Should the Big Ten get rid of divisions in football?

Donate To GopherHole

Obviously the current East teams (outside of Mich) would love to not have to play Ohio State every year.

But would any of the current West teams every make the conference title match again??


Another factor is, if conf champ games are deregulated like this, and with pressure to get multiple teams into the CFP, we could easily see the Big Ten, Big 12, and PAC 12 drop down to 8 conference games again, matching the SEC and ACC. TV contracts up for renewal could have this built in.

That would have the benefit of getting rid of unbalanced home/away conf schdules, as well.
 

Nope. Not until the SEC does.
End of discussion.
 


Still think the best format now that we have 14 teams in the big ten is to have 3 protected games that you play every year and then use the remaining 6 to rotate through the rest of the conference. That way you are going to play every other team home and away in just over three seasons...
 


swelna said:
Still think the best format now that we have 14 teams in the big ten is to have 3 protected games that you play every year and then use the remaining 6 to rotate through the rest of the conference. That way you are going to play every other team home and away in just over three seasons...
Click to expand...
Actually, this would work even better with 8 conf games.

14 teams, minus yourself is 13, then 3 protected games every year leaves 10 teams with 5 remaining conf games per year. So you'd see everyone else home/home every 4 years.

Hopefully, a lot of P5 teams would try to schedule inter-conference P5 vs P5 games with that freed up 9th game, similar to how Iowa-Iowa St play every year.


For Minnesota, I'd of course propose the three protected as Axe, Floyd, and Jug. Not sure if Mich feels the same, but maybe they'd see it as an "easy win".
 

That is the Catch-22 of a 2-division setup.

Unless you play a full round-robin schedule, there will always be arguments that Team A had an "easier" schedule than team B- or arguments that Division X was stronger than Division Y.

So, barring the B1G going to a 13-game conference schedule (which is, of course, impossible under the current system), you are always going to have debates about who deserves to play in a Conference Championship game.

For instance, let's say that the 'experts' all agree that MN and WI are the best two teams in the B1G.
MN beats WI in the regular season. Should they face each other again in the conference championship game? Or should MN play a team from the other division, even if that team is lower-ranked than WI?

At least with the 12-team national playoff format, a loss in the conference championship game will probably not knock a team out of contention for the playoffs, as long as that team is ranked high enough nationally.
 

MplsGopher said:
Actually, this would work even better with 8 conf games.

14 teams, minus yourself is 13, then 3 protected games every year leaves 10 teams with 5 remaining conf games per year. So you'd see everyone else home/home every 4 years.

Hopefully, a lot of P5 teams would try to schedule inter-conference P5 vs P5 games with that freed up 9th game, similar to how Iowa-Iowa St play every year.


For Minnesota, I'd of course propose the three protected as Axe, Floyd, and Jug. Not sure if Mich feels the same, but maybe they'd see it as an "easy win".
Click to expand...
I'd vote for the same, but like you said, I think Michigan would probably not want us as a protected matchup...I figure they would probably want OSU, Mich St, and Penn St; but who knows how it would actually play out. Barring Michigan, I would probably take Nebraska (I know, your least favorite :p) or Northwestern.
 

This is all to get the TV matchups and not teams that are deserving. I don't care if you are undefeated for the last 150 years, you loose to a 7-5 team in your conference title game and it was by 1 point, your out. It would be impossible to have two teams from the same conference in the playoffs. Take the conference champs and be done, no more beauty contests which is what it is today.
 



Eliminate non-conference entirely. Play all trophy games every season.

That would help solve a lot of the scheduling issues and bring back meaning to some games. We'd see a better product on the field as well.
 

Get rid of championship game, Winner of both divisions in the playoff at least every other year, couldn't get much better for the Gophers.
 

MplsGopher said:
The implication is that deregulation of how confs can select their title game combines with 12 team playoff, will cause all the P5 to get rid of divisions.
Click to expand...
Thamel is working with a few assumptions that have proven false. There is no evidence that there is any urgency to have a conference’s two best teams play each other (usually in what will be a re-match).

The SEC used divisions and an 8-game schedule to avoid having too many games between its best team, and this approach has directly resulted in more teams in the BCS championship game and the CFP.
 

swelna said:
I'd vote for the same, but like you said, I think Michigan would probably not want us as a protected matchup...I figure they would probably want OSU, Mich St, and Penn St; but who knows how it would actually play out. Barring Michigan, I would probably take Nebraska (I know, your least favorite :p) or Northwestern.
Click to expand...
If it couldn't be Michigan, I wouldn't vote Nebraska simply because we have no special history with them. I wouldn't want them just because they're western any more than I'd want Illinois for that reason.

They aren't a Big Ten team, they're a Big 8 team (like Iowa State).


Not sure who I'd vote for, in that case. Maybe Northwestern? Just because Chicago is a great city and can be good for recruiting, though not sure how connected public school kids in Chicago feel connected to it.

To be honest, I really don't feel anything special about any of the Big Ten teams outside of Iowa and Wisconsin, and Michigan because of the Jug. They're fine schools and all that, but they don't do anything for me in particular.
 



TruthSeeker said:
Eliminate non-conference entirely. Play all trophy games every season.

That would help solve a lot of the scheduling issues and bring back meaning to some games. We'd see a better product on the field as well.
Click to expand...
The core problem is always going to be the SEC and ACC.

They each have four teams that are locked into special intra-state battles, that have to be played every year: Kentucky-Louisville, South Carolina-Clemson, Georgia-GT, and Florida-Florida State.

We also have Iowa-Iowa State.


So mandating 12 conference games for all confs is always going to be a non-starter. The max would be 11, and that is an unbalanced schedule.

Plus all P5's have sort've self-dictated that they need 7 home games per year for their fans. So that puts an upper ceiling of 10 conf games (5 home/5 away), with 2 lower level buy home games every year.
 

Goldmember said:
Thamel is working with a few assumptions that have proven false. There is no evidence that there is any urgency to have a conference’s two best teams play each other (usually in what will be a re-match).

The SEC used divisions and an 8-game schedule to avoid having too many games between its best team, and this approach has directly resulted in more teams in the BCS championship game and the CFP.
Click to expand...
There are already plenty of rematches in conf championship games.

Would it be non-ideal to have Mich and Ohio State play for the champ in Indy the week after playing The Game? No question. But that might just be what it is, from time to time.


The history of divisions is merely one of TV money. As you noted, the SEC invented them. They were the first to expand to a number of members where you couldn't realistically do a round-robin. But more importantly, they wanted to hold a conf champ game. They were the first to invent that, and see the potential for it.

So at the time, people seemed agreeable to the idea of splitting the conf in half, making a round-robin within the division, and having the two division "winners" meet in the champ game, as this special "13th game" for those two teams.


But now, and especially with the 12 team playoff, there is too much at stake to risk something like an 8-4 division winner (say the star QB was out early, but they got hot later) upsetting a top 15 ranked team that won the other division, and thus knocking that team out of contention for an at-large bid.

Remember, ostensibly we're still talking about the top 12 teams in the country, like the NY6 is now. Granted, the lowest P5 champ and the top G5 champ could well be outside the top 12 in most years. But the last few years I will say the AAC (American) champ has been pretty damn good on the field (UCF, Memphis, Cincy, etc.).
 

TruthSeeker said:
Eliminate non-conference entirely. Play all trophy games every season.

That would help solve a lot of the scheduling issues and bring back meaning to some games. We'd see a better product on the field as well.
Click to expand...

Nah, I like going to see the Gophers play in new places. Colorado this year. North Carolina next year. BYU, Mississippi State, and Cal coming up. Oregon State and Colorado State a few years ago. Leave some non-conference games on the schedule for variety and something fresh.

Playing Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, and Michigan State every year wouldn't do much for me.
 

I like the divisions based on geography. Part of the fun of college football is traveling to road games. It makes it easier to do when you can make the drive within 1 day.
 


The FBS Championship should be a balanced 16 team championship, not an unbalanced 12 team playoff where 4 teams get a bye and only have to win 3 games vs. 4 to be champion. Huge advantage to the top 4. The champion will come from the top 4 90% of the time, not because they are better, but because they get to rest.

Additionally:
Conference championship games need to be eliminated.
Divisions within conferences are completely unnecessary, and create unfair advantages (see B1G west vs. east) for weaker divisions.
 

Herd said:
The FBS Championship should be a balanced 16 team championship, not an unbalanced 12 team playoff where 4 teams get a bye and only have to win 3 games vs. 4 to be champion. Huge advantage to the top 4. The champion will come from the top 4 90% of the time, not because they are better, but because they get to rest.

Additionally:
Conference championship games need to be eliminated.
Divisions within conferences are completely unnecessary, and create unfair advantages (see B1G west vs. east) for weaker divisions.
Click to expand...

But - if you eliminate divisions, the mega-conferences like the B1G or SEC will still not play true round-robin schedules. MN is not going to play every team in the league, so there will still be imbalances between teams. One team is going to claim they had a more difficult schedule because they had to play OSU while another team got to play Rutgers.

The only way to have a "true" conference champion, without divisions, is for every team to play every other team. that would mean reducing the size of conferences, or increasing the number of regular-season games.

Maybe someday, if there was realignment of P5 conferences, you could create new scheduling pods to have true round-robin schedules, but then what happens to the conference-based TV deals?
 

TruthSeeker said:
Eliminate non-conference entirely. Play all trophy games every season.

That would help solve a lot of the scheduling issues and bring back meaning to some games. We'd see a better product on the field as well.
Click to expand...
Terrible take, spoken like someone who's never been to a non-con road game.

Colorado this year and North Carolina in 2023 are going to be AWESOME!!
 


TruthSeeker said:
Eliminate non-conference entirely. Play all trophy games every season.

That would help solve a lot of the scheduling issues and bring back meaning to some games. We'd see a better product on the field as well.
Click to expand...
You mean like the B1G did this year in Baseball? How'd that go for the conf? Baaad Idea.
 

swelna said:
I'd vote for the same, but like you said, I think Michigan would probably not want us as a protected matchup...I figure they would probably want OSU, Mich St, and Penn St; but who knows how it would actually play out. Barring Michigan, I would probably take Nebraska (I know, your least favorite :p) or Northwestern.
Click to expand...
I think there is a case that Michigan would want us -- in a new format where getting the easiest conference games matter in order to make the title game I think we would be an attractive mate.
 

As Minnesota fans, we DO NOT want this. In a free-for-all we would face:

  • Diluting our longstanding, every year rivalries and trophy games. Playing for the most and best trophies anywhere in the NCAA is perhaps our most unique football tradition. We're also one of only two B1G schools that is a primary historic rival to two other Big Ten schools. Michigan is the other.
  • Murder schedules if we keep our rivalry games. Iowa and Wisconsin every year, plus more frequent dates with all the beasts of the East. Major disadvantage to schools with less competitive rivals.
  • Losing our most realistic path to the league title, by winning the less top heavy West and then the title game.
 

Get rid of Divisions for promotion/relegation. LOL.
 

The premise of this whole argument, to me, is incredibly ridiculous for an array of reasons. The circumstances in which the argument even come into play are infinitely small, ESPECIALLY in a 12 team playoff as is being proposed.
This idea that the best 2 teams may not play against each other in the title game truthfully will only be an issue in a tiny set of circumstances such as if, for example, OSU goes 12-0 and Mich goes 11-1 with a loss to OSU. OSU then goes to the title game and loses to, let's say, 8-4 MN. In that setting, Mich and OSU are probably both getting in as the rankings over the last several years had 3 loss teams in the top 12. If there are auto bids, MN and OSU (via head-to-head over Mich) are both getting in. In the setting that OSU is 11-1 (loss to let's say Oregon) and Mich is 11-1 (loss to OSU) followed by a loss again to 8-4 MN to finish 11-2, either OSU or Mich is getting in.
In truth, they're arguing hypotheticals that really will not be an issue for any of the P5. Someone is going to get in from every single P5 conference in a 12 team tournament.
 

fmlizard said:
As Minnesota fans, we DO NOT want this. In a free-for-all we would face:

  • Diluting our longstanding, every year rivalries and trophy games. Playing for the most and best trophies anywhere in the NCAA is perhaps our most unique football tradition. We're also one of only two B1G schools that is a primary historic rival to two other Big Ten schools. Michigan is the other.
  • Murder schedules if we keep our rivalry games. Iowa and Wisconsin every year, plus more frequent dates with all the beasts of the East. Major disadvantage to schools with less competitive rivals.
  • Losing our most realistic path to the league title, by winning the less top heavy West and then the title game.
Click to expand...
You are exactly correct .... and also this is exactly why it's going to happen.

Think about it for half a second: is it in the Big Ten's (financial) interests to do what's best for programs like Minnesota ... or what's best for Ohio St, Michigan, and Penn St?
 

upnorthkid said:
The premise of this whole argument, to me, is incredibly ridiculous for an array of reasons. The circumstances in which the argument even come into play are infinitely small, ESPECIALLY in a 12 team playoff as is being proposed.
This idea that the best 2 teams may not play against each other in the title game truthfully will only be an issue in a tiny set of circumstances such as if, for example, OSU goes 12-0 and Mich goes 11-1 with a loss to OSU. OSU then goes to the title game and loses to, let's say, 8-4 MN. In that setting, Mich and OSU are probably both getting in as the rankings over the last several years had 3 loss teams in the top 12. If there are auto bids, MN and OSU (via head-to-head over Mich) are both getting in. In the setting that OSU is 11-1 (loss to let's say Oregon) and Mich is 11-1 (loss to OSU) followed by a loss again to 8-4 MN to finish 11-2, either OSU or Mich is getting in.
In truth, they're arguing hypotheticals that really will not be an issue for any of the P5. Someone is going to get in from every single P5 conference in a 12 team tournament.
Click to expand...
You're making very legit points.

The real reason they want it is to have total control over the title game, to make sure something crazy like that can't happen, and also to make sure it is the most compelling TV matchup!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom