Conference Realignment Updates

[Ope3]

Not sure where you're getting your info from. The main thing that people had an issue with under the previous East/West split was the unbalanced schedules and one division being way stronger than the other. This would effectively remove that issue and we'll as guarantee that every team saw every other team in the conference at least every third year.

The info is pretty basic, they had Divisions for a dozen years. Now they do not. There was no reprieve with the addition of the USC-UCLA and then again with Washington-Oregon. Still gone.

For them to go back the "Non-Division format" will have to fail in some measure so TV/Streamers would be agreeable (and PAY) for them to go back. Divisions also take away the potential of a 2nd Ohio St vs Michigan game. That's what TV/Streamers want.

Lets look at a specific example of USC, if they were in a West Division or Pod with Washington/Oregon in which they would play them every year. Even though they were in the Pac 8-10-12 together, they are not really "rivals" nor attract big view numbers nationally. Why would TV/Streamers want that if it means fewer games for USC against Michigan or Ohio St, even if it's just 1 fewer over a 5-6 year time span?

Has zero effect on the CFP.

The zero effect on CFP statement is not true. The Big 10 Champion will now get an Auto-Bid to the CFP and likely a Bye. We can certainly debate the amount of impact it has, but will not be "ZERO".

Having said all that, if the Conference does go beyond 20 teams up to 24-28+, then I suppose it does put divisions back in play. I do not think that would happen until the current Media Rights deal expires, but things change.

 

[stocker08]

The info is pretty basic, they had Divisions for a dozen years. Now they do not.

For them to go back the "Non-Division format" will have to fail in some measure so TV/Streamers would be agreeable (and PAY) for them to go back. Divisions also take away the potential of a 2nd Ohio St vs Michigan game. That's what TV/Streamers want.

Lets look at a specific example of USC, if they were in a West Division or Pod with Washington/Oregon in which they would play them every year. Even though they were in the Pac 8-10-12 together, they are not really "rivals" nor attract big view numbers nationally. Why would TV/Streamers want that if it means fewer games for USC against Michigan or Ohio St, even if it's just 1 fewer over a 5-6 year time span?



The zero effect on CFP statement is not true. The Big 10 Champion will now get an Auto-Bid to the CFP and likely a Bye. We can certainly debate the amount of impact it has, but will not be "ZERO".

Having said all that, if the Conference does go beyond 20 teams up to 24-28+, then I suppose it does put divisions back in play. I do not think that would happen until the current Media Rights deal expires, but things change.

Divisions didn't work well in the 14 team league with unbalanced schedules. This wouldn't be an issue with 20 teams and four divisions. Balanced schedules is more important than you seem to think. The larger the conference gets....the less equitable it's going to be made on a year to year basis due to scheduling.

 

[Ope3]

Divisions didn't work well in the 14 team league with unbalanced schedules. This wouldn't be an issue with 20 teams and four divisions. Balanced schedules is more important than you seem to think. The larger the conference gets....the less equitable it's going to be made on a year to year basis due to scheduling.

I totally get it will be less equitable. TV/Streamers don't care. Each team gets their 0-3 protected rivals and you rotate through the rest. That's as equitable as it will get.

It's all relative. Michigan State getting tagged with playing Ohio State & Penn St ever year in addition to their rival Michigan was inequitable. Going forward, they won't.

 

[stocker08]

I totally get it will be less equitable. TV/Streamers don't care. Each team gets their 0-3 protected rivals and you rotate through the rest. That's as equitable as it will get.

It's all relative. Michigan State getting tagged with playing Ohio State & Penn St ever year in addition to their rival Michigan was inequitable. Going forward, they won't.

You keep saying "TV/Streamers". Who or what are you referring to? The broadcast/cable companies? The Big Ten? The viewers?

 

[Ope3]

You keep saying "TV/Streamers". Who or what are you referring to? The broadcast/cable companies? The Big Ten? The viewers?

FOX, NBC, Peacock & CBS.

 

[stocker08]

FOX, NBC, Peacock & CBS.

Do you have some sort of source showing that these networks are against divisions. You still haven't made a good case against four, five team divisions. I think the rotating yearly divisions would be something unique that networks would love.

 

[Ope3]

Do you have some sort of source showing that these networks are against divisions. You still haven't made a good case against four, five team divisions. I think the rotating yearly divisions would be something unique that networks would love.

The case is, Divisions are now history. If FOX/NBC/Peacock/CBS wanted them, they would still have them. There was no appetite to keep them or realign.

That decision was made before USC/UCLA joined. They were kept for 1 season to start fresh after they came on board but there was no long term reprieve when it became a 16 team conference and then 18 with Oregon/Washington.

The Big10 had Divisions for roughly a dozen years. Now they are ditched. I can't fathom why there's any inkling that they might go back in the near future within this media rights contract.

 

[dinkything]

Selfishly, I'd love to see the league get to 20 teams by adding Notre Dame and Boston College. The Notre Dame benefits are obvious, but it gives the B1G another top media market in Boston. Not that it factors in these decisions, but Hockey would get to 8 teams with another traditional power. But most of all I think, it makes a great pod schedule that works in every sport. West: USC-UCLA-Ore-Wash / North: Minn-Iowa-Wis-NE / Midwest: Ill-NW-Ind-Pur / Great Lakes: Mich-MSU-OSU-ND / East: Rutgers-Maryland-BC-PSU

I could see your Midwest pod being 'relegated' in a big hurry... there is NO WAY each of those 4 teams would continue to receive an equal Big 10 share.
Might even get booted out of the conference?!

The east and north pods wouldn't be far behind...

gotta tread lightly here

 

[stocker08]

The case is, Divisions are now history. If FOX/NBC/Peacock/CBS wanted them, they would still have them. There was no appetite to keep them or realign.

That decision was made before USC/UCLA joined. They were kept for 1 season to start fresh after they came on board but there was no long term reprieve when it became a 16 team conference and then 18 with Oregon/Washington.

The Big10 had Divisions for roughly a dozen years. Now they are ditched. I can't fathom why there's any inkling that they might go back in the near future within this media rights contract.

Because a 14 team league broken into two divisions didn't work great, and 18 teams doesn't work no matter how you split things up. 20 teams into four divisions would work really well. Not sure where you get the idea that Fox, CBS, NBC, etc....have much of a say in how the conference is split.....or that they care that much.

 

[Ope3]

Because a 14 team league broken into two divisions didn't work great, and 18 teams doesn't work no matter how you split things up. 20 teams into four divisions would work really well. Not sure where you get the idea that Fox, CBS, NBC, etc....have much of a say in how the conference is split.....or that they care that much.

You really think the ones shelling out Billions of dollars funding the whole operation are indifferent as to how the Big 10 Championship game and Schedule inventory is decided?

My god that is naive.

 

[Some guy]

this may be splitting the baby, but I could see the B1G doing "scheduling pods" without necessarily calling them divisions. group teams together for scheduling purposes, but those groupings are not address in the overall standings.

I just don't know how you manage divisional playoffs, which would mean adding more games.

once the expanded CFP kicks in, conference championships have symbolic importance, but in the B1G, a team does not have to play in the conference championship game to make the CFP.

For sure.
20 teams.
5 team pods

Play your pod plus one other pod.

You play 4 teams every year.
You play everyone else home and home every 6 years.
You eliminate the chances of 3 unbeaten teams with one unbeaten being left out of the championship.


If you go to 24 teams.
4 pods of 6.
Play your pod plus another pod in an 11 game conference schedule.

 

[stocker08]

You really think the ones shelling out Billions of dollars funding the whole operation are indifferent as to how the Big 10 Championship game and Schedule inventory is decided?

My god that is naive.

You are throwing out big assumptions that not only do they have the pull to decide whether the conference has divisions or not.....but also that they are vehemently against divisions at all.....which I've seen no evidence for.

Basically.....you are throwing shit at a wall and calling it art.

 

[stocker08]

For sure.
20 teams.
5 team pods

Play your pod plus one other pod.

