On WTKA yesterday I made my case for a Big Ten Showcase week to replace the Big Ten Championship. It's a very simple plan: Use Championship Weekend to play the best Big Ten games that were not played already.

The weekend after Thanksgiving, each team would play one of the four Big Ten opponents they missed during the 9-game regular season, assigned by record. Sometimes—often I suspect—the top game would remain a winner-take-all championship bout. But it would do away with rematches, could do away with the need for divisions, virtually ensure all the championship contenders got a chance to play each other, and finish the season with relatively evenly matched Big Ten games we would have otherwise missed.

Values of a good scheduling system

I came to the Showcase idea by working backwards from the things we want to accomplish in a Big Ten season. They are (in order of relative importance):

• Produce an uncontroversial Big Ten champion that has the best claim to the best season.
• Play all the important rivalries, and most of the other rivalries.
• Be fair. Contenders shouldn't have grossly different paths to their records.
• Make money. Is business.
• No rematches! (discussion at end)

The Plan

I. Big Ten Championship weekend will be replaced by Showcase games across the conference.

At the end of the regular season (IE the week after Thanksgiving) the Big Ten will host three to seven (preferably seven) games between Big Ten teams that have not yet played each other. These can be hosted on campus, or (sigh) at one or more neutral sites.

We'll have to get approved for a 13th game, but I can't see why they would allow 2 teams to do this and not the rest. If a de facto tenth conference game is an issue with the NCAA, the showcase can be chopped down to just the three best games not played, but that's less fun. More Big Ten football: good for everybody.

II. Best teams that haven't played each other play each other, and on down.

Choosing the games is actually really simple once the data (records and which games haven't been played yet) are in front of you. Let's take the 2021 season:

Seed	School	Rk Div	Haven't Yet Played	Showcase Opponent
1	Michigan (8-1)	#1a East	Iowa, Minn, PU, IL	vs. Iowa (Game 1)
2	Ohio State (8-1)	#1b East	Iowa, Wis, IL, NW	vs. Wisconsin (Game 2)
3	Michigan State (7-2)	#3 East	Iowa, Minn, Wis, IL	vs. Minnesota (Game 3)
4	Iowa (7-2)	#1 West	UM, OSU, MSU, RU	@ Michigan (Game 1)
5	Minnesota (6-3)	#2a West	UM, MSU, PSU, RU	@ Michigan State (Game 3)
6	Wisconsin (6-3)	#2b West	OSU, MSU, UMD, IU	@ Ohio State (Game 2)
7	Purdue (6-3)	#2c West	UM, PSU, UMD, RU	@ Penn State (Game 4)
8	Illinois (4-5)	#5 West	UM, OSU, MSU, IU	@ Indiana (Game 5)
9	Penn State (4-5)	#4 East	Minn, PU, Neb, NW	vs. Purdue (Game 4)
10	Maryland (3-6)	#5 East	Wis, PU, Neb, NW	vs. Northwestern (Game 6)
11	Rutgers (2-7)	#6 East	Iowa, Minn, PU, Neb	vs. Nebraska (Game 7)
12	Nebraska (1-8)	#6a West	PSU, UMD, RU, IU	@ Rutgers (Game 7)
13	Northwestern (1-8)	#6b West	OSU, PSU, UMD, IU	@ Maryland (Game 6)
14	Indiana (0-9)	#7 East	Wis, IL, Neb, NW	vs. Illinois (Game 5)

The best opponent Michigan hasn't played is Iowa; there's your Game 1. Ohio State already played Minnesota so they get Wisconsin, and MSU gets Minnesota. The rest fall into place with very little room for decisions (read: controversy).

In cases where there are multiple ways to organize the matchups, go with whatever makes for the best games, based on rivalries and knowledge of the specific teams in the context of that season. The Big Ten can have broad power to build the matchups that work best, so long as the results of the top game(s) will produce an undisputed champion, and there are no rematches.

