West Division Standings Without Crossover games

ChosenChildren

ChosenChildren

Well-Known Member
I'm sure people will disagree, but my opinion is that Division champions should be determined solely by each team's record against other division foes. This is particularly true when considering the fact that each team's schedule against East Division teams (or West Division teams) varies wildly from year to year. When you consider only West Division games, the race would have been much more interesting this year. Here are the current standings:

1. MN 3-1 (remaining West Division games: At NW; Wisconsin
2. WI 3-1 (remaining West Division games: Purdue; At MN)
3. IA 3-1 (remaining West Division games: IL; At Neb)
4. IL 2-2 (remaining West: At IA; NW)
5. Neb 2-3 (remaining West: IA)
6.PU 2-3 (remaining West: At WI)
7.NW 0-4 (remaining West: MN; At IL)

The East Division also would be much more interesting, since at this juncture Michigan would have only one loss (to Penn State), while Ohio State and Penn State would have no division losses. Michigan still has to play Ohio State and Ohio State still must play Penn State. The crossover games distort those standings as well.

Under the above scenario, if Iowa wins out and Minnesota defeats Wisconsin, Iowa is the champ since it would win the tiebreaker against Minnesota.

I suppose one argument against this is that the Big Ten doesn't want a Division champion crowned who has not played well against East Division foes. I think that argument is rather hollow, since Norrthwestern recently made the Big Ten Championship game with an 8-4 record.
 
Last edited:
ChosenChildren said:
I'm sure people will disagree, but my opinion is that Division champions should be determined solely by each team's record against other division foes. This is particularly true when considering the fact that each team's schedule against East Division teams (or West Division teams) varies wildly from year to year. When you consider only West Division games, the race would have been much more interesting this year. Here are the current standings:

1. MN 3-1 (remaining West Division games: At NW; Wisconsin
2. WI 3-1 (remaining West Division games: Purdue; At MN)
3. IA 3-1 (remaining West Division games: IL; At Neb)
4. IL 2-2 (remaining West: At IA; NW)
5. Neb 2-3 (remaining West: IA)
6.PU 2-3 (remaining West: At WI)
7.NW 0-4 (remaining West: MN; At IL)

The East Division also would be much more interesting, since at this juncture Michigan would have only one loss (to Penn State), which Ohio State and Penn State would have no division losses. Michigan still has to play Ohio State and Ohio State still must play Penn State. The crossover games distort those standings as well.

Under the above scenario, if Iowa wins out and Minnesota defeats Wisconsin, Iowa is the champ since it would win the tiebreaker against Minnesota.

I suppose one argument against this is that the Big Ten doesn't want a Division champion crowned who has not played well against East Division foes. I think that argument is rather hollow, since Norrthwestern recently made the Big Ten Championship game with an 8-4 record.
Click to expand...

What really would have been a kick in the nuts is if Iowa had beaten Wisconsin as well and Minnesota wins their next two games. Iowa could have potentially been undefeated in the division and clearly the best team in the West but wouldn't have gone to Indy as champ.
 
It is particularly distorted in seasons when a team plays an extremely difficult crossover schedule and only plays 4 of their 9 conference games at home,

Here is Iowa's brutal schedule next year in the conference:

at Minnesota
Michigan State
at Ohio State
at Penn State
Northwestern
at Illinois
Nebraska
at Purdue
Wisconsin

Iowa's crossover games are Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State and two of them are on the road (at Ohio St; at Penn St).
 
Xerxes said:
What really would have been a kick in the nuts is if Iowa had beaten Wisconsin as well and Minnesota wins their next two games. Iowa could have potentially been undefeated in the division and clearly the best team in the West but wouldn't have gone to Indy as champ.
Click to expand...

Absolutely true. The crossover scheduling is ridiculously unfair from year to year. Obviously, some years you get to play Maryland and Rutgers (like Minnesota did this year).
 
ChosenChildren said:
It is particularly distorted in seasons when a team plays an extremely difficult crossover schedule and only plays 4 of their 9 conference games at home,

Here is Iowa's brutal schedule next year in the conference:

at Minnesota
Michigan State
at Ohio State
at Penn State
Northwestern
at Illinois
Nebraska
at Purdue
Wisconsin

Iowa's crossover games are Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State and two of them are on the road (at Ohio St; at Penn St).
Click to expand...

