Iowa AD says floating scrapping divisions

[Some guy]

I thought this was interesting, it shows how the Title game would have changed in Divisionless set up:

Looking Back At Previous Big Ten Championship Games Without Divisions

What if the conference originally paired the top two teams in Indianapolis instead of divisional opponents?

www.si.com

But that isn’t accurate because in a division less set up Michigan and Penn state wouldn’t get to play Indiana, Rutgers, AND Maryland every year

The team with the most to gain in the division switch?
penn state, especially if their locked games are Rutgers, Indiana, and Nebraska

the team with the most to lose:
Everyone except Penn state
michigan state might be easier for them to go 11-1 in a new set up. Harder to go 8-4 in a new set up.
Right now between Rutgers, Maryland, and Indiana…only one can be bottom basement…in a new set up all 3 can

The teams that don’t really care
Ohio state

 

[PMWinSTP]

I shouldn’t say nothing to do with TV contract.
But the big ten TV contract is 102-106 games per year depending on the season. That is 1/102-1/106th of the TV deal.
It is the largest importance of those games (maybe)…probably more like one of the top 5.

If the big ten title game alone is 10% of the revenue (it isn’t)
The big ten isn’t going to diminish 90% of their tv money model for a marginal increase in a very small piece of the pie.

expecially when Ohio state Michigan isn’t moving off the last weekend of the season. So they either aren’t playing in the big ten title game or they are repeating

a change in scheduling model likely means you aren’t getting all 3 of Michigan -PSU, Michigan-OSU, PSU-OSU every year….so that’s lost revenue (or if you are there is at least 3 losses between the 3 of them so two of them making the title game is diminished anyways.


you can say all day that the big ten title game could make more money. And it is possibly true depending on the matchup. It is also possibly not true. It is also something that would have ramifications on the importance of games outside the championship game that would impact ratings and money.

I think the opportunity for more interesting matchups from the Alliance that would draw bigger audiences and higher ad $$ is what will affect the broadcasting contract's value as they come due.

 

[Some guy]

I think the opportunity for more interesting matchups from the Alliance that would draw bigger audiences and higher ad $$ is what will affect the broadcasting contract's value as they come due.

Yeah I agree. But that is an independent conversation of divisions

 

[Ope3]

But that isn’t accurate because in a division less set up Michigan and Penn state wouldn’t get to play Indiana, Rutgers, AND Maryland every year

We don't know that. They could keep the schedule exactly the same, based on geography. Unlikely, but possible. But yes, there was a major assumption that the scheduling would be unchanged.

 

[Dave H]

If the scheduling is unchanged then the whole argument is stupid. You basically are keeping the same divisions only now winning said division could be of little to no value. I would rather the Big Ten implode than see a mediocre half measure like that.

 

[Ope3]

If the scheduling is unchanged then the whole argument is stupid. You basically are keeping the same divisions only now winning said division could be of little to no value. I would rather the Big Ten implode than see a mediocre half measure like that.

I don't think even winning such a "Division" would be recognized. Devil's advocate, it could still be a compromise. The best team (or the unthinkable, teams, plural) from the West would still have a pretty solid chance at the Title game.

Again broken record, without knowing the ramifications for the BCS Playoffs, extremely difficult to determine downstream impacts or any unintended consequences.

 

[Dave H]

Sorry but no they wouldn't. How will you decide say between a 1 loss Iowa squad and a 1 loss MSU if they never played? Now you have to come up with cockamamie SOS rules or formulas or transitive property type stuff to figure it out. (or worse who is ranked higher in the Fake Tourny' BS Poll) It is ridiculous and causes way more headaches than it solves. You are basically turning The Big Ten into a microcosm of NCAA Football (Big Ten East is to the Big Ten what the SEC is to the NCAA) as a whole...adopting all of the negatives with no real positives.

This move does nothing to help the West or The Big Ten. All it is about is making sure the "best" team in the Big Ten has a shot at the fake tournament. You can bet your house payment that the majority of years it will be two East teams playing in the Title Game (there is no way they will make tiebreakers not favor the East...this whole thing is going to favor the East) and the VAST majority of Big Ten teams will never sniff a Big Ten Title again. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern and Nebraska are in an infinitely worse position in this scenario than they would be keeping the status quo. That this was brought up by someone at Iowa is mindboggling unless he is trying to head it off. The small increase in revenue is not worth throwing in the towel likely forever.

