BT Football Reorganization

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.
Two divisions might as well be 2 different conferences. It’s semantics really.

The truth is people don’t want to get rid of divisions because it would mean Iowa is in 5th-7th place most years. That’s it, pure and simple. Iowa fans want to feel like our team is more elite than it is. 2015 doesn’t even come close to happening in B1G without divisions, and that’s kinda wonky in my opinion. Yes it was fun, but it was a charmin ultra soft schedule that year and we got exposed in the Rose Bowl as far as how good we really were outside our cushy division. Same thing this past year in Indy. It’s been proven since 2012 that winning the west division is a token achievement because the East is always going to win. They have the 2-3 best teams in the conference, so they should.

Regarding fairness, what’s fair is making sure schedules are divided up evenly over a set number of years.
 
Two divisions might as well be 2 different conferences. It’s semantics really.

The truth is people don’t want to get rid of divisions because it would mean Iowa is in 5th-7th place most years. That’s it, pure and simple. Iowa fans want to feel like our team is more elite than it is. 2015 doesn’t even come close to happening in B1G without divisions, and that’s kinda wonky in my opinion. Yes it was fun, but it was a charmin ultra soft schedule that year and we got exposed in the Rose Bowl as far as how good we really were outside our cushy division. Same thing this past year in Indy. It’s been proven since 2012 that winning the west division is a token achievement because the East is always going to win. They have the 2-3 best teams in the conference, so they should.

Regarding fairness, what’s fair is making sure schedules are divided up evenly over a set number of years.

I think there are six teams in the SEC that have won a title in the past 25 years. Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn and Bama. The Big Ten has three: Nebraska, Michigan and Ohio.

The SEC is perfectly balanced with three "modern era" natty winners on each side and when the divisions were forged the east looked way better due to the strength of Tennessee and Florida. The problem in the Big Ten is Nebraska ain't coming back. Ever. They're done. They can get to a nice 9-3 or 10-2 level and maybe have a year where they sneak into an expanded playoff, but they will never be on par with the good teams in the south again. So you have a division that has no power team in the Big Ten West. I know Tennessee and Florida both suck at the current moment, but they both have a materially higher chance of hitting paydirt in the next 20 years than the entirety of the Big Ten West. There is no program in the Big Ten West that provides a reasonable counterbalance to Ohio, Michigan and PSU.

It sucks, but I think you are probably correct that they need to do away with the divisions due to how bad the West is in the grand scheme.
 
The general sentiment in this thread is that the Big 12 is dumb for just taking the top two teams in the league.

Since they've done that, the CCG's have been very competitive. The Baylor/OSU game last year was one of the best games of the season and was decided by about 1 inch on the final play.

The Big 10 CCG has most years been pretty bad. As a non invested fan, I think I'd rather see the top two teams in any league. The NW/OSU year was just simply uninteresting for example.
 
I think there are six teams in the SEC that have won a title in the past 25 years. Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn and Bama. The Big Ten has three: Nebraska, Michigan and Ohio.

The SEC is perfectly balanced with three "modern era" natty winners on each side and when the divisions were forged the east looked way better due to the strength of Tennessee and Florida. The problem in the Big Ten is Nebraska ain't coming back. Ever. They're done. They can get to a nice 9-3 or 10-2 level and maybe have a year where they sneak into an expanded playoff, but they will never be on par with the good teams in the south again. So you have a division that has no power team in the Big Ten West. I know Tennessee and Florida both suck at the current moment, but they both have a materially higher chance of hitting paydirt in the next 20 years than the entirety of the Big Ten West. There is no program in the Big Ten West that provides a reasonable counterbalance to Ohio, Michigan and PSU.

It sucks, but I think you are probably correct that they need to do away with the divisions due to how bad the West is in the grand scheme.
I think getting rid of divisions and keeping 9 conference games would probably be the best solution. Protected rivalries would have to stay, but limit that to one. It gets locked in for 5 years and can be reviewed after that. I say that because there's no way the B1G would let OSU/Mich go by the wayside.
 
I think getting rid of divisions and keeping 9 conference games would probably be the best solution. Protected rivalries would have to stay, but limit that to one. It gets locked in for 5 years and can be reviewed after that. I say that because there's no way the B1G would let OSU/Mich go by the wayside.

Can I just take this opportunity to bitch once more about how bringing Maryland and Rutgers into the conference just totally sucks ass?
 
The general sentiment in this thread is that the Big 12 is dumb for just taking the top two teams in the league.

Since they've done that, the CCG's have been very competitive. The Baylor/OSU game last year was one of the best games of the season and was decided by about 1 inch on the final play.

The Big 10 CCG has most years been pretty bad. As a non invested fan, I think I'd rather see the top two teams in any league. The NW/OSU year was just simply uninteresting for example.
I don't like the CCG model with only one division. If I'm OSU and went 9-0 conference, and then Team X in 2nd place went 6-3 or whatever and sneaks a win out in the CCG, I think that negates a lot of the work and pressure that went into keeping the best record all season long.

The whole point of a conference championship is to reward teams that can outlast everyone else through the rigors of an entire football season. It shouldn't be decided by a single game. If anything do something like crown the best record as conference champ but have a game between #1 and #2 at the end of the season as well for a different title. Maybe make it a trophy game.
 
Can I just take this opportunity to bitch once more about how bringing Maryland and Rutgers into the conference just totally sucks ass?
That was a distinct case of instant regret. I keep hoping at some point they'll get sick of having their asses beat and leave to a G5 conference where they belong, but that genie can't be put back in the bottle. Too much money for them.
 
Two divisions might as well be 2 different conferences. It’s semantics really.

The truth is people don’t want to get rid of divisions because it would mean Iowa is in 5th-7th place most years. That’s it, pure and simple. Iowa fans want to feel like our team is more elite than it is. 2015 doesn’t even come close to happening in B1G without divisions, and that’s kinda wonky in my opinion. Yes it was fun, but it was a charmin ultra soft schedule that year and we got exposed in the Rose Bowl as far as how good we really were outside our cushy division. Same thing this past year in Indy. It’s been proven since 2012 that winning the west division is a token achievement because the East is always going to win. They have the 2-3 best teams in the conference, so they should.

Regarding fairness, what’s fair is making sure schedules are divided up evenly over a set number of years.

Would you stop saying this? You've mentioned this at least twice now and it's stupid. This is NOT why I don't want to get rid of divisions. I like the format, play everyone on our side of the conference and a few cross over games. I don't care if those cross over games are against Ohio State or Indiana. If they do what you propose and do the protected rivals with an 8 conference game schedule, some years, you are going to have the same affect anyway. Iowa won a share of the Big Ten title in 2002 because they didn't have to play Ohio State. I'm not worried about Iowa finishing 5th-7th, that is about Iowa's bowl position any way most years. Sure every once in a while they get a favorable schedule, a decent team, and they compete for the division. That wouldn't change with a imbalanced 8 game schedule.

The East has THEE best team in the conference, Ohio State. Iowa and Wisconsin fits right up there with Michigan and Pedo State. The past 5 years Iowa + Wisconsin have the same conference record as Michigan + PSU (58-30), while Iowa and Wisconsin don't have to play Ohio State every year both have beaten MU & PSU in head to head. The past 5 years Ohio State has only lost 3 conference games, 2 of those were to West opponents (Iowa & Purdue) with Michigan being the other.
 
The general sentiment in this thread is that the Big 12 is dumb for just taking the top two teams in the league.

Since they've done that, the CCG's have been very competitive. The Baylor/OSU game last year was one of the best games of the season and was decided by about 1 inch on the final play.

The Big 10 CCG has most years been pretty bad. As a non invested fan, I think I'd rather see the top two teams in any league. The NW/OSU year was just simply uninteresting for example.

Nope, I keep saying its DUMB for the Big Ten to take this approach. The Big 12 only has 10 teams while the B10 has 14 teams. For the B12 it has to work for them to have that big money game at the end of the year, splitting a 10 team conference into 2 divisions wouldn't make much sense. This isn't about the B12 at all, they wanted to have a championship game and taking the top 2 was the only solution. In the Big Ten it's dumb because they have 14 teams, enough teams to make 2 divisions with and they are geographically perfectly aligned.
 
Would you stop saying this? You've mentioned this at least twice now and it's stupid. This is NOT why I don't want to get rid of divisions. I like the format, play everyone on our side of the conference and a few cross over games. I don't care if those cross over games are against Ohio State or Indiana. If they do what you propose and do the protected rivals with an 8 conference game schedule, some years, you are going to have the same affect anyway. Iowa won a share of the Big Ten title in 2002 because they didn't have to play Ohio State. I'm not worried about Iowa finishing 5th-7th, that is about Iowa's bowl position any way most years. Sure every once in a while they get a favorable schedule, a decent team, and they compete for the division. That wouldn't change with a imbalanced 8 game schedule.

The East has THEE best team in the conference, Ohio State. Iowa and Wisconsin fits right up there with Michigan and Pedo State. The past 5 years Iowa + Wisconsin have the same conference record as Michigan + PSU (58-30), while Iowa and Wisconsin don't have to play Ohio State every year both have beaten MU & PSU in head to head. The past 5 years Ohio State has only lost 3 conference games, 2 of those were to West opponents (Iowa & Purdue) with Michigan being the other.
I proposed above having a 9 game conference schedule, no divisions, and a single protected rivalry per team that sticks for 5 years. That's what is the most fair because with a rotating schedule, every team plays every other team with the same frequency (except for the single rivalry game). Would I like to play an OOC game against the PAC12/ACC? Yeah. But that'd make scheduling the conference season tougher.

We can agree to disagree about the East/West being stronger/weaker, but OSU and Michigan are clearly a step above everyone else. The fact that they've won the B1G for a decade in a row supports this. Not all of them were OSU. Most, but not all. It's not fair for half the teams in the conference to have to play these tougher teams every year. I don't know how anyone could argue that it is.

