ssckelley
Well-Known Member
With a conference championship game it is, they haven’t had that for 100 years.
BT Football Reorganization
- Thread starter HuckFinn
- Start date
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
How do you decide that? OSU and Michigan are undefeated going into their game and OSU wins by 1. Iowa goes undefeated, but doesn't have to play OSU, Mich, or PSU. Or if we play one of them, etc.
Fryowa
Administrator
I may be completely wrong, but I haven't read anything that says if they get rid of divisions they'd continue to have a conference championship game.
Fryowa
Administrator
This x 100.
The East is 77-70 vs West since 2014. That's fairly even, but the point remains that the top 3 teams in the East are much, much better than the top 3 in the West. There's really no point in arguing that Illinois and Nebraska are better than Rutgers and Maryland or vice versa. But it's not deniable that OSU and Michigan are WAY better teams than Wisconsin and Iowa, yet our division has to play those teams only sparingly. That's not a level playing field. Over the space of 4-5 years each B1G team should have to play every other team a roughly equal number of times. That's fair.
The people whining about divisions going away are doing so because they don't want Iowa to play OSU as often as Indiana or Rutgers, simple as that. That's kinda chicken shit.
They have a better winning % against tOSU than most teams do.
I haven't seen anything either. But I think there is about a 1% chance of doing away with a CCG. There is too much money in it, from the gate and TV rights.
HuckFinn
Well-Known Member
I would be fine if Iowa played OSU every year. I would not care if we never played Rutgers again.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I already said that a format like the B12 has is dumb. The only reason why the B12 doesn't have divisions is because they only have 10 teams, so now the B10 with 14 teams needs to copy that?
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
Bullshit! I wouldn't care if Ohio State was Iowa's cross over game every year.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I don't get the question. The divisions are set up geographically, which is awesome for B10 football fans. Every year Iowa gets to play their border rivals and in the East they get their tOSU/Michigan matchups, after the regular season is over the East champ plays the West champ. I don't get why it needs to be fixed as to me it's not broken.
I want more conference games not less, if they want to schedule more alliance games then use the 3 non conference games everyone has to do just that. I don't need to see Iowa play Kent State, Colorado State, or North Dakota State in the non conference games. Bring Oregon into Kinnick!
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
Agreed. Iowa should play Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Northwestern every year. We had something like a 6 year stretch where we didn't play Illinois and I think we had a stretch with multiple consecutive games in Kinnick against Northwestern (which we naturally lost). I'm sure that in whatever they want to do at best they will protect 2 or 3 games, but I don't like that.
Fourteen Big 10 teams makes two divisions almost essential as it gives a few more teams a chance to have something to play for later into the year.
Just look at the excitement this last season as 4 teams, purdue, minny, wisky and Iowa still had a chance with 2 games to play and maybe all 4 going into the last weekend. Iowa with the great comeback victory I think knocked out Minny and Purdue but we had to wait until late Saturday for Minny's win over wisky for it all to be done.
And I just hate the idea of losing a Big 10 regular season game each year and replacing it with maybe a pac12 or acc team which is not a done deal.
I say go to 10 big ten games and F the rest of them, drop a lousy matchup non conf game.
Now if the Big 10 adds 2 teams then go to 4 divisions with the top 4 doing a two week playoff or the top two in each division going into an 8 team playoff.
Fryowa
Administrator
That's an exaggeration. The only teams added since PSU 31 years ago are Maryland, nebraska, and Rutgers. None of them are contenders. It's essentially still the original 11 team league since 1990 with 3 extra bottom-feeders.
Adding games from the P12 and ACC would be refreshing and a lot of fun. I'd much rather watch Iowa play even a middle of the road team from one of those conferences instead of Illinois, Rutgers, NW, etc.
Never gonna happen. Wins are too precious of a commodity. As long as 95% of the P5 teams out there are scheduling cupcakes you have to do it as well. Iowa isn't an Alabama or whatever where they can schedule P5 non cons and still rely on getting wins. I could be talked into dropping ISU, though.
ChosenChildren
Well-Known Member
I have no problem getting rid of the divisions. It might actually make Iowa better. I would also get rid of the Big Ten championship game, particularly if they expand the playoff format. One league; 14 teams.
Modern college football now is going to be more about NIL. Ohio State, Michigan State and Wisconsin will embrace it. Iowa will be required to do so as well.
I also believe the playoff format will be expanded to 8 or 12 teams. I hope it is 12.
Modern college football now is going to be more about NIL. Ohio State, Michigan State and Wisconsin will embrace it. Iowa will be required to do so as well.
I also believe the playoff format will be expanded to 8 or 12 teams. I hope it is 12.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
If they did get rid of divisions I'd be all for getting rid of the championship game but they won't, too much TV money.
99topdawg
Well-Known Member
I read your post as wanting to keep divisions but having the top 2 teams, regardless of division, play for the CCG.
Its ridiculous to play without divisons when you have 14 teams and you cannot play a round robin, which is the only fair schedule for any conference ..period. You can never create a fair schedule with large conferences with "so called inter division play" it just is not possible. Turnover in college athletes outside of this covid scenario is 5 years, so no way of telling who is good or shitty when schedules are made...just a waste of time to change things from the way they are particularly if this is all about the college playoffs, the best team usually wins no matter who is in the championship game. What needs to change is a format that allows conference champions into a playoff irregardless of their record, providing a means to an end.
Fryowa
Administrator
What about pre 2000s eras? Iowa only played 8 games against 11 conference members. No one thought it was unfair then.
And yes it can be fair as long as you play a rotating schedule that allows for playing each team the same number of times over a given number of seasons. As long as whatever set of criteria you decide on is the same for every team, it’s fair by default.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
Back then they also allowed reporters and coaches decide who was the National Champion, should they go back to that as well?
It wasn't fair back then, one would think you would want to advance the conference not take a step backwards. The 2 division format, set geographically, is the most fair way to determine a conference champion. You play everyone in your division, protecting rivalry games, and rotate your opponent in the other division. Best records in both divisions play for the conference championship, you cannot get more fair than that.
If they wanted to go to 1 conference without divisions then the only real fair way to do it is to get rid of non conference games and play a 13 game round robin schedule. I would get into that. A conference title game wouldn't be necessary, although they won't get rid of it because it's a money maker.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
Oh heck no, I want the CCG participants to be the division winners.