You play 4 teams every year.
You play everyone else home and home every 6 years.
You eliminate the chances of 3 unbeaten teams with one unbeaten being left out of the championship.


If you go to 24 teams.
4 pods of 6.
Play your pod plus another pod in an 11 game conference schedule.

It's a system that would take care of a lot of the current issues with having so many teams in a conference. I don't understand how certain people are so against it. Maybe they don't actually understand how it would work?

 

[disco]

It's a system that would take care of a lot of the current issues with having so many teams in a conference. I don't understand how certain people are so against it. Maybe they don't actually understand how it would work?

I don't think it's a matter of being against it. It's simply noting that it isn't going to happen because the powers that be don't want it to happen.

 

[stocker08]

I don't think it's a matter of being against it. It's simply noting that it isn't going to happen because the powers that be don't want it to happen.

I understand the argument. I'm asking where this idea that the "powers that be" don't want divisions came from? At 18 teams, divisions don't make sense....which is why they were folded. But at 20 teams, divisions make a ton of sense.

 

[Ope3]

You are throwing out big assumptions that not only do they have the pull to decide whether the conference has divisions or not.....but also that they are vehemently against divisions at all.....which I've seen no evidence for.

Basically.....you are throwing shit at a wall and calling it art.

I am not repeating anything I had not heard by various media reports for 3 years leading up to the whole idea of Divisions being deep sixed. It's the reality you are choosing to not accept. There are a handful of threads where this subject was beaten to death.

Knock yourself out if you want to rehash this.

Warren suggests Divisions could be gone when USC/UCLA join

gopherhole.com

-----

Divisions. Gone. Not just the Big 10 but also the SEC.

Deadspin | Farewell to college football divisions, the nostalgic blight we all loved to hate

Deadspin | Farewell to college football divisions, the nostalgic blight we all loved to hate

deadspin.com

-----

Big Ten ditches divisions, announces conference opponents for 2024, '25

Big Ten football divisions will be no more, beginning in 2024, when the conference officially expands to 16 teams with the additions of USC and UCLA.

www.detroitnews.com

"We agreed that for the betterment of the whole, the betterment of the league relative to our overall scheduling format and our television partners, that, at the end of the day, we needed to accept that as a possibility," Smith said, referring to Manuel.

 

[Ope3]

I understand the argument. I'm asking where this idea that the "powers that be" don't want divisions came from? At 18 teams, divisions don't make sense....which is why they were folded. But at 20 teams, divisions make a ton of sense.

It was already decided when they were at 16 teams. Note, the SEC is also currently at 16 teams. Division-less going forward.

 

[stocker08]

I am not repeating anything I had not heard by various media reports for 3 years leading up to the whole ideal of Divisions being deep sixed. It's the reality you are choosing to not accept. There are a handful of threads where this subject was beaten to death.

Knock yourself out if you want to rehash this.

Warren suggests Divisions could be gone when USC/UCLA join

gopherhole.com

-----

Divisions. Gone. Not just the Big 10 but also the SEC.

Deadspin | Farewell to college football divisions, the nostalgic blight we all loved to hate

Deadspin | Farewell to college football divisions, the nostalgic blight we all loved to hate

deadspin.com

-----

Big Ten ditches divisions, announces conference opponents for 2024, '25

Big Ten football divisions will be no more, beginning in 2024, when the conference officially expands to 16 teams with the additions of USC and UCLA.

www.detroitnews.com

"We agreed that for the betterment of the whole, the betterment of the league relative to our overall scheduling format and our television partners, that, at the end of the day, we needed to accept that as a possibility," Smith said, referring to Manuel.

None of that says anything that I didn't already know. The two division Big Ten didn't work well due to competitive balance. And with additional teams coming in....it would have been even worse from a crossover scheduling aspect. But that says nothing to the future of divisions if the conference keeps expanding. Simple east/west split is over. Too many teams to make that work. But four divisions would absolutely work if the conference expands further. Makes way too much sense.

