"Protected Rival" game should NOT be the final weekend

W

WINthePIG

Well-Known Member
If the conference breaks into divisions and includes a "protected rival" for teams from the opposing division, these games should NOT be played on the final weekend of the season. In fact, I believe they would/should be played fairly early in the season (as should the remainder of the cross-division games). This would prevent the Conference Championship Game from pairing teams that played each other in the very recent past.

Fact is, there will be a very real probability (at least 50% - since teams will be playing half the other division in the regular season) that the Conference Championship will be a REMATCH game in a given year. Yes, one could argue this cheapens a game if there is a rematch, but it is going to be reality in that this situation will occur quite often. It is just a real glitch in the system.

Therefore, if the Mich-OSU game is to remain on the last weekend, then I say they must be in the same division (no chance meeting in Championship). However, if they play in say Week 3, then they could be in opposing divisions. What a historic Championship game that would be for them (and Week 3 would still be VERY exciting to both schools/nation).
 
WINthePIG said:
If the conference breaks into divisions and includes a "protected rival" for teams from the opposing division, these games should NOT be played on the final weekend of the season. In fact, I believe they would/should be played fairly early in the season (as should the remainder of the cross-division games). This would prevent the Conference Championship Game from pairing teams that played each other in the very recent past.

Fact is, there will be a very real probability (at least 50% - since teams will be playing half the other division in the regular season) that the Conference Championship will be a REMATCH game in a given year. Yes, one could argue this cheapens a game if there is a rematch, but it is going to be reality in that this situation will occur quite often. It is just a real glitch in the system.

Therefore, if the Mich-OSU game is to remain on the last weekend, then I say they must be in the same division (no chance meeting in Championship). However, if they play in say Week 3, then they could be in opposing divisions. What a historic Championship game that would be for them (and Week 3 would still be VERY exciting to both schools/nation).
Click to expand...

I don't believe that there should be cross-divisional guaranteed games. Why make this any more difficult than it needs to be? Just follow the Big 12's model.

-2 divisions of 6 teams each
-8 conference games each year
-Play all 5 of your divisonal opponents each year
-Play 3 of the 6 other divisional opponents 2 years in a row (home/away)
-Play the other 3 teams the next 2 years
-Repeat

It's neat and tidy this way. By having guaranteed cross-divsional opponents every year, that leaves you playing only 2 of the other 5 teams each year. So it would take a 6 year cycle to see every conference team in your own stadium, and that stinks.
 
I agree with your assessment IowaBanker. Missing a team for four years would be a poor situation. However, it looks like this possibility is getting a lot of press, and may happen. It allows the conference to keep those "trophy games".

Either way, I still say that the cross-divisional games should be played EARLY in the season.
 
I don't believe that cross-divisional guaranteed games will be a part of the schedule, and as a result a few of those trophy games may disappear. That would be sad, but it's better to set up the divisions correctly rather than screwing things up just to keep a couple of those rivalry games in tact.

I don't think most people care about a trophy game between Illinois and Ohio State.
 
You simply can't have a division system where the big 3, PSU-OSU-MU, are all stuck in one division. That's kind of a non-starter. Ditto for pushing PSU all the way from the far east into a "western-centric" division.
 
Mesaclone said:
You simply can't have a division system where the big 3, PSU-OSU-MU, are all stuck in one division. That's kind of a non-starter. Ditto for pushing PSU all the way from the far east into a "western-centric" division.
Click to expand...

PSU just kind of draws the short end of the stick. They do make the trips out west several times a year already anyway, however. So that's not really going to be a dramatic change. But keeping them in the "east" and splitting up OSU/Michigan is just not a good idea. There's no way that happens AND cross-divisional protected rivalries get played early in the year. Can anyone seriously picture The Game being played in early October? Come on. That game deserves to be the final game of the season every year, and that's not about to change anytime soon.
 
Mesaclone said:
You simply can't have a division system where the big 3, PSU-OSU-MU, are all stuck in one division. That's kind of a non-starter. Ditto for pushing PSU all the way from the far east into a "western-centric" division.
Click to expand...

Who says OSU, UM, and PSU are the Big 3? Right now UM is far from one of the Big 3. In actuality OSU has been head and shoulders above everyone else lately, with several other programs that have been very good, but not elite (Iowa, Wisky, PSU, and Nebby all fit that bill).

If you want to look at horrible imbalance, the old Big 12 was the prime example. The Big 12 North was a pillowfight most years, while the South had all of the power.

A geographical-based Big 10 would be much more balanced than you want to give it credit for.

EAST:
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Michigan
Purdue
Indiana

WEST:
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Illinois
Minnesota

In this setup you have the West with 3 strong programs (Nebby, Iowa, Wisky), a decent program (NW), and 2 that are struggling. In the East you have 2 strong programs (OSU, PSU), one decent program (MSU), one formerly strong program that is now struggling (Michigan), and 2 that are struggling.

That's a lot more balanced than you care to admit.
 
That simply is not balanced at all. You can't simply look at last season, you have to think strength of programs over the last 5 years or so at least.

The 3 strongest programs in the conference in the same division? And MSU is a darn solid program as well and we all know Purdue is bound to get better sooner rather than later.

I realize that's a very beneficial setup for Iowa, but no way does that work for the Big Three.

I'll agree that works in terms of regionality...but its a terrible power imbalance. You are also correct that the Big 12 was terribly out of balance...that's something the Big Ten should seek to avoid rather than emulate as this alignment does.
 
Mesaclone said:
That simply is not balanced at all. You can't simply look at last season, you have to think strength of programs over the last 5 years or so at least.

The 3 strongest programs in the conference in the same division? And MSU is a darn solid program as well and we all know Purdue is bound to get better sooner rather than later.

I realize that's a very beneficial setup for Iowa, but no way does that work for the Big Three.

I'll agree that works in terms of regionality...but its a terrible power imbalance. You are also correct that the Big 12 was terribly out of balance...that's something the Big Ten should seek to avoid rather than emulate as this alignment does.
Click to expand...

Wrong. There is no "Big 3" in the Big 10. Heck, Iowa is 7-1 in the last 8 meetings with Penn State (one of your supposed Big 3). The Hawks have played in multiple BCS bowl games this decade and a ton of January bowl games. Since we're going back at least 5 years, in your own words, then shouldn't we be considered up there with the top echelon? After all, we own one of those teams (Penn State) and have certainly been on equal footing with another (Michigan) in the last decade.

If you want to put Michigan into the top echelon, then I'm going to include Iowa as well. Also, if you are going to give Michigan such tremendous credit, then you also have to put Nebraska in that same conversation, as they've been a traditional powerhouse, and nearly won the Big 12 last season. Heck, Wisconsin has been right there near the top of the league many times in the last decade.

So here's how it shakes out:

Top Tier Teams - Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska

Next Tier Teams - Michigan State, Northwestern

Bottom Feeders - Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois

My scenario has an equal group of teams from each sector. Yours does not.

The bottom line, no matter how much you hate to admit it, is that a divisional setup that has Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan on one side, is very, very well-balanced if you put Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin on the other side.
 
IowaBanker said:
Wrong. There is no "Big 3" in the Big 10. Heck, Iowa is 7-1 in the last 8 meetings with Penn State (one of your supposed Big 3). The Hawks have played in multiple BCS bowl games this decade and a ton of January bowl games. Since we're going back at least 5 years, in your own words, then shouldn't we be considered up there with the top echelon? After all, we own one of those teams (Penn State) and have certainly been on equal footing with another (Michigan) in the last decade.

If you want to put Michigan into the top echelon, then I'm going to include Iowa as well. Also, if you are going to give Michigan such tremendous credit, then you also have to put Nebraska in that same conversation, as they've been a traditional powerhouse, and nearly won the Big 12 last season. Heck, Wisconsin has been right there near the top of the league many times in the last decade.

So here's how it shakes out:

Top Tier Teams - Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska

Next Tier Teams - Michigan State, Northwestern

Bottom Feeders - Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois

My scenario has an equal group of teams from each sector. Yours does not.

The bottom line, no matter how much you hate to admit it, is that a divisional setup that has Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan on one side, is very, very well-balanced if you put Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin on the other side.
Click to expand...

