Why do we need two divisions?

S

SwirlinLingerie

Well-Known Member
Why do we need divisions?

Splitting a conference into divisions has always bothered me. You lose many - if not most - of the benefits of a conference when a divisional split takes place. My god, look at what we're discussing. Iowa not playing Wisconsin and Minnesota? Ohio State and Michigan playing in October? Is this Russia, Danny? It certainly doesn't feel like the Big Ten, at least not the conference we grew up loving.

At what point have we lost more than we gain?

My solution? No divisions. One conference, 12 teams, 9 game schedule, top two teams in the standings meet in the championship game.

Why isn't this better? You can't tell me one conference race isn't more interesting than two "divisional" races. And this way, we're guaranteed that the two best teams meet in the conference championship. Isn't that the whole point?

If everybody is happy with the current conference rivalries, why not just keep all of them as is and add the championship game at the end? Why can't the Big Ten be different?

Let Michigan and Ohio State play the last week of the season. It will still have huge ramifications on who finishes 1 and 2 in the conference and plays the very next week in the championship game. I doubt they would often play each other the very next week anyway. And if they do, who cares? That'd mean they are the two best teams and thus an intriguing match-up. And if that scenario plays out and people don't like it, then make a switch.

All this realignment talk makes me feel as if we'll lose the Big Ten as we know it. Do we really want to play Indiana every year, but only play Wisconsin and Ohio State every other year? So potentially, only twice a decade the Badgers come to Kinnick? Really? Hardly feels like a conference foe at that point.

I love adding Nebraska, and understand the money involved with a championship game, but if an 8 game conference schedule with 11 teams and no divisions work, why doesn't a 9 game conference schedule with 12 teams and no divisions work?
 
Makes too much sense. Since the BT teams currently don't play two BT opponents each year, nothing is changed in that way. I suppose someone would say they'd be worried about a three or four way tie for the top 2 spots, but the same thing could happen in divisions. They'd have tiebreakers in either format. I like it, but, alas, it won't happen.
 
homes said:
Makes too much sense. Since the BT teams currently don't play two BT opponents each year, nothing is changed in that way. I suppose someone would say they'd be worried about a three or four way tie for the top 2 spots, but the same thing could happen in divisions. They'd have tiebreakers in either format. I like it, but, alas, it won't happen.
Click to expand...

You have much cleaner tie breakers in divisions than you would if there was no divisions. You will always have head to head and division record as possible tiebreakers if you have two divisions. If there were no divisions, there is a good chance you don't have either of those options for tiebreakers. Also, without divisions you can't guarantee that the championship game wouldn't be a rematch of game played the week before, which obviously the TV networks won't want.
 
HawkeyeMike23 said:
You have much cleaner tie breakers in divisions than you would if there was no divisions. You will always have head to head and division record as possible tiebreakers if you have two divisions. If there were no divisions, there is a good chance you don't have either of those options for tiebreakers. Also, without divisions you can't guarantee that the championship game wouldn't be a rematch of game played the week before, which obviously the TV networks won't want.
Click to expand...

Exactly, because it's not about putting the 2 best teams in the championship game, but creating the most interesting television championship game they can.
 
These are not satisfactory answers to me. I understand it is all about money, but that's generated by the championship game, which I still advocate. And the most interesting match-up, thus generating the most dollars, would be to pit the top two teams against each other.

In terms of the likelihood of ties without divisions, isn't that what the Big Ten already has? A close race with different scenarios as the final regular season game approaches only creates more excitement. Plus, think about it. If the top two teams are tied, great. They play the next week to settle it.

If there is a three way tie for second (as if this would happen every year anyway), think of the excitement and madness that likely ensued the last week? Ok, to make the championship game, Iowa needed Michigan State to upset Penn State, etc. Every game would be closely watched, thus generating greater TV dollars.

Plus, we're only talking about a tie breaker for the second place team. I don't see how that generates less interest or money.

So the only negative of no divisions is the possibility of two teams playing each other two weeks in a row (which of course, are the two best teams in the league).

I don't see why this is never discussed as an option.
 
Divisions are cleaner and make things simpler. If you want to think of it as one conference, no divisions, with each team having a guaranteed 6 (or 7) teams on their schedule each year, go right ahead.
 
I still don't like the protected cross division rivalry games, so in addition to playing the 5 teams in your division plus your rival in the other that leaves 2 games for the remaining 5 teams in the other division. This eliminates the chance for making the scheduling easy with a team playing the other 5 in their division and then 3 of the six in the other division rotating every two years.

