PMWinSTP
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2015
- Messages
- 16,084
- Reaction score
- 5,571
- Points
- 113
Not going to happen.Those 'somebodies' that play the role of losing games, as you say, will have to do so at a greatly reduced rate.
Not going to happen.Those 'somebodies' that play the role of losing games, as you say, will have to do so at a greatly reduced rate.
A conference title still means something, in my opinion.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.
I've thought this for awhileIf I really wanted to stir the pot, I would talk about "radio personality" Greg Swaim and his prediction that the B1G wants Texas A&M as a new member
Why should it be 3? Only Iowa wanted that. Penn St is quite adamant that it should be Zero.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.
A conference title still means something, in my opinion.
I hope that co-titles are brought back
Honestly if it was going to be 3 I would prefer all of the following for the gophers (in order)Why should it be 3? Only Iowa wanted that. Penn St is quite adamant that it should be Zero.
I could see 12-0 5 seed team hanging a banner that says undefeated big ten seasonIt does to me too.
However. I can also see a situation in which a Team going to the College Football Playoff with banged up stars being fine with sitting out a week when it's now possibly going to take 17-18 games to win the Whole Bowl of Tostitos.
I've thought this for awhile
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.
B1G would like being in Texas. A&m doesn't like being with UT and is an alliance member.look, I think Swaim is completely unreliable as a source of any actual information. he is all about the "hot take" - throw crap into a rotary fan and watch the feces fly.
as much as some people rip Greg Flugaur, I think Flugaur does have at least some sources of information - or at least people who are willing to leak info to him on occasion.
so the B1G may see A&M as a possible future option. but I would not base that on anything Swaim has to say.
I can assure you Penn St does not want any part of being in a Division with Michigan or Ohio State.Sure....nobody wants to be in a division with Michigan or Ohio State. But Penn State is rarely a slouch and neither is Oregon. USC still brings in high end talent....and chances are that when the conference expands again....there will probably be at least one other NC contending program brought in. It's not going to be a cake walk for any team regardless of whether they attempt divisions again or stick with none.
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.
I can assure you Penn St does not want any part of being in a Division with Michigan or Ohio State.
Division-less = flexibility.
The media contracts are multi-year huge $$ deals. They're not going to alter their bids based on whether there are divisions or not. With 20 teams that included ND they will get more $$ than they know what to do with. The divisions would also likely eliminate the need for protected games, so the impact on how often Michigan plays USC or OSU plays Oregon etc. would probably be zero. You would play every non-division team every 3 years at a minimum.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.
Probably because Penn State really has no rivals in the B1G. Even Nebraska has built a decent rivalry with Minnesota and Iowa.Why should it be 3? Only Iowa wanted that. Penn St is quite adamant that it should be Zero.
If Penn St had one or the other every year, that means there would be several years with they have BOTH. That's the point of contention.Yet in the majority of years, they'll likely have one or the other on the schedule anyways. Maybe they roll a year with neither.
True, but that has nothing to do with the scheduling. Division-less equals flexibility..Oregon has been consistently very good for a while and USC is still a helmet school. I'm not so sure that the Big Ten is going to remain as a two team league.
Yes. So why should Penn St be locked in to playing 3 teams annually when they don't want to?Probably because Penn State really has no rivals in the B1G. Even Nebraska has built a decent rivalry with Minnesota and Iowa.
It would enhance their chance in the W-L record over the current set up. Not so great for in stadium revenue though.Honestly if it was going to be 3 I would prefer all of the following for the gophers (in order)
Nebraska
Northwestern
Purdue
Illinois
MN Nebraska games get bigger crowds than Mn Mi gamesIt would enhance their chance in the W-L record over the current set up. Not so great for in stadium revenue though.
Agree it is harder for the more recently added teams, but the others can fairly easily list three that are historically important. Another option would be having it "up to three" yearly rival games. Where are you getting only Iowa wanted it?Why should it be 3? Only Iowa wanted that. Penn St is quite adamant that it should be Zero.
Because Iowa is currently the only team with 3 protected rivals (Minn-Wis-Neb).Agree it is harder for the more recently added teams, but the others can fairly easily list three that are historically important. Another option would be having it "up to three" yearly rival games. Where are you getting only Iowa wanted it?
If Penn St had one or the other every year, that means there would be several years with they have BOTH. That's the point of contention.
It can still happen in the future, but doing a quick scan of the current schedule it's not going to happen through 2028.
True, but that has nothing to do with the scheduling. Division-less equals flexibility.
I think they would be pretty down the list as well.look, I think Swaim is completely unreliable as a source of any actual information. he is all about the "hot take" - throw crap into a rotary fan and watch the feces fly.
as much as some people rip Greg Flugaur, I think Flugaur does have at least some sources of information - or at least people who are willing to leak info to him on occasion.
so the B1G may see A&M as a possible future option. but I would not base that on anything Swaim has to say.
MN Nebraska games get bigger crowds than Mn Mi games
Also means unbalanced scheduling.
It's balanced just fine now. Teams play 0-3 teams they want annually. The rest roughly equal, 2-3 times in a 6 year cycle. If they add more teams it will be 2-3 times in a 7-8 year cycle.
It's not balanced if the other Division of 10 teams has 2 or more better teams. The goal of balance is unobtainable short of a complete round robin schedule. Teams wanted 0-3 locked in opponents based on personal preference.The point is......as you've stated.......there will be years when teams land far tougher schedules than other teams in the conference. Two five team divisions playing all nine other teams creates balance and would end up with the best team from each playing in the championship. While the current plan with 18 teams is not necessarily bad on that standpoint.....this would be better, no question.
It's not balanced if the other Division of 10 teams has 2 or more better teams. The goal of balance is unobtainable short of a complete round robin schedule. Teams wanted 0-3 locked in opponents based on personal preference.
Across the board on the P4 Conferences (Big 10-ACC-SEC-Big 12) they were ditched. From the rest, the AAC, CUSA, Mtn West & MAC also went Division-less. Only the SWAC & Sun Belt have kept them.
Again, I am in favor of Big 10 Divisions, but they are gone. There is no evidence they will come back soon.
the big dogs are not going to continue to play nice forever... mark my wordsNot going to happen.