evenly split. Another article about this just hit ESPN today.

"Huma, who has been at the forefront of the push for college athletes to receive more benefits and protections, conceded that only major college football and basketball players should be considered for employment status."

https://www.espn.com/college-sports...sed-employment-status-athletes-senate-hearing
Click to expand...

I'm sorry; "pod" sounds ridiculous. This isn't Star Trek.

What is the difference between a"pod" and a division, in this scenario?
 

Murray is right to this extent:

TV wants the best possible matchup for marquee events.

looking at the history of the B1G Championship game-
in the "Legends and Leaders" era, Wisconsin won the first two B1G Championship games. MSU won the 3rd and final game under that format.

since the B1G went to East and West, the East team has won 9 consecutive games. 3 of the 9 were decided by 7 points or less, but the last 5 games were all decided by margins of 12 points or more. Michigan won the last 2 title games 42-3 and 43-22.

and only 4 of the 9 games featured matchups between two teams that were each top-10 rated in the country.

TV wants a competitive game between two good teams, and the B1G has not provided that on a consistent basis.

by going to no divisions, the top two teams in the regular season will meet in the championship game, and odds are pretty good they'll both be ranked highly. that's what TV wants, and that is what they'll get - because TV is paying for it.
 



Until they go to 20 teams.
20 teams is a perfect numbers to play divisions that rotate every year.

4 pools of 5
Play your pool plus one of the others. play everyone home and home in 6 years. Play 6 teams 6 times in 6 years.


Mathematically 18 is odd for divisions with 9 game schedule
 

Some guy said:
Until they go to 20 teams.
20 teams is a perfect numbers to play divisions that rotate every year.

4 pools of 5
Play your pool plus one of the others. play everyone home and home in 6 years. Play 6 teams 6 times in 6 years.


Mathematically 18 is odd for divisions with 9 game schedule
Click to expand...

Actually, Dude... "divisions" is not the preferred nomenclature. "Pods", please.
 


RememberMurray said:
Actually, Dude... "divisions" is not the preferred nomenclature. "Pods", please.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I actually think they’d still say top 2 in championship game
But would create closed loop round robins in the schedule
 



RememberMurray said:
Actually, Dude... "divisions" is not the preferred nomenclature. "Pods", please.
Click to expand...

Like pod people tv honchos are emotionless, passionless creatures bent on survival - and bottom lines. They will assimilate talking heads, podcasters (prescient), recruiting site dweebs, Athletic writers. What is good for the pod people is good for college football.
 


Elaboration the correct answer given by @Ope3 ,

Conf championship week the number of games suddenly drops way lower. Those college football eyes have to go somewhere, so it’s a great opportunity for a high ratings game.

TV partners have said “we’re not paying for Ohio State vs Purdue anymore!! Get outta here with that trash! We want your two best teams on the field!”

Really is just that simple.


They might split up into divisions and hell they may even hand out trophies to the division “winners”.

But unless there become conference playoffs , the champ game is always going to be our two “best” teams going forward. TV dictates it.
 

Another thing is how many conf games.

It really needs to go to 10.


But the Big Ten won’t do that if the SEC is going to stay at 8. They’ve been willing to go one more. But won’t do two more.
 

Given that the NFL attracts a lot of eyeballs (despite all evidence) and the two “best” teams (as would be voted on by polls - or a committee of former coaches and idiot athletic directors) don’t always make it to the Super Bowl I’m not as certain CFB will go the committee route if they can make 4 or 5 team divisions work, maybe a “wildcard round” is in CFB‘s future.
 

The entire argument against divisions (based on the relative weakness of the West teams) is destroyed when we’ll be adding 4 West coast teams that are all ranked in the top 25 this week. Shuffle NW and Illinois to the East and the West lineup stacks up nicely.
 

