Iowa AD says floating scrapping divisions

Donate To GopherHole
S

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
22,579
Reaction score
11,805
Points
113
8 games with 3 permanent opponents. 5 and 5 the other 10 to swap years to get a round robin in half the conference to eliminate the possibility of 3 unbeatens.

play everyone in the conference twice in 4 years. 3 locks every year.

8 conference games.



I wonder what happens when they find out that is the same thing as divisions and that whoever you put in a round robin is in a division with each other? Maybe it sells more to have divisions without calling them that? Idk?
 


I personally think this is posturing for some reason.

I don’t really get how scrapping divisional set up:
1) Makes the big ten more money
2) gives the big ten a better shot at more playoff teams in a 4 team playoff
3) gives the big ten a better shot at more playoff teams in a 12 team playoff


I would argue in a 4, 6, or 8…it reduces the chance of 2 teams in the playoff and doesn’t change the chances of 1
 

It's simply to balance and quiet the people who say the divisions aren't fair. One division puts all the teams in the same tie-breaking formula. You can't make everyone happy with a 14 team conference.
 



I kind of like the idea of ACC/PAC games in the mix. Who would our 3 guaranteed opponents be? Wisco, Iowa, ???
 

I don't hate this idea, as long as the 3 locks keep the quadrangle of hate intact, although I would miss the Purdue rivalry that's been building up.

It would be funny if they scrap the divisions right as the Gophers are on the cusp of winning the West.
 

TurfGopher said:
I kind of like the idea of ACC/PAC games in the mix. Who would our 3 guaranteed opponents be? Wisco, Iowa, ???
Click to expand...
Nebraska???

I like the idea of the ACC/PAC games too. I don’t really care if they keep the divisions or not, but the divisions, as long as everyone’s final game of the year is in-division, keeps you from having a rematch on back to back weeks in the Big 10 title game.
 

ZachRE said:
I don't hate this idea, as long as the 3 locks keep the quadrangle of hate intact, although I would miss the Purdue rivalry that's been building up.

It would be funny if they scrap the divisions right as the Gophers are on the cusp of winning the West.
Click to expand...
Would be the most Minnesota thing ever.
 



The ACC and PAC games are part of the alliance agreement that has been stated, and they've already mentioned that with the alliance we'd go back to 8 conference games, so that schools in all three conferences could have 2 non-P5 non-conference games if desired.

All in all I wouldn't mind getting rid of divisions too much, but I do think the championship game could become a bit more boring if it starts to be rematches of earlier games too often.
 

TurfGopher said:
I kind of like the idea of ACC/PAC games in the mix. Who would our 3 guaranteed opponents be? Wisco, Iowa, ???
Click to expand...
Iowa and Wisconsin would be locks as 2 of the 3. 3rd game would be interesting to see who we would end up with. Michigan for the historical rivalry.....Penn State for the fake trophy game....Nebraska....Northwestern?
 


Some guy said:
I personally think this is posturing for some reason.

I don’t really get how scrapping divisional set up:
1) Makes the big ten more money
2) gives the big ten a better shot at more playoff teams in a 4 team playoff
3) gives the big ten a better shot at more playoff teams in a 12 team playoff


I would argue in a 4, 6, or 8…it reduces the chance of 2 teams in the playoff and doesn’t change the chances of 1
Click to expand...
I feel like I have had this discussion about eliminating Big 10 Divisions in another thread within the past couple of weeks, but was summarily dismissed by someone or some guy...:unsure:

The answer to #1 is likely a more attractive match up in the Championship game, flexibility to schedule better games amongst teams currently restricted by East-West divisions and games outside the conference.

#2 & #3 aren't really able to be determined until the BCS Playoff format is decided. Will there be Auto Qualifiers for instance?
 



Taji34 said:
The ACC and PAC games are part of the alliance agreement that has been stated, and they've already mentioned that with the alliance we'd go back to 8 conference games, so that schools in all three conferences could have 2 non-P5 non-conference games if desired.

All in all I wouldn't mind getting rid of divisions too much, but I do think the championship game could become a bit more boring if it starts to be rematches of earlier games too often.
Click to expand...
People keep saying it’s better to play the “top 2” but the big 12 literally has screwed itself using that model. I don’t get it. No one has explained how it is beneficial.

