B1G Conference for the Future - Keeping it Interesting for Fans of "Middle of the Pack" Teams

[Full Speed Ahead]

The B1G is going to have 18 teams next season, so here's a thought on how to handle that large of a number w/rpt to football and keep it interesting for fans of the middle-of-the-pack-of-18 teams.

1. Every team in the B1G gets an equal share of TV revenue - this is the rule that can't change - it's needed to keep all 18 teams somewhat competitive with each other.
2. For the next two seasons, play the currently planned schedule.
3. Then the third season is where it gets fun:
   1. Use the first two seasons to break the 18 teams into two Divisions - Premier and Championship (the names don't matter, I'm just copying them from soccer). The teams with the best conference record over those two years are placed in the Premier Division, and the remaining 9 are in the Championship Division.
   2. Each season, each team plays every other team within their division, so a total of eight conference games. Plus, there are four non-conference games occuring in weeks 1, 2, 5 and 8 (these games have to be scheduled way in advance, so there has to be set structure as to the dates), so a total of 12 games.
   3. At the end of each season, the bottom three teams from the Premier Division based on their conference games are relegated down to the Championship Division, and the top three teams from the lower division are bumped into the top division. As an example for "middle-of-the-pack" teams, if you're in the Premier Division and your team is 3-3 going into week 9, those last three games are going to be really interesting (vs just feeling the season is over, no reason to keep watching). And for "middle of the pack of 18" teams in the Championship conference, your team is now playing to get promoted vs just playing to land in the middle of a 18-team conference.
4. Then do the same for other sports where there are 18 teams, like basketball and volleyball. So any given school could have some teams in the Premier Division, and some in the Championship.
5. If we go to 20 or 22 teams, then you have 9 or 10 conference games vs 8, and keep the two division split
6. If we go to 24+ teams, then you have three divisions of 8+ teams. So we can keep adding teams and still keep it interesting for the fans.

 

[GophersInIowa]

Creative. It'll never happen but I'd go along with it. Would teams from the lower level not be eligible for the conference championship then? But wouldn't be able to guarantee rivals play each season.

I'd personally rather they just went to 13 regular season games and got rid of the conference championship games but that'll never happen.

 

[Taji34]

I like the idea of relegation and promotion, but I don't think it fits with how football is played and how it has evolved.

Look at the premiere league, they play from August until May, a total of 38 matches. They play every team twice, once at home and once away. Then the relegation and promotion happens, plus they have many more leagues stacked on top of eachother, with so many more teams.

With only 20 teams, yeah the middle of the pack and top have something to fight for, but the bottom of the bottom don't, which then makes their games seem less important.

Rivalries are another thing that this structure doesn't really preserve, which would be sad. The premiere league have rivalries for sure, but they don't get played when one team either gets promoted or relegated away from the other. Since they've had this structure for a long time in the premiere league (maybe the whole time?) they are used to it and their rivalries are built to survive that.

What this does do, which I like, it simplify the conference champion determination. Since the "division" is round robin, the winner of the upper division is crowned conference champ. Tie breaker rules would be simpler to an extent. Further, it means more consistent "Strength of Conference Schedule" for the top division as you can't argue that the second place team had a way harder schedule than first place because it was all the same.

However, this could also lead to less frequent "undefeated" conference seasons, and then the external perception of how good our conference champ is may go down. However with an extended playoff bracket and the onset of mega-conferences, perhaps that doesn't matter as much.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Schedule has already been put out for opponents through 2028, so they would have to pull back on that which likely only happens if they add more teams.

I don't see divisions coming back soon. College football likes tiebreakers and people sitting in a board room sending teams to the playoffs or conference championship game.

 

[Full Speed Ahead]

Creative. It'll never happen but I'd go along with it. Would teams from the lower level not be eligible for the conference championship then? But wouldn't be able to guarantee rivals play each season.

I'd personally rather they just went to 13 regular season games and got rid of the conference championship games but that'll never happen.

The conference champ is the winner of the Premier division. With a 12-team playoff schedule, I think it makes sense to remove the B1G conference title game and give the title to the team with the best record. Note that in my play every team plays every team, so other than home vs away, it's not like one team has an easier schedule.

