Will the B1G Get Rid of Divisions? If so, How to Avoid an OSU/Mich Rematch?

Yea I think the clause you're saying is the right thing, and is basically Seth's showcase idea. But it is the way.

First, after the next set of teams come over, the logo is going to change from B1G to B2G.

I expect there will be 20 teams in the conference - which makes sense for two ten team divisions.  One question will be the number of conference games played each season, which may increase from nine to ???  ten, or who knows - perhaps 11?   

An attractive quality about the west coast teams will be their visits to the Midwest - simply because of the draw and relative infrequency with which they've played conference teams in the past.  And, of course, drawing  B2G fans to the Rose Bowl, Coliseum, or other (yet to be announced) west coast venues.

As others have pointed out, the revenue associated with the CCG will need to come from somewhere, so I don't expect the CCG to disappear.

Will divisions be eliminated?  The Big 12 and Pac 12 are operating without divisions this season, but they also don't have 16 or 20 teams in their conferences either.

My guess is that Kevin Warren is expecting an average of three (2) B2G teams to make the CFP annually.   Two teams would be a given, based on how the conference has been performing recently.

I still say we just redo the divisions once the Pac-10 set comes on board and call them the Coastline and The Cornfield divisions

With the 12-team playoff on its way, it seems like it’s inevitable at some point we’ll play twice.  I don’t like it.. my nerves can’t take 2 games against them especially if we win at the end of the season.

The end of season showcase is a much better plan. Take the top 6 or 8 teams that haven't played each other and have them play a final game at the end of the season. Never allow any rematches. Might as well not have a regular season at that point.

Rematch. Why the hell not? Don't send a 3rd place team just because. 

Eliminate the Title Game! All you're doing is giving one good Conference team an unnecessary loss, potentially knocking them out of the CFP or a Major Bowl. 

Insure the first place team are reasonably legit Champs by playing 10 conference games, no Divisions. Insure that nobody gets a schedule that doesn't have at least 2-3 teams which finished in the top half the previous year. If this means only two protected games, so be it.

If we play them twice so be it…it’s a ratings bonanza for the TV networks, so they will not get in the way of making it “harder” for them to play twice.

Don't expect it to happen but seems like you could go to three divisions and the two division winners with best college football rankings play in conference championship game, would be kind of screwed up that out of conference games would impact if you play in conference championship but should make having a weak opponent much more unlikely. 

I prefer a simple solution:
for the conference "championship game" the first place team (however that is determined from the regular season schedule) plays the next highest finishing team that it has NOT played. No rematches. Do not diminish the importance of regular season games.

I think Seth mentioned one model forward I really like: that same weekend, the next highest finishing team plays the next team it has not played (at home), and so on. The NCAA rules would need to be changed to allow this, but there shouldn't be too much resistance to it.

The expanded playoff will mean that it is still possible to get in without entering or winning the conference title, but auto-bids mean that will be the clearest path to doing so.

The SEC started the CCG thing to:
a) get more TV money
b) game the system by improving records of favorites and/or allowing for fluke upsets to grab another bowl spot

There were objections at the time but other conferences eventually followed suit. (To the point where nowadays everyone in a conference complains that independent Notre Dame has an advantage when it doesn't have to play in a conference games.

Interesting that some people are so worried about an 8-4 team stealing an auto-bid by winning a weak division and then the conference championship, but I have never heard anyone complain about such things happening in the NCAA basketball tourney, or when 9-7 NFL regular season teams play in the Super Bowl.

Your assumption that the Big Ten will get rid of divisions to avoid a mediocre team making it to the playoff is a little odd, considering the Big Ten has had divisions and a championship game for over a decade now, and the only time a mediocre team from the West won it was 2012 (when Wisconsin steamrolled a mediocre Nebraska team while the best team in the conference sat home due to a post-season ban). Having a "best two teams" conference championship game would be even stupider than the current division set up, and it will never happen due to the fact that it would necessitate rolling schedules and re-open the "protected rivalry" nonsense.

Plus, the runner-up could still make it as an at-large bid in your scenario. 

“Lucky Game 13” - top ranked team after 12th game chooses which team they want to host a week later. Then 2nd ranked team picks and so on for the top half of the conference. 

Can the championship and have “Showcase week” where the #1 team plays the best team they haven’t played yet, #2 (if not in previous game) plays their best non-repeat, and so on down the line, at the home field of the higher seed.

