DiNardo has it right: Determine Division Champs by Games Within Division Only

[ChosenChildren]

The current system is unfair. Each West Division team plays 3 games against East Division opponents each year. There is a wide disparity in difficulty, depending on the quality of the 3 opponents. For example, it is theoretically possible that one team gets Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State while the next gets Maryland, Indiana and Rutgers.

Reduce the total conference games to 8, but determine the champion of each division based on the 6 divisional games only.

Northwestern would have been the division champion this year with a 6-0 record. Wisconsin finished second at 4-2 and Iowa and Purdue tied for third at 3-3.

 

[guffus]

When would the West or East division champion ever have been different using this system? I can't think of a single case where the division champion would have been different.

 

[Fryowa]

The current system is unfair. Each West Division team plays 3 games against East Division opponents each year. There is a wide disparity in difficulty, depending on the quality of the 3 opponents. For example, it is theoretically possible that one team gets Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State while the next gets Maryland, Indiana and Rutgers.

Reduce the total conference games to 8, but determine the champion of each division based on the 6 divisional games only.

Northwestern would have been the division champion this year with a 6-0 record. Wisconsin finished second at 4-2 and Iowa and Purdue tied for third at 3-3.

Then you have to be ok with really good non-divisional wins not counting. As in the hypothetical case where of a West team beating Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State but losing a few in-division games and still placing 2nd or 3rd in the West.

Also, you're basically saying that the non-divisional games are meaningless exhibitions when it comes to conference play. In a sport like NCAA football where the season is already short and burdened with 3 shitty non conference games, taking the importance of cross division games out would be stupid, IMO.

 

[guffus]

That was my first thought. When would it ever have replaced the champ?

Right, the only time it might come up is if 1 team goes 6-0 in the division and 1-2 in cross-division, while another team goes 5-1 in the division and 3-0 in cross-division. How often is that going to happen?

 

[PlatypusMessiah]

You might as well dissolve into two conferences then.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

You might as well dissolve into two conferences then.

people will just need to get to a point where they realize a college football playoff is not going to be the same as a college basketball playoff. in hoops, you're going to play each team at least once. In football, you have cross over games and the only way to ensure you play everyone team in a 14 team conference is to have no non con schedule and play 13 conference games. or, move to a 16 game schedule so you have 3 non con games; which, we all know isn't prudent or a possibility.

Having said that, because it isn't possible to make sure each team in a division plays the exact same cross over teams, you could define the div champ by in-division games, but you would or should use the cross over games as a strength of schedule tie-breaker. but really, win the games you have scheduled and you're the champ. and if the goal from the west division is truly to have a chance to win the B1G game and potentially reach the playoff, don't bitch about your cross over schedule being tougher than someone else's. you gotta play a touch schedule at some point.

 

[uihawk82]

The current system is unfair. Each West Division team plays 3 games against East Division opponents each year. T

Reduce the total conference games to 8, but determine the champion of each division based on the 6 divisional games only.

.

This does not make sense. #1 Teams are members of the Big 10 conference so all conference games have meaning otherwise dont play them, and 2# there really doesnt need to be a #2 since #1 says it all but just to make the point even before there were divisions, even with only 10 teams in the conference a team might miss out on playing the best team in the league. In 2002 the Hawks and OSU didnt play and it was a shame because OSU barely was beating some teams but that is the way it is and you had a tie for the title. There was time when only 6 to 7 Big 10 games were played so you missed out on playing 2 or 3 other teams in the league each year and it could hurt or help you.

Yeah it is bad if you lose two or 3 cross divisional games and maybe lose your own division being undefeated in the division but I doubt that happens a lot in the past or in the future.

If you are in a conference and play a conference game then it counts in the standings. All games in all pro leagues count. There is a reason they call NCAA non-conf games non-conf games so they stand apart and are different and not counted in you conference standings.

 

[uihawk82]

The current system is unfair. Each West Division team plays 3 games against East Division opponents each year. There is a wide disparity in difficulty, depending on the quality of the 3 opponents. For example, it is theoretically possible that one team gets Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State while the next gets Maryland, Indiana and Rutgers.

Reduce the total conference games to 8, but determine the champion of each division based on the 6 divisional games only.

Northwestern would have been the division champion this year with a 6-0 record. Wisconsin finished second at 4-2 and Iowa and Purdue tied for third at 3-3.