And yes, Rival games would be played only if the teams are in the same division, which will happen a lot (there's only two divisions).

 

[MNVCGUY]

The B1G is going to have 20 teams next season

ummmm.....did I miss an expansion announcement?

 

[Full Speed Ahead]

I like the idea of relegation and promotion, but I don't think it fits with how football is played and how it has evolved.

Look at the premiere league, they play from August until May, a total of 38 matches. They play every team twice, once at home and once away. Then the relegation and promotion happens, plus they have many more leagues stacked on top of eachother, with so many more teams.

With only 20 teams, yeah the middle of the pack and top have something to fight for, but the bottom of the bottom don't, which then makes their games seem less important.

Rivalries are another thing that this structure doesn't really preserve, which would be sad. The premiere league have rivalries for sure, but they don't get played when one team either gets promoted or relegated away from the other. Since they've had this structure for a long time in the premiere league (maybe the whole time?) they are used to it and their rivalries are built to survive that.

What this does do, which I like, it simplify the conference champion determination. Since the "division" is round robin, the winner of the upper division is crowned conference champ. Tie breaker rules would be simpler to an extent. Further, it means more consistent "Strength of Conference Schedule" for the top division as you can't argue that the second place team had a way harder schedule than first place because it was all the same.

However, this could also lead to less frequent "undefeated" conference seasons, and then the external perception of how good our conference champ is may go down. However with an extended playoff bracket and the onset of mega-conferences, perhaps that doesn't matter as much.

In the current 18-team conference, maybe 5 to 6 teams will be playing for the championship each year, with the bottom 15 or so just playing to make it to a bowl game. Fan interest is going to slowly fade for those teams. And IMO, with all the transfers and opting out, bowl games outside of the playoffs just don't mean as much as they used to.

 

[Full Speed Ahead]

ummmm.....did I miss an expansion announcement?

Yep, my bad. I was thinking 20, but the same idea applies for 18 teams... (I'm still recovering from New Years...). I've edited the above.

 

[upnorthkid]

The B1G is going to have 18 teams next season, so here's a thought on how to handle that large of a number w/rpt to football and keep it interesting for fans of the middle-of-the-pack-of-18 teams.

1. Every team in the B1G gets an equal share of TV revenue - this is the rule that can't change - it's needed to keep all 18 teams somewhat competitive with each other.
2. For the next two seasons, play the currently planned schedule.
3. Then the third season is where it gets fun:
   1. Use the first two seasons to break the 18 teams into two Divisions - Premier and Championship (the names don't matter, I'm just copying them from soccer). The teams with the best conference record over those two years are placed in the Premier Division, and the remaining 9 are in the Championship Division.
   2. Each season, each team plays every other team within their division, so a total of eight conference games. Plus, there are four non-conference games occuring in weeks 1, 2, 5 and 8 (these games have to be scheduled way in advance, so there has to be set structure as to the dates), so a total of 12 games.
   3. At the end of each season, the bottom three teams from the Premier Division based on their conference games are relegated down to the Championship Division, and the top three teams from the lower division are bumped into the top division. As an example for "middle-of-the-pack" teams, if you're in the Premier Division and your team is 3-4 going into week 9, those last three games are going to be really interesting (vs just feeling the season is over, no reason to keep watching). And for "middle of the pack of 18" teams in the Championship conference, your team is now playing to get promoted vs just playing to land in the middle of a 18-team conference.
4. Then do the same for other sports where there are 18 teams, like basketball and volleyball. So any given school could have some teams in the Premier Division, and some in the Championship.
5. If we go to 20 or 22 teams, then you have 9 or 10 conference games vs 8, and keep the two division split
6. If we go to 24+ teams, then you have three divisions of 8+ teams. So we can keep adding teams and still keep it interesting for the fans.

Just to make this argument with how it would affect the teams

top division based on this year (using total record given not all in same conference, etc and given this is purely just to structure):
Michigan
Wash
OSU
Oregon
PSU
Iowa
UCLA
USC
NW (won h2h vs MD)

MD
Rutgers
WI
MN
Purdue
Ill
Indiana
Nebraska
Mich St

Then you're telling me annually that 3 teams drop from the bottom and 3 go up from below? The roster turnover is far too vast to make this work for what will be the lower tier who will historically be the teams who recruit worse. You shoot for a once every 3-4 years of being really good, then you lose that team and get plastered in the upper division, knowing they're getting demoted. It works in soccer because rosters stay static for longer and can be built. On top of that, if a true top tier team has injuries one year and drops, they obliterate everyone and then lose their chance to play for a title because of being in a lower league.

Give me the opportunity to keep playing historic rivals every year. The seasons suck when you aren't good, but it still felt great to beat Iowa this year. All it takes is getting to 10-2 and you're in the playoff conversation now, which we still can do. Look at 2025, Buffalo, BG, Cal should all have chance to be wins. At home Iowa, NW, Oregon, OSU; on road Mich St, Neb, Pur, Rutgers, WI; that year has a real shot at it even with losing to Oregon and OSU. Ditto in 2026 which is EIU, Miss St, Akron with home Indy, Purdue, PSU, Wash, WI, and road Iowa, Mich, NW, UCLA; That 2026 year you split Wash, WI, Iowa, Mich and you could be in.

When you suck you will suck, regardless of divisions or not. Being in the lower league isn't going to make it exciting that you might get promoted and play against the better teams. We've sucked for 60 years and we're all still here hoping for a return to glory, not to get back up to mid tier. Y'all are way too fatalist. Some years top tier opponents we draw will be a gauntlet, but some years you're going to get luckier draws. Just hope we capitalize one of these times. We probably aren't ever going to win a Big Ten Title again, but that's been the case for pretty much everyone for 2 decades. You still can hope for a hell lot more than this concept offers (a single big year is a hell of a lot more likely than us chaining them together over several season and playing an upper tier gauntlet schedule when you've got to do it).

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I think/hope that it won't be too long before the B1G goes to 20 teams. then, they can go to scheduling Pods with 4 Pods of 5 teams each. Pod winners go to an elimination round before the Conference Championship game. that gives teams something to play for and keeps fan bases involved - as opposed to no divisions where over half of the teams have nothing to play for by the time the season is half-over.

 

[Full Speed Ahead]

Just to make this argument with how it would affect the teams

top division based on this year (using total record given not all in same conference, etc and given this is purely just to structure):
Michigan
Wash
OSU
Oregon
PSU
Iowa
UCLA
USC
NW (won h2h vs MD)

MD
Rutgers
WI
MN
Purdue
Ill
Indiana
Nebraska
Mich St

Then you're telling me annually that 3 teams drop from the bottom and 3 go up from below? The roster turnover is far too vast to make this work for what will be the lower tier who will historically be the teams who recruit worse. You shoot for a once every 3-4 years of being really good, then you lose that team and get plastered in the upper division, knowing they're getting demoted. It works in soccer because rosters stay static for longer and can be built. On top of that, if a true top tier team has injuries one year and drops, they obliterate everyone and then lose their chance to play for a title because of being in a lower league.

Give me the opportunity to keep playing historic rivals every year. The seasons suck when you aren't good, but it still felt great to beat Iowa this year. All it takes is getting to 10-2 and you're in the playoff conversation now, which we still can do. Look at 2025, Buffalo, BG, Cal should all have chance to be wins. At home Iowa, NW, Oregon, OSU; on road Mich St, Neb, Pur, Rutgers, WI; that year has a real shot at it even with losing to Oregon and OSU. Ditto in 2026 which is EIU, Miss St, Akron with home Indy, Purdue, PSU, Wash, WI, and road Iowa, Mich, NW, UCLA; That 2026 year you split Wash, WI, Iowa, Mich and you could be in.

When you suck you will suck, regardless of divisions or not. Being in the lower league isn't going to make it exciting that you might get promoted and play against the better teams. We've sucked for 60 years and we're all still here hoping for a return to glory, not to get back up to mid tier. Y'all are way too fatalist. Some years top tier opponents we draw will be a gauntlet, but some years you're going to get luckier draws. Just hope we capitalize one of these times. We probably aren't ever going to win a Big Ten Title again, but that's been the case for pretty much everyone for 2 decades. You still can hope for a hell lot more than this concept offers (a single big year is a hell of a lot more likely than us chaining them together over several season and playing an upper tier gauntlet schedule when you've got to do it).