So with the cross division rivalry game it is going to cause teams to have a gap of at least 3 years before they play a team in the other division, that doesn't make much sense to me and can also make some teams schedules much easier every year then what others teams have to face.
 
SwirlinLingerie said:
Why do we need divisions?

Splitting a conference into divisions has always bothered me. You lose many - if not most - of the benefits of a conference when a divisional split takes place. My god, look at what we're discussing. Iowa not playing Wisconsin and Minnesota? Ohio State and Michigan playing in October? Is this Russia, Danny? It certainly doesn't feel like the Big Ten, at least not the conference we grew up loving.

At what point have we lost more than we gain?

My solution? No divisions. One conference, 12 teams, 9 game schedule, top two teams in the standings meet in the championship game.

Why isn't this better? You can't tell me one conference race isn't more interesting than two "divisional" races. And this way, we're guaranteed that the two best teams meet in the conference championship. Isn't that the whole point?

If everybody is happy with the current conference rivalries, why not just keep all of them as is and add the championship game at the end? Why can't the Big Ten be different?

Let Michigan and Ohio State play the last week of the season. It will still have huge ramifications on who finishes 1 and 2 in the conference and plays the very next week in the championship game. I doubt they would often play each other the very next week anyway. And if they do, who cares? That'd mean they are the two best teams and thus an intriguing match-up. And if that scenario plays out and people don't like it, then make a switch.

All this realignment talk makes me feel as if we'll lose the Big Ten as we know it. Do we really want to play Indiana every year, but only play Wisconsin and Ohio State every other year? So potentially, only twice a decade the Badgers come to Kinnick? Really? Hardly feels like a conference foe at that point.

I love adding Nebraska, and understand the money involved with a championship game, but if an 8 game conference schedule with 11 teams and no divisions work, why doesn't a 9 game conference schedule with 12 teams and no divisions work?
Click to expand...

When the conference gets this big, you need a championship game and you need divisions. Imagine a year when MSU for example doesn't have to play Iowa, OSU, or PSU. They'd have a much easier time than a team that doesn't have to play NW, IU, and Illinois.

I don't have a problem with splitting into divisions, I have a problem with the stupid justification they're trying to come up with for splitting regardless of geography. It isn't fair for PSU fans to have to travel halfway across the country for three or four games a year and it isn't fair for Nebraska fans to do so either. Simply split along geographic lines. They're overcomplicating this and they're going to ruin the Big Ten.
 
I still don't see your points.

Midnight Blue, the scenario you described (MSU skipping three quality opponents) is just as likely to happen with one conference or two divisions. It is the same number of games either way. In fact, long term competitive imbalance is more likely to happen with divisions vs. one conference. Plus, when they switch to 9 games, that's only two opponents each team skips.

Hoffa, my understanding is that these divisions are only for football.
 
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
SwirlinLingerie said:
I still don't see your points.

Midnight Blue, the scenario you described (MSU skipping three quality opponents) is just as likely to happen with one conference or two divisions. It is the same number of games either way. In fact, long term competitive imbalance is more likely to happen with divisions vs. one conference. Plus, when they switch to 9 games, that's only two opponents each team skips.

Hoffa, my understanding is that these divisions are only for football.
Click to expand...

How is it as likely to happen with divisions? If your division includes OSU and PSU or Iowa and Nebraska, you're not going to be able to escape without playing any quality opponents. The only way it would happen is if one division completely collapsed and lost all quality programs (like Big XII North). When we go to 9 conference games that would be even less likely, but that switch is at least 3 or 4 years away. On Hawkeye Report there was an interesting proposal to basically split along geographic lines for the next 4 years, then evaluate and see if adjustments need to be made. The biggest problem with not going to divisions (aside from the fact that I don't think the NCAA allows it) would be the uncertainty. It's bad enough now that there's always a chance for a shared conference championship. Imagine if we had the scenario the Big XII South had a couple years ago when there were 3 teams with one loss. If we finish with UM, OSU, and Iowa with 1 loss in conference, who goes to the championship? This becomes much clearer with divisions, since one of the three teams would automatically make the championship. The other two would use their head-to-head record to determine the tie breaker.
 
With a 12 team league each team misses 3 teams a year with an 8 game schedule, and 2 a year with a 9 game schedule.

I think it might work with a 9 game schedule, but once the conference blows up to 14 or 16 teams, you pretty much have to have divisions to end up with any semblance of a balanced schedule.

Plus, a conference title game between two division champs is like a 1 vs 1 match up, which is seen in higher regard than a 1 vs 2 match up, even if the participants are the same.

Schools can use 'division champ' as a recruiting tool moreso than conference runner up.

I don't have a problem with divisions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top