How Four, 4-Team Divisions in Big 10 Can Work
- Thread starter JonDMiller
- Start date
knighthawk13
Well-Known Member
Probably the same type my 4 year old puts up when he doesn't get his way. I'm not saying Iowa holds any cards, but I have to believe the Big 10 is going to protect as many old-school rivalries as possible. Putting Iowa, Wisconsin and Minny in the same pod would do that. Putting Mizzou and Illinois in the same pod would protect their border war game as well. I think too much credence is put into the "fair" argument. Indiana may suck now, but that could change 20 years from now.
I think the Big Twelve can be instrumental in understanding this. They used the BCS rankings to decide which team played the championship game when there was a three way tie between Texas, OU, and Tech. I wouldn't advocate this, but it does show there are options.
I still think the best option is to not put these teams in the same Pod. That seems about as stupid as the way they set up the Big 12. See how that worked out?
INTIMIDATORHawk
Well-Known Member
This scenario talk has done one thing for me: Cement the fact that I HATE the idea of expansion beyond 12 total teams.
JohnnyDakota
Well-Known Member
This.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
The simple solution would be to swap Mizzu and Minny in your pod projection. We get Minny every year. Minny and Wisky can keep protected status. Mizzou and the Bugeaters would A) be able protect that game as a rivalry game which makes sense because they came from the same conference and B) are put into different pods which I think makes sense as well.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
This would be another way to go. I don't see one week division as a bad thing because A) they still play 5 games outside the pod and B) winning the pod doesnt give you anything.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
Why?
JonDMiller
Publisher/Founder
My guess is at least 80 percent of both Michigan and Ohio State fan bases would say, yes, they will be because they only want to play once. Just my take.
Because these teams are going to each want a shot at the Championship game and the league knows it would be stupid to load one POD up. Look at the Big 12. It is a cautionary tale for every conference thinking of loading up your top teams in the same bracket. It is a recipe for disaster.
The SEC has done a much better job of balancing their divisions.
People are getting way too bogged down in tradition. This whole system is about breaking with tradition. The BCS was about breaking with tradition. The Rose Bowl's non-BCS clause is about breaking with tradition.
Get over it already. I know it is hard, but the walls of the box no longer exist.
I get it. I just think the odds of a team that lost this game playing in the championship game are not very good, even if they come from different PODs. At this point, PODs are not going to end up being a four team playoff. They are just a way to distribute who plays who during the season.
It would have to take each team going minimum I would say, 10-2 and then winning all the tie breakers over any other team that went 10-2. If no other team went 10-2, then it would pretty much indicate that no one else deserved to play in the game. Also, who is to say they will have a rule that says no championship game can include teams from the same POD?
Why wouldn't we expect this to happen? Because those teams would have played each other!
Before decisions are based on the likelihood of two teams playing each other in a rematch the actual likelihood of that happening should be considered based on actual data.
However, that being said, Do you think Texas would have liked a chance to play in the Big 12 championship even if it meant a rematch with OU or Texas Tech?
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
The fact that they will never play in a championship game is a non factor. They are guaranteed to play every year and that's all people care about. The balancing of pods is also a non factor becasue the conf title game participants are going to be selected from divisions of 8 teams not from the winners of the pods. As this stands you only play 3 conference games out of 8 within your pod, the other 5 are outside it.
knighthawk13
Well-Known Member
I don't see it being any different than the current model where they play the last game of the year; many times to decide who gets the better bowl game and potential Big 10 Championship. It wouldn't really change if they were in the same pod.
Go to 9 conference games and have a protected rival in each pod. Since you play another pod as part of your division each year, the other 2 pod's protected rivals would be the other teams you play on a yearly basis. In Jon's pod alignment Iowa's intrapod protected rivals would be Minnesota (B), Wisconsin (C) and let's go with Jon and say Rutgers (D). The opponents would be as follows:
A+B: Illinois, Nebraska & Missouri (Pod); Michigan, OSU, Indiana & Minnesota (Interdivision);
Rutgers & Wisconsin (Intradivision)
A+C: Illinois, Nebraska & Missouri (Pod); PSU, Rutgers, Maryland & Syracuse (Interdivision);
Minnesota & Wisconsin (Intradivision)
A+D: Illinois, Nebraska & Missouri (Pod); Wisconsin, Purdue, MSU & NW (Interdivision);
Minnesota & Rutgers (Intradivision)
In this scenario, Iowa would play Illinois, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, Rutgers & Wisconsin annually and Michigan, OSU, Indiana, PSU, Maryland, Syracuse, Purdue, MSU & NW either every 3rd year (if the divisions are realigned every year) or twice every 6 years (if divisions are realigned every other year allowing for a home and home).
