Save the best game of the year, stay with B1G Divisions

Submitted by wolverine1987 on December 12th, 2023 at 1:33 PM

Out of all the change that's occurred in college football the last few years, by far my greatest concern is retaining the sanctity, the sheer stakes, of the greatest game there is each year, OSU vs. M. I think the special nature of that game is severely threatened by B1G expansion, and precisely, by the elimination of divisions. 

If there were no divisions this year, after our awesome victory against OSU, we would have been preparing to play them again the very next week in the conference championship. And if we lost, all the glow, all the triumph of that victory would have been gone. As bad as that would be, equally bad would be the fact that both teams would know, going into the regular season matchup, that they would play again the next week. 

What makes that game special, beyond anything else, is its finality. Win and your season is a success, lose and it isn't. That finality is what makes Ryan Day lose it, because the pressure is so high and he can't take it. Once it's known in future that we play again next week, those stakes, inevitably, are lowered, which is undeniable. And that makes the game less critical, much more like playing them in basketball. 

And there is a quick fix. Divisions. The West historically was sub-par, and part of the rationale to do away with divisions. But a West division with USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon and Wisconsin is at least the equal of the East, it not arguably better. An easy change that should be done, IMO. 

jmblue

December 12th, 2023 at 1:36 PM ^

The problem is that with 18 teams and two divisions, you'd play eight games against your division and only one crossover game.  The Big Ten didn't invite the West Coast schools to just play against West teams.  They want the big matchups with Michigan, OSU and PSU.

Kilgore Trout

December 12th, 2023 at 2:16 PM ^

I know I keep saying this over and over, but I think the solution is that you just change the divisions every year in some sort of methodical method that protects a few important rivalries. If you are constantly changing the divisions, you have three options.

  1. Stay at 9 games, play all 8 in your division and one random crossover. Division winners play in the championship.
  2. Go down to 8 games, play all 8 in your division, division winners play in the championship.
  3. Stay at 9 games, play all 8 in your division. 9th game is a crossover where division winners host second place from the other division in conference semifinals. Winners of those semis play in the championship. The other 14 teams have crossovers based on finish or convenience. 

It would be confusing year to year, but it solves a lot of problems, chief among them that it's impossible for two teams to play two weeks in a row. There could be a rematch in the championship game, but it wouldn't be back to back and there would be a major incentive to win the first game (hosting the semi final game).

Teddy Bonkers

December 12th, 2023 at 3:55 PM ^

I'd like to see three divisions, five division games and four games that rotate through the rest of the conference (possibly only three games to rotate to preserve a out of division rivalry). Division games determine the division standings, and two division winners ranked highest in college football playoff standings play in conference championship game.

Or add two schools and go to four divisions, so you have five games to rotate through 15 other schools. 

I'll be disappointed if Michigan starts playing for the little brown jug once a decade. Living in Chicago it will suck if Michigan only comes to play Northwestern in Evanston less than once decade. 

Maybe it's time to go to a ten game conference schedule. 

 

joeyb

December 12th, 2023 at 3:38 PM ^

His point is that you should award the championship to the team with the best regular season record without an additional game. There is a lot of potential downside to playing in the CCG and losing compared to staying at home, especially if you had the same record and win the tiebreaker.

Derek

December 12th, 2023 at 1:53 PM ^

That's a more reasonable quick fix, especially since the situation in the OP would see both M and OSU going to the playoff anyway. Given the wildly divergent strengths of B1G programs, we're probably going to end up with multiple one-loss conference records, so a rigorous ranking mechanism will be essential anyway.

jonvalk

December 12th, 2023 at 1:41 PM ^

If TV money for the Championship game wasn't a concern (😂) then you could just check to see if 2nd place happened to be the loser of "The Game", or if the Championship would be a rematch of two teams that played earlier in the season, and then just award the championship to the team that won the first matchup. Of course, because TV money IS the concern, the meaning of that first matchup will be severely neutered. This is the sad reality of the big $$ conference landscape.

glmike

December 12th, 2023 at 1:44 PM ^

I would prefer that the conference add one more conference game and get rid of the championship game.  Take us back to the old days before the championship game.  Having the MN-MI game every year would be great too!

MH20

December 12th, 2023 at 1:46 PM ^

OP, your plan is add the four P12 schools to the West and introduce unbalanced divisions with 11 in the West and 7 in the East? Or are you going to shift some West schools to the East?

Either way, it's not happening. The P12 schools were brought in to consistently play the big time B1G schools (OSU, PSU, M), not Purdue, Northwestern, Illinois, etc.

Divisions are dead.

mgoblue_in_bay

December 12th, 2023 at 1:46 PM ^

Is there any logical way to make it "championship game is top team vs next highest team that they didn't already beat"?

I don't mean actually would they ever do it (never) but is it logically consistent?

mgoblue_in_bay

December 12th, 2023 at 3:43 PM ^

That's an interesting point - but what have any of the teams that got beat by the top team done to deserve it either?

Yea, I guess the theoretical opponent could be a 6-6 trash team, but that would require the top team also have beaten all the other good teams already (unlikely).

This years Washington-Oregon rematch was not an ideal outcome I think (despite the game result.  "Unfair" to Washington, and bad for the league (adding another loss for one of their top teams).

the Glove

December 12th, 2023 at 1:47 PM ^

If you keep divisions you're only going to see a team on the other side twice a decade. Most of all I'm okay with not having to play Rutgers and Maryland every year. 