Meanwhile, if the model was in place last year it would’ve been funny to see Michigan lose to Ohio state in the big ten title game the week after beating them.
 

Ope3 said:
I feel like I have had this discussion about eliminating Big 10 Divisions in another thread within the past couple of weeks, but was summarily dismissed by someone or some guy...:unsure:

The answer to #1 is likely a more attractive match up in the Championship game, flexibility to schedule better games amongst teams currently restricted by East-West divisions and games outside the conference.

#2 & #3 aren't really able to be determined until the BCS Playoff format is decided. Will there be Auto Qualifiers for instance?
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s happening.
I think it’s being “discussed”

And I think it’s being discussed so when people complain they can say we looked into it and it isn’t better. There is a reason there is only one conference doing it that way and that conference is falling apart.

As for the more important matchup. Yeah. It makes big ten championship rating better maybe.
It makes osu vs Michigan worse rating.
it makes Mn vs wisconsin worse rating.
It makes WI vs Iowa worse rating.

So it does increase the intrigue of one game. But it decreases the importance of multiple games. I don’t know enough about tv contracts to know what that means for tv money.

As for auto bid scenario. It is worse in auto bid scenario because an auto bid is an auto bid and it guarantees the highest ranked team without an auto bid has an extra loss. At best you break even.

as for no auto bid scenario, again you guarantee one of your top 2 an extra loss

At best you break even. At worst you hurt yourself. It probably is pretty random whether you break even or hurt yourself from year to year. I wouldn’t argue you hurt yourself always. I can’t think of one scenario that it helps the conference get multiple bids.
 
Last edited:

So this sounds like the idea of pods instead of divisions. Im guessing all 4 of Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Minnesota are going to be together because of rivalry games/trophies.
 

Some guy said:
People keep saying it’s better to play the “top 2” but the big 12 literally has screwed itself using that model. I don’t get it. No one has explained how it is beneficial.

Meanwhile, if the model was in place last year it would’ve been funny to see Michigan lose to Ohio state in the big ten title game the week after beating them.
Click to expand...
I think its an "in theory" better, as you would think a tougher matchup would hold more wieght. But as we've seen, the powers that be in the CFP rankings value a blowout win in a bad matchup over a close fought win in a tough matchup.
 


Something like this would also make it easier, in theory, to come up with a top to bottom ranking of the B1G I believe, since there would theoretically be a greater likelihood that teams who didn't play, but have the same record played common opponents. I believe the alliance floated that the non-conference games would be a match up ranking wise in conference (1st in B1G plays 1st in ACC and PAC12, 2nd plays 2nd, etc).
 

Some guy said:
I don’t think it’s happening.
I think it’s being “discussed”

And I think it’s being discussed so when people complain they can say we looked into it and it isn’t better. There is a reason there is only one conference doing it that way and that conference is falling apart.

As for the more important matchup. Yeah. It makes big ten championship rating better maybe.
It makes osu vs Michigan worse rating.
it makes Mn vs wisconsin worse rating.
It makes WI vs Iowa worse rating.

So it does increase the intrigue of one game. But it decreases the importance of multiple games. I don’t know enough about tv contracts to know what that means for tv money.
Click to expand...
I disagree, it's doesn't get "floated" to this degree and with this much detail unless there is huge momentum. The entities writing the checks (TV/Broadcast partners actual) want it, so it will likely happen.

What if OSU and Michigan gets moved to a Prime Time Saturday night in early October? Think that would garner a bigger rating than currently as Noon late November kick-off?

The answer to most questions is MONEY.
 


Ope3 said:
I disagree, it's doesn't get "floated" to this degree and with this much detail unless there is huge momentum. The entities writing the checks (TV/Broadcast partners actual) want it, so it will likely happen.

What if OSU and Michigan gets moved to a Prime Time Saturday night in early October? Think that would garner a bigger rating than currently as Noon late November kick-off?

The answer to most questions is MONEY.
Click to expand...
There is almost no detail. So I don’t know what you mean by level of detail.

the OSU Michigan game for a division title at noon in November probably gets more eyeballs than any time slot in October. I don’t know that but I think you’re making some big assumptions.

I’ve yet to have anyone explain to me how it makes more money.

if it does, you’re right, they will probably eventually switch to it. But I don’t think it’s as obvious as you do that it makes more money.
 