While there will be conference people who dislike the addition of a conference game, the Big Ten was talking about going to 9 conference games before the expansion talk heated up in December.
For what it is worth, my opinion would be for PSU to be our protected rival from Pod C. I think it would be either Iowa or Nebraska that would get them and in truth I don't know who would win out. As Deace said, Nebraska v. PSU would probably be a bigger game traditionally, but with Iowa having to approve the conference alignment and scheduling could we push for a protected rivalry with PSU if the athletic department wanted it?
A+B: Illinois, Nebraska & Missouri (Pod); Michigan, OSU, Indiana & Minnesota (Interdivision);
Rutgers & Wisconsin (Intradivision)
A+C: Illinois, Nebraska & Missouri (Pod); PSU, Rutgers, Maryland & Syracuse (Interdivision);
Minnesota & Wisconsin (Intradivision)
A+D: Illinois, Nebraska & Missouri (Pod); Wisconsin, Purdue, MSU & NW (Interdivision);
Minnesota & Rutgers (Intradivision)
In this scenario, Iowa would play Illinois, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, Rutgers & Wisconsin annually and Michigan, OSU, Indiana, PSU, Maryland, Syracuse, Purdue, MSU & NW either every 3rd year (if the divisions are realigned every year) or twice every 6 years (if divisions are realigned every other year allowing for a home and home).
While there will be conference people who dislike the addition of a conference game, the Big Ten was talking about going to 9 conference games before the expansion talk heated up in December.
For what it is worth, my opinion would be for PSU to be our protected rival from Pod C. I think it would be either Iowa or Nebraska that would get them and in truth I don't know who would win out. As Deace said, Nebraska v. PSU would probably be a bigger game traditionally, but with Iowa having to approve the conference alignment and scheduling could we push for a protected rivalry with PSU if the athletic department wanted it?
Last edited:
If they would be protected rivals they would be guaranteed to play every year.
The reason that Jon is giving that they would be in the same POD is that they don't want to play each other twice.
I am saying that they would still want a chance to play in the championship game if they were the second best team even if they had played during the season.
Think of this. If the North Central and West were paired, and the South Central and East were paired, with OSU/UM protected, and OSU went 11-1 and UM went 11-1 and no other team did better than 10-2, do you think they would be bummed about a rematch?
Also, if they were blocked in pods and paired in conferences, then it would only be possible for the teams to play in the championship game two out of three years. The fact that they would have played each other would reduce those odds, particularly if they were the top teams. If you added a head to head component into any tie breaking scenario, that would also help.
What I am saying is that you could do a lot to ensure that these teams would not replay each other unless that was clearly what was indicated and in that case I am sure they would welcome the opportunity.
rodg12
Well-Known Member
I gotta figure Iowa's pod is Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin. Just works out so much better.
I'm also not sure on the validity of the guaranteed rivalry game. I'm more of a supporter of going to a 9 game conference schedule that allows everyone to play every team outside their pod home and away every 4 years.
I'm also not sure on the validity of the guaranteed rivalry game. I'm more of a supporter of going to a 9 game conference schedule that allows everyone to play every team outside their pod home and away every 4 years.
bigjohnston
Member
Selfishly, I like this much better (also keeps some resemblence of east/west with pods A and D being the western schools, B and C in the eastern area for the most part so more border rivals/timezone rivals):
A) IA, Neb, Minny, Wisky Protected Rivalrys (IA/ILL, WI/Nwern, Neb/Mizzou, Minny/Purd)
B) Mich, OSU, MSU, Indiana (Mich/Rutgers, OSU/PSU, MSU/Maryland, Indy/Syracuse)
C) PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, Cuse
D) Purdue, Illinois, Mizzou, Northwestern
A) IA, Neb, Minny, Wisky Protected Rivalrys (IA/ILL, WI/Nwern, Neb/Mizzou, Minny/Purd)
B) Mich, OSU, MSU, Indiana (Mich/Rutgers, OSU/PSU, MSU/Maryland, Indy/Syracuse)
C) PSU, Rutgers, Maryland, Cuse
D) Purdue, Illinois, Mizzou, Northwestern
trj
Well-Known Member
Maybe this has already been answered, I just skimmed through this thread and only caught part of jon/steve's show this morning.
I understand the pro sports analogy of conferences/divisions, what I still do not understand is how you determine who plays in the title game? The schedules are made at least 2 years in advance.
I understand the pro sports analogy of conferences/divisions, what I still do not understand is how you determine who plays in the title game? The schedules are made at least 2 years in advance.
