I don't understand

It's moronic to do away with the divisions. The divisions and soft title game aren't the reason OSU missed the playoffs the last two years. Getting their asses kicked by Iowa and Purdue is the sole reason they did not get in. Maybe they could re-allign the divisions again, but the problem is Michigan has 2 protected games (MSU and OSU) that have to be played every year. That's the driver in the whole thing. Plus, when you add Rutgers and Maryland, you add more teams that makes it harder to keep protected rivalries alive. Jim had a choice between money and retaining the goodwill and tradition of the conference and he took the money.
 
Divisions are dumb. Should be best two teams getting in based on records and tie breaks. Have some protected games (2 or 3) so we can always beat up on Huskers annually.
 
westender said:
Divisions are dumb. Should be best two teams getting in based on records and tie breaks. Have some protected games (2 or 3) so we can always beat up on Huskers annually.
Click to expand...

"Divisions are dumb" Yeah all the divisions in almost every sport under the sun are so dumb. Good lord.
 
I like divisions. It builds rivalries. Divisional games gives teams a schedule that is relatively similar to the teams that they are competing against. It’s better for the staff because they can design a team be competitive in their division and worry about the championship game if it comes about.

Personally, I like the divisions as they stand. I’m growing a genuine hatred for Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Northwestern. When we didn’t have divisions, I looked forward to playing Michigan (but I don’t think big blue carried about playing Iowa). In the last 5 years, I think the West is only 4 or 5 games under 500 in cross games. tOSU struggles in cross games. I know the West hasn’t faired well in championship games, but you could of said the same thing for the SEC when they split into divisions (with Florida and Tennessee beating down West teams). You can divide teams however you want, the group with Ohio St. would fair better in championships because they either are represented by tOSU or a team that’s good enough to beat them.

My largest beef with the CFP is the elitism that it is generating. If you got rid of divisions, the elitism will grow. Knocking Oklahoma out of a Big 12 championship game isn’t happening soon. Knocking tOSU, Clemson, or Alabama out of a divisionless championship game would also be hard to do. For 85% of the power 5 teams. You need an undefeated season to make the CFP. For everyone else, a division championship and a conference championship are outstanding goals. Northwestern’s season is incredible because of their division win.
 
Let's get real, this is all about OSU not getting in the cfp.
So because the west is getting stronger and beating the top teams from the East, all the sudden maybe it's not such a good idea?
This is nothing more than "entitlement" "blue blood" bullshit.
Curb stomp a few of the "best" the "blue bloods" and suddenly they want to change the rules.
 
4thngoal said:
Let's get real, this is all about OSU not getting in the cfp.
So because the west is getting stronger and beating the top teams from the East, all the sudden maybe it's not such a good idea?
This is nothing more than "entitlement" "blue blood" bullshit.
Curb stomp a few of the "best" the "blue bloods" and suddenly they want to change the rules.
Click to expand...
That's it. It's just a whatever way the wind is blowing thing for them year to year...
 
4thngoal said:
Let's get real, this is all about OSU not getting in the cfp.
So because the west is getting stronger and beating the top teams from the East, all the sudden maybe it's not such a good idea?
This is nothing more than "entitlement" "blue blood" bullshit.
Curb stomp a few of the "best" the "blue bloods" and suddenly they want to change the rules.
Click to expand...

Nah, it is what other conferences and teams get away with in comparison. If I weren't currently lazy I would find the exact tweets from Dochterman that clearly illustrate it. There is no need to play a strong schedule. It is not being rewarded by committee. It is clear.
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
The Big Ten has been around for years.... we don't need divisions to build rivalries. I'd suggest divisions have done more to soften some rivalries. Iowa-Michigan for example.
Click to expand...
As much as you want to believe it, Iowa-Michigan is NOT a rivalry. Michigan has its rivals: OSU, MSU and Notre Dame. Iowa's rivals are Minnesota and Wisconsin. I guess you can add ISU and Nebraska if you desire, but the ISU series isn't that old and Nebraska is more of a forced geography thing for the conference. Iowa needs to play its border teams every year. That was the whole freaking point of conferences - create geographic proximity so you'd have a set schedule of teams nearby back when teams had to travel by land to play. Rivalries formed naturally. You hated the teams closest to you.