You have to do something though. The casual fans aren't going to pay attention when a team like Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, even Iowa and Wisconsin lose one game and essentially have ZERO chance to make the Big Ten Championship game because it will be some kind of a rotation of Ohio St, Michigan, USC, Penn St, Oregon in the conference championship every single season. The season is over at that point for all those teams except to "shoot for a better bowl game." You know if there is ever a tie breaking scenario it's going to be the conference choosing those guys with one loss over the middle to bottom guys all the time right?
 

goldenboy said:
The entire argument against divisions (based on the relative weakness of the West teams) is destroyed when we’ll be adding 4 West coast teams that are all ranked in the top 25 this week. Shuffle NW and Illinois to the East and the West lineup stacks up nicely.
Click to expand...
Our TV overlords are not going to accept USC-Iowa on a regular basis. These moves are 100% designed to get more blueblood/big market matchups meaning:
- USC
- Penn St
- Michigan
- OSU
- UCLA
- Oregon
As many times per year as possible.
 

Some guy said:
Until they go to 20 teams.
20 teams is a perfect numbers to play divisions that rotate every year.

4 pools of 5
Play your pool plus one of the others. play everyone home and home in 6 years. Play 6 teams 6 times in 6 years.


Mathematically 18 is odd for divisions with 9 game schedule
Click to expand...
Some guy said:
Yeah. I actually think they’d still say top 2 in championship game
But would create closed loop round robins in the schedule
Click to expand...
While you and I may think that's a great idea, I don't think the TV/Streaming partners and therefore the Conference have any desire for those types of models.

The only way it happens is if ratings tank in this upcoming 5 year cycle, in game attendance takes a massive hit or perhaps repeated failures in the CFP in terms of getting teams there and winning playoff games. That type of failure could cause the scheduling models to be changed.

Otherwise, everyone gets there protected 0-3 rivals, and that's it.
 

Ope3 said:
While you and I may think that's a great idea, I don't think the TV/Streaming partners and therefore the Conference have any desire for those types of models.

The only way it happens is if ratings tank in this upcoming 5 year cycle, in game attendance takes a massive hit or perhaps repeated failures in the CFP in terms of getting teams there and winning playoff games. That type of failure could cause the scheduling models to be changed.

Otherwise, everyone gets there protected 0-3 rivals, and that's it.
Click to expand...
0-3 protected rivals is not very different from 4 protected rivals. And in a 20 team league 4 protected rivals makes the math work so much easier and creates a better schedule for determining a champion.

I think it’s a no brainer at 20.
But there won’t be divisions. And top two will go to the championship. It’s just an easier scheduling model.
 

Some guy said:
0-3 protected rivals is not very different from 4 protected rivals. And in a 20 team league 4 protected rivals makes the math work so much easier and creates a better schedule for determining a champion.

I think it’s a no brainer at 20.
But there won’t be divisions. And top two will go to the championship. It’s just an easier scheduling model.
Click to expand...
I disagree that it's not very different. It wouldn't be for Iowa, but it would at least double the rivals for all the other current teams. There are not 2 additional teams that want to be locked into playing Ohio St, Michigan and perhaps USC every year or even 4-5 consecutive seasons.

Yes, the math is easer and a better schedule for determining a champion. TV/Broadcast partners I don't think give a rip about those things, currently. If ratings tank, then they would care.
 
Last edited:

Ope3 said:
I disagree that it's not very different. It wouldn't be for Iowa, but it would at least double the rivals for all the other current teams. There are not 2 additional teams that want to be locked into playing Ohio St, Michigan and perhaps USC every year or even 4-5 consecutive seasons.

Yes, the math is easer and a better schedule for determining a champion. TV/Broadcast partners I don't think give a rip about those things, currently. If ratings tank, then they would care.
Click to expand...
Yeah. But the reason TV cares is because they want everyone to play everyone.
And in that model, everyone would play everyone about the same amount.

USC would play Oregon 4 extra times in 6 years. Would play Indiana, Rutgers, Ohio state, and Iowa 1 less time each.
I think TV would like it better than the current model if the 4 groups each had at least 1-2 of the “powers” in it. And for sure at least 3 of the first 3 tiers in the group.