Ope3 said:
Add 2 teams. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
You said it’s all about money, so why would they do something stupid like that?
This post directly contradicts your post that it’s all about money?

Do you mean all about total money? Or money per school?

money per school is what matters
 

Does 1 division keep Ohio State from winning 90% of the time? Probably not. Obviously Minnesota benefits greatly from being outside of a division with Penn Sate, Ohio State, and Michigan. But the path to a championship still ultimately goes through them.

But I don't think 1 division gives any better odds to Penn State, Michigan, or Michigan State. It just gives the perception that it's more "balanced" when in reality no matter what you do Ohio State still wins.
 

TurfGopher said:
I kind of like the idea of ACC/PAC games in the mix. Who would our 3 guaranteed opponents be? Wisco, Iowa, ???
Click to expand...
The 3rd should be Michigan. Otherwise just throw the jug in the trash. The crippling of the jug has been the worst thing about divisions. If you scrap divisions, bring the jug back to prominence.
 

I like the idea of 8 Big Ten games + 2 Alliance games, so presumably 1 PAC + 1 ACC per year. Maybe Iowa can substitute Iowa State for one game per year.

Gives 5 home + 5 away, balanced, every year, rather than 4/5 and 5/4 every other year with nine Big Ten conf games.

I like the idea if having three rivals yearly, the obvious three for us being Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan.

I like the idea of getting to see all 10 other conf teams every two years.

Only potential sticking point for me is: how would they do the Conf Championship Game? Does anyone really want it to be a turn-around rematch, one week later, of Ohio St vs Mich??

And isn't the NCAA rule now that if you have more than 10 teams, you have to have divisions to hold a CCG?


@Some guy when you said "to get a round robin in half the conference to eliminate the possibility of 3 unbeatens", what did you mean by that? I didn't see anything about that in the link. Just curious, thanks.
 

mnsportsgeek said:
The 3rd should be Michigan. Otherwise just throw the jug in the trash. The crippling of the jug has been the worst thing about divisions. If you scrap divisions, bring the jug back to prominence.
Click to expand...
I mean, If the third team was Nebraska instead of Michigan, the Jug game is still played more often than now, with the proposal you play everyone outside your 3 "rivals" twice in 4 years, so we would play michigan about every other year, which is better than it is now...
 

My senseless two cents:

1. Kick Maryland and Rutgers out, just because. My excitement level for playing these schools in any sport, be it FB, BB, VB, baseball, or whatever is never very high.

2. Two crossover games with PAC/ACC...one game with an opposing conferences' equivalent (e.g. - Big Ten team with a shitty record plays an ACC team with a somewhat equivalent shitty record, or conference standing). The other game with a team from the other conference with an opposite record (e.g. - last place Big Ten teams plays a first place PAC team). Then switch it around the next year - shitty B1G team plays shitty PAC team and a good ACC team. This way lower teams have a shot at one victory and higher teams probably get a victory but also have a chance to build a resume with a good win in the other game. A win for anyone is good since its a P5 team, is that right?
Either way everyone is playing P5 teams, which I find more exciting regardless.

3. Schedule the one or two non-conf. games as usual with the directional schools or the Chucky Fucker States or whatever.

FWIW...Personally, I would like it if P5 schools never played G5 or FCS schools but I know that will never happen. Does anyone else feel the same way?
 

mnsportsgeek said:
Does 1 division keep Ohio State from winning 90% of the time? Probably not. Obviously Minnesota benefits greatly from being outside of a division with Penn Sate, Ohio State, and Michigan. But the path to a championship still ultimately goes through them.

But I don't think 1 division gives any better odds to Penn State, Michigan, or Michigan State. It just gives the perception that it's more "balanced" when in reality no matter what you do Ohio State still wins.
Click to expand...
I think one division actually hurts Michigan state, Michigan, and Penn state. Their schedules will get marketably tougher…especially if Ohio state is a locked opponent for any of them
 

Some guy said:
You said it’s all about money, so why would they do something stupid like that?
This post directly contradicts your post that it’s all about money?

Do you mean all about total money? Or money per school?

money per school is what matters
Click to expand...
More money from the TV/Broadcast partners, BTN Subscribers, corporate sponsors etc, but you are correct it has to offset the diluted shares...so it needs to be bigger fish than Iowa St or Kansas St. No argument there.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom