Stewart Mandel's Big Ten division proposal
- Thread starter cuinknk
- Start date
Hawkeye101
Well-Known Member
You're correct on that, but couldn't the 5-3 team have lost to the 8-0 team as well. Yep, there is no right or wrong answer, just lots of questions.
billdozer15
Well-Known Member
The other problem I see with this is, what if tOSU and Mich rise to the top head and shoulders above everyone else ala 80's and 90's? You could be potentially looking at seeing the Mich vs tOSU game twice every year for multiple years in a row. I dont think that would be very good for college football in general. Due to this alone I think there has to be divisions and Mich and tOSU have to be in the same division.
What they said. Either you go by geography and hope Iowa and Wisconsin stay competitive enough to balance out the two divisions or you split them up based on current and historical strength which means under no circumstances are PSU, Iowa, Wisc, and Neb are going to be in the same divisions. That's just as bad as having PSU, MI, OSU in the same division
creeksider
Well-Known Member
I agree with that. Plus Evanston is a better road trip than Champaign. No matter how they split it up, the following groups should be in the same division:
1. OSU, MSU, Mich.
2. Purdue, Indiana.
3. Iowa, Minny, Wisky.
If they keep those groups together, whatever happens after that is fine w/ me.
eyekwah
Well-Known Member
I did a little math using EXCEL's "=combin()" function. There are 66 possible combinations for arranging 12 teams into 2 divisions. The point is that there is a finite number of sets to choose from. I didn't write a program to identify the 66 combinations, but I have a suspicion the conference office will start with that list of combinations and whittle the list down to those that meet the established criteria. Then it will be a matter of ranking the combinations left.
I still think the way to go is to start with the pods. At this point you would have three team pods. You would play your pod and 2 another pods and have a protected rivalry. If your rivalry team was in a different pod and you were not scheduled to play that pod the league would just make an adjustment to the schedules of the final game. At most it would only happen once every six years if you had a home and home arrangement. But for schools like Iowa it would never occur.
Pods
Nebby
Minny
Iowa
Wisky
UM
MSU
Illinois
OSU
NW
PSU
Indiana
Purdue
Pods
Nebby
Minny
Iowa
Wisky
UM
MSU
Illinois
OSU
NW
PSU
Indiana
Purdue
Last edited:
Go with the obvious geographical rivalries with Neb,Iowa,Minny,Wis,NW and Ill in the west and Mich,MSU,OSU,PSU,PU and IU in the east. Put a clause in the deal that it will be reviewed after 4 years. Lets face it, another round of expansion is very likely and that would shift the whole picture. Say we add Pitt and Rutgers...you going to not have PSU playing them every year? You want Pitt in the East and Rutgers in the West? Nah.
Put them together in a geographic manner, with an agreement to review in 4 years or if expansion occurs. If ND joins, it is simple...plug them in the west and Rutgers/Pitt/Md/Cuse in the east and no big shakeup is required. Then you have Neb,ND,Iowa,Wis,NW in the west who are teams capable of winning the league.
In the east you have PSU,OSU,Mich capable of winning the league...all good.
Put them together in a geographic manner, with an agreement to review in 4 years or if expansion occurs. If ND joins, it is simple...plug them in the west and Rutgers/Pitt/Md/Cuse in the east and no big shakeup is required. Then you have Neb,ND,Iowa,Wis,NW in the west who are teams capable of winning the league.
In the east you have PSU,OSU,Mich capable of winning the league...all good.
SirJamaLot
Well-Known Member
Why is this so complicated?
East: Penn state, indy, purdue, osu, nw, ill
west: mich, msu, hawks, nebby, mn, whisky,
play 9 conference games, protect osu and mich every year, play 5 in your division and 4 in the other, protect one rivilary, and rotate every 2 years
you have geography plus osu and psu in the east, mich and nebby in the west,
East: Penn state, indy, purdue, osu, nw, ill
west: mich, msu, hawks, nebby, mn, whisky,
play 9 conference games, protect osu and mich every year, play 5 in your division and 4 in the other, protect one rivilary, and rotate every 2 years
you have geography plus osu and psu in the east, mich and nebby in the west,
rodg12
Well-Known Member
Don't see this happening. The Big 10 does NOT want Mich/OSU to play in back-to-back weeks. First in their rivalry game, then in the conference championship.
PhoenixHawk
Well-Known Member
I've said this before, but they just need to make it a requirement that you must win your rivalry week game to play in the conference championship. The championship game would be the two teams with the best records from the 6 that win on rivalry week. You wouldn't even need to bother with divisions then.
EastLosRandy
Well-Known Member
I agree, and this is something that is overlooked by so many commentators. They think "competitive balance" and they interpret that as: add up the total winning percentage (or in Mandel's case seeds that are directly based on winning percentage) for each division and try to make those two numbers equal. Once they "solve" that equation they cry "Eureka!" and spend the rest of the time cooking up protected cross-over rivalry schemes in order to minimize the damage done.
Then they fail to simply step back and realize that in the name of "competitive balance" they've just proposed a plan that gives Ohio State (and Michigan, if/when they recover from the RichRod fiasco) a much easier path to the championship game than Iowa, Penn State, Wisconsin, or Nebraska would have. Any plan that puts Iowa, PSU, UW, and Neb in the same division opposite OSU just sounds like a sweetheart deal for the Buckeyes, IMO.
HawkeyeMike23
Banned
Thats a terrible idea. Let's say a 7-0 Ohio St team is upset by a 3-4 Michigan team and a 7-0 Iowa team loses to a 2-5 Minnesota team. Now you have maybe two 5-3 teams playing in the title game while two 7-1 teams miss out. How is the rivalry week game anymore important than the other seven conference games?
PhoenixHawk
Well-Known Member
Rivalry games are already more important than other games. That's why they're rivalry games. If a 7-0 team loses out, they'll still probably get a BCS slot. I don't see a problem with a team knowing they have to beat a rival to get in the championship game. If they lose, they didn't deserve to back-in anyway. The spotlight will be brighter on more games at the end of the year as well, with none of this "doesn't matter if they win the last games or not" attidude that has been on display. Plus, it's really the only way you can have a championship game without divisions, and not risk two teams playing each other two weeks in a row. And I hate the idea of divisions.
EastLosRandy
Well-Known Member
This. It's not like we have to make a plan that will be set in stone for decades. Most proponents for mixing up the divisions concede that Iowa and Wisconsin are pretty strong "for now," but assume that in the long run PSU, OSU, and Mich will dominate. The four year review provision allows us to wait to answer some questions that we could only speculate about right now:
1. Will Nebraska develop evenly-matched, spirited divisional rivalries with Iowa and Wisconsin? Or will they dominate the Big Ten West and yearn for more matchups with Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan?
2. Can the Hawkeyes and Badgers solidify their current positions as Big Ten contenders over the years? Or are they destined to slump back into the middle of the conference?
3. Whither Michigan? Can RichRod turn things around? If not, how quickly and how thoroughly can the next coach (Jim Harbaugh?) repair the damage caused by Lloyd's empty cupboard and RichRod's ill-fated "revolution?"
4. Can anyone stop Tressell's Buckeye juggernaught?
The only thing I would add is a nine-game conference schedule. Playing 4 out of 6 of the teams in the opposite division will dramatically reduce many of the worries about competitive balance, no matter how you split the conference.
ICHawk24
Well-Known Member
Word.
HawkeyeMike23
Banned
Really? So Iowa-Minnesota is more important than Iowa-OSU this year? When has a "doesn't matter if they win the last games or not" ever been on display in college football? This isn't the NFL, there aren't playoffs in college, no one lets up once they've clinched their division, every loss drops the quality of your bowl game. This whole idea of rivalry week would reward teams with bad rivals, couldn't Michigan now claim that Michigan St, who is their rival too, should be their last game?