Step back and look at the bigger picture. Iowa and Wisconsin have done well the last 10 years. Over a larger span of time, what does that mean? Michigan, OSU, Nebraska, and PSU are amongst the top 10 winningest programs of all time. Iowa is 41st. Wisconsin is, I think 36th. Interestingly enough, one of your "bottom feeders," Purdue, is 39th winningest of all time. Furthermore, Illinois is a sleeping giant. After Ohio, Ill produces the most prospects in the Midwest. The Big Ten will not make the same mistake the Big XII made and only look at the small picture.

BT divisions likely decided by late August - Big Ten Blog - ESPN
 
Whatever the reality of the situation, the perception of those 3 programs as the "Big Three" is prevalent...and you can bet that's how THEY see it. While their records over the past few years may not uphold that perception, looking at the programs as a whole certainly does. So putting the Big ten's 3 premier programs in one division is simply unrealistic.
 
Mesaclone said:
Whatever the reality of the situation, the perception of those 3 programs as the "Big Three" is prevalent...and you can bet that's how THEY see it. While their records over the past few years may not uphold that perception, looking at the programs as a whole certainly does. So putting the Big ten's 3 premier programs in one division is simply unrealistic.
Click to expand...

There are 12 teams in the conference, not just 3. OSU/PSU/UM will not be making all of the decisions. Again, this conference is not the Big 12, where Texas and Oklahoma call all of the shots. Every team has a voice in the Big 10.

You said in another thread that I looked at only one year of performance on the field, and you wanted to look at the last 5 years. That didn't help your argument at all, did it? There is no Big 3 in the last 1 year, 3 years, or 5 years...or decade, for that matter.
 
Look. This isn't a ******* match.

If you can't see that those are three premier programs...and that they will have a good bit of say regarding alignment...than you're not living in reality. I certainly grant that no single program equates to Texas' dominance in the Big 12...but pretending OSU, MU, and PSU aren't influential in ratio to their status in the football world is naive.

You just can't take the 3 programs perceived as the most dominant, and stick them in one division. I'm not arguing that that perception is borne out statistically, which you keep alluding to...but at some level, perception is reality.
 
Mesaclone said:
Look. This isn't a ******* match.

If you can't see that those are three premier programs...and that they will have a good bit of say regarding alignment...than you're not living in reality. I certainly grant that no single program equates to Texas' dominance in the Big 12...but pretending OSU, MU, and PSU aren't influential in ratio to their status in the football world is naive.

You just can't take the 3 programs perceived as the most dominant, and stick them in one division. I'm not arguing that that perception is borne out statistically, which you keep alluding to...but at some level, perception is reality.
Click to expand...

Why should perception, even if it's not accurate, matter over performance? You can debate perception, but you can't debate Ws and Ls.

I don't know what the new divisions will look like, but if they are based upon the fallacy that OSU, PSU, and UM are somehow a cut above everyone else, that would be an absolute shame. The records just don't bear that out in the last year, 3 years, 5 years, or decade. Heck, PSU has been in the Big 10 for nearly 20 years, and how many championships have they won? They were "perceived" to be ready to take over the Big 10 when they joined, but that simply has not happened.

Perception shouldn't matter. If the conference wants to make competitive balance the primary driver (and that's what the commissioner has said himself), then they need to take perception and flush it down the toilet and make decisions based primarily on wins and losses.
 
We all know this is how the divisions are going to end up.

Hawkeye:
Iowa
Purdue
Indiana
Minnesota
Northwestern
Illinois

Deal With It:
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan State
Michigan
Nebraska
Wisconsin
 
To insist that OSU,Mich,and PSU cannot be in the same division is just wrong. By pushing PSU out west, you take away annual games with PSU vs OSU and PSU vs Michigan...you want those games...imagine if Texas and Ok did not play annually? Not good. The diff is that in the Big 12 if you had split Texas and OK, you pretty much were assured that they would meet in the Big 12 title game...but PSU in the west? Not so fast my friend...PSU would not win the west near as much as OK would have won the North...no, they need to split it geographically,with a caveat that they will review it upon expansion or in 4 years,whichever comes first.
Further expansion completely changes the picture. When the Big 12 was put together, there was no further expansion on the horizon and it was locked in going forward. The Big Ten should not be so rigid. Again, if expansion happens, those divisions will change again anyway...if ND joins, you have a natural western power program adding to Neb,Iowa,Wis...totally balancing OSU ,Mich and PSU.