Damn, they will be lucky to get 5 wins next year with that schedule.
 
ChosenChildren said:
It is particularly distorted in seasons when a team plays an extremely difficult crossover schedule and only plays 4 of their 9 conference games at home,

Here is Iowa's brutal schedule next year in the conference:

at Minnesota
Michigan State
at Ohio State
at Penn State
Northwestern
at Illinois
Nebraska
at Purdue
Wisconsin

Iowa's crossover games are Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State and two of them are on the road (at Ohio St; at Penn St).
Click to expand...

This is why I think the B1G should put in a stipulation that if a team goes undefeated in the division, they are automatically division champion, regardless of their overall B1G record. But only if they're undefeated. Outside of that I think the total B1G record should be used. Even if it would be a bitter pill to swallow because of unfair crossovers. It is still the B1G conference and crossover games should mean a lot.
 
ChosenChildren said:
I'm sure people will disagree, but my opinion is that Division champions should be determined solely by each team's record against other division foes. This is particularly true when considering the fact that each team's schedule against East Division teams (or West Division teams) varies wildly from year to year. When you consider only West Division games, the race would have been much more interesting this year. Here are the current standings:

1. MN 3-1 (remaining West Division games: At NW; Wisconsin
2. WI 3-1 (remaining West Division games: Purdue; At MN)
3. IA 3-1 (remaining West Division games: IL; At Neb)
4. IL 2-2 (remaining West: At IA; NW)
5. Neb 2-3 (remaining West: IA)
6.PU 2-3 (remaining West: At WI)
7.NW 0-4 (remaining West: MN; At IL)

The East Division also would be much more interesting, since at this juncture Michigan would have only one loss (to Penn State), which Ohio State and Penn State would have no division losses. Michigan still has to play Ohio State and Ohio State still must play Penn State. The crossover games distort those standings as well.

Under the above scenario, if Iowa wins out and Minnesota defeats Wisconsin, Iowa is the champ since it would win the tiebreaker against Minnesota.

I suppose one argument against this is that the Big Ten doesn't want a Division champion crowned who has not played well against East Division foes. I think that argument is rather hollow, since Norrthwestern recently made the Big Ten Championship game with an 8-4 record.
Click to expand...

Since B1G went West/East, the West has yet to win so it probably won't matter but the quality of East opponents has certainly had an impact. Other than the 2016 Badgers and the Wildcats beating Sparty, playing Maryland, Rutgers and Indiana has paid off it seems.

Badgers vs Maryland, @ Rutgers
Hawks vs Maryland, @ Indiana
Badgers W @ MSU, L @ Mich, L vs OSU in OT (went 6-0 vs West teams)
Badgers Maryland, Indiana, Mich
Wildcats @ MSU, vs Rutgers
 
ChosenChildren said:
I'm sure people will disagree, but my opinion is that Division champions should be determined solely by each team's record against other division foes. This is particularly true when considering the fact that each team's schedule against East Division teams (or West Division teams) varies wildly from year to year. When you consider only West Division games, the race would have been much more interesting this year. Here are the current standings:

1. MN 3-1 (remaining West Division games: At NW; Wisconsin
2. WI 3-1 (remaining West Division games: Purdue; At MN)
3. IA 3-1 (remaining West Division games: IL; At Neb)
4. IL 2-2 (remaining West: At IA; NW)
5. Neb 2-3 (remaining West: IA)
6.PU 2-3 (remaining West: At WI)
7.NW 0-4 (remaining West: MN; At IL)

The East Division also would be much more interesting, since at this juncture Michigan would have only one loss (to Penn State), while Ohio State and Penn State would have no division losses. Michigan still has to play Ohio State and Ohio State still must play Penn State. The crossover games distort those standings as well.

Under the above scenario, if Iowa wins out and Minnesota defeats Wisconsin, Iowa is the champ since it would win the tiebreaker against Minnesota.

