MN, Michigan, Iowa and Nebraska

[FireDaveLee]

Under this plan, for us, we would be in a division with Mich/Iowa/Neb/Wisc. with the random chance of playing OSU and/or PSU. In those particular years we will have no chance to play in the championship game. Why do we want that? How is playing four of the top six MINIMUM, an equal chance? It's easy, it's not. Wisconsin will play two of the top six, minimum, each year. How is that equal to our chance? Easy, it's not. I will almost surly drop my season tickets if this plan is past and Joel Maturi stays. I insist that my team, the Gophers, have a fair chance at a championship. If not, I am no glutton for endless, predictable punishment. All for an additional couple hundred thousand dollars per year. Are we a football program or a program for sale?

I'll ask again......

Other than East/West (the preferred alignment by 98.4% of people here), WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION???

 

[GoAUpher]

In the SEC cross-over games don't count for winning the division except for a tie breaker between divisional teams with the same divisional record. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works. So losing a cross division game isn't fatal to your conference title game hopes, but it does lower the margin of error.

That said, the B10 could always choose to make the cross over games count if they wanted.

 

[FireDaveLee]

In the SEC cross-over games don't count for winning the division except for a tie breaker between divisional teams with the same divisional record. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works. So losing a cross division game isn't fatal to your conference title game hopes, but it does lower the margin of error.

That said, the B10 could always choose to make the cross over games count if they wanted.

So LSU could go 5-3, but with 5 wins against all their division opponents, giving them an 5-0 record in the division, would go to the SEC title game over Alabama, who went 7-1, but their 1 loss was to LSU, hence a 4-1 SEC west record?

I'm simply asking.....I didn't know it was this way. I thought it was overall conference play, regardless.

 

[dpodoll68]

It is definitely overall conference record in the SEC. Division games are given no more weight than non-division, outside of the fact that in-division records are the second tiebreaker behind head-to-head.

 

[tjgopher]

Under this plan, for us, we would be in a division with Mich/Iowa/Neb/Wisc. with the random chance of playing OSU and/or PSU. In those particular years we will have no chance to play in the championship game. Why do we want that? How is playing four of the top six MINIMUM, an equal chance? It's easy, it's not. Wisconsin will play two of the top six, minimum, each year. How is that equal to our chance? Easy, it's not. I will almost surly drop my season tickets if this plan is past and Joel Maturi stays. I insist that my team, the Gophers, have a fair chance at a championship. If not, I am no glutton for endless, predictable punishment. All for an additional couple hundred thousand dollars per year. Are we a football program or a program for sale?

Either way it isn't going to please you. If we get placed in the other division we have in-division games vs. PSU/OSU/WIS with cross rivalry game against Iowa with the possibility of playing Michigan and Nebraska, too. If it goes geographically, you play IA/NEB/WIS every year and likely a cross game with PSU or OSU every year. You are just trying to hard to make this "unjust." In a 12-team league where you eventually will play 9 games, you will almost always be playing at least four "haves". Just like it has been for the past 50 years in the Big Ten for Minnesota. But, you go ahead and keep wringing those hands to give yourself a reason to feel like a victim of the wicked Joel Maturi.

Criminy, in this re-alignment mess - if Maturi can secure us yearly games with our rivals (Ia/Wis/Mich) PLUS keep us out of OSU's division, he should be given a raise, IMHO. But, you will cancel your season tickets. You're a lunatic.

 

[GoAUpher]

It is definitely overall conference record in the SEC. Division games are given no more weight than non-division, outside of the fact that in-division records are the second tiebreaker behind head-to-head.

And this is why I knew I should have sought out a link to back me up instead of relying on my memory.

 

[Gopherhurrin]

Either way it isn't going to please you. If we get placed in the other division we have in-division games vs. PSU/OSU/WIS with cross rivalry game against Iowa with the possibility of playing Michigan and Nebraska, too. If it goes geographically, you play IA/NEB/WIS every year and likely a cross game with PSU or OSU every year. You are just trying to hard to make this "unjust." In a 12-team league where you eventually will play 9 games, you will almost always be playing at least four "haves". Just like it has been for the past 50 years in the Big Ten for Minnesota. But, you go ahead and keep wringing those hands to give yourself a reason to feel like a victim of the wicked Joel Maturi.

Criminy, in this re-alignment mess - if Maturi can secure us yearly games with our rivals (Ia/Wis/Mich) PLUS keep us out of OSU's division, he should be given a raise, IMHO. But, you will cancel your season tickets. You're a lunatic.

If there are six haves divided into two groups, how can four games against haves, every year, plus the random cross overs be any sort of minimum average for all teams? That is not possible at all, mathematically. We would have a unbalanced hard schedule every year at a minimum. If we have four, others MUST have two. The Badgers would, for example.

 

[MplsHawk]

I have a problem with everyone assuming the end of the season rivalry game for Iowa will be Nebraska. Iowa has a rivalry game with Illinois. I could see the Rivalry weekend games being MN/Neb, IA/Ill and MI/MSU. In the other division OSU/PSU, IN/PU and WI/NU

Iowa does not have a rivalry game with Illinois. We have gone long periods of time without playing them. The states share a border, but that is about it. NW is even a bigger rival that Illinois. Outside of the Quad Cities, nobody cares about the Illini in Iowa, and I think Illinois fans feel the same for the most part.

 

[tjgopher]

If there are six haves divided into two groups, how can four games against haves, every year, plus the random cross overs be any sort of minimum average for all teams? That is not possible at all, mathematically. We would have a unbalanced hard schedule every year at a minimum. If we have four, others MUST have two. The Badgers would, for example.

Once it goes to a nine-game schedule - most years the "haves" will play against 4-5 "haves." Most years the "have nots" will play against 4-6 "haves." If you are a "have" you cannot play against yourself, so you slightly lessen your random chance to be matched against a "have". Just like it has been for the past 50 years. But, you go ahead and cancel those tickets.