Per your ranking, MN is in the bottom third of the 18 teams. We used to have the chance of winning the B1G West title, but that's now gone. We have basically a zero shot of winning the overall title, so what we're playing for then is to get to a bowl game (which just doesn't mean much anymore) or per your reasoning just two games a year - Iowa and Wisconsin. If that's all that bottom-half-team fans have going for them, then the fan base will slowly fade away, and with that, the team won't be able to compete at all (fans are needed for NIL, and NIL money is needed for good players, and good players are needed to have a successful team). IMO, there needs to be something of more interest to keep fans engaged than just two games a year, even if that means playing to win a lower division or at least to get into the top three.

 

[USAF]

The B1G is going to have 18 teams next season, so here's a thought on how to handle that large of a number w/rpt to football and keep it interesting for fans of the middle-of-the-pack-of-18 teams.

1. Every team in the B1G gets an equal share of TV revenue - this is the rule that can't change - it's needed to keep all 18 teams somewhat competitive with each other.
2. For the next two seasons, play the currently planned schedule.
3. Then the third season is where it gets fun:
   1. Use the first two seasons to break the 18 teams into two Divisions - Premier and Championship (the names don't matter, I'm just copying them from soccer). The teams with the best conference record over those two years are placed in the Premier Division, and the remaining 9 are in the Championship Division.
   2. Each season, each team plays every other team within their division, so a total of eight conference games. Plus, there are four non-conference games occuring in weeks 1, 2, 5 and 8 (these games have to be scheduled way in advance, so there has to be set structure as to the dates), so a total of 12 games.
   3. At the end of each season, the bottom three teams from the Premier Division based on their conference games are relegated down to the Championship Division, and the top three teams from the lower division are bumped into the top division. As an example for "middle-of-the-pack" teams, if you're in the Premier Division and your team is 3-3 going into week 9, those last three games are going to be really interesting (vs just feeling the season is over, no reason to keep watching). And for "middle of the pack of 18" teams in the Championship conference, your team is now playing to get promoted vs just playing to land in the middle of a 18-team conference.
4. Then do the same for other sports where there are 18 teams, like basketball and volleyball. So any given school could have some teams in the Premier Division, and some in the Championship.
5. If we go to 20 or 22 teams, then you have 9 or 10 conference games vs 8, and keep the two division split
6. If we go to 24+ teams, then you have three divisions of 8+ teams. So we can keep adding teams and still keep it interesting for the fans.

Lunacy.

 

[kisarazu]

The B1G is going to have 18 teams next season, so here's a thought on how to handle that large of a number w/rpt to football and keep it interesting for fans of the middle-of-the-pack-of-18 teams.

1. Every team in the B1G gets an equal share of TV revenue - this is the rule that can't change - it's needed to keep all 18 teams somewhat competitive with each other.
2. For the next two seasons, play the currently planned schedule.
3. Then the third season is where it gets fun:
   1. Use the first two seasons to break the 18 teams into two Divisions - Premier and Championship (the names don't matter, I'm just copying them from soccer). The teams with the best conference record over those two years are placed in the Premier Division, and the remaining 9 are in the Championship Division.
   2. Each season, each team plays every other team within their division, so a total of eight conference games. Plus, there are four non-conference games occuring in weeks 1, 2, 5 and 8 (these games have to be scheduled way in advance, so there has to be set structure as to the dates), so a total of 12 games.
   3. At the end of each season, the bottom three teams from the Premier Division based on their conference games are relegated down to the Championship Division, and the top three teams from the lower division are bumped into the top division. As an example for "middle-of-the-pack" teams, if you're in the Premier Division and your team is 3-3 going into week 9, those last three games are going to be really interesting (vs just feeling the season is over, no reason to keep watching). And for "middle of the pack of 18" teams in the Championship conference, your team is now playing to get promoted vs just playing to land in the middle of a 18-team conference.
4. Then do the same for other sports where there are 18 teams, like basketball and volleyball. So any given school could have some teams in the Premier Division, and some in the Championship.
5. If we go to 20 or 22 teams, then you have 9 or 10 conference games vs 8, and keep the two division split
6. If we go to 24+ teams, then you have three divisions of 8+ teams. So we can keep adding teams and still keep it interesting for the fans.