Note: this leaves open an opportunity to match a #2 and #3 against each other even if one or both didn't play #1, if that's the best game not played that year. For example if #1 Michigan went 12-0, #2 OSU and #3 Iowa are both 11-2/7-2 and haven't played each other, and Minnesota is 10-3/6-3 but already played Ohio State, you're not locked into a Michigan-Iowa game that won't change the champion. Have OSU and Iowa play each other, and get your Jug on.

III. Declare a champion based on best Big Ten record/standard tiebreakers.

Once the showcase games have been played, there should be no doubt who won the Big Ten, or if there's a tie in the record, which team gets the Rose Bowl berth. The Big Ten already has tiebreaker rules in place; the Showcase game only adds information, and gives the schedulers an opportunity at the end of the season to supply what's missing.

Keeping the system in place:

1. Best conference record, determined by % of Big Ten games won.
2. If two teams are tied, head-to-head wins.
3. If three or more teams are tied, they go through a series of steps until they can get down to 2 that played each other (head-to-head wins) or 1.

IV. Hosting Options

The Showcase can be held at home sites or neutral sites. If you keep the divisional structure, the division that had four home games gets to host, and will know years in advance that they're hosting that weekend.

If you get rid of divisions, choosing who hosts adds a layer of complication. I always prefer college sites, but if they limit the Showcase to just 3 or 4 games, they'll probably want to use neutral/NFL sites so they can advertise. Not today's battle.

---------------------

2021

We still trounce Iowa. [Fuller]

What really happened: Michigan (8-1) won the Big Ten East in a head-to-head tiebreaker over Ohio State (8-1) and defeated Iowa (7-2) in the Big Ten Championship.

I made a chart like the one above for every year I looked at, but decided not to bore you with this for every one. If you want to see how the sausage was made, I've put these charts on a Google Sheet. Because the East teams had just four home games last cycle, the East teams will host the Showcase games.

The Showcase Games

1. Iowa (7-2) at Michigan (8-1)*
2. Wisconsin (6-3) at Ohio State (8-1)
3. Minnesota (6-3) at Michigan State (7-2)
4. Purdue (6-3) at Penn State (4-5)
5. Illinois (4-5) at Indiana (0-9)
6. Northwestern (1-8) at Maryland (3-6)
7. Nebraska (1-8) at Rutgers (2-7)

* [Same matchup as the real B1G championship game]

This produces the same matchup we got in the Big Ten title game, since Michigan-Iowa was the best game in the Big Ten not played. If Michigan wins, they're the Big Ten champions.

Let's find ways to break it. If Michigan defeats Iowa, Michigan is the Big Ten champs, since they hold the tiebreaker over Ohio State, the only other team that could match Michigan's 9-1 record. Things could get interesting if Michigan loses to Iowa. At that point if Ohio State defeats Wisconsin, Ohio State (9-1) wins the Big Ten over two or three 8-2 teams. But say Michigan and Ohio State lose, and Michigan State wins. That sends us to a tiebreaker between these four teams:

• 8-2 Iowa. Beat Michigan, DNP Ohio State or MSU (1-0)
• 8-2 Ohio State. Beat MSU, lost to Michigan, DNP Iowa (1-1)
• 8-2 MSU. Beat Michigan, lost to OSU, DNP Iowa (1-1)
• 8-2 Michigan. Beat OSU, lost to MSU and Iowa (1-2)

Iowa has the best record against the field, and are the champs.

Is it better than what we got? Yes. We still get the Michigan-Iowa game as a de facto conference title game, and all but Illinois-Indiana were worth playing.

Takeaways: The divisional structure gave Iowa an easy schedule, and if they won it would have ostensibly been because they played just one of the other contenders, and Michigan played all three. Also the only reason Iowa played any of them was because there was a 13th game.

2020

Dumb year. [Marc-Gregor Campredon]

What really happened? COVID. After several in-season rule changes to get them there, Ohio State defeated Northwestern in the Big Ten championship.