Keep it simple ,Big Ten...go geographic until the dust settles,then review it.
 
Long Reply to ["Protected Rival" game should NOT be the final weekend]
Sorry to wait so long to respond, but it has taken a while to develop ideas that counter the argument made.

I gave this opinion a lot of thought and don't agree. I think that traditions matter and watching Michigan and Ohio State in late November is something I do not want to see end. I also want to see the trophy games continue as much as possible. Delaney laid down three principles and it is possible to honor those and still have the protected rival games at the end of the season. I have come to reject the notion that the conference would regularly see back to back games between Ohio State and Michigan if they are in different divisions. If it would occur irregularly, so what?

I developed two divisions with all three principles involved; balance, tradition and geography. I have Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Northwestern, Minnesota, and Michigan State in one division and Ohio St, Penn St, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, and Wisconsin in the other. In terms of geography four of the six teams in each division remain in there time zone. The two that are not were moved for purposes of creating balance. In this setup each team is given at least one protected rival even if it is in a different division and one static common opponent from the other division. Teams play 9 games, five within the division and 4 across division.

The first balance principle is that Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State and Penn State play each other each season (3 games). The remaining eight teams play three games against these four, two within the division and a game versus one of the other division pair. Every two years you would rotate between members of that pair. For illustration Iowa would always play MI and NE and rotate between PSU and OSU every 2 years. This means all teams have the same difficulty factor among historic winning programs and all historic winning programs have three challenges.

To keep tradition and create new ones I have identified 6 season ending games; MI vs OSU, PSU vs NE, PU vs IU, ILL vs NW, MN vs WI, and Iowa vs MSU. I know MSU vs Iowa isn't traditional, but four of the other five are trophy games. I think the PSU vs NE would be a great double header for the conference on the last weekend of regular season play. The outcome on the final weekend could create a lot of suspense.

Protected rival games would continue. Iowa vs Wisconsin, Minnesota vs Wisconsin, MSU vs Purdue, Ohio State vs Michigan, and Northwestern vs Illinois. The layout of the divisions supports many rivalry and trophy games; Iowa vs Minnesota, Ohio State vs Illinois, Michigan vs Michigan State, Minnesota vs Michigan and Illinois vs Purdue.

Another nuance is the introduction of one static common opponents from the other division since the four aforementioned historic winning programs have two across division static games. The static opponents for the eight teams are Iowa vs Indiana, Illinois vs Minnesota, and Purdue vs Michigan State. Wisconsin has none since it is a protected rival of IA and MN. These games are meant to balance out games when Iowa plays Wisconsin or to pair teams that typically match up well.

There are two teams left off each teams schedule each year. Every two years those two teams would rotate on and two would exit. Here is a table:
IA - OSU/PSU and Ill/PU
MN - OSU/PSU and IU/PU
PU - MI/NE and IA/MN
IL - MI/NE and IA/MSU
IU - MI/NE and NW/MN
WI - MI/NE and NW/MSU
MSU - OSU/PSU and ILL/WI
NW - OSU/PSU and IU/PU
MI - WI/PU and IL/IU
NE - WI/PU and IL/IU
OSU - IA/MSU and MN/NW
PSU - IA/MSU and MN/NW

Under this scheduling system it is possible to get a championship game with two teams that played a week earlier, it would be extremely unlikely. Essentially those two teams would have to come into the final regular season game undefeated. Then there is the possibility of a tie within the division of the loser after the final game. Then selecting teams from the tied division for the championship goes to the tie breaker criteria. The criteria could be that the losing team of the prior week moves behind the team they tied.

To make this work the schedule requires a minimum 10 weeks of conference play and eliminates one out of conference game. It also means the possibility that some conference games could occur in the second and third week of the season because of rivalry games with opponents like Notre Dame; PU, Michigan and MSU all have games with ND. This could affect Iowa's schedule because it annually plays two and sometimes three of those teams.

Some guy on the Northwestern Rivals Board came up with the same breakout.

http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=144734264&mid=144734264&sid=901&style=2
 
Last edited:
Mesaclone said:
You simply can't have a division system where the big 3, PSU-OSU-MU, are all stuck in one division. That's kind of a non-starter. Ditto for pushing PSU all the way from the far east into a "western-centric" division.
Click to expand...

Good point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top