Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yup
How did the divisions prevent the Big Ten from getting into the finals. OSU lost to Iowa and Purdue in major upsets in two straight years. They do fine in the east division but not so much with two average West division teams. Just how is the conference alignment change anything?Exactly what I was hoping would happen when they screwed themselves out of the playoffs again. Delaney is a tool, but he even sees the folly of such mismatched divisions.
How did the divisions prevent the Big Ten from getting into the finals. OSU lost to Iowa and Purdue in major upsets in two straight years. They do fine in the east division but not so much with two average West division teams. Just how is the conference alignment change anything?
Ohio State's problem the last 2 years isn't who they played in the championship game. It's that they lost to a mediocre team (from the West division, BTW) they should have manhandled both years. Had they taken care of business, they'd have been safely in the playoffs.It has to do with the championship game. You have a much better chance of getting in the playoff if you play a higher ranked opponent. The big 12 matches the two best teams in the conference and that has worked well for them the last two seasons.
I'd prefer no divisions to gerrymandering them. I want no part of the conference deciding who the good teams are because, rest assured, Indiana will never be in that discussion. Anyone who thinks division realignment will help us is kidding themselves.
How could you possibly do that without subjectively choosing the games? Any method of scheduling other than purely geographic or random draw involves subjectivity. The question to ask about that is who gets a harder schedule so that Indiana can have an easier one and why is that fair?I'd love to break up Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Michigan State as an annual grind and swap a couple games out for Illinois and Minnesota.
Very true.I wasn't arguing for or against. That is the catalyst for the discussion. I think it is somewhat of a knee jerk reaction. You cant adjust the conference based on what the committee values when that is a constantly moving target. All the more reason to put in all the conference champions and let them decide it on the field.
You are so right. This solution has been floated by experts in the past. To my way of thinking its the best way forward. Protects the NYD bowl traditions and ensures the games remain meaningful games. Currently unless my favorite team is playing I could care less to tune in. Playing the championship game the weekend (on Satureday evening) prior to the Super Bowl is perfect. It's open and would receive huge ratings. Hate that they play the current championship game on a Monday????Very true.
I've always though a perfect playoff would have the Power 5 champs go to their traditional NYD bowls and have a selection committee pick three at-large teams, seed them, and place them in the open slots. Winners go to the Final Four. Championship is played on the off week before the Super Bowl.
You'd keep the traditional bowl structure in place and have a meaningful playoff. Sure, one quarterfinal would always Big Ten vs. Pac 12 no matter what the seeds but that tradition is a small price to pay to have everything else.
First, retain each school's rivalry (Thanksgiving weekend) game. Then create (with software assistance) a rolling/rotating schedule for each school's remaining 12 opponents. It would be statistically impossible to face any single opponent (other than the rival) every year.How could you possibly do that without subjectively choosing the games?
They could develop an algorithm and it wouldn't be hard based on the previous year. The best teams get the hardest schedules the following year and the worst teams get an easier road. That would be fair IMO.How could you possibly do that without subjectively choosing the games? Any method of scheduling other than purely geographic or random draw involves subjectivity. The question to ask about that is who gets a harder schedule so that Indiana can have an easier one and why is that fair?
Any notion of "competitive balance" is intended to help the power programs, not the bottom. Having Jim Delany pick the winners and losers would be a disaster for our program because our almost perennial loser status would be cemented in place permanently.
We don't need a gerrymandered schedule. We need a better football team.
i think it would result in us playing one less top 15 team per seasonI'd prefer no divisions to gerrymandering them. I want no part of the conference deciding who the good teams are because, rest assured, Indiana will never be in that discussion. Anyone who thinks division realignment will help us is kidding themselves.
players will be practicing from end of july until end of january under your planVery true.
I've always though a perfect playoff would have the Power 5 champs go to their traditional NYD bowls and have a selection committee pick three at-large teams, seed them, and place them in the open slots. Winners go to the Final Four. Championship is played on the off week before the Super Bowl.
You'd keep the traditional bowl structure in place and have a meaningful playoff. Sure, one quarterfinal would always Big Ten vs. Pac 12 no matter what the seeds but that tradition is a small price to pay to have everything else.
that is quite the opposite of fair.They could develop an algorithm and it wouldn't be hard based on the previous year. The best teams get the hardest schedules the following year and the worst teams get an easier road. That would be fair IMO.
Right out of the gate naming the divisions Leaders and Legends was a clear sign of the arrogance and stupidity of idea of divisions.
One of the greatest rivalry games in sports is Michigan and Ohio State. And now there is an impossibility that they can play in the championship game.