How I would rank the programs as of right now in terms of brand/market/football for tv (And what groups I see potential adds as in terms of football)

A group Ohio State-Michigan-USC (Notre Dame)

B group - Oregon-Penn State (Clemson, Florida State)

c group - Washington-Michigan State-Wisconsin-Iowa-Nebraska-UCLA (North Carolina, Miami)

D group - Minnesota-Maryland-Illinois (Utah (Utah is maybe C), Georgia Tech, Colorado, Virginia, Arizona State)

E group - Purdue-Indiana-Rutgers-Northwestern (Duke, Stanford, Cal, Arizona, Kansas)
 

My gripe is “what decides the top two?” The two highest rated teams (popularity, not necessarily performance)? Best conference record (when the strength of schedules can be so hard to compare)? Head to head (when they may not have played each other)? There will end up being a laundry list of tie-breakers to go through, and fans, teams, and networks will still feel like preferred title game matchups still didn’t happen. Divisions are simpler and (with the four new western teams) still can have great matchups in the title game.
To TheTurning: there will still be LOTS of games like USC-Iowa with no divisions. There will just be less title hope to play for down the stretch (except for 2-3 teams).
 

tmvander said:
You have to do something though. The casual fans aren't going to pay attention when a team like Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, even Iowa and Wisconsin lose one game and essentially have ZERO chance to make the Big Ten Championship game because it will be some kind of a rotation of Ohio St, Michigan, USC, Penn St, Oregon in the conference championship every single season. The season is over at that point for all those teams except to "shoot for a better bowl game." You know if there is ever a tie breaking scenario it's going to be the conference choosing those guys with one loss over the middle to bottom guys all the time right?
Click to expand...

I think the west coast teams are going to have a much more difficult time adapting to the B1G style of play and weather than people realize. Oregon will do the best IMO, but I don't think people should be so quick to pencil in USC as a contender. Washington is good now, but how good will they be next season after losing Penix?

Utah is the closest thing to a B1G team in the Pac12, and they've won the last two championships. USC has won it once over the last 14 years.
 
Last edited:

MplsGopher said:
Elaboration the correct answer given by @Ope3 ,

Conf championship week the number of games suddenly drops way lower. Those college football eyes have to go somewhere, so it’s a great opportunity for a high ratings game.

TV partners have said “we’re not paying for Ohio State vs Purdue anymore!! Get outta here with that trash! We want your two best teams on the field!”

Really is just that simple.


They might split up into divisions and hell they may even hand out trophies to the division “winners”.

But unless there become conference playoffs , the champ game is always going to be our two “best” teams going forward. TV dictates it.
Click to expand...
TV money dictates everything...
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
I think the west coast teams are going to have a much more difficult time adapting to the B1G style of play and weather than people realize. Oregon will do the best IMO, but I don't think people should be so quick to pencil in USC as a contender. Washington is good now, but how good will they be next season after losing Penix?

Utah is the closest thing to a B1G team in the Pac12, and they've won the last two championships. USC has won it once over the last 14 years.
Click to expand...
USC's short term success depends on whether Lincoln Riley follows Caleb Williams to the NFL.

That and the Trojans learning how to impede the opponents progress when heading toward the USC goal line with the football in their possession.
 

B1G Premier Division and B1G pathetic Division. Best team in the Premier division is crowned champion and gets auto playoff birth. 2nd and 3rd place play for the second playoff spot. Best team in Pathetic gets to play in some sort of Rose bowl type game. Bottom two teams in premier get relegated to pathetic division next year. Top two teams in pathetic division get promoted to premier division next year. 2 Protected rivalry games for each team. Add in Notre Dame eventually.


Premier:

Michigan
Penn State
Washington
Ohio State
Oregon
(Notre Dame)
USC
Iowa
UCLA


Pathetic:

Minnesota
Wisconsin
Maryland
Rutgers
Purdue
Illinois
MSU
Nebraska
Indiana
Northwestern
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom