Iowa AD says floating scrapping divisions

Donate To GopherHole
Yawn. We hear this every year. The only steam this year is because they’re trying to figure out if adding a highlight ooc game for everyone makes more money and the teams will want to play one less conference game to pad stats to try make bowl games. The scrapping divisions won’t make more money, make the B10 more likely to make the playoff or add revenue by adding an ooc game against a cellar dweller (I’m sure that Minnesota vs Oregon St or Kansas will kill it in the ratings). The divisions are fine as they are and the West is better than they are made out to be as they show in bowl season every year
 

Gophers_4life said:
I like the idea of 8 Big Ten games + 2 Alliance games, so presumably 1 PAC + 1 ACC per year. Maybe Iowa can substitute Iowa State for one game per year.

Gives 5 home + 5 away, balanced, every year, rather than 4/5 and 5/4 every other year with nine Big Ten conf games.

I like the idea if having three rivals yearly, the obvious three for us being Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan.

I like the idea of getting to see all 10 other conf teams every two years.

Only potential sticking point for me is: how would they do the Conf Championship Game? Does anyone really want it to be a turn-around rematch, one week later, of Ohio St vs Mich??

And isn't the NCAA rule now that if you have more than 10 teams, you have to have divisions to hold a CCG?


@Some guy when you said "to get a round robin in half the conference to eliminate the possibility of 3 unbeatens", what did you mean by that? I didn't see anything about that in the link. Just curious, thanks.
Click to expand...
The reason for the divisions rule is so a team can’t be eliminated from conference contention without losing a game.

two groups of teams have to all play each other so that you can’t have 3 unbeatens at the end. The way most have done that is divisions.

a pod system would be…you always play everyone in your pod and then you rotate and everyone in your pod plays everyone in another pod for a given year. This is essentially divisions that change every year. But the entire schedule is built to avoid three unbeatens as a possibility. The problem is the current big ten isn’t a number divisible by 4 so the pod system doesn’t really work. I suppose you could have pods of different sizes but that would create some real disparity of who plays who over the long term (which is I suppose fine)
 

Some guy said:
I don’t think it’s happening.
I think it’s being “discussed”

And I think it’s being discussed so when people complain they can say we looked into it and it isn’t better. There is a reason there is only one conference doing it that way and that conference is falling apart.

As for the more important matchup. Yeah. It makes big ten championship rating better maybe.
It makes osu vs Michigan worse rating.
it makes Mn vs wisconsin worse rating.
It makes WI vs Iowa worse rating.

So it does increase the intrigue of one game. But it decreases the importance of multiple games. I don’t know enough about tv contracts to know what that means for tv money.

As for auto bid scenario. It is worse in auto bid scenario because an auto bid is an auto bid and it guarantees the highest ranked team without an auto bid has an extra loss. At best you break even.

as for no auto bid scenario, again you guarantee one of your top 2 an extra loss

At best you break even. At worst you hurt yourself. It probably is pretty random whether you break even or hurt yourself from year to year. I wouldn’t argue you hurt yourself always. I can’t think of one scenario that it helps the conference get multiple bids.
Click to expand...
Guys like you can think these things through like it's second nature. I can't understand even one ramification from such a proposed change. Man you guys are smart. Can I ask what you do for a living?
 

Some guy said:
I think one division actually hurts Michigan state, Michigan, and Penn state. Their schedules will get marketably tougher…especially if Ohio state is a locked opponent for any of them
Click to expand...
Taking a stab at the locked opponents for each team - used trophy games and regional matchups
Minnesota - Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska
Wisconsin - Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska
Iowa - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Nebraska - Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Northwestern - Illinois, Michigan, Purdue
Illinois - Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue
Purdue - Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern
Indiana - Purdue, Michigan State, ?
Michigan - Michigan State, Ohio State, Northwestern
Michigan State - Michigan, Indiana, Penn State
Ohio State - Michigan, Illinois, ?
Penn State - Michigan State, Maryland, Rutgers
Maryland - Penn State, Rutgers, ?
Rutgers - Penn State, Maryland, ?
 
Last edited:

Ope3 said:
More money from the TV/Broadcast partners, BTN Subscribers, corporate sponsors etc, but you are correct it has to offset the diluted shares...so it needs to be bigger fish than Iowa St or Kansas St. No argument there.
Click to expand...
So who? Who are they going to get that enlarges each piece of the pie

The reason they are at 14 is because there aren’t any candidates willing who would grow the pie big enough to make each piece bigger. If it was profitable it would already have been announced.
 