It is not The Big Ten West's fault Penn State can't win enough games to matter. It is not our fault that Ohio State owns that entire division most years. (yay Michigan won it once...) There may be only a miniscule chance the Gophers win the Title Game but I would rather have a chip a chair and a chance then watch the Big Ten East Round Robin year after year. There is no legit TV contract that makes it better.

 

[Some guy]

If the scheduling is unchanged then the whole argument is stupid. You basically are keeping the same divisions only now winning said division could be of little to no value. I would rather the Big Ten implode than see a mediocre half measure like that.

They should keep divisions and say 2nd place team team finishes 2 games up or 1 game up with a head to head win over a division winner…the championship can be two teams from the same division. Easy fix

 

[Gophers_4life]

If the scheduling is unchanged then the whole argument is stupid. You basically are keeping the same divisions only now winning said division could be of little to no value. I would rather the Big Ten implode than see a mediocre half measure like that.

Agreed.

If you're going to scrap divisions, ostensibly to get Penn St and Michigan into more conf championship games along with Ohio St .... then at least get everyone else cycling through all the teams of the conference at a higher rate.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Sorry but no they wouldn't. How will you decide say between a 1 loss Iowa squad and a 1 loss MSU if they never played? Now you have to come up with cockamamie SOS rules or formulas or transitive property type stuff to figure it out. (or worse who is ranked higher in the Fake Tourny' BS Poll) It is ridiculous and causes way more headaches than it solves. You are basically turning The Big Ten into a microcosm of NCAA Football (Big Ten East is to the Big Ten what the SEC is to the NCAA) as a whole...adopting all of the negatives with no real positives.

This move does nothing to help the West or The Big Ten. All it is about is making sure the "best" team in the Big Ten has a shot at the fake tournament. You can bet your house payment that the majority of years it will be two East teams playing in the Title Game (there is no way they will make tiebreakers not favor the East...this whole thing is going to favor the East) and the VAST majority of Big Ten teams will never sniff a Big Ten Title again. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern and Nebraska are in an infinitely worse position in this scenario than they would be keeping the status quo. That this was brought up by someone at Iowa is mindboggling unless he is trying to head it off. The small increase in revenue is not worth throwing in the towel likely forever.

It is not The Big Ten West's fault Penn State can't win enough games to matter. It is not our fault that Ohio State owns that entire division most years. (yay Michigan won it once...) There may be only a miniscule chance the Gophers win the Title Game but I would rather have a chip a chair and a chance then watch the Big Ten East Round Robin year after year. There is no legit TV contract that makes it better.

Bolded: Penn State was an independent for many years, and had a chance to join the Big East football conf and that probably would've made it not dissolve and be stronger for many years.

They chose to join the Big Ten and they certainly cash our check each year.

 

[highwayman]

They should keep divisions and say 2nd place team team finishes 2 games up or 1 game up with a head to head win over a division winner…the championship can be two teams from the same division. Easy fix

Oh my god.

 

[USAF]

They should keep divisions and say 2nd place team team finishes 2 games up or 1 game up with a head to head win over a division winner…the championship can be two teams from the same division. Easy fix

The King Of Bad Takes, ladies and gentlemen.

 

[Ope3]

Sorry but no they wouldn't. How will you decide say between a 1 loss Iowa squad and a 1 loss MSU if they never played? Now you have to come up with cockamamie SOS rules or formulas or transitive property type stuff to figure it out. (or worse who is ranked higher in the Fake Tourny' BS Poll) It is ridiculous and causes way more headaches than it solves. You are basically turning The Big Ten into a microcosm of NCAA Football (Big Ten East is to the Big Ten what the SEC is to the NCAA) as a whole...adopting all of the negatives with no real positives.

Not really that hard to come up with something objective, winning percentage against common opponents, record vs 3rd place teams, and so on.

I am not in favor of it at all, but accepted that it's a very strong possibility contingent on several factors, most notably what is determined with the games with Pac12/ACC Alliance, reduction of Conference Games from 9 to 8, TV/Broadcast rights contracts and the BCS format.

It's not changing in a vacuum.

It's not like the East/West Divisions (or Divisions in general) is some huge long standing tradition. It's been around a decade and already morphed once from Legends/Leaders. If it changes, what's to say after the next broadcast deals expire (say in 6 years) it doesn't get modified yet again especially when/if the Big 10 expands or merges?