I suppose one argument against this is that the Big Ten doesn't want a Division champion crowned who has not played well against East Division foes. I think that argument is rather hollow, since Norrthwestern recently made the Big Ten Championship game with an 8-4 record.
Click to expand...
No. We don’t want to tack this direction because it basically comes down to two conferences that have a CG against one another. And one conference can say, “Money-wise, we don’t need you.
 
ChosenChildren said:
It is particularly distorted in seasons when a team plays an extremely difficult crossover schedule and only plays 4 of their 9 conference games at home,

Here is Iowa's brutal schedule next year in the conference:

at Minnesota
Michigan State
at Ohio State
at Penn State
Northwestern
at Illinois
Nebraska
at Purdue
Wisconsin

Iowa's crossover games are Michigan State, Ohio State and Penn State and two of them are on the road (at Ohio St; at Penn St).
Click to expand...
Some powers that be might just be saying that it’s okay for KF to pass Paterno in Wins —
but Woody and Bo...?

Not so fast.
 
DDThompson said:
No. We don’t want to tack this direction because it basically comes down to two conferences that have a CG against one another. And one conference can say, “Money-wise, we don’t need you.
Click to expand...

I had not thought of that angle. I guess the other thing that can happen is that the commissioner reshuffles the teams in each division....although frankly that doesn't change the argument that only the division games matter. For example, if Michigan came to the West to balance it out (Purdue goes to the east) it still makes sense to only count division games in determining the champion of a division.
 
It sounds like some posters are also saying just use the division games because the East Div has 3-4 tougher teams each year than the West. Well to balance that out they could move the most usual best team from the East, OSU, to the West. But all that would do would make it way harder for any team in the West to ever get to the Big C Game.

They are all conf games so they have to count. The only fair way is to schedule is rotate who each team plays in such way that a team like Iowa wouldnt play all the heavyweights in one year.
 
ChosenChildren said:
I'm sure people will disagree, but my opinion is that Division champions should be determined solely by each team's record against other division foes. This is particularly true when considering the fact that each team's schedule against East Division teams (or West Division teams) varies wildly from year to year. When you consider only West Division games, the race would have been much more interesting this year. Here are the current standings:

1. MN 3-1 (remaining West Division games: At NW; Wisconsin
2. WI 3-1 (remaining West Division games: Purdue; At MN)
3. IA 3-1 (remaining West Division games: IL; At Neb)
4. IL 2-2 (remaining West: At IA; NW)
5. Neb 2-3 (remaining West: IA)
6.PU 2-3 (remaining West: At WI)
7.NW 0-4 (remaining West: MN; At IL)

The East Division also would be much more interesting, since at this juncture Michigan would have only one loss (to Penn State), while Ohio State and Penn State would have no division losses. Michigan still has to play Ohio State and Ohio State still must play Penn State. The crossover games distort those standings as well.

Under the above scenario, if Iowa wins out and Minnesota defeats Wisconsin, Iowa is the champ since it would win the tiebreaker against Minnesota.

I suppose one argument against this is that the Big Ten doesn't want a Division champion crowned who has not played well against East Division foes. I think that argument is rather hollow, since Norrthwestern recently made the Big Ten Championship game with an 8-4 record.
Click to expand...

Very interesting point. This is something to consider how things can get skewed.
 
This is why you move to a 10 game conference schedule.

Each team plays 6 divisional games.

Each team has one permanent divisional crossover closely aligned with each other's last 10 year W/L record.

Each team then does a two year home/home with a group of 3 cross-divisional with a two year home/home against the other 3. And just keep rotating that way.

For example, Iowa's schedule would have the six divisional opponents (NW, Neb, Minn, Wisc, Ill, Purdue), a permanent cross over (either MSU or PSU), and then play a home/home over the next two years against, say, OSU, Maryland and Indiana, with the next two years after that being, Mich, Rutgers, and either MSU or PSU.
 
Iowa goes to Indy if wisconsin and minnesota lose twice. So If Wisconsin loses to Minnesota and northwestern. And minnesota loses to northwestern, then again in the game against Ohio State then Iowa go... oh wait.
 