TheBlueAbides

December 12th, 2023 at 1:50 PM ^

The landscape has changed, divisions don’t really matter, and frankly big ten titles will lose a ton of value being that 3 or (maybe more?) Big Ten teams could make the tournament any given season. It will still be fun to win but maybe a little less so, like in basketball where it’s not quite as a big a deal when March madness is on the horizon for the competitive teams. Glad Michigan got the last three that truly mattered 

Meteorite00

December 12th, 2023 at 1:53 PM ^

Not as concerned about this as some, because I think it is resolved by careful use of tiebreakers. 

The winner of a late season OSU/UM game will be in the championship most years. If head to head is made a tiebreaker priority, the loser will not because they will have at least one conference loss, and will have lost to the other head-to-head. So in something like this year, an undefeated Washington would have face Michigan in the championship. If you drop out Washington and think about what head-to-head would do, this year it would have been Oregon getting a tiebreaker over OSU.  

(Kinda goofy for 2024, though, wehere we play almost every contender)  

Meteorite00

December 12th, 2023 at 1:53 PM ^

Not as concerned about this as some, because I think it is resolved by careful use of tiebreakers. 

The winner of a late season OSU/UM game will be in the championship most years. If head to head is made a tiebreaker priority, the loser will not because they will have at least one conference loss, and will have lost to the other head-to-head. So in something like this year, an undefeated Washington would have face Michigan in the championship. If you drop out Washington and think about what head-to-head would do, this year it would have been Oregon getting a tiebreaker over OSU.  

(Kinda goofy for 2024, though, wehere we play almost every contender)  

sebastokrator

December 12th, 2023 at 1:55 PM ^

I also prefer divisions. I think we're going to end up in scenarios where we have three 11-1 teams that haven't played each other; similar to the Mountain West this year. Tiebreakers are going to be frustrating.

There are a couple of things that I would consider, if I were in charge:

1) Add more conference games. I'd turn two of the non-con games into conference games, leaving you with one game against a directional Michigan caliber team, and one team to play a non-conference rival. You'd play everyone in your 9 team division and have three crossover games. If you're at the school for four years you'll see every team once, though you won't travel to every stadium. Some teams will lose a bunch of gate receipts due to the loss of a home game.

2) Pure promotion and relegation. Round robin tournament, no championship game is needed. The top half of the league has to be selected for bowl bids first, though the playoff committee is free to take anyone as they see fit. One crossover game that is weighted to play the game that hasn't been played in the longest time. On championship weekend, winner of the bottom is automatically promoted, loser of the top is relegated. 2/3 and 6/7 play promotion and relegation rematches. I think this would be fun, but you'd really need to accept that some games will very rarely be played.

brad

December 12th, 2023 at 3:02 PM ^

Relegation can’t work in college because the teams turn over too quickly.  We would risk and endless series of powerhouse one-offs in the lower division, and the resulting blob of ineptitude in the higher division the year AFTER a mid-range team is actually a legit contender.  And vice versa.

Nickel

December 12th, 2023 at 2:03 PM ^

Just accept it man. We're heading for two super conferences, it's not going to be much different than the NFL with the AFC and NFC.

Besides, with the 12 team playoff those games are just going to be for seeding more than anything else.

Harball sized HAIL

December 12th, 2023 at 3:02 PM ^

It will be different than the NFL in the sense that even if there are to be 2 super conferences there will be at least double the amount of teams than NFL teams with less playoff spots.  If there is going to be a Triple A type conference(s) there will likely be 64-70 teams.  And if they decide to throw the less thans a bone and include one or two of them in a playoff that would mean:

Next year - 12 playoff spots, 133 teams - less than 10% make it.  (12 of 70 would be 17%)

NFL - 14 playoff spots, 32 teams - close to 45% make it.

Hensons Mobile…

December 12th, 2023 at 2:15 PM ^

A high-stakes UM-OSU game as the last game of the year will be extremely difficult to come by. It would have to be a scenario where the winner becomes the #2 Big Ten team and advance to the championship game.

Otherwise it will be about playoff seeding. Not too exciting.

username03

December 12th, 2023 at 2:18 PM ^

With 12 teams making the playoffs and if we continue to play at our current level, our regular season will not matter at all. Other than bragging rights that will include ohio regardless of when we play them.

NittanyFan

December 12th, 2023 at 2:18 PM ^

I think it's workable (I'd have no issues with this) to simply add USC/UCLA to the East and add Washington/Oregon to the West:

"East" --- Indiana, MD, MSU, Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St, Rutgers, UCLA, USC

"West" --- Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, NW, Oregon, Purdue, Wash, Wisconsin.

The "East" remains the more "stacked" of the 2 divisions, but we've had that for 10 years anyway, and USC/UCLA gets to play more of the schools they joined the conference to play.  The TV folks would also like this.

BUT, I don't think you'd get a significant majority of the schools to go for this.  And that's the sticking point.

Ypsiwolverine

December 12th, 2023 at 2:26 PM ^

I'll keep saying it.  Add two teams.  

Division 1: MIchigan, MSU, OSU, Ind, Ill, NW, Pur, Wisc, Minn, Iowa

Division 2: PSU, Neb, MD, Rutgers, USC, UCLA. Wash, Ore, New Team 1, New Team 2

9 game round robin division schedule, no crossovers.  Championship game if you must.

Get off my lawn.