The Showcase Games:

1. Ohio State (5-0) at Northwestern (6-1)*
2. Indiana (6-1) at Iowa (6-2)
3. Maryland (2-3) at Purdue (2-4)
4. Penn State (3-5) at Minnesota (3-3)
5. Rutgers (3-5) at Wisconsin (2-3)
6. Michigan (2-4) at Nebraska (2-5)
7. Michigan State (2-5) at Illinois (2-5)

I'm using my system here, but I should point out an oddity: You would think Game 3 would have been Minnesota (3-3) vs Maryland (2-3). However this caused a problem down the line in that Rutgers had already played the bottom three teams in the West (Illinois, Purdue, and Nebraska). That required some shuffling to make sure we didn't have any rematches. In truth, this year was so messed up, the Big Ten could have gone totally off script, or used the Showcase to get Michigan-Ohio State and Purdue-Indiana played, and let the chips fall where they may.

Let's find ways to break it: Any broken scenario starts with Ohio State losing to Northwestern and IU defeating Iowa. At that point you have two 6-1 teams in Indiana (lost to Ohio State, DNP Northwestern) and Northwestern (beat Ohio State, DNP Indiana). Northwestern won Game 1, so they're Big Ten champs. Ohio State at 5-1 might get whiny but they just lost to Northwestern and had a lower winning percentage. Besides we know they would have lost to Michigan.

Is it better than what we got? Yes, only in that we would get more games. It still produced the same matchup if we followed the East/West rules. However there's some added flexibility here to get some rivalry games played instead, and any system that actually gets Michigan-Ohio State played is better.

Takeways: The Big Ten was planning on doing something like this in the first place.

2019

What really happened? Ohio State won a rematch against Wisconsin.

The Showcase Games:

1. Minnesota (7-2) at Ohio State (9-0)
2. Wisconsin (7-2) at Penn State (7-2)
3. Purdue (3-6) at Michigan (6-3)
4. Iowa (6-3) at Indiana (5-4)
5. Nebraska (3-6) at Michigan State (4-5)
6. Illinois (4-5) at Maryland (1-8)
7. Northwestern (1-8) at Rutgers (0-9)

I used a few tiebreakers to determine the order here, but it didn't matter since the matchups were straightforward.

Let's find ways to break it: Impossible. Ohio State ended the regular season with a two-game lead on any other Big Ten team so they would have been crowned the champions and played an interesting game against Minnesota instead of a rematch with Wisconsin. That Wisconsin-Penn State game would have been awesome. Some of these other matchups (Purdue visiting Michigan) would have been great fun as well. Win or lose, Ohio State would have made a deserving champion.

Is it better than what we got? By far! Not only do we get a few great games played that we would not have otherwise, there was a chance that Wisconsin might beat Ohio State in a rematch, creating a scenario where the 8-2 team from an easier division is your champion over the 9-1 team from a tougher division when these teams went 1-1 against each other on the season. 2019's Big Ten Championship is a case study in why the current system is bad. It wasn't just superfluous; playing it at all decreased the likelihood of naming the best team champion. Also at that point in the season, Ohio State is virtually guaranteed to make the playoffs; a second win over Wisconsin tells you nothing, but a win over Minnesota (ostensibly an easier victory) strengthens the playoff resume and removes any question whether OSU played the best of its conference.

Takeways: Don't know if we need Game 7. The Showcase did us a huge favor here by removing the potential for a 2-loss Big Ten team to be the champion over a 1-loss team. It also got Rashod Bateman a chance against that OSU secondary, and that Wisconsin-Penn State would have been killer.

2018

What really happened? Ohio State (8-1) won the East by head-to-head tiebreaker over 8-1 Michigan, then defeated Northwestern (also 8-1) in the Big Ten championship.

The Showcase Games:

1. Ohio State (8-1) at Northwestern (8-1)*
2. Michigan (8-1) at Purdue (5-4)
3. Penn State (6-3) at Nebraska (3-6)
4. Michigan State (5-4) at Iowa (5-4)
5. Maryland (3-6) at Wisconsin (5-4)
6. Rutgers (0-9) at Minnesota (3-6)
7. Indiana (2-7) at Illinois (2-7)

I had to make some decisions since a lot of teams had already played most of those on their tier in the other league. Michigan, #2 in the East and overall, had already played the West #1 and two of the three teams tied for 2nd, so the third of those, Purdue, was the only option. By the same token, Maryland, #5 in the East, had already completed its circuit of mediocre West teams. So Michigan got Purdue, and Maryland got stuck with Wisconsin, putting Michigan State and Iowa together and allowing the rest to fit.