I like that idea

Cause right now the team that wins the West had the easier schedule of Eastern opponents. WI has done a good job of beating the MSU/UM and PSU though, at least compared to Iowa.
 
If we had no divisions, we would play the 'good teams' in the East more often. As it is now, the rotation benefits West teams.
2015 is a prime example. We played Indiana & Maryland from the East.
 
SpiderRico said:
This is why you move to a 10 game conference schedule.

Each team plays 6 divisional games.

Each team has one permanent divisional crossover closely aligned with each other's last 10 year W/L record.

Each team then does a two year home/home with a group of 3 cross-divisional with a two year home/home against the other 3. And just keep rotating that way.

For example, Iowa's schedule would have the six divisional opponents (NW, Neb, Minn, Wisc, Ill, Purdue), a permanent cross over (either MSU or PSU), and then play a home/home over the next two years against, say, OSU, Maryland and Indiana, with the next two years after that being, Mich, Rutgers, and either MSU or PSU.
Click to expand...

I loved this idea except for the permanent divisional crossover. But I don't think they can balance a 10 game schedule with 12 teams. If they can then I think the best teams should play the toughest crossover schedule, so on and so forth (do a running 2 years).

But if you got that far then just go the extra step and play an 11 game schedule so then everyone is playing everybody. Each team plays 1 non-conference game as a warm up game. To go a step further I would love for that 1 non conference game be against the Pac 12, match them up based on record (do a home and home) and make it so each team gets 6 home games, if you only get 5 home games in conference then the non conference game is at home. As a fan that would be a lot of fun and buh bye annual clown game.
 
ChosenChildren said:
I'm sure people will disagree, but my opinion is that Division champions should be determined solely by each team's record against other division foes. This is particularly true when considering the fact that each team's schedule against East Division teams (or West Division teams) varies wildly from year to year. When you consider only West Division games, the race would have been much more interesting this year. Here are the current standings:

1. MN 3-1 (remaining West Division games: At NW; Wisconsin
2. WI 3-1 (remaining West Division games: Purdue; At MN)
3. IA 3-1 (remaining West Division games: IL; At Neb)
4. IL 2-2 (remaining West: At IA; NW)
5. Neb 2-3 (remaining West: IA)
6.PU 2-3 (remaining West: At WI)
7.NW 0-4 (remaining West: MN; At IL)

The East Division also would be much more interesting, since at this juncture Michigan would have only one loss (to Penn State), while Ohio State and Penn State would have no division losses. Michigan still has to play Ohio State and Ohio State still must play Penn State. The crossover games distort those standings as well.

Under the above scenario, if Iowa wins out and Minnesota defeats Wisconsin, Iowa is the champ since it would win the tiebreaker against Minnesota.

I suppose one argument against this is that the Big Ten doesn't want a Division champion crowned who has not played well against East Division foes. I think that argument is rather hollow, since Norrthwestern recently made the Big Ten Championship game with an 8-4 record.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, under the current format, I think we should only count division games.

However, if you really want to make it interesting, then do this:

- Play an 11 game schedule, like we used to.
- Play 4 out of conference games which have to be played by week 10. Have a bye sometime in the first 10 weeks.
- Play 5 B1G games, all against your division foes.
- After week 9, seed the teams in each division 1-4.
- Bye in week 10 for seeded teams. If you were fifth or sixth, then you play 5 or 6 from the other division.
- In week 11, W1 plays E4, W2 plays E3, W3 plays E2, and W4 plays E1. Home field goes to higher seed. fifth and sixth seeded teams play the other fifth or sixth seeded team they didnt play.
- Week 12 W1/E4 winner plays W2/E3 winner and E1/W4 winner plays E2/W3 winner. Losers play each other.
- Winner of those games play each other for the championship.

How exciting would playoffs be within the divisions? Also, if all the conferences do the same thing, take the winners of the championship games period. They say every week is the playoffs anyway, but one of the many bad things about the current format is that there is really no way to reward the team that puts it together over the course of the year. Also, it gives the teams a great opportunity to play better out of conference matchups, because they dont matter as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top