 

[PMWinSTP]

Selfishly, I'd love to see the league get to 20 teams by adding Notre Dame and Boston College. The Notre Dame benefits are obvious, but it gives the B1G another top media market in Boston. Not that it factors in these decisions, but Hockey would get to 8 teams with another traditional power. But most of all I think, it makes a great pod schedule that works in every sport. West: USC-UCLA-Ore-Wash / North: Minn-Iowa-Wis-NE / Midwest: Ill-NW-Ind-Pur / Great Lakes: Mich-MSU-OSU-ND / East: Rutgers-Maryland-BC-PSU

I would take Stanford or UNC over BC.

 

[PMWinSTP]

I could see your Midwest pod being 'relegated' in a big hurry... there is NO WAY each of those 4 teams would continue to receive an equal Big 10 share.
Might even get booted out of the conference?!

The east and north pods wouldn't be far behind...

gotta tread lightly here

There's not going to be relegation or booting out of the conference. Said this probably a dozen times out here. Somebody has to lose games.

 

[Ope3]

None of that says anything that I didn't already know. The two division Big Ten didn't work well due to competitive balance. And with additional teams coming in....it would have been even worse from a crossover scheduling aspect. But that says nothing to the future of divisions if the conference keeps expanding. Simple east/west split is over. Too many teams to make that work. But four divisions would absolutely work if the conference expands further. Makes way too much sense.

If you know that it's for the "the betterment of the league relative to our overall scheduling format and our television partners", then I am not sure why you are questioning it.

In a 9-10 game schedule, 1 game per week over 3 months. Why are Divisions necessary? They are not. I wish they were, but it's been decided. Nobody on the Big 10 asked for my opinion.

Flex scheduling 0-3 protected rivals works about as well as Divisions, maybe better.

Each team plays their games and hopes they have a resume good enough for the College Football Playoff. The Big 10 Championship will be an afterthought.

 

[stocker08]

If you know that it's for the "the betterment of the league relative to our overall scheduling format and our television partners", then I am not sure why you are questioning it.

In a 9-10 game schedule, 1 game per week over 3 months. Why are Divisions necessary? They are not. I wish they were, but it's been decided. Nobody on the Big 10 asked for my opinion.

Flex scheduling 0-3 protected rivals works about as well as Divisions, maybe better.

Each team plays their games and hopes they have a resume good enough for the College Football Playoff. The Big 10 Championship will be an afterthought.

I'm not questioning it. With an 18 team league, divisions make zero sense. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that if two more teams were added to make the Big Ten a 20 team league.....that four, five team divisions would work perfectly in terms of balancing the conference schedule and helping to maintain regional rivalries. I would be very surprised if this wasn't the option chosen when the conference expands to 20. It just makes too much sense.

 

[PMWinSTP]

I'm not questioning it. With an 18 team league, divisions make zero sense. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that if two more teams were added to make the Big Ten a 20 team league.....that four, five team divisions would work perfectly in terms of balancing the conference schedule and helping to maintain regional rivalries. I would be very surprised if this wasn't the option chosen when the conference expands to 20. It just makes too much sense.

I think the argument is all this can be done without actual divisions.

 

[stocker08]

I think the argument is all this can be done without actual divisions.

I don't doubt that it can be done without divisions. But it doesn't really do much to fix the problem with schedule balancing. Maybe that Big Ten is fine with that. Obviously we spent nearly a decade with very unbalanced East/West divisions....so it's possible that they don't care.

My personal feeling are that this method would balance conference schedules and maintain a core number of regional teams that each team would see every year. And I think the idea of rotating each sub division with the other three.....on a three year schedule would be an interesting development that would provide a lot pre season intrigue. I would think the networks would love something like this.

 

[Some guy]

Divisions don’t make sense. Round robin scheduling makes sense. Which means scheduling groups makes sense if you’re in a league divisible by 4.

At 20 and 24 scheduling groups make sense
At 18 and 22 they don’t make sense.

I was surprised the SEC didn’t put teams into groups of 4 for scheduling purposes. If I was SEC I would’ve had 4 groups of 4.