I mean it's really made our division a laughing stock, and that's not just from me, it's national. People talk about our division being an also-ran, and it's hard to argue with. The OSU win was a fluke deal. I mean come on... And The '13 and '16 Michigan games were squeeze-bys by a field goal or less at home. The 3 times they've beat us since '12 we got killed. Penn State has won 6 out of our last 8 matchups, and one of those 2 winds was against their backup QB by 3 pts.
 
I proposed above having a 9 game conference schedule, no divisions, and a single protected rivalry per team that sticks for 5 years. That's what is the most fair because with a rotating schedule, every team plays every other team with the same frequency (except for the single rivalry game). Would I like to play an OOC game against the PAC12/ACC? Yeah. But that'd make scheduling the conference season tougher.

You can't get schedule the league any more fair than it already is right now without going to a complete round robin.

We can agree to disagree about the East/West being stronger/weaker, but OSU and Michigan are clearly a step above everyone else. The fact that they've won the B1G for a decade in a row supports this. Not all of them were OSU. Most, but not all. It's not fair for half the teams in the conference to have to play these tougher teams every year. I don't know how anyone could argue that it is.

Up until this year Michigan has not been clearly a step above everyone else. Under KF Iowa is 7-7 against Michigan, up until the last one every game has been competitive. It's Ohio State versus everyone else.

I mean it's really made our division a laughing stock, and that's not just from me, it's national. People talk about our division being an also-ran, and it's hard to argue with. The OSU win was a fluke deal. I mean come on... And The '13 and '16 Michigan games were squeeze-bys by a field goal or less at home. The 3 times they've beat us since '12 we got killed. Penn State has won 6 out of our last 8 matchups, and one of those 2 winds was against their backup QB by 3 pts.

After expansion the SEC East was no better until Georgia stepped up. I remember when the NFC used to dominate the AFC, in baseball the AL used to dominate the NL, the East used to dominate the West in the NBA. A change of the tide is possible, it's happened before in other sports and other football conferences and it can happen in the Big Ten.
 
You can't get schedule the league any more fair than it already is right now without going to a complete round robin.



Up until this year Michigan has not been clearly a step above everyone else. Under KF Iowa is 7-7 against Michigan, up until the last one every game has been competitive. It's Ohio State versus everyone else.
I disagree with both points but that’s ok. We’re both beating dead horses at this point. :)

Are you going to be at the Minnesota basketball game? My kid and I are sticking around after the Wisconsin wrestling duel to catch the b-ball game Sunday afternoon.
 
I disagree with both points but that’s ok. We’re both beating dead horses at this point. :)

Are you going to be at the Minnesota basketball game? My kid and I are sticking around after the Wisconsin wrestling duel to catch the b-ball game Sunday afternoon.

I doubt it, although it is an attractive start time.
 
It’s going to be a late drive home but it’s our last trip to IC until next September.

You get your ticket renewal yet? Already got mine but wasn't sure if they handled your mobile tickets differently.

I think I'm going to stay in the same section but see if I can get any closer.
 
You get your ticket renewal yet? Already got mine but wasn't sure if they handled your mobile tickets differently.

I think I'm going to stay in the same section but see if I can get any closer.
Nope, I think the mobile passes went on sale in May last year. We’re going to go that route again, the price is awesome and I like moving around. Never had a week where I didn’t like where we were sitting. $550 for two tickets all in can’t be beat.

I’m going to try to move down next year in wrestling a few rows, but I’m down far enough already that below me are seats thatve been in the family for generations and they don’t come available often. We’re at row 18 right now which is pretty damn good anyway so I won’t be hurt if we can’t move.
 
not to change the subject, but is anyone here going to Champagne in October for the Iowa game? I'm 99% sure I'll be at that one.
 
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.
I like your idea. I want to make a minor adjustment. Get rid of Rutgers and Maryland, then play a round Robin.
 
Would you stop saying this? You've mentioned this at least twice now and it's stupid. This is NOT why I don't want to get rid of divisions. I like the format, play everyone on our side of the conference and a few cross over games. I don't care if those cross over games are against Ohio State or Indiana. If they do what you propose and do the protected rivals with an 8 conference game schedule, some years, you are going to have the same affect anyway. Iowa won a share of the Big Ten title in 2002 because they didn't have to play Ohio State. I'm not worried about Iowa finishing 5th-7th, that is about Iowa's bowl position any way most years. Sure every once in a while they get a favorable schedule, a decent team, and they compete for the division. That wouldn't change with a imbalanced 8 game schedule.

The East has THEE best team in the conference, Ohio State. Iowa and Wisconsin fits right up there with Michigan and Pedo State. The past 5 years Iowa + Wisconsin have the same conference record as Michigan + PSU (58-30), while Iowa and Wisconsin don't have to play Ohio State every year both have beaten MU & PSU in head to head. The past 5 years Ohio State has only lost 3 conference games, 2 of those were to West opponents (Iowa & Purdue) with Michigan being the other.
Nothing more irritating than a good example, said Mark Twain. Good job SSK.
 

Latest posts

Top