MNVCGUY said:
Taking a stab at the locked opponents for each team (the somewhat obvious ones at least)
Minnesota - Wisconsin, Iowa, ?
Wisconsin - Minnesota, Iowa, ?
Iowa - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Nebraska - Iowa, ?, ?
Northwestern - Illinois, ?, ?
Illinois - Northwestern, ?, ?
Purdue - Indiana, ?, ?
Indiana - Purdue, ?, ?
Michigan - Michigan State, Ohio State, ?
Michigan State - Michigan, ?, ?
Ohio State - Michigan, Penn State, ?
Penn State - Ohio State, Maryland, Rutgers
Maryland - Penn State, Rutgers, ?
Rutgers - Penn State, Maryland, ?
Click to expand...
I think Illinois Purdue would be a thing
I think Ohio state Illinois would be a thing
I think Purdue gets Iowa instead of wisconsin (they split Iowa and wisconsin during legends/leaders) and northwestern
I think wisconsin gets northwestern
One Michigan gets Maryland/Rutgers the other gets the other

it would be interesting.

penn state would lobby to get Michigan state or Nebraska instead of Ohio state.
The conference would want to avoid 3 or 4 of Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, northwestern all together as a group because it would mean one of them is off to a 3-0 start in an 8 game schedule. And taking away divisions is to avoid having northwestern types in the game.
 

Some guy said:
There is almost no detail. So I don’t know what you mean by level of detail.

the OSU Michigan game for a division title at noon in November probably gets more eyeballs than any time slot in October. I don’t know that but I think you’re making some big assumptions.

I’ve yet to have anyone explain to me how it makes more money.

if it does, you’re right, they will probably eventually switch to it. But I don’t think it’s as obvious as you do that it makes more money.
Click to expand...
By detail, I just meant having an AD from one of the schools going on record saying it's actively being discussed, the reduction to 8 games and involving ACC/Pac 12.

The Athletic article pointed out that deal with the TV partners are also expiring, so that is why there is urgency to work it out. Also mentioned is the uncertainty of the BSC Playoff format, which is complicating making a decision.
 

Some guy said:
So who? Who are they going to get that enlarges each piece of the pie

The reason they are at 14 is because there aren’t any candidates willing who would grow the pie big enough to make each piece bigger. If it was profitable it would already have been announced.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking it will be schools to the West and it will be more than 2, with perhaps a couple cherry picked from the Big 12 or ACC.

Time frame? No idea. First things first, probably have to give this Alliance thing a whirl for few years.
 





Ope3 said:
I'm thinking it will be schools to the West and it will be more than 2, with perhaps a couple cherry picked from the Big 12 or ACC.

Time frame? No idea. First things first, probably have to give this Alliance thing a whirl for few years.
Click to expand...
Would be interesting if BTN bid on tier 3 ACC and pac 12 rights
 

upnorthkid said:
Yawn. We hear this every year. The only steam this year is because they’re trying to figure out if adding a highlight ooc game for everyone makes more money and the teams will want to play one less conference game to pad stats to try make bowl games. The scrapping divisions won’t make more money, make the B10 more likely to make the playoff or add revenue by adding an ooc game against a cellar dweller (I’m sure that Minnesota vs Oregon St or Kansas will kill it in the ratings). The divisions are fine as they are and the West is better than they are made out to be as they show in bowl season every year
Click to expand...
We don't hear it every year, it hasn't been around that long to begin with (this will be year 9) so it had to at least been given a few years to see how it works out. So far it's worked out West 0 / East 8 in the Title game.

As a Gopher alum/fan I would like it to remain status quo, but with new TV/Broadcast deals on the horizon, BCS Format update and the past track record, the discussion for change is warranted. My instinct tells me either realignment or scraping the Divisions all together is going to happen. Soon.

Here's something way outside the box with these Alliance games...count them in your own leagues Conference and/or Division standings. Schedule inequity? Sure, here's some cash to help put some salve on the wound. Plus they are already unequal with cross division games. Go year by year to try and balance it out. It would make Minnesota vs Oregon St or Kansas more attractive.

I'm not endorsing such a plan, though I don't think I would be against it either.
 









SixBySix said:
As long as we play iwoa, wisconsin, and Nebraska every year, I'm happy.
Click to expand...
I see no need to have to play Nebraska EVERY year, any more than Northwestern, Illinois or Purdue.

Frequently playing the Cornhuskers would be fine by me.
 
Last edited:

Ope3 said:
Ever? Or more than 2?
Click to expand...
Not anytime soon, for sure. The Alliance takes away the perceived need to go to 16 to compete with sec. This is B1G/Pac12/ACC starting to line things up for the Alliance to be in place come TV contract time.
 

Ope3 said:
I see no need to have to play Nebraska EVERY year, any more than Northwestern, Illinois or Northwestern.

Frequently playing the Cornhuskers would be fine by me.
Click to expand...
Did you mean Purdue?
 


PMWinSTP said:
Not anytime soon, for sure. The Alliance takes away the perceived need to go to 16 to compete with sec. This is B1G/Pac12/ACC starting to line things up for the Alliance to be in place come TV contract time.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, probably true. Perhaps the Alliance could be a merger down the road, somehow.
 

Ope3 said:
We don't hear it every year, it hasn't been around that long to begin with (this will be year 9) so it had to at least been given a few years to see how it works out. So far it's worked out West 0 / East 8 in the Title game.

As a Gopher alum/fan I would like it to remain status quo, but with new TV/Broadcast deals on the horizon, BCS Format update and the past track record, the discussion for change is warranted. My instinct tells me either realignment or scraping the Divisions all together is going to happen. Soon.

Here's something way outside the box with these Alliance games...count them in your own leagues Conference and/or Division standings. Schedule inequity? Sure, here's some cash to help put some salve on the wound. Plus they are already unequal with cross division games. Go year by year to try and balance it out. It would make Minnesota vs Oregon St or Kansas more attractive.

I'm not endorsing such a plan, though I don't think I would be against it either.
Click to expand...
Except your argument for scrapping divisions isn't about where the best team comes from, it's where the 2nd best team comes from because the best team will always be there.
2021: Michigan over Iowa (OSU was arguably the best team, but didn't even win their division. they get in and they get to play Michigan the week after they lose to them? Perhaps that's what people want to see?)
2020: OSU NW; Indiana 2nd best in east and lost their bowl game. NW won theirs. balance worked.
2019: OSU over WI; PSU is East runner up. Prior to B10 title game prevailing thought was WI was better than PSU.
2018: OSU over NW; this is really the biggest outlier year the B10 has where NW who finished 9-5 got in. Keep in mind NW did go on and win their bowl game and both Mich and PSU (2nd and 3rd in East) lost theirs
2017: OSU over WI; WI was undefeated so it's a pretty tough sell to say this wasn't the 2 best teams
2016: PSU over WI; PSU won by a score. OSU had had their crack and lost.
2015: Mich St over Iowa (who was undefeated); hard time holding an undefeated team out
2014: OSU over WI; perhaps another one you could argue for a Mich St rematch, though they had lost by 2 scores (almost 3 if not for a late score)

If you're arguing for realignment, that's a different story. But scrapping divisions is with the goal you get the "2 best" teams in it at the end. Your best team will always be there divisions or not. The title game results more speak to who the dominant team is (OSU with 5 titles) rather than that the East is so much better than the West. OSU also has demolished all of the east consistently. Aside from the Iowa team who shouldn't have gotten there (that one still stings for us), the two other conf champ games not featuring OSU were 3 pt (same as OSU lost to Mich St earlier that year) and 7 pt (OSU lost by 3 to PSU earlier) games. In reality by scrapping divisions you're going to hurt your fan base pending how you divvy it up, and decreasing interest in your title game if it ends up being a repeat, the same as how we all groan when there's an SEC rematch right after they play.
 

The SEC adding Texas and Oklahoma will change the football landscape. I suspect the ACC and PAC12 with the B10 want to reduce the quantity of quality teams the SEC could find to play outside their conference. If that's true, this could make sense.

If someone has made this point, move on, nothing to see here.
 

Changing the system is something that comes up now and then.
And nothing comes of it because there is no perfect system and the one we have right now keeps most of the fans happy.
In terms of the TV money, it does not depend on ratings but only how many people get the BTN as a required APP on their TV package.
To increase that number we would have to find a team to join the BIG in a market that does not already have the BTN.
If that happens we could drop NE and add the other team.
MD and Rutgers are heavily populated areas, NE is not.
 

In my dream scenario, there would be a comissioner of NCAA Power 5 Football and they would take over scheduling similar to the NFL. Maybe this year the Big Ten West has non-conference games with the ACC Coastal and the Pac 10 South has non-conference games with the SEC West, etc

Teams could play 8 conference games, 3 crossover games with selected conference, and then one game to play at their discretion - FCS, non-power 5, rivalry game, etc
 


Some guy said:
The reason for the divisions rule is so a team can’t be eliminated from conference contention without losing a game.

two groups of teams have to all play each other so that you can’t have 3 unbeatens at the end. The way most have done that is divisions.

a pod system would be…you always play everyone in your pod and then you rotate and everyone in your pod plays everyone in another pod for a given year. This is essentially divisions that change every year. But the entire schedule is built to avoid three unbeatens as a possibility. The problem is the current big ten isn’t a number divisible by 4 so the pod system doesn’t really work. I suppose you could have pods of different sizes but that would create some real disparity of who plays who over the long term (which is I suppose fine)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the explanation.

Agree that, and obviously, it would be a bad thing for it to be possible to have three unbeaten teams in a conference.

I don't necessarily agree that such a concern was the reason for the original divisions rule, per se. I think the reason for it, is when the SEC became the first conference to expand to 12. That meant a round-robin could no longer be played. So they essentially broke the conference into two, played round-robins amongst the two "mini conferences", and they in fact created the conference championship game as an extra game between the two champions of the "mini conferences".

But it still works out to the same thing.



All that said, can you provide an example of how it would be possible for there to be three unbeaten teams with the proposal in the OP? My wild guess is that it's not possible.

Don't know if that could be proven mathematically. But you could have a computer just brute force run through all possible schedules, and for each schedule all possible permutations of wins/losses, and just see if there ever were any scenarios with 3+ unbeaten teams.



Although, is it really that much difference than having a bunch of tied teams in a division and going to tiebreakers to determine who wins the division and goes to the CCG?

For example, in the East say it's obvious Ohio State is 12-0 and the next best has 2 conf losses. But in the West it's like it could have been last season and we have Wisc, Iowa, Gophers, and Purdue all tied.

Why is that situation not just as "bad" as having three unbeaten teams, in the sense of determining who is "most deserving" to go to the CCG?
 
Last edited:

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom