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

We really should dispense with divisions and the CCG, but since there is a ve$ted intere$t in keep that soon-to-be relic, I still say that we do these divisions:

Cornfields: Illinois, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska, Purdue, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota

Coastlines: Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Maryland, Rutgers, Wisconsin, Moo U, Northwestern

This should be a comment in a snowflake thread.

Actually we would have played 12-0 Washington in the Championship game.

However, like many people above have pointed out above with the number of teams we have now the likelihood someone will Iowa its way to the championship game is pretty likely. Also, if they are Iowaing in, it's more than likely they didn't face the big dog who would be their opponent, so no rematch.

Next season's new alignment is but one more evolutionary step toward a Premier League, in my humble opinion. Someday in the (maybe not so distant) future, a league of 20 or so teams will play maybe 14 games, with one legacy game protected and a revolving schedule against the other teams (but not two games against the same opponent in the same season). Basically, a season-long playoff. And because all league teams will be the best, no points are given or deducted for SOS. M will play tOSU every year but maybe not MSU, even assuming they're not relegated. The team with the most end-of season points is the national champion, without the need for a playoff.  Or something like that. Go Blue.

I don't care if we do divisions, but make them balanced. The divisions as they've been since the East/West split has been a freaking joke, with the West regularly getting to send mediocre 8-4 Northwestern, Purdue and Wisconsin teams to Indy as cannon fodder for the East. 

I agree with this, and the only good solution is to eliminate the CCG.  With the 12 team playoff, both participants are guaranteed IN, unless one picks up an extra loss.

The championship game can never get an extra team in, but it could knock out a plucky Wisconsin, for example, who happened to miss the best 3-4 teams in the conference and then gets smoked by one of them in the championship game.  The big ten’s ideal is sneaking that 5th team in before they are exposed.  A playoff #11 seed getting spanked by Oklahoma will raise no eyebrows related to quality of the #11 and is more valuable than getting unnecessarily spanked by Oregon in a CCG.

if Petitti was not lost on his vision quest to destroy Michigan this fall, he may have been able to put this together, but alas.

oh and the other thing that the Big Ten and networks are not putting in their spreadsheet is the devaluation of the Michigan - Ohio State game.  There is no reason this year’s game should have had 20 million viewers if it was guaranteed to be re-adjudicated one week later.  So take half of that game value out of the pro formas, and does it still make sense?  I think not.

The 2 best teams in the new B1G will potentially play 3X next year.

The magic of traditional rivalries in College Football has been dying for years in the TV era.  I remember when Texas/Texas A&M was the game to watch the Friday after Thanksgiving.
 

 They need to get rid of the conference championship games - big 10 and SEC as well.  That’s assuming the SEC would also get rid of divisions.  I don’t know what the conference tie breakers will look like, but with a 12 team playoff, any time you have two teams close at the end of the season, they’re both going to go.  Just leave the conference as a ‘shared’ title.  

Only thing that make Ohio State fans go more mental than losing to Michigan once is losing twice.

The entire point of a CCG used to be only because of divisions...no divisions = no CCG. Now everything is gravitating away from divisions and eliminates the need for a CCG, but the CCGs aren't going away because $$$.

It would indeed suck to play in consecutive weeks, but I also agree with some others that it wouldn't happen as often as we fear it might.

Here's what I would propose to eliminate/reduce the likelihood of a repeat matchup in the CCG:

• The regular season winner of the 18-team league (with tiebreakers) is considered the equivalent of the #1 seed and is in the CCG.
• Instead of playing the top two teams against each other in the CCG, the regular season champion plays the next highest-seeded team that they didn't already play.
• That way, any team that the regular season champ already beat does not have the right to play them again in a rematch. (i.e., Washington would not have to play & beat Oregon a second time in the PAC12 CCG; Washington would've played the next highest-seeded team that they didn't already play. They earned the right to not have to beat Oregon twice.)
• If the regular season champ did not finish undefeated, they would be able to play the next hightest-seeded team that they didn't play or a team they were beaten by. Thus, the regular season champ should have the opportunity to avenge a loss and play a team that beat them, though the rest of the league should not have the opportunity to avenge a loss to the #1 seed because the #1 seed earned not having to play a rematch...only the #1 seed has the opportunity to avenge a loss.)

...thoughts?

Unfortunately the things that made college football special and different from the NFL are being sold away in chase of the almighty dollar. It will never be the same again. There will probably be some sort of super league in the future and it will be like a junior NFL. Can't wait for the big game to be a 7-4 Michigan playing a 7-4 Ohio State for the last wildcard spot in the playoffs.   

My view - no do-overs - if the best team has already beaten # 2 and # 3, then they should play # 4. The only question becomes what happens if # 4 wins.

There are time when chaos can be fun.   I am hoping that Michigan goes through the '24 conference season with an unblemished record - and, there are four teams with 8-1 conference records which will highlight the tiebreakers.