Maybe conferences should be small enough that most teams play each other in the regular season.  It’d be great.  You could have teams that are located near each other so that students could road trip and visit their friends at other schools and/or talk shit I the bars of Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee, Minneapolis or Indianapolis.  The team with the best record would win the conference.  Definitely no more than 10 teams.  
It’d be even better if the top 2-4 schools played the top 2-4 schools at the end of the year to see who’s region was the best.  If there were a couple of undefeated teams who didn’t play soup cans for their ooc games they could play for a national championship.  It’d be awesome if that game and all of the others were on New Years so I could bask in football watching glory.  …and no internet.  Not allowed to look at the internet.  I’d want to keep track of conference wins by flipping back and forth between games or maybe a game update.   Or maybe I’d have 3 TVs like Elvis and watch all the games at once.  I’d wear a jumpsuit too.  Nothing to do with football.  They’re just comfortable and look cool when I do my fake karate moves.

Not really advocating for this as it would be even more sacrilegious than moving the game off its end of season slot, but ponder this: how about not scheduling the game at all and making both teams earn the game each year by making the championship game? Make big 2 & little 8/12/14 an expectation. Adding USC and UCLA makes this more problematic, even just mathematically. But if the BIG had remained at 14? Or 12?

I’m all for getting rid of divisions, but I also want to get rid of conference championship games…just lengthen the conference schedule by a couple games and do a round Robin type with tie breakers and such, this would ensure no rematches until the playoffs at least, which I think would be welcomed. Maybe do a defacto conference championship game if the two best teams haven’t played each other need some kind of tie breaker, kind of like the play in game in baseball; and they can do some kind of zoom coin flip for home field advantage, or just keep Lucas Oil on stand-by.   
 

….but beating OSU, just to have to play them again the next week sounds terrible, and I’m sure they think the same thing. 

Ugh I just really hope they don't. Rematches for rivalries are just immensely lame. I didnt even bother watching this past national championship because of it. 

If the conference champion has been decided in the regular season, then the "championship game" could be held for the highest-position game that has not yet been determined (because two teams are tied but haven't played each other).  If there are three teams tied, then the usual tiebreaker rules apply until only two are left, and they play.

There's no need for a "championship" game if the regular season produces a champion.

The solution is to eliminate the BTCG.  That weekend should be the first round of the playoff.

What will happen is (after that transpired a couple times) they would then get rid of the locked in yearly game, because a championship game is more exciting and it's only once a year.  The problem is.....that would piss off half the fan base.  It's still the most logical solution, though.

Silver lining:  if we go divisionless, keep The Game where it is... it will only give Michigan even more incentive to craft a roster that can compete with OSU.  Plus, in a 12 team CFC playoff system, we'd have a bit more wiggle room.  Not ideal, but again looking for the Silver lining.

Designate a primary and secondary rival for each team.  Teams don't play those rivals in first 7 weeks of league play.  Week 8 begins "playoffs" with top eight making on playoffs.  Teams in non-playoff bracket play each other week 8 and 9.  Losers in playoff bracket each week get "relegated".  Week 10 is just two left in playoff bracket.

In playoff weeks, matchups are prioritized:

1) primary rivals who haven't played

2)secondary rivals who haven't played 

3) teams that haven't played 

4) teams with similar records (avoiding teams that have already played twice)

There would be some rematches and some chance you wouldn't play your primary rival and a higher chance you wouldn't play you secondary rivals.  Have to figure out who plays at home.

Joel Klatt had a Podcast about "Are Divisions hurting college football?"   Here's a link to about 12 minutes of his perspective.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zusyx1LuCsQ

A number of people are talking about potential "back to back" games between the Bucks and Michigan at the end of the season.  IMO, that might only occur if the B1G went without divisions.

IF the B1G stays with a division structure, and both Michigan and the Bucks face each other as undefeated teams, this is what I think the outcome would be.   First, the winner goes to the B1G CCG to face the champ of the other division.  Second, a "one loss" Michigan or Bucks team should be a lock for a 12 team CFP.   Now, what happens to the loser of the B1G CCG?   You would think that if the B1G had three solid teams, that all three would be part of the CFP.  

Who knows that the CFP Selection Committee will wind up doing.   The good news is - if you're the B1G champion, you'll be in the CFP - and, that degree of clarity, is needed.

The top 2 Big teams will almost always be guaranteed playoff spots, so why bother with a B1G championship game.

Best option is to move The Game to earlier in the season.  College football landscape has changed; UM needs to change with it.  No reason to play it at the end of the year for tradition's sake.  If UM loses its better to lose earlier in the season any way.  Without divisions (which is absolutely the way to go) UM can rematch OSU again in the B1G Championship if they win out.  It would be glorious. 

In favor of getting rid of the championship game as the season gets longer and longer. However, as I think expansion isn’t done, I’d keep divisions, which makes the game still a big deal for winning the East. No clue how you maintain any scheduling balance in a 14-18 team league, so it’s best to just separate them until the title game. 

I don’t care who Michigan plays or how many times they play them

Just win baby

Go Blue!!

It's okay to play OSU twice.  They would have to play us twice, too.  The way Michigan is building the program (power running) probably favors Michigan the more times you play each other.

And if we beat OSU twice, they will not be in the playoff.