Oh and I would rather have 10 Big 10 conf games a year and ditch the Middle Tenn State/N Texas St/3rd 3rd non -conf game than go back to 8 conf games.

The feel in Kinnick stadium is totally different, much edgier, higher energy for Conf games. yes a lot of fans get super pumped up for ISU but I dont that much, I would get pumped up in Kinnick if we played Clemson or Georgia in mid Sept.

 

[PlatypusMessiah]

My dream for college football is to get away from this eyeball test thing and let teams settle things on the field. I don’t mind that the NFL has weak divisions and that sometimes an 8-8 team makes the playoffs. They played a comparable schedule to the teams in their division and they were worthy enough to move on.

If I had my dream, somehow we’d dissolve the ACC or Big 12 and be left with 4 conferences of 16 teams that each had 4 divisions. Win your division, play a conference semifinal game, play a conference championship game, play a national semifinal, and a national championship and be done with committees and polls. I really don’t miss polls in any other sport. If you give teams a similar schedule, you can really make for a bunch of quality games for everyone.

 

[THawk122]

Then they need to do away with divisions all together. I actually preferred it the old way (pre divisions), but no matter what your not going to be able to play everyone.
In no way can you ever set up a scenario where a conference game doesn't mean anything, that's just bad business

 

[AnyoneButYou]

The BIG 12 is the only conference doing it the right way. Play everyone in your conference and determine the true champion.

 

[Fryowa]

I actually preferred it the old way (pre divisions)

This is the correct way that it should be. The divisions are stupid.

 

[tmess1989]

It seems like we are heading towards getting rid of the divisions all together. More schedule rotation would be better for all. Have 3 opponents locked in each year to preserve rivalries and the other 6 games rotate. It's still not a perfect system as some of the locked in games could be more difficult on a consistent basis.

 

[tmess1989]

The BIG 12 is the only conference doing it the right way. Play everyone in your conference and determine the true champion.

Well they don't have enough teams to have divisions.....

 

[THawk122]

Well they don't have enough teams to have divisions.....

It's still a better set up, everybody plays every body.
8 10 team conferences. Winners make the playoffs.

 

[guffus]

Well they don't have enough teams to have divisions.....

Sure they do. 10 teams could be split into 5-team divisions based on the new rules. The Big 12 just decided not to do it that way because they were given an alternative to have the 2 best teams in the CCG because they play a 9-game round Robin schedule.

The Sunbelt conference has 10 teams and decided to have 2 5-team divisions. Of course they only play 8 conference games, so they had to go with divisions if they wanted a CCG.

 

[Xerxes]

This is the correct way that it should be. The divisions are stupid.

I like divisions because it gives Iowa a chance to be somewhat relevant the B1G. Its not out of the question Iowa could rise up and win the West division once in awhile and get to the B1G championship game and pull an upset.

Winning the B1G the old school way is highly unlikely (they're only had 1 outright championship in 40 years). Too many tough games and Iowa has a hard time winning games in a very easy division right now.

 

[THawk122]

I like divisions because it gives Iowa a chance to be somewhat relevant the B1G. Its not out of the question Iowa could rise up and win the West division once in awhile and get to the B1G championship game and pull an upset.

Winning the B1G the old school way is highly unlikely (they're only had 1 outright championship in 40 years). Too many tough games and Iowa has a hard time winning games in a very easy division right now.

It could be argued too that you dont get better by playing scrubs every year.

 

[Xerxes]

It could be argued too that you dont get better by playing scrubs every year.

Very fair point. Iowa certainly hasn't taken advantage of it. Their division record speaks for itself.

 

[Fryowa]

I like divisions because it gives Iowa a chance to be somewhat relevant the B1G. Its not out of the question Iowa could rise up and win the West division once in awhile and get to the B1G championship game and pull an upset.

Winning the B1G the old school way is highly unlikely (they're only had 1 outright championship in 40 years). Too many tough games and Iowa has a hard time winning games in a very easy division right now.

I don’t necessarily disagree with that, but if they do squeak one out it would probably end up in monumental embarrassment a la 2015 Rose Bowl. Like this year with NW having a shot at the title. In no way was NW the second best B1G team.

I was so wishing that the conference champs decided the CFP, and NW would somehow get by OSU. Then they’d show the true state of the B1G when they got beat 94-3 by Alabama.

I just don’t think people realize how far back the Big Ten is (other than Ohio State) in talent compared to the top SEC teams. We aren’t even in the same solar system.