And - for the record - my hope is that Michigan begins the '24 calendar year with a 2-0 record.

Go Blue!

I will get crushed for this but OSU v Michigan needs to be in week 0 every year. You can prep and pour your entire heart and soul in the offseason for that matchup and you may very well get a rematch in the BTCC game. I love the idea with the expansion. Without it leave it the way it is

No to saving divisions and having potentially unworthy teams in a championship game. Best scenario: get rid of the championship game and institute a showcase showdown format where the teams that have not met each other yet during the year are paired according to standings to clear up conference ties, etc. Otherwise, eliminate the championship game and return to what worked for more than a century and allow for co-champs. If the championship game still carries on, move the game up by two weeks so that it is still late enough in the season to maintain its significance but also gives space to recuperate,game-plan fresh, and get a couple of tune-ups in place in case Michigan and Ohio State meet again.

It won't matter. Even if we eliminate a rematch in the conference championship game, there will be rematches in the playoffs. We may even have a national championship game down the road with both of these teams. It was not all that unlikely to happen last year. I think there's a distinct possibility we have seasons where they could play 2-3 times even if the cards fall in the right spots. Sanctity of The Game is certainly gone.

I think they could preserve some of the intrigue of big games by putting something related to them in the tiebreaker.  For example, once the #1 seed is determined, the first tiebreaker between the potential tied #2 seeds eliminates any team that lost to the #1 seed, so there are no rematches.  If Michigan is #1 at 9-0 and OSU is #2 with three other teams at 8-1, then OSU is out.  The conference won’t do that of course (except under an ad hoc situation where Michigan would otherwise be the #2 seed), but they could, under a desire to limit rematches and create more opportunities for players to compete against other schools.

I think the bigger problem with no divisions is what happens if you get three undefeated teams in the conference.  It will be technically possible every year.

With 18 teams and if 1 of the tie breakers is specifically designed to prevent a rematch it seems like rematches wouldn't be a super common occurrence. With 18 teams there'd often be a logjam for the top 2 spots with multiple close teams.

My understanding is that they haven't announced tie breaking procedures yet, but avoiding rematches is likely to be one.

I just love the fact soooooooo much that we beat them during last year of 4 team playoff.  So glorious ....unfortunately The Game will lose a lot of significance now. Play it earlier, play it later, I personally don't care as much anymore. I get the issue with the potential to play them multiple times in a short period, but whatever. 

 

For those doubting that (m)any conference(s) see an incentive to eliminate the CCG (I agree), I think the most effective solution is to cannibalize the OOC schedule and expand the conference schedule. 
 

If we reinstate divisions, that alleviates issues of playing out-of-division opponents so seldom that we no longer feel in conference with them.

If we stay away from divisions, cannibalizing the OOC would at least add data points to reduce the risk that many/most seasons will be marred by controversial tie breakers (more games means more tough games means fewer 1-loss teams.

Main downside: This would contribute to an acceleration of G5 financial wilting as they do collectively depend on those August/Sept OOC paydays.

Verdict: The gains far exceed the costs. Do it.

Maybe I'm missing something but this doesn't seem as big an issue with 18 teams. You'd need M and OSU to both be undefeated with every other team having at least 2 losses, so that the loser of The Game is the only 1 loss team. Otherwise you can just 90% solve this by making the first tiebreaker for #2 "drop all the tied teams who already lost to the #1 team". Most years that will leave a team who didn't already play the M/OSU winner.

If M or OSU loses for their only loss and all 16 other teams have at least two losses - PSU, Oregon, USC, Washington, Wisconsin etc - then I'm ok with a rematch. Wouldn't love it but ok with it.

Division draft! The two CCG attendees pick teams to place in their division the next year. Snake draft, loser goes first.

Iowa, you're on the clock.

Someone needs to say how stupid a 12 team playoff is.

1. Byes suck - see MLB playoffs.  Layoff = rust… best teams could lose early regularly

2. Why go from 4 to 12 and skip the logical number of 8?

3. Do we really need team #12 to get a shot?  

4. The aforementioned conference re-play silliness 

ugh.

I share your concern but I’m afraid it’s inevitable. Consider last year. Even without the rematch, what if the nutheads prevailed over UGA and went on to beat TCU to win it all? That would have taken the luster from M’s regular season win just as much as losing a rematch IMO.

On the other hand, what if we got the BCS rematch in 2006? I think we would win that game. So maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing in the long run, hypothetically, all things considered? The answer is no. It sucks, but it’s inevitable.

I was always in favor of divisions and adding the PAC-12 teams made it even more a reason to do it

Give me that soft team 3x a year. Imagine how depressed they will be after we go 3-0 against them in the same season!

I know I'm in the minority on this one, but I'd rather have this game earlier in the season where this is still time to recover in the unlikely (lately) event we lose that game.  Hard to believe but with the new Big10, we could theoretically play OSU three times in one season! Regular season, Big10 Championship game and then in the playoffs!!