Get rid of the divisions. Move Michigan Ohio State to the beginning of the season so they don’t play each other two weeks in a row. Same with the Oaken Bucket game so that at least it will be a sellout.
The championship game has trivialized the end of the season rivalry games. The Big 10 could not have screwed this up any more if they tried.
because you are intentionally stacking the deck against certain teams to force parity. fair is giving every team the same schedule.Why?
Yes, other than the protected rival, that amounts to a random draw. It isn't subjective and I'm OK with it.First, retain each school's rivalry (Thanksgiving weekend) game. Then create (with software assistance) a rolling/rotating schedule for each school's remaining 12 opponents. It would be statistically impossible to face any single opponent (other than the rival) every year.
And? They're all practicing to a degree year round anyway. Besides, we're only talking about 2 teams in the championship game.players will be practicing from end of july until end of january under your plan
Maybe...But I also thinks it fair to give struggling teams a better chance to compete and better teams a better chance at a higher ranking by playing more ranked teams. In that case you would probably have a BIG team in this year. Anyways its jmhobecause you are intentionally stacking the deck against certain teams to force parity. fair is giving every team the same schedule.
That's doubtful. It just increases the odds of us playing quality teams in the cross-divisional games. Our schedule strength would likely not diminish and we'd be permanently branded a "have-not" by our conference. No thanks.i think it would result in us playing one less top 15 team per season
Oh, and that only works if you eliminate divisions.Yes, other than the protected rival, that amounts to a random draw. It isn't subjective and I'm OK with it.
Would the lower ranked teams' share of gate and bowl revenue be commensurate with the "fairness" of their schedules? Just curious as to how you think that would play out from OSU/Michigan/PSU's point of view. We get to keep the money they generate but they don't have to play us...Maybe...But I also thinks it fair to give struggling teams a better chance to compete and better teams a better chance at a higher ranking by playing more ranked teams. In that case you would probably have a BIG team in this year. Anyways its jmho
you think we would still have to play ohio st, penn st, mich, and mich st every year?That's doubtful. It just increases the odds of us playing quality teams in the cross-divisional games. Our schedule strength would likely not diminish and we'd be permanently branded a "have-not" by our conference. No thanks.
No, not every year.you think we would still have to play ohio st, penn st, mich, and mich st every year?
They looked like idiots with those names and by attaching two names to each position trophy. My favorite is the Griese-Brees QB of the year, which sounds like the Greasy Breeze QB of the year......like the Smelly Fart BT QB of the year..........
Why not the lower rated teams may end up with a good year so the following year they would have to play the tougher schedule...It would all shake out unless you bottom dwelled every year but with the scheduling it would at least give you a better shot.Would the lower ranked teams' share of gate and bowl revenue be commensurate with the "fairness" of their schedules? Just curious as to how you think that would play out from OSU/Michigan/PSU's point of view. We get to keep the money they generate but they don't have to play us...
the difference is we play the 4 i mentioned and can never beat plus we still have to play 2 of iowa, n'western, wisc and nebNo, not every year.
But let's say we move Purdue and Illinois to the East/South and Michigan and MSU to the West. Wisconsin is a top 15 program, this year notwithstanding. I think everyone expects Nebraska to get back to normal under Frost. Iowa is always good. Northwestern just won the division. We'd be guaranteed to play at least two of them every year and usually three of them.
So you take out Michigan and MSU and replace them with Michigan and Wisconsin. Or Nebraska and MSU. Or Iowa and Wisconsin. What's the difference?
So you think Penn State would be OK with going 7-5 every other year against a stacked schedule while Indiana goes 7-5 every other year against an easy schedule but we all get an equal share of the revenue?Why not the lower rated teams may end up with a good year so the following year they would have to play the tougher schedule...It would all shake out unless you bottom dwelled every year but with the scheduling it would at least give you a better shot.
We only played Iowa this year. We only played Wisconsin last year.the difference is we play the 4 i mentioned and can never beat plus we still have to play 2 of iowa, n'western, wisc and neb
You miss the point...Better football team or not thats the way I would set it up! If any conference members ESPECIALLY psu have a problem with that F-Them! psu...And its not Gerrymandered I see it as fair. AND why does every other year have t be back and forth. If you have a good football team and play the best your just ponying up more points for the football selection committee. With this set up two good teams from the BIG could go even with a loss each if they played a tough schedule!So you think Penn State would be OK with going 7-5 every other year against a stacked schedule while Indiana goes 7-5 every other year against an easy schedule but we all get an equal share of the revenue?
Again, we don't need a gerrymandered schedule and it's in no one's best interest or desire to give us one. We just need a better football team.