 

[Gophers_4life]

It's simply to say: the current West teams have a good deal.

Short of breaking the West off into its own formal conference (which isn't going to happen), any structural changes to the football schedule are unlikely to do anything other than benefit Michigan, Penn St, and Mich St, at the cost of chances for the current West teams.

Is what it is.

Like it was prior to having divisions at all. Granted there was no CFP or Big Ten championship game back then. There was BCS, but you had to win the conference the old fashioned way.


You can say "well maybe they should get rid of the conf championship game", and that is valid to argue, but it's all about money, so I doubt that would happen.

 

[Some guy]

Not really that hard to come up with something objective, winning percentage against common opponents, record vs 3rd place teams, and so on.

I am not in favor of it at all, but accepted that it's a very strong possibility contingent on several factors, most notably what is determined with the games with Pac12/ACC Alliance, reduction of Conference Games from 9 to 8, TV/Broadcast rights contracts and the BCS format.

It's not changing in a vacuum.

It's not like the East/West Divisions (or Divisions in general) is some huge long standing tradition. It's been around a decade and already morphed once from Legends/Leaders. If it changes, what's to say after the next broadcast deals expire (say in 6 years) it doesn't get modified yet again especially when/if the Big 10 expands or merges?

Why would the big ten expand?
Why would the big ten merge in a way that reduces their value

You are the first to say money drives everything and then you suggest increasing the size of the pie very little but dividing it into more slices. Saying things make more money doesn’t make it true

 

[PMWinSTP]

Sorry but no they wouldn't. How will you decide say between a 1 loss Iowa squad and a 1 loss MSU if they never played? Now you have to come up with cockamamie SOS rules or formulas or transitive property type stuff to figure it out. (or worse who is ranked higher in the Fake Tourny' BS Poll) It is ridiculous and causes way more headaches than it solves. You are basically turning The Big Ten into a microcosm of NCAA Football (Big Ten East is to the Big Ten what the SEC is to the NCAA) as a whole...adopting all of the negatives with no real positives.

This move does nothing to help the West or The Big Ten. All it is about is making sure the "best" team in the Big Ten has a shot at the fake tournament. You can bet your house payment that the majority of years it will be two East teams playing in the Title Game (there is no way they will make tiebreakers not favor the East...this whole thing is going to favor the East) and the VAST majority of Big Ten teams will never sniff a Big Ten Title again. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern and Nebraska are in an infinitely worse position in this scenario than they would be keeping the status quo. That this was brought up by someone at Iowa is mindboggling unless he is trying to head it off. The small increase in revenue is not worth throwing in the towel likely forever.

It is not The Big Ten West's fault Penn State can't win enough games to matter. It is not our fault that Ohio State owns that entire division most years. (yay Michigan won it once...) There may be only a miniscule chance the Gophers win the Title Game but I would rather have a chip a chair and a chance then watch the Big Ten East Round Robin year after year. There is no legit TV contract that makes it better.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Why would the big ten expand?
Why would the big ten merge in a way that reduces their value

You are the first to say money drives everything and then you suggest increasing the size of the pie very little but dividing it into more slices. Saying things make more money doesn’t make it true

Making enough money would potentially be enough to offset more teams. It would all depend on who the teams are.

I like the one division discussion with 8 games, 2 alliance games and 2 G5/FCS teams.

3 protected rivals and then rotate the other 10 teams 5/5 every two years for home and home.

This gets back to the best balance. 3 games the same every year instead of 6. See every team at The Bank once every 4 years.

 

[Dave H]

View attachment 16838

I mean would it surprise you?

Its like the coin toss in Friday Night Lights!

 

[Dave H]

Not really that hard to come up with something objective, winning percentage against common opponents, record vs 3rd place teams, and so on.

I am not in favor of it at all, but accepted that it's a very strong possibility contingent on several factors, most notably what is determined with the games with Pac12/ACC Alliance, reduction of Conference Games from 9 to 8, TV/Broadcast rights contracts and the BCS format.

It's not changing in a vacuum.

It's not like the East/West Divisions (or Divisions in general) is some huge long standing tradition. It's been around a decade and already morphed once from Legends/Leaders. If it changes, what's to say after the next broadcast deals expire (say in 6 years) it doesn't get modified yet again especially when/if the Big 10 expands or merges?

You can't just keep changing the conference make up every time they run into problems. That is just ludicrous. This whole thing is a solution looking for a problem.

I don't think it is anywhere close to happening, because I think the majority of the Big Ten will realize making a million bucks more isn't worth never being relevant. I mean Northwestern loses the one thing they have to recruit based on...a chance at a Big Ten title by winning the West. The Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesota triumvirate better hope there is a dominant team amongst the three or they might as well just forget about any chance at hanging a banner.

Look I get it it is all about money. But if you are the AD at Northwestern or Minnesota how much more do you need to basically guarantee you will never win the Big Ten again? (let alone sniff it) To me it would have to be something so outrageous it is likely not sustainable. As a fan, I would likely lose interest fast...faster than I did when the stupid expansion lead to divisions. I think overall this will hurt attendance and hurt ratings outside of games that already get watched a lot. We aren't the SEC...we need to stop pretending we are and go back to what makes the Big Ten great. Let the SEC have the "National Title" I am old enough to remember when Big Ten teams cared more about The Rose Bowl than anything.

 

[Some guy]

Making enough money would potentially be enough to offset more teams. It would all depend on who the teams are.

I like the one division discussion with 8 games, 2 alliance games and 2 G5/FCS teams.

3 protected rivals and then rotate the other 10 teams 5/5 every two years for home and home.

This gets back to the best balance. 3 games the same every year instead of 6. See every team at The Bank once every 4 years.

How do you do that rotation without 3 way ties of teams who haven’t played each other. Makes a lot of sense if you can do it.

basically how you can do it is you make two round robins within the conference.

or

wait for it

Make divisions

 

[PMWinSTP]

Yeah I agree. But that is an independent conversation of divisions

I probably should have said no change is needed (other than going to 8 conference games) because with the Alliance. Divisions don't need to change, no schools need to be added.

 

[Go Gophs]

I would be for this if they investigate Ohio State. Having a pro team that pays their players more than anyone besides Alabama isn't fair either. If Michigan or Penn State wants a chance to play in a title game, then find some rich donors to pay your quarterback, receivers and linebackers like they do.
It needs to stay the way it is.

 

[Ope3]

Why would the big ten expand?
Why would the big ten merge in a way that reduces their value

You are the first to say money drives everything and then you suggest increasing the size of the pie very little but dividing it into more slices. Saying things make more money doesn’t make it true

They would expand for the same reasons they already did in my lifetime when they went from 10 to 11 (Penn St), 11 to 12 (Nebraska) and 12 to 14 (Rutgers and Maryland).

Would the overall value be reduced with the extra Big 10 Network subscribers and national deals if they expanded/merged by adding USC, Stanford, Oregon & Washington picking up huge viewership in LA, SF, Port & Sea? Crazy, maybe, but no more than adding Maryland and Rutgers.

Personally, my take on the Alliance (Big 10 / ACC / Pac 12) was a response to offset the power of the SEC by forming a mini-conglomerate. Maybe it leads to a merger maybe not, if they can't agree the money then it goes no further.

 

[Ope3]

You can't just keep changing the conference make up every time they run into problems. That is just ludicrous. This whole thing is a solution looking for a problem.

If the problem is hamstringing the ability to get into the BCS Playoff, they yes it can be (and should) be changed. Right away.

 

[MaxyJR1]

How do you do that rotation without 3 way ties of teams who haven’t played each other. Makes a lot of sense if you can do it.

basically how you can do it is you make two round robins within the conference.

or

wait for it

Make divisions

You would use a tie-breaker like the one they used for the West this year. There were a bunch of scenarios going into the last weekend.

Example:
2021 we would have had Michigan and tOSU
2019 (PSU, WI, or MN at 7-2 tied for 2nd place) They didn't all play so you can't start with h2h. They all played Iowa and Purdue. Wisconsin was 2-0 in those games. MN 1-1 and Penn State was 2-0. MN is eliminated and it goes back to h2h. PSU and WI didn't play. You could go to point differential in common games or SOS. Penn State would win on +33 to +23 point differential over WI or if by SOS WI's B1G opponents were 43-38 and PSU's were 41-40. Once you have two teams you could also go back to common opponents. Both Penn State and WI played tOSU, MICH, MSU, Iowa, MN, and PUR in 2019. WI was 5-1 in those game and PSU was 4-2.