Note this is a feature, not a bug. The Showcase tries to play the best games that weren't played, but if some team like 2018 Michigan already caught all the best teams in the other division, they should be rewarded with an easier Showcase game. Maybe if the Wolverines won that game we could come up with a title for beating all of the best teams in the West, like "Champions of the West" or some such.

Let's find ways to break it: Ohio State and Northwestern both went into the Game 1 with 8-1 records, but Michigan also had an 8-1 record. Say Michigan beats Purdue, they'll have an identical record to the winner of Game 1. The two scenarios:

• A: Ohio State wins. Ohio State (9-1) has the head-to-head over Michigan (9-1) and wins the Big Ten.
• B: Northwestern wins. Michigan (9-1) has the head-to-head over Northwestern (9-1) and wins the Big Ten.

Nice and neat. Either way we have two 9-1 teams that played each other, so the result of that game carries it.

Is it better than what we got? Oh yes. Again, we end up with the same "conference championship game," except the 2nd best team in the conference that played the hardest schedule and only lost to the top overall seed has a chance to be redeemed if the top overall seed loses. Northwestern can't really complain since Michigan beat them in Evanston despite the benefit of the "Call from Mars." Ohio State can't really complain because they got their shot to dispatch Northwestern, and finished 8-2 in the conference (and were one Piggy hitting an open 3-yard pass from going 7-3). And that's just the argument for the B1G champ. We also get to see what Jeff Brohm would cook up for Michigan's secondary, freshman Adrian Martinez running for his life from freshman Micah Parsons, MSU at Kinnick. Big Ten games!!!

Takeaways: The better the conference gets, the more those games that weren't played look delicious.

2017

Send us a postcard. [Patrick Barron]

What really happened? Ohio State (8-1) defeated Wisconsin (9-0) in the Big Ten championship.

The Showcase Games:

1. Wisconsin (9-0) at Ohio State (8-1)*
2. Purdue (4-5) at Penn State (7-2)
3. Northwestern (7-2) at Michigan (5-4)
4. Nebraska (3-6) at Michigan State (7-2)
5. Iowa (4-5) at Rutgers (3-6)
6. Minnesota (2-7) at Indiana (2-7)
7. Illinois (0-9) at Maryland (2-7)

Automatic.

Let's find ways to break it: Impossible. Worst case scenario is the one we got, where Ohio State defeated Wisconsin, in which case Ohio State (9-1) would win the Big Ten over Wisconsin (9-1) on its head-to-head victory in the Showcase. The argument against the Showcase for 2017 is was it really needed, considering the championship game was obvious, the 7-2 teams had already all played each other, and the West wasn't very good. PSU-Purdue isn't much of a Game #2, but Michigan at Northwestern would have been interesting considering how many close games Michigan lost and Northwestern won that season.

Is it better than what we got? Marginally, in that once again all we're doing is adding more Big Ten games.

Takeaways: "Good" Big Ten championship games aren't changed. Games 6 and 7 would have been pretty miserable.

2016

No, the Showcase can't fix Big Ten officiating. [Upchurch]

What really happened? Penn State (7-1) defeated Wisconsin (7-2) in the B10 CG, with Ohio State (8-1, but really 7-2) left out. Ohio State went to the playoffs.

The Showcase Games:

• Penn State (8-1) at Wisconsin (7-2)*
• Ohio State (8-1) at Iowa (6-3)
• Michigan (7-2) at Nebraska (6-3)
• Indiana (4-5) at Minnesota (5-4)
• Maryland (3-6) at Illinois (2-7)
• Michigan State (1-8) at Purdue (1-8)

A little bit of weirdness because Rutgers had already played the three worst teams in the West (and lost anyways).

Let's find ways to break it: A Penn State victory would have sealed their Big Ten crown just as it did in real life—they would have been 9-1 with the head-to-head over Ohio State. If PSU lost that game things get interesting. At that point Ohio State can take back the crown with a win over Iowa to finish 9-1. But say OSU also falls at Kinnick (could happen!). We now have a three- or four-way tie depending on if Michigan beats Nebraska. That nightmare looks like this:

• 8-2 Wisconsin. Beat Penn State, lost to Michigan and Ohio State (1-2)
• 8-2 Ohio State. Beat Michigan and Wisconsin, lost to Penn State (2-1)
• 8-2 Michigan. Beat Wisconsin and Penn State, lost* to Ohio State (2-1)
• 8-2 Penn State. Beat Ohio State, lost to Michigan and Wisconsin (1-2)

This is a clusterfunchess, so let's go down the tiebreakers. Ohio State and Michigan have better records against the champions field, so it's down to the tiebreaker between them, which is (sigh) The Spot.

Is it better than what we got? Yes. The end of 2016 felt stupid and wrong (Michigan beat Wisconsin and trounced Penn State), and would have been more so if Wisconsin beat Penn State. The extra game would have still given us the same result: Penn State wins the conference and goes to the Rose Bowl.

Takeaways: I like this so much better, though I fear not everyone will. Wisconsin had no business being a title contender. If PSU fell to the Badgers, #1 and 2 should have been Ohio State and Michigan.

2015

What really happened? Michigan State (head to head over OSU) defeated Iowa in the BTCG.

The Showcase Games: Note: the Big Ten played just two cross-divisional games in this period, and 8 conference games total. Because of this I decided the higher seeded team should host.

1. Michigan State (7-1) at Iowa (8-0)*
2. Northwestern (6-2) at Ohio State (7-1)
3. Wisconsin (6-2) at Michigan (6-2)
4. Nebraska (3-5) at Penn State (4-4)
5. Minnesota (2-6) at Indiana (2-6)
6. Maryland (1-7) at Illinois (2-6)
7. Purdue (1-7) at Rutgers (1-7)

Just two cross-divisional games makes this too easy.

Let's find ways to break it: If Iowa wins they're unassailable, but if they lose to MSU (like they did) and Ohio State defeats Northwestern, we have another three-way tie:

• 8-1 Iowa. Lost to MSU, DNP Ohio State (0-1)
• 8-1 MSU. Beat Ohio State, beat Iowa (2-0)
• 8-1 OSU. Lost to MSU, DNP Iowa (0-1)

Michigan State wins the first tiebreaker: they have 2 wins against the field; the others have none. In other words, Ohio State would have known they're eliminated before the game, so Game 1 is a de facto championship game.

Is it better than what we got? Again, we basically got the same thing plus more games. Those down-ticket matchups between Ohio State and Northwestern, Michigan-Wisconsin, and Penn State-Nebraska were sorely missed during the season.

Takeaways: The championship game format is a more definitive method that comes to the same result. But that Wisconsin-Michigan game would have been good, and Northwestern needed to face one of the better teams.

2014

What really happened? Ohio State defeated Wisconsin in the BTCG, as usual.

The Showcase Games:

1. Wisconsin (7-1) at Ohio State (8-0)*
2. Minnesota (5-3) at Michigan State (7-1)
3. Maryland (4-4) at Nebraska (5-3)
4. Rutgers (3-5) at Iowa (4-4)
5. Illinois (3-5) at Michigan (3-5)
6. Indiana (1-7) at Northwestern (3-5)

I thought about letting MSU and Wisconsin battle, but Ohio State had already played Minnesota, and Wisconsin should get their shot at a tie.

Let's find ways to break it: As with the year prior, if the East champion were to lose (they didn't) in the No. 1 game there's a potential for a 3-way tie if Michigan State also wins its Showcase game.

• 8-1 Ohio State. Beat MSU, lost to Wisconsin (1-1)
• 8-1 Wisconsin. Beat OSU, DNP MSU (1-0)
• 8-1 Michigan State. Lost to OSU, DNP Wisconsin (0-1)

Wisconsin has the best record among the three, so they're the champs, so once again the Showcase 1 game was the de facto title game.

Is it better than what we got? Again, it's basically the same, plus a moderately interesting MSU-Minnesota game. The rest of the conference stank. This was just an all-around shitty season and best forgotten by everyone.

Takeaways: Again, we're getting the same result (winner of championship game is champ) except in a more roundabout way.

2013

Everything came up Sparty. [Fuller]

What really happened? MSU went undefeated in conference by playing the three easiest teams in the other division, then upset undefeated Ohio State in Indy.

The Showcase Games: This was before Maryland and Rutgers. I refuse to use the old division names.

1. Michigan State (8-0) at Ohio State (8-0)*
2. Penn State (4-4) at Iowa (5-3)
3. Nebraska (5-3) at Wisconsin (6-2)
4. Illinois (1-7) at Michigan (3-5)
5. Purdue (0-8) at Minnesota (4-4)
6. Northwestern (1-7) at Indiana (3-5)

Let's find ways to break it: No way to break it.

Is it better than what we got? Again, it's the same game, plus some other games.

Takeaways: No tough decisions here, but I'm really starting to see why some people think this should be limited to three games instead of the full monty. That IU-NW game would have been ugly; Purdue-Minnesota would have been valuable for Minnesota.

2012

What really happened? Ohio State and Penn State were both barred from the postseason so Wisconsin (them again!), despite going 4-4 in conference, represented the In the Weight Room Division. They defeated Nebraska for the dumbest of all Big Ten championships.

The Showcase Games:

Not sure how they would have run the Showcase games in that case since they were both in the same division.

1. Nebraska (7-1) at Ohio State (8-0)
2. Penn State (6-2) at Michigan (6-2)
3. Wisconsin (4-4) at Northwestern (5-3)
4. Michigan State (3-5) at Purdue (3-5)
5. Minnesota (2-6) at Indiana (2-6)
6. Iowa (2-6) at Illinois (0-8)

I think I would declare Nebraska the champion, and shuffle things around.

1. Nebraska (7-1): bye
2. Wisconsin (4-4) at Michigan (6-2)
3. Purdue (3-5) at Northwestern (5-3)
4. Indiana (2-6) at Minnesota (2-6)
5. Illinois (0-8) at Michigan State (3-5)
6. Iowa (2-6): bye

Let's find ways to break it: It's already broken.

Is it better than what we got? What we got was a Wisconsin-Nebraska game that awarded 5-4 Wisconsin the Big Ten championship over 6-2 Michigan and 7-2 Nebraska, so yeah, it's still better.

Takeaways: Programs being removed from the postseason could create havoc.

2011

Upon further review, the outfits ruined everything. [Eric Upchurch]

What really happened? Denard. Unfortunately the Trash Tornado game allowed MSU to finish 1st in the Community Division, where they lost a rematch with Wisconsin on a Sparty No! Also they only played 8 conference games so we have less information.

The Showcase Games:

Here's where things get a little complicated. We could go with this:

1. Penn State (6-2) at Michigan State (7-1)
2. Michigan (6-2) at Wisconsin (6-2)
3. Purdue (4-4) at Nebraska (5-3)
4. Illinois (2-6) at Iowa (4-4)
5. Northwestern (3-5) at Ohio State (3-5)
6. Indiana (0-8) at Minnesota (2-6)

Let's find ways to break it: So now that State isn't playing Wisconsin a second time we have the possibility of three 7-2 teams if MSU loses to Penn State.

IF MICHIGAN WINS:

• 7-2 Michigan State: Lost to PSU, Beat Michigan (1-1)
• 7-2 Penn State: Beat MSU, DNP Michigan (1-0)
• 7-2 Michigan: Lost to MSU, DNP Penn State (0-1)

…and Penn State wins the tiebreaker (so Michigan was already drawing dead).

IF WISCONSIN WINS:

• 7-2 Michigan State: Beat Wis, lost to PSU (1-1)
• 7-2 Penn State: Beat MSU, lost to Wis (1-1)
• 7-2 Wisconsin: Beat PSU, lost MSU (1-1)

This would take them to the next tiebreaker, which would be to add their records against Michigan. That removes PSU (1-1), and settles MSU (2-1) over Wisconsin (2-1) by MSU's head-to-head win.

All this would have been reported before the games MSU, which had the best record, would have an out if they and Wisconsin beat Michigan. Wisconsin and Michigan were drawing dead.

Is it better than what we got? It is! Rather than force MSU to play a rematch, they get a chance to seal their championship with a win. The team with the best record going into the final week *should* have the best shot to win it!

Takeaways: By going to this system we lost the definitiveness of a winner-take-all game. But our two Game 1 participants were the only two possible champions, and since PSU came in down a game to MSU, it stands to reason that they should need help. It's fair.

2010

What really happened? A three-way tie between OSU-MSU-Wisconsin, where MSU and OSU never played each other. This was before Nebraska joined and the Big Ten created divisions. There were also an odd number of teams, so I had to leave one out. Jumbling them about instead of putting them divisions made this a lot cleaner and led to better games.

1. Michigan State (7-1) at Ohio State (7-1)
2. Penn State (4-4) at Wisconsin (7-1)
3. Illinois (4-4) at Iowa (4-4)
4. Northwestern (3-5) at Michigan (3-5)
5. Indiana (1-7) at Minnesota (2-6)
6. Purdue (no game)

Let's find ways to break it: The issue here is they got to the end of the season with a three-way tie (Ohio State later vacated all of its victories for being lying cheaters). MSU's one loss was to Iowa at Kinnick; they beat Wisconsin. Wisconsin was Ohio State's one loss, so MSU-OSU was the only game not played between this group. If Penn State beats Wisconsin the Game 1 winner is the champ. Otherwise…

• MICHIGAN STATE WINS: 8-1 Michigan State has the head-to-head tiebreaker over 8-1 Wisconsin.
• OHIO STATE WINS: 8-1 Wisconsin has the head-to-head tiebreaker over 8-1 Ohio State.

In other words, MSU just needs to win, Ohio State needs Wisconsin to lose, and Wisconsin needs MSU to lose.

Is it better than what we got? Absolutely! This settles our three-team tie quite neatly, while making sure all of the games between the contenders got played. We also get interesting matchups that weren't played between Illinois-Iowa and Northwestern-Michigan. In fact, with the smaller conference each team ends up only missing one other team.

Takeaways: The extra game here really helped solve a major unplayed game at the end of the season. Obviously having an odd number of teams means someone gets left out. Once again, the lower games might not be that interesting. I would have wanted to see Denard against Northwestern (both teams were 7-5).

2009

What really happened: Ohio State (7-1) won the conference, defeating 6-2 Iowa and 6-2 Penn State in the process.

The Showcase Games:

1. Northwestern (5-3) at Ohio State (7-1)
2. Purdue (4-4) at Iowa (6-2)
3. Wisconsin (5-3) at Penn State (6-2)
4. Indiana (1-7) at Michigan State (4-4)
5. Minnesota (3-5) at Michigan (1-7)
6. Illinois: No game

Let's find ways to break it: Can't break it. Most of the good games had already been played, and adding a "Championship" of any kind would have either resulted in a rematch or the potential for an 6-3 team to win the conference over a 7-2 one.

Is it better than what we got? Again, yes but only because it gives us some extra games. OSU already has the championship locked up. Would be cool to get that Wisconsin (9-3) vs Penn State (10-2) game played, and the Iowa-Purdue rivalry (Iowa already played all the good teams).

Takeaways: Game 5 would have gotten the Brown Jug game played, and given Michigan a chance to make a bowl. Point for keeping all the games.

What We Learned

1. Most of the time it's just the Championship plus more games.

I was hoping for fewer Wisconsin-Ohio State games but the divisional structure of the years I used for my examples meant all of the games were going to be East-West (or Leaders-Legends) and the divisional champs wouldn't have changed. We got rid of a few rematches, but most of these years it was the same teams that played for real, and the rest were just interesting interdivisional games.