Sounds interesting.

 

[RememberMurray]

I think/hope that it won't be too long before the B1G goes to 20 teams. then, they can go to scheduling Pods with 4 Pods of 5 teams each. Pod winners go to an elimination round before the Conference Championship game. that gives teams something to play for and keeps fan bases involved - as opposed to no divisions where over half of the teams have nothing to play for by the time the season is half-over.

Okay, this is definitely a pet peeve of mine (and is probably unimportant to anybody else), but I gotta ask the question...

Why does everyone want to call them "pods" rather than "divisions"?

 

[upnorthkid]

Per your ranking, MN is in the bottom third of the 18 teams. We used to have the chance of winning the B1G West title, but that's now gone. We have basically a zero shot of winning the overall title, so what we're playing for then is to get to a bowl game (which just doesn't mean much anymore) or per your reasoning just two games a year - Iowa and Wisconsin. If that's all that bottom-half-team fans have going for them, then the fan base will slowly fade away, and with that, the team won't be able to compete at all (fans are needed for NIL, and NIL money is needed for good players, and good players are needed to have a successful team). IMO, there needs to be something of more interest to keep fans engaged than just two games a year, even if that means playing to win a lower division or at least to get into the top three.

Couple things

What conference title have we contended for in the last 30 years? yet here we are. Even if 2019 we'd have gotten there, we all expected to get obliterated. i'd rather see us play teams that are actually good and elevate our best and shoot for the big year, not just oscillate back and forth (we would be one of the buffer teams who gets shit stomped one year and goes back up the next quite frequently). If beating Rutgers gets you excited, well kudos to you. We may as well just try play a G5 schedule with that mindset. in 2018 we were 3-6 in the BIG and would've been relegated or stayed down given that was against mostly west teams who were down. 2019 never would've happened. This all changes way too fast with players cycling through so quickly and it's also the joy of that once in a blue moon, someone can make a dark horse run and get there. You're also playing for an expanded playoff now.

On top of that, if you're going to push towards dividing, why on god's green earth would the haves at the top keep us around at all? so they can be forced down every once in a blue moon while splitting money with us? this is a loss all around for both groups.

Personally I have no desire to see us in a relegation league. Would feel hokey and there's no pride in going up and on top of that i'm stopping having the ax and pig annually? hard pass

 

[gopherbadgerman]

Just to make this argument with how it would affect the teams

top division based on this year (using total record given not all in same conference, etc and given this is purely just to structure):
Michigan
Wash
OSU
Oregon
PSU
Iowa
UCLA
USC
NW (won h2h vs MD)

MD
Rutgers
WI
MN
Purdue
Ill
Indiana
Nebraska
Mich St

Then you're telling me annually that 3 teams drop from the bottom and 3 go up from below? The roster turnover is far too vast to make this work for what will be the lower tier who will historically be the teams who recruit worse. You shoot for a once every 3-4 years of being really good, then you lose that team and get plastered in the upper division, knowing they're getting demoted. It works in soccer because rosters stay static for longer and can be built. On top of that, if a true top tier team has injuries one year and drops, they obliterate everyone and then lose their chance to play for a title because of being in a lower league.

Give me the opportunity to keep playing historic rivals every year. The seasons suck when you aren't good, but it still felt great to beat Iowa this year. All it takes is getting to 10-2 and you're in the playoff conversation now, which we still can do. Look at 2025, Buffalo, BG, Cal should all have chance to be wins. At home Iowa, NW, Oregon, OSU; on road Mich St, Neb, Pur, Rutgers, WI; that year has a real shot at it even with losing to Oregon and OSU. Ditto in 2026 which is EIU, Miss St, Akron with home Indy, Purdue, PSU, Wash, WI, and road Iowa, Mich, NW, UCLA; That 2026 year you split Wash, WI, Iowa, Mich and you could be in.

