Gophers_4life
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,846
- Reaction score
- 3,986
- Points
- 113
Sure, I buy that.
I was talking about "guaranteed" types of games. Not "de facto", but I agree your point is valid.
Iowa AD says floating scrapping divisions
- Thread starter Some guy
- Start date
I was talking about "guaranteed" types of games. Not "de facto", but I agree your point is valid.
to me it depends on how many at largest.
If its 12 or 16 with 5 auto bids for P5 champs, divisions are actually advantageous to getting more teams in
Gophers_4life
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,846
- Reaction score
- 3,986
- Points
- 113
I think it's either going to be what the expansion committee recommended back last summer, or it's going to be stay at what we have now.
What they recommended is the only thing that the SEC and G5 will vote for. That is, 12 team bracket with 6 highest ranked conf champions getting auto bids.
The Alliance wants P5 auto bids. This is the sticking point. I think they've also said they want an 8 team bracket instead of 12, but my guess is they'd compromise on this bit for the higher payout.
From what I understand, it takes both of at least 3 out of the 5 P5 confs voting for a new agreement, as well as 8 out of 11 total votes (P5 + G5 + Notre Dame, are the total votes).
What they recommended is the only thing that the SEC and G5 will vote for. That is, 12 team bracket with 6 highest ranked conf champions getting auto bids.
The Alliance wants P5 auto bids. This is the sticking point. I think they've also said they want an 8 team bracket instead of 12, but my guess is they'd compromise on this bit for the higher payout.
From what I understand, it takes both of at least 3 out of the 5 P5 confs voting for a new agreement, as well as 8 out of 11 total votes (P5 + G5 + Notre Dame, are the total votes).
It’s going to stay where it is until the end of the contract. Because to end early it needs to be unanimous and some of the leagues have distinctly different interests than others
Gophers_4life
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,846
- Reaction score
- 3,986
- Points
- 113
Correct, I'm talking about about the next round starting I believe with the 2026 postseason.
Ope3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 8,647
- Reaction score
- 6,322
- Points
- 113
Yes, but that could conflict with having the Big 10 Champion get seeded high enough for Byes and/or Home games.
Maybe. The payouts are going to be more about having teams qualify than home games. So yeah it’s going to be impossible to say until the new format comes out
In most scenarios, giving the second best team in the conference a guaranteed extra loss isn’t going to ever be a benefit
1 vs 2 rematch there is no upside UNLESS it causes the best team in the league to get in when they wouldn’t have otherwise.
Like an Ohio state Michigan rematch might have been good this year so Ohio state beats Michigan and keeps Michigan out to keep them from embarrassing the conference
fmlizard
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,899
- Reaction score
- 6,561
- Points
- 113
I haven't read in a few pages but I'll say my usual piece when this comes up. The end of divisions is bad for Gopher football for two reasons:
The West is easier to reach the top of because it doesn't have Ohio State. All other schools like wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Penn State, etc are equal but not having Ohio State until a conference title game is a big benefit.
Any no-divisions format would have rules that preserve rivalry games. Minnesota's rivalries (trophy games) are with all the (historically) best teams in the conference sans Ohio State. We would certainly have a protected game with wisconsin and probably Iowa as well. So the Gophers would have a hardcore schedule most years unless one of them goes into a down period.
If I were the Indiana AD I would be wearing NO DIVISIONS on a t-shirt at every league meeting because I get Purdue and Illinois every year and get out of the East.
The West is easier to reach the top of because it doesn't have Ohio State. All other schools like wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, Penn State, etc are equal but not having Ohio State until a conference title game is a big benefit.
Any no-divisions format would have rules that preserve rivalry games. Minnesota's rivalries (trophy games) are with all the (historically) best teams in the conference sans Ohio State. We would certainly have a protected game with wisconsin and probably Iowa as well. So the Gophers would have a hardcore schedule most years unless one of them goes into a down period.
If I were the Indiana AD I would be wearing NO DIVISIONS on a t-shirt at every league meeting because I get Purdue and Illinois every year and get out of the East.
The only way no divisions helps the gophers is if there are unbalanced schedules that don’t contain two self contained round robins (aka divisional scheduling) because of a scenario exists where 3 teams go unbeaten in the same season…that means co championships are a thing.
2 of Barry Alvarez’ conference titles were tri championships. One of them he didn’t have a win against either of the other two.
Purdue’s last title was split 3 ways as was the one before that (1967)
Indiana’s last title 3 way split
Danionio’s first title was a two way split
Iowa hasn’t won a solo big ten title since 1985
People say it’s easier to win the big ten for the gophers now. That’s flat out false. It is harder. It is easier to get CLOSE now. But to win the big ten title now you are essentially required to beat the second best team in the conference.
In 1998 and 2000 27% of the conference was conference champs.
In 1990 40% of the conference was able to claim a conference title
Gophers_4life
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,846
- Reaction score
- 3,986
- Points
- 113
I think these points are mostly right.
The viewpoint it may be overlooking, which may not be a very good viewpoint, is the one that says "1v2 maximizes the ratings for the champ game, making it the most valuable, so that's what we'll do".
You've already made the argument that doing that could in turn devalue a lot of other late/last week type of games, when they would've been meaningful for who makes the champ game in the current format.
Gophers_4life
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,846
- Reaction score
- 3,986
- Points
- 113
I get what you're saying.
But it seems to be a bit of a technicality, that multiple teams could claim they were "Big Ten Champions" in the same year 19xx. Such a thing of course can't happen now, so it doesn't seem comparable.
It’s not comparable but all those teams still get to hang a banner
Purdue and Northwestern still have big ten titles banners that say 2000 on them
Gophers_4life
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,846
- Reaction score
- 3,986
- Points
- 113
2000 is an interesting year to look at.
Big Ten was at 11 with Penn St, and there were only 11 games back then so 8 conf/3 non-conf. Each team didn't play two others.
Purdue got to go to the Rose Bowl, which they lost to #4 Washington. Drew Brees final year. They did not play Iowa or Illinois, which were near the bottom. Beat Michigan by 1 at home, beat NW on the road.
NW went to the Alamo Bowl and got stomped by #9 Nebraska. Did not play Penn St (middle) and Ohio St (one loss behind top group). Beat Michigan at home by 3 and lost at Purdue.
Michigan went to the Citrus Bowl and beat Auburn. Did not play Iowa (bottom middle) and Minnesota (middle ... no Jug???). Lost at Purdue by 1 and at NW by 3.
To me the obvious pretender is NW. Between Mich and Purdue, probably Mich was actually the better team, but shoulda,coulda,woulda doesn't count. Had their two chances to take it outright and didn't.
So in this scenario, I declare that Purdue, indeed as the Rose Bowl representative, is the only true team that should get to raise a banner for 2000.
Would've been correct in my opinion if the conf had a rule that only the Rose Bowl rep is the conf champ.
I disagree. Barry Alvarez literally built his program on shared titles.
Shared titles are shared titles.
If you’re tied in standings you’re tied in standings. And with unbalanced schedules it is never a fair comparison. If the gophers won a shared title we Could have and would have hung a banner.
Should Minnesota take down their 1967 banner because Indiana went to the Rose Bowl?
Gophers_4life
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 15,846
- Reaction score
- 3,986
- Points
- 113
Fair viewpoint.
I don't know that I agree that BA was able to get players to come to Madison that would allow him to do what he did, because he could say "we shared the conference title" as opposed to "we had the same record as the conf champion". But, not worth arguing about. I can't prove it.