Thoughts on 1 Division?

[MaxyJR1]

Saw some chatter on Twitter about the B1G going back to one division of 14 teams. Maybe have the two divisions, but overall standings would not be split. This would allow the best two records and likely best match-up for title game. Thoughts?

 

[Some guy]

Saw some chatter on Twitter about the B1G going back to one division of 14 teams. Maybe have the two divisions, but overall standings would not be split. This would allow the best two records and likely best match-up for title game. Thoughts?

I think that definitely would’ve been smarter this year via the ACC/big 12 model.

If they ever did that, I would hope they would go 10 game conference schedule where everyone has 2 permanent locks.

I don’t like it because it would end up giving us more Rutgers and Maryland and less purdue, Illinois, Nebraska

 

[short ornery norwegian]

if they go that route, then dump the divisions. if a division title doesn't mean anything, there is no reason to have divisions.

I suppose you could use the divisions for scheduling purposes. Personally, if they dump the divisions, I would rather see a rotating schedule with maybe one designated matchup for a long-time rivalry.

Other than WI or IA, is there really a good reason that MN should play Purdue every year and only play Indiana once in a blue moon? I would rather see MN play teams like MSU or Ind more often.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

I like the divisions.

I worry about how rivalries would be preserved in one division..... the quadrangle must be preserved at all costs every year.


Also schedule balance will be a constant issue...


I prefer the straightforward nature of 'here's your division, win it'.

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

Other than WI or IA, is there really a good reason that MN should play Purdue every year and only play Indiana once in a blue moon? I would rather see MN play teams like MSU or Ind more often.

I watch to see how the handshake goes.

 

[Some guy]

if they go that route, then dump the divisions. if a division title doesn't mean anything, there is no reason to have divisions.

Pretty sure that’s the premise of the OP

 

[gopherjay]

As a regular attendee in Indy for the BIG championship, one division would suck. It would add to the already farcical thing called the CFP.

 

[MNVCGUY]

I like the divisions.

I worry about how rivalries would be preserved in one division..... the quadrangle must be preserved at all costs every year.


Also schedule balance will be a constant issue...


I prefer the straightforward nature of 'here's your division, win it'.

For the mess that was 2020, one big division might have made sense. But going forward I like the way things are setup.

The West has the potential to be a really fun division with a bunch of teams that can all compete year in and year out.

Unlike the East where there are teams that are essentially eliminated before the season even starts most years.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

No

 

[A_Slab_of_Bacon]

For the mess that was 2020, one big division might have made sense. But going forward I like the way things are setup.

The West has the potential to be a really fun division with a bunch of teams that can all compete year in and year out.

Unlike the East where there are teams that are essentially eliminated before the season even starts most years.

As a general rule very little from 2020 do I say "hey let's do that again!" about.

I don't blame them for their choices in 2020, but let's not do that again

 

[Word]

My gut feeling is going to one division would hurt fan interest, but what do I know.
The chances of us getting into the top 2 of the Big Ten are lower than us winning the west. I think there are a few teams in the same boat as us. If your fan base doesn't ever think you have a chance, they could lose interest. Like if the Twins were in the Yankees division, we'd be the Orioles...

 

[Some guy]

Saw some chatter on Twitter about the B1G going back to one division of 14 teams. Maybe have the two divisions, but overall standings would not be split. This would allow the best two records and likely best match-up for title game. Thoughts?

If the big ten ever added two more teams I think they’d go to 4 scheduling pods and one big set of standings with top 2 going to game.

Nebraska
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa

michigan
Michigan state
Northwestern
Illinois

Indiana
Purdue
Ohio state
New team

Maryland
Rutgers
Penn state
New team




Play the 3 in your pod. 1 full other pod
Plus 1 team from the other two pods.



actually in that scheduling model we would see the 3 teams in our pod every year plus the other teams in our conference more often than we currently see the other division teams we aren’t locked with.
In 3 years you’d play every team in the conference at least once.
In 6 years you’d play every team in the conference at least once at home.
and for all but 2 schools you’d see them more than that.


that schedule design would also make it
mathematically impossible to have more than 2 unbeatens in a 9 game conference schedule even with 16 teams.

 

[tmvander]

I think it becomes problematic when looking at potential tie breakers with no head to head and not the same opponent list. If it comes down to decision making of any kind a 7-2 Michigan or Penn St or Wisconsin will always go to the game over a team like Minnesota or Purdue, Northwestern, etc.

 

[Some guy]

I think it becomes problematic when looking at potential tie breakers with no head to head and not the same opponent list. If it comes down to decision making of any kind a 7-2 Michigan or Penn St or Wisconsin will always go to the game over a team like Minnesota or Purdue, Northwestern, etc.

Yeah.

honestly, I don’t know league rules on how to change division alignment...but if it is league vote... it should never change. Nobody in the west should ever vote against it. Nor should Michigan Ohio state or penn state

The divisions are set up so the 7 west teams all have a shot for major success.

it is set up so the big 3 in the east should get 4 easy wins a year (they didn’t take care of business this year)

 

[kisarazu]

These ideas happen because they don't want Northwestern being in the championship. They want OSU and Mich.

 

[bonin21]

I don’t like it because it would end up giving us more Rutgers and Maryland and less purdue, Illinois, Nebraska

Meh, oh darn.

In the end I wouldn't care too much about this as it makes it more difficult for uw and that is always a good thing.

 

[Taji34]

I'm sorta indifferent.

On one hand, it means playing Michigan, OSU, and Penn State more often which I like. On the other hand, it may mean not playing Iowa some years (unless there are 2 protected rivalries?) which would be a bummer.

Also not a fan of only 2 OOC games, but can't see how we'd do 1 division without jumping to 10 conference games total.

 

[Some guy]

I'm sorta indifferent.

On one hand, it means playing Michigan, OSU, and Penn State more often which I like. On the other hand, it may mean not playing Iowa some years (unless there are 2 protected rivalries?) which would be a bummer.

Also not a fan of only 2 OOC games, but can't see how we'd do 1 division without jumping to 10 conference games total.

I don’t think the big ten will lose divisions unless they add more teams.

 

[die hard gopher]

The the about divisions I don't like is that there are several Big Ten teams we only play once every 3 years and it feels like we aren't even in the same conference. When we play OSU or Indiana, it almost feels like it is a big non conference game.

That just isn't right when we have all been in the same conference for over 100 years, we need to play those teams more than once every 3-4 years.

 

[MplsGopher]

Divisions made perfect sense when the SEC invented them, I think back in 1992.

If your conference has grown so large that a round-robin isn't feasible, then split it in half, with each half playing a round-robin amongst itself, and then the two group winners face off in a championship.


That was the model everyone went to. And mostly still do.


I remain unconvinced that there are valid benefits to the single division/two best model.


This year, it would've "allowed" the Big Ten to select Ohio St and Indiana to have a rematch in Indy.

For me, that isn't a valid way to do it. But, that is a subjective discussion.



Ultimately, this is likely to mean fewer championship appearances for western Big Ten teams, and more games between the elite Ohio St, Michigan, and Penn St.


So I vote no.

 

[swelna]

If the big ten got rid of divisions, I'd only like it if there were 2 or 3 protected games so that we could for sure play Iowa and Wisconsin every year and then maybe play nebraska or michigan every year if there was a third protected game. As is we don't see the teams in the east nearly as much and if we had more games to rotate teams out with that would be nice.

 

[MplsGopher]

The the about divisions I don't like is that there are several Big Ten teams we only play once every 3 years and it feels like we aren't even in the same conference. When we play OSU or Indiana, it almost feels like it is a big non conference game.

That just isn't right when we have all been in the same conference for over 100 years, we need to play those teams more than once every 3-4 years.

I have literally zero interest in ever playing Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, or Penn St in the regular season. These schools are quite a far ways away, and all but Mich St are vastly more elite programs beyond our level.

We need to be playing the Iowa, Iowa State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana's of the world. Those are our real football peers.

 

[Great Plains Gopher]

Saw some chatter on Twitter about the B1G going back to one division of 14 teams. Maybe have the two divisions, but overall standings would not be split. This would allow the best two records and likely best match-up for title game. Thoughts?

Not a good idea. There has to be a strong incentive in each half of the conference to win that half and go to the championship game. A single list would be like CA's "jungle primary,' which eliminates one entire competitor. The East would win most of the time.

 

[die hard gopher]

I have literally zero interest in ever playing Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, or Penn St in the regular season. These schools are quite a far ways away, and all but Mich St are vastly more elite programs beyond our level.

We need to be playing the Iowa, Iowa State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana's of the world. Those are our real football peers.

I mean Michigan is a charter member of the Big Ten. We have been in the same conference with them for 124 years. We have the oldest trophy in college football with them. We should be playing a team like that more than 1 in 3 years. It use to be considered a rivalry game before the East and West divisions. If playing those teams more often results in an additional loss then so be it. The wins can feel hollow anyways when we have a shedule like we had in 2016 anyways.

There is too much tradition that the divisions uproot IMO.

 

[howeda7]

Keep the division schedules, merge the standings IMO.

 

[Ope3]

The Big 10 West is O-fer in the Title game, 0-7. Some of the games have been competitive, but at some point the TV partners are going to want something more than a coronation of the Big 10 East as the overall Champ.

Granted, this set up as probably helped get teams (mostly Ohio St) into the CFP.

The whole Championship Game itself could go by the wayside if the CFP expands to 8 teams (or more).

 

[bonin21]

Keep the division schedules, merge the standings IMO.

What does that accomplish?

 

[howeda7]

What does that accomplish?

You let the 2nd best team into the Championship, even if it's Penn State or Michigan vs OSU. Either that or just stipulate that the two highest ranked teams in the BCS rankings go to the championship game.

 

[PMWinSTP]

The the about divisions I don't like is that there are several Big Ten teams we only play once every 3 years and it feels like we aren't even in the same conference. When we play OSU or Indiana, it almost feels like it is a big non conference game.

That just isn't right when we have all been in the same conference for over 100 years, we need to play those teams more than once every 3-4 years.

It's a function of adding teams to the conference. Doesn't change with no divisions. Too many teams and not enough games. Eliminating all nonconference games would help but I don't see that happening, as it would probably lead to the elimination of more than a few G5 programs, and there would be no P5 cross conference games.

 

[Bob_Loblaw]

The Big 10 West is O-fer in the Title game, 0-7. Some of the games have been competitive, but at some point the TV partners are going to want something more than a coronation of the Big 10 East as the overall Champ.

Granted, this set up as probably helped get teams (mostly Ohio St) into the CFP.

The whole Championship Game itself could go by the wayside if the CFP expands to 8 teams (or more).

That's largely because of Ohio State being better than everyone. The two other years were fantastic games. Since the end of the Legends/Leaders, Ohio State has lost a total of 4 Big 10 games (Michigan State, Penn State, Purdue, and Iowa). This isn't an East dominating the West thing, it's an Ohio State thing.