When you suck you will suck, regardless of divisions or not. Being in the lower league isn't going to make it exciting that you might get promoted and play against the better teams. We've sucked for 60 years and we're all still here hoping for a return to glory, not to get back up to mid tier. Y'all are way too fatalist. Some years top tier opponents we draw will be a gauntlet, but some years you're going to get luckier draws. Just hope we capitalize one of these times. We probably aren't ever going to win a Big Ten Title again, but that's been the case for pretty much everyone for 2 decades. You still can hope for a hell lot more than this concept offers (a single big year is a hell of a lot more likely than us chaining them together over several season and playing an upper tier gauntlet schedule when you've got to do it).

Actually 9 different b10 teams have won or shared a conference title since 2000:

Michigan
OSU
Penn State
Iowa
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern
Michigan State
Purdue

 

[upnorthkid]

Actually 9 different b10 teams have won or shared a conference title since 2000:

Michigan
OSU
Penn State
Iowa
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern
Michigan State
Purdue

there have been 5 since divisions started in 2011. There's still going to be a conference championship now to decide things. if you use actually 20 years, you're at 6. OSU, PSU, Mich, WI, Mich St, Iowa. Going to 2000 is convenient for falsely making it seem more diverse because a tiebreaker title with purdue, NW, and Michigan and Illinois weird year where the year ended with 2 ranked big ten teams and they lost to the #2 team. That said, further argument against separating as anything can happen in a single year and I love having that type of chance. Adding UCLA, USC, Oregon and Washington doesn't remove that chance.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

Okay, this is definitely a pet peeve of mine (and is probably unimportant to anybody else), but I gotta ask the question...

Why does everyone want to call them "pods" rather than "divisions"?

because that is how I've seen other people refer to it.

FWIW - one of the many possible definitions of "pod" according to the Oxford English Dictionary is "a self-contained unit." another definition (used during the pandemic) is a group that interacts within itself but has limited interaction with the outside.

either of those would describe a group of teams that plays each other.


and this - from the Detroit Free Press - discussing a new scheduling proposal for the MAC

As for its schedule, the MAC is adopting a pod system, featuring four groups of three teams, with the opponents in the same pod playing annually and the rest of the conference schedule filled in with teams from other pods.

 

[BilldGopher]

Actually 9 different b10 teams have won or shared a conference title since 2000:

Michigan
OSU
Penn State
Iowa
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern
Michigan State
Purdue

That the Gophers did not make this list is actually depressing.

But I look at each team and fully recognize how they got on the list over the past 23 years...and ergo recognize where the Gophers were to not make the list any given season.

Probably the team that causes the most heartache is Northwestern, but seeing Wiskie and Herkie there just gnaws the old craw. Good for them and bad for us.

Finally, probably the fanbase that believes they belong there is Nebbie. Nope.

 

[Nokomis]

I think/hope that it won't be too long before the B1G goes to 20 teams. then, they can go to scheduling Pods with 4 Pods of 5 teams each. Pod winners go to an elimination round before the Conference Championship game. that gives teams something to play for and keeps fan bases involved - as opposed to no divisions where over half of the teams have nothing to play for by the time the season is half-over.

This has been posted before, but something like this would be really fun.

B1G West: USC, UCLA, Wash, Ore
B1G North: Min, Wisc, Iowa, Neb
B1G Central: NW, Ill, Purd, Ind
B1G East: Mich, OSU, PSU, MSU
B1G Northeast: Rut, MD, ??, ??

Two division champs with the best record play in the CCG. Keeps traditional rivals together and everyone a shot at a division title, plus you get the coast-to-coast super-conference.

 

[MplsGopher]

Fixed:

B1G West: USC, UCLA, Wash, Ore
B1G North: Min, Wisc, Iowa, Neb
B1G Central: NW, Ill, Purd, Ind
B1G East: Mich, OSU, MSU, Rut
B1G Northeast: MD, PSU, ??, ??

This satisfies all Big Ten dictated must play annual games (other than Rutgers-Maryland, see next paragraph) and satisfies that PSU would rather leave the Big Ten (and would threaten to do so) than be forced into a division with Mich and OSU again.


If waiving an almost-magic wand such that Notre Dame is off the table but all ACC schools are on, then I pick Pitt and Virginia, giving nice rivalries for PSU and MD. Sorry Rutgers, but you really don’t have any natural rivalries anyway.



Going to 11 conf games in this format lets you play all other teams home/home in four years. Desirable goal. While still allowing an extra game for in-state rivalry or extra home game.