2. We should get rid of divisions.

This really stood out from using the divisional structure. The divisions are tidy, but totally unnecessary. One of the big complaints I've had about the Championship Game era is it ended up with the same teams in it thanks to the disparity in divisional strength. That would still happen with the Showcase, since most of the interesting games get played in the regular season, and the same non-divisional games, like Wisconsin-Ohio State, do not. You see your conference mates more often, if you aren't locking yourself into divisional games. And if you lose a good game like PSU-OSU in the process, the Showcase will virtually guarantee it still gets played if it's worth playing.

I've long been a proponent of pods: (UM-OSU-MSU, PSU-RU-MD, Wis-Minn-Iowa-Neb, IL-IU-PU-NW) to simplify scheduling, but Scott Dochterman's modified version of the system the Big Ten had in place pre-Nebraska also works. The Showcase works *REALLY* well with such a system.

Divisions could still work, especially if they manage to fix the competitive imbalance. There are really only two options (out of three Dochterman mentioned, because M-OSU in different divisions is a non-starter), and of the two the "Eye of Sauron" one is superior because it doesn't need an extra game to lock in rivalries.

3. Three or four games could do it.

I went in wanting everyone to play, but once we got down to the 3rd or 4th matchup I started getting the sense that the participants and their fans wouldn't be that into it.

These games were often still valuable, however. Wins when your team is in the cellar are hard to come by, many of these teams aren't going to bowl games, and giving half of those teams a win to end the season can do wonders for those programs. Would you tune in to see how Scott Frost manages to lose by 7 to Rutgers?

So why not play them? Because it may be necessary to nix them to get the NCAA to agree. Championship games get a special dispensation from the league; adding a 13th game however could be an obstacle too great. If it's necessary to propose four games instead of seven, it shouldn't be too great a loss. Did you need to see Brady Hoke's last team take on Illinois or were you ready to move on the to the Countdown to Harbaugh?

4. The Showcase could add controversy.

Most of the time Game 1 was a de facto championship game. While the tiebreaker rules are clear, and real results would have negated most of these chances, running this system did have to fall back on a tiebreaker to determine the champ in a number of scenarios.

Did we meet our goals?

Let's see.

1. Produce an uncontroversial Big Ten champion that has the best claim to the best season.

Every single scenario I could create still named the team with the best season the champion. It was not always uncontroversial because there were tiebreakers that decided several scenarios after a favorite lost the Showcase 1 game. Notably, most of those tiebreakers came down to head-to-head, which isn't that controversial. It was MUCH better than the current system at spitting out the team that had the best season as its champion.

2. Play all the important rivalries, and most of the other rivalries.

This doesn't really affect Big Ten scheduling, but a few rivalries that weren't played over the course of the year were caught up. Check.

3. Be fair. Contenders shouldn't have grossly different paths to their records.

There were a few instances where I noted the West team might have an easier path to winning the conference because the Big Ten's tiebreaker system rewards teams that go 1-0 versus the champions field over teams that went 2-1. Note, ALL—I repeat ALL—of the imbalances were carryovers from the Big Ten's divisional system and tiebreaker rules, not the Showcase. The Showcase system sometimes radically increased fairness by forcing teams with easy schedules to play tougher end-of-year opponents, and rewarded teams that had already been through the gauntlet with a middle class dessert. Doing away with conferences and balancing protected rivalries would increase fairness further.

4. Make money. Is business.

Many, many more college football games, at least a third of which were marquee matchups. Even adding a 13th game would not have made as much money as these Showcase games would have likely drawn. The fact that they're mostly even matches would make these gold for TV.

5. NO REMATCHES EVER

Objectively, the rematch thing is important for determining a champion. In data terms, games results create information, with more information leading to more accurate results. Rematches confirm (you beat them twice!) or destroy (you beat each other!) information, but do not add it.

Subjectively, as far as I'm concerned rematches are an abomination. College football isn't baseball; you only get these precious games once a year, and they're worth all the pomp and ceremony because the result is going to stick until you can play them again. Could you imagine having to face Ohio State a week after beating them 42-27? The whole idea of The Game is the winner gets to spend a year saying "42-27" and the loser has to stew. If it were up to me, rematches would be banned from college football, including the playoffs, meaning if you lost to another playoff team you're disqualified. What's more gross than the LSU-Bama national championship? QED.