Many ways to get to the final two teams even if teams are tied.

 

[Gophers_4life]

Another benefit of divisions (some guy may have already brought this up), is in an expanded playoffs where the Big Ten could easily get two teams in, it actually protects the 2nd team from taking another loss if that team ends up being the 2nd place East team.

Another benefit to that, then, is if the Rose Bowl ends up not being part of the expanded playoff structure, then I would like to think/hope that the champ game loser from the West would then get the Rose as a consolation prize.

 

[Dave H]

If the problem is hamstringing the ability to get into the BCS Playoff, they yes it can be (and should) be changed. Right away.

Sorry but if the only thing that matters is making the fake tourny then I am out. I don't care about the rest of the Big Ten teams I care about The Gophers and this hurts them 1000x more than it helps them. Screw making sure Ohio State gets a chance to lose to an SEC school that does nothing for me.

 

[Dave H]

You would use a tie-breaker like the one they used for the West this year. There were a bunch of scenarios going into the last weekend.

Example:
2021 we would have had Michigan and tOSU
2019 (PSU, WI, or MN at 7-2 tied for 2nd place) They didn't all play so you can't start with h2h. They all played Iowa and Purdue. Wisconsin was 2-0 in those games. MN 1-1 and Penn State was 2-0. MN is eliminated and it goes back to h2h. PSU and WI didn't play. You could go to point differential in common games or SOS. Penn State would win on +33 to +23 point differential over WI or if by SOS WI's B1G opponents were 43-38 and PSU's were 41-40. Once you have two teams you could also go back to common opponents. Both Penn State and WI played tOSU, MICH, MSU, Iowa, MN, and PUR in 2019. WI was 5-1 in those game and PSU was 4-2.

Many ways to get to the final two teams even if teams are tied.

Yuck.

 

[Ope3]

You would use a tie-breaker like the one they used for the West this year. There were a bunch of scenarios going into the last weekend.

Example:
2021 we would have had Michigan and tOSU
2019 (PSU, WI, or MN at 7-2 tied for 2nd place) They didn't all play so you can't start with h2h. They all played Iowa and Purdue. Wisconsin was 2-0 in those games. MN 1-1 and Penn State was 2-0. MN is eliminated and it goes back to h2h. PSU and WI didn't play. You could go to point differential in common games or SOS. Penn State would win on +33 to +23 point differential over WI or if by SOS WI's B1G opponents were 43-38 and PSU's were 41-40. Once you have two teams you could also go back to common opponents. Both Penn State and WI played tOSU, MICH, MSU, Iowa, MN, and PUR in 2019. WI was 5-1 in those game and PSU was 4-2.

Many ways to get to the final two teams even if teams are tied.

This was also a Conference that used "Longest Since Last Appearance" to determine who got to go to the Rose Bowl up until this century. Unfortunately it never benefited the Gophers in my lifetime, and hurt them a year before I was born.

Sorry but if the only thing that matters is making the fake tourny then I am out. I don't care about the rest of the Big Ten teams I care about The Gophers and this hurts them 1000x more than it helps them. Screw making sure Ohio State gets a chance to lose to an SEC school that does nothing for me.

I've said repeatedly as a Gopher fan I don't like it either, but I don't get a vote. I'd hate it less if there is a financial benefit for the school. My sense though is it's happening, but far from a sure thing.

 

[Some guy]

You would use a tie-breaker like the one they used for the West this year. There were a bunch of scenarios going into the last weekend.

Example:
2021 we would have had Michigan and tOSU
2019 (PSU, WI, or MN at 7-2 tied for 2nd place) They didn't all play so you can't start with h2h. They all played Iowa and Purdue. Wisconsin was 2-0 in those games. MN 1-1 and Penn State was 2-0. MN is eliminated and it goes back to h2h. PSU and WI didn't play. You could go to point differential in common games or SOS. Penn State would win on +33 to +23 point differential over WI or if by SOS WI's B1G opponents were 43-38 and PSU's were 41-40. Once you have two teams you could also go back to common opponents. Both Penn State and WI played tOSU, MICH, MSU, Iowa, MN, and PUR in 2019. WI was 5-1 in those game and PSU was 4-2.

Many ways to get to the final two teams even if teams are tied.

What if 3 teams are 8-0
You are going to leave out an 8-0 team because they had a lower point differential any schedule without two round robins built in is absolutely stupid