Play your group. Play 1 other group.
Play one random team from other two groups

 

[Ope3]

I'm not questioning it. With an 18 team league, divisions make zero sense. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that if two more teams were added to make the Big Ten a 20 team league.....that four, five team divisions would work perfectly in terms of balancing the conference schedule and helping to maintain regional rivalries. I would be very surprised if this wasn't the option chosen when the conference expands to 20. It just makes too much sense.

I think the argument is all this can be done without actual divisions.

Exactly, Divisions are not necessary to balance the conference schedule.

I mentioned it ad nauseum in other threads, but NO BIG 10 School want's to get stuck in a Division with with Ohio St & Michigan.

Nobody wants to play them every year, except the 2 schools themselves and Michigan St is good with playing Michigan annually.

Nobody wants them to be blocking their path to the Big 10 Championship, including Ohio St & Michigan. If they both are still one of the 2 best teams in terms of record, there will be a re-match.

If Minnesota was in a Divisions/Scheduling pod with Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan & Michigan St, it would be unequitable for the Gophers based on historical performance.

Lack of Divisions provides more flexibility. It provides more cross regional scheduling inventory. It's what FOX/NBC/Peacock/CBS want, are paying for and they have it.

Adding 2 more teams to the Conference to get to 20 does not change that equation in the slightest in my opinion. Maybe 24 would.

The major sea change could be what Some Guy's nightmare has been: A 3-way Unbeaten Tie. I suppose a massive 4-6 way tie for 2nd with a convoluted Tie-breaker which hinders a team from making the College Football Playoff could also shake things up.

 

[Some guy]

Exactly, Divisions are not necessary to balance the conference schedule.

I mentioned it ad nauseum in other threads, but NO BIG 10 School want's to get stuck in a Division with with Ohio St & Michigan.

Nobody wants to play them every year, except the 2 schools themselves and Michigan St is good with playing Michigan annually.

Nobody wants them to be blocking their path to the Big 10 Championship, including Ohio St & Michigan. If they both are still one of the 2 best teams in terms of record, there will be a re-match.

If Minnesota was in a Divisions/Scheduling pod with Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan & Michigan St, it would be unequitable for the Gophers based on historical performance.

Lack of Divisions provides more flexibility. It provides more cross regional scheduling inventory. It's what FOX/NBC/Peacock/CBS want, are paying for and they have it.

Adding 2 more teams to the Conference to get to 20 does not change that equation in the slightest in my opinion. Maybe 24 would.

The major sea change could be what Some Guy's nightmare has been: A 3-way Unbeaten Tie. I suppose a massive 4-6 way tie for 2nd with a convoluted Tie-breaker which hinders a team from making the College Football Playoff could also shake things up.

A 3 way unbeaten tie isn’t my nightmare. It would be the coolest thing ever. Pre-BCs all over again


Season starts in 50 days and I still haven’t seen the big ten tiebreakers

 

[Ope3]

A 3 way unbeaten tie isn’t my nightmare. It would be the coolest thing ever. Pre-BCs all over again

In the end though, I could see the odd team out being perfectly happy with a week of rest to get ready for the College Football Playoff, especially if they get the 5 seed in the current proposed format.

 

[PMWinSTP]

I don't doubt that it can be done without divisions. But it doesn't really do much to fix the problem with schedule balancing. Maybe that Big Ten is fine with that. Obviously we spent nearly a decade with very unbalanced East/West divisions....so it's possible that they don't care.

My personal feeling are that this method would balance conference schedules and maintain a core number of regional teams that each team would see every year. And I think the idea of rotating each sub division with the other three.....on a three year schedule would be an interesting development that would provide a lot pre season intrigue. I would think the networks would love something like this.

You do that with protected rival games. We can debate the number of matchups should be protected, and who those top rivals are for each school. I think it should be three, and I would add Mich.

 

[dinkything]

There's not going to be relegation or booting out of the conference. Said this probably a dozen times out here. Somebody has to lose games.

Those 'somebodies' that play the role of losing games, as you say, will have to do so at a greatly reduced rate.