That's why I hate Rutgers and Maryland joining the conference. I don't give a shit if Iowa plays Rutgers or Maryland. Nebraska makes sense. Penn State made sense because they were independent and needed a home and we had to keep them away from the eastern conferences.

Don't get me wrong, I loved watching Iowa and Michigan when I was a kid because Michigan was the bully that we could beat (OSU, not so much when it mattered), but to me the rivalries that make the Big Ten great are the border war games, not going halfway across the country to play Penn State or Rutgers.
 
I still don't consider Rutgers and Maryland to be B1G teams. They're like impostors forced upon us by a nefarious king.
 
okeefe4prez said:
As much as you want to believe it, Iowa-Michigan is NOT a rivalry. Michigan has its rivals: OSU, MSU and Notre Dame. Iowa's rivals are Minnesota and Wisconsin. I guess you can add ISU and Nebraska if you desire, but the ISU series isn't that old and Nebraska is more of a forced geography thing for the conference. Iowa needs to play its border teams every year. That was the whole freaking point of conferences - create geographic proximity so you'd have a set schedule of teams nearby back when teams had to travel by land to play. Rivalries formed naturally. You hated the teams closest to you.

That's why I hate Rutgers and Maryland joining the conference. I don't give a shit if Iowa plays Rutgers or Maryland. Nebraska makes sense. Penn State made sense because they were independent and needed a home and we had to keep them away from the eastern conferences.

Don't get me wrong, I loved watching Iowa and Michigan when I was a kid because Michigan was the bully that we could beat (OSU, not so much when it mattered), but to me the rivalries that make the Big Ten great are the border war games, not going halfway across the country to play Penn State or Rutgers.
Click to expand...

Truth.

When the Boat Rowing Rodents beat the Badgers a few weeks ago, you could tell that it really meant something to them.
 
westender said:
Not talking about any other sport there junior. We talking NCAA football and specifically the Big Ten. That is the board we are on.
Click to expand...
Sports have divisions. Get with it already. B1G going away from divisions is a terrible idea. Being different in this specific situation is in fact a fucking dumb idea.
 
The main reason this idea of getting rid of divisions appeals to me is it creates a way to play all the teams in the Big Ten more often. If you do the math, you could still set up schedules where each team could get 5 permanent rivals they play every year, and 8 teams they play 50% of the time. This type of schedule appeals to me more than divisional schedules.

But if the Big Ten must have divisions, I like the east-west setup.
 
The funny thing is that OSU, Mich and NW all finished 8-1 this year. It is not even clear who would win the tiebreaker to determine which 2 teams make it to the CCG.
 
If you set up a schedule with 5 permanent rivals it could look something like this

Team - 5 rivals
Neb - Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW, PSU
Iowa - Neb, Minn, Wisc, NW, ILL
Minn - Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Mich, Indy
Wisc - Neb, Iowa, Minn, NW, MSU
NW - ILL, Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Pur
ILL - NW, Indy, Pur, Iowa, OSU
Pur - Indy, NW, ILL, Mich, Rut

Indy - Pur, ILL, MSU, MD, Minn
MSU - Mich, Wisc, Indy, PSU, Rut
Mich - OSU, MSU, Pur, Minn, MD
OSU - Mich, PSU, ILL, Rut, MD
PSU - OSU, MD, Rut, MSU, Neb
MD - PSU, Rut, OSU, Mich, Indy
Rut - PSU, MD, OSU, MSU, Pur
 
hawkdrummer1 said:
The Big Ten has been around for years.... we don't need divisions to build rivalries. I'd suggest divisions have done more to soften some rivalries. Iowa-Michigan for example.
Click to expand...

It’s not the same as the Big 10 days of my youth. When you missed only 1 team a year, everyone in conference was your rival. Expansion put an end to those days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top