Problem with Divisional Structure

Donate To GopherHole
C

CheapSkate

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
7
Reaction score
4
Points
3
I have always had this issue with the divisional structure as it sits in college football.

Lets assume Iowa and Minnesota each win out. Minnesota has a 8-1 conference record, while Iowa is 6-3. However, looking at just games against the West, they both would be 5-1 with Iowa owning the head-to-head win.

Obviously I'm not breaking news with the idea that the Gophers have a favorable schedule this season, and they don't need to apologize for it. But I've always thought it odd to base "division titles" on unbalanced schedules, when it would be just as easy to only use the divisional record.
 

We got our turn at the short end of the stick in the Kill years when we drew Ohio St. and Michigan games regularly.

I would like to see a more even rebalancing rather than the all or nothing type killer schedule or easier.
 

I think that is the strength of the sectional system. I miss playing Michigan for the jug every year, but having some years harder than others sets up situations where new teams can emerge on top. Like this year, for us. It's not supposed to be the Wisconsin division and the Ohio State division. FYI you could look at this year and say that Ohio and Michigan got an unfair break not having to play Minnesota :) I'm guessing Penn State feels that way.
 

CheapSkate said:
I have always had this issue with the divisional structure as it sits in college football.

Lets assume Iowa and Minnesota each win out. Minnesota has a 8-1 conference record, while Iowa is 6-3. However, looking at just games against the West, they both would be 5-1 with Iowa owning the head-to-head win.

Obviously I'm not breaking news with the idea that the Gophers have a favorable schedule this season, and they don't need to apologize for it. But I've always thought it odd to base "division titles" on unbalanced schedules, when it would be just as easy to only use the divisional record.
Click to expand...

Against common Big 10 foes, the Gophers would still have an advantage as both schools played Penn St & Rutgers.
 



Making division record the #1 factor would create games with little meaning at the end of the season. Affect the red-shirt rule usage by coaches etc. The system is pretty good the way it is. Since the division split there has never been a 3 way tie for a division, so H2H works. All games need to count equal.
 


I like the divisional structure. It allows teams to stay in the lucrative BG10 yet still have the ability to win a title without being the best of 14 teams. I'll opine that winning the BG10 West nowadays with 9 conference games is just as hard as the Gophers past few conference titles when they only played 7 games in the 1960s (and no Ohio State in either 1960 or 1967) and 6 games in the early 40s.
 

My thoughts about the divisions are a bit different. I feel like the Gophers are lucky to be in the west. I realize people can show the west wins nearly as many games as the east head to head. But, how would you like to be Maryland, Indiana, or Rutgers. Downtrodden programs (something we know a bit about) need to be able to catch their breath to build their organizations and winning cultures. The Gophers rolled double sixes this year in that their schedule lined up with the jump in team performance to produce a special season. It is a nice shot in the arm and there is potential to build from here and create a program that can come back in future seasons and compete with the blue bloods. But Indiana? A step forward but essentially at least three built in losses this year. I feel bad for them and I feel bad for any new coaching hire at Rutgers. Whoever it is, it will be very difficult to topple PSU, OSU, and Michigan in the same season to get to Indianapolis.
 

If you base the division winner on the record within the division, then the games against the other division are essentially non-conference games.
 




RodentRampage said:
If you base the division winner on the record within the division, then the games against the other division are essentially non-conference games.
Click to expand...

Yep, would really devalue those other 3 games. Plus it would lead to a lot more ties for the division title which would require the use of more and more tiebreakers. The 9 game system isn't perfect but as long as switch around the crossover opponents it will all work itself out.
 

Schnauzer said:
My thoughts about the divisions are a bit different. I feel like the Gophers are lucky to be in the west. I realize people can show the west wins nearly as many games as the east head to head. But, how would you like to be Maryland, Indiana, or Rutgers. Downtrodden programs (something we know a bit about) need to be able to catch their breath to build their organizations and winning cultures. The Gophers rolled double sixes this year in that their schedule lined up with the jump in team performance to produce a special season. It is a nice shot in the arm and there is potential to build from here and create a program that can come back in future seasons and compete with the blue bloods. But Indiana? A step forward but essentially at least three built in losses this year. I feel bad for them and I feel bad for any new coaching hire at Rutgers. Whoever it is, it will be very difficult to topple PSU, OSU, and Michigan in the same season to get to Indianapolis.
Click to expand...

It all about the coach. Dantonio made Michigan State an even partner with those 3 for years, that might be over now, but shows it can be done.
 

LakerFan said:
It all about the coach. Dantonio made Michigan State an even partner with those 3 for years, that might be over now, but shows it can be done.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest Dantonio's rise among OSU, PSU, and Michigan had more to do with both Michigan bottoming out (RichRod/BradyHoke) and Penn State being temporarily kicked to the curb with the Sandusky and sanction fallout. These things can happen, but it is rare for it to happen to two blue blood programs in the same conference at once. Michigan State under Dantonio was the perfect program in the perfect place to take advantage of that. If one or both Michigan/Penn State had been "normal" in those years, Michigan State's success might not have been nearly as notable. They collected a lot of great recruits thanks to two huge rivals being down.

Could Dantonio do it now? I don't think so.
 

Schnauzer said:
My thoughts about the divisions are a bit different. I feel like the Gophers are lucky to be in the west. I realize people can show the west wins nearly as many games as the east head to head. But, how would you like to be Maryland, Indiana, or Rutgers. Downtrodden programs (something we know a bit about) need to be able to catch their breath to build their organizations and winning cultures. The Gophers rolled double sixes this year in that their schedule lined up with the jump in team performance to produce a special season. It is a nice shot in the arm and there is potential to build from here and create a program that can come back in future seasons and compete with the blue bloods. But Indiana? A step forward but essentially at least three built in losses this year. I feel bad for them and I feel bad for any new coaching hire at Rutgers. Whoever it is, it will be very difficult to topple PSU, OSU, and Michigan in the same season to get to Indianapolis.
Click to expand...

Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers could choose to leave the Big Ten to compete elsewhere in football but would give up a lot of revenue. It's their choice. I can sympathize with the fans but don't feel sorry for the institutions.
 



Panthadad2 said:
Indiana, Maryland, and Rutgers could choose to leave the Big Ten to compete elsewhere in football but would give up a lot of revenue. It's their choice. I can sympathize with the fans but don't feel sorry for the institutions.
Click to expand...

Or, they could gripe about the divisional structure that exists within the conference they are now in, which is my point.
 

If we had 7 or 8 division games (meaning 16 or 18 total teams), I think it would make a lot of sense for the Big Ten to say that only division games determine the division winner, but that you must schedule 10 P5 (equivalent) games, with 5 of them being home games, per year, with at least one being a Big Ten team from the other division.

That would be 80 or 90 major Big Ten home games per season, with the rest being guarantee games against G5 schools. Would like to see no FCS schools scheduled. Sorry, Northern Iowa, schedule Iowa State every year.
 

I do not want any sort of system that does not intentionally stir the pot. The crossover games are exactly that in that who you play is determined by how well you have played in the immediate past. Thus, for example, OSU gets, on average harder crossover games than does Rutgers. This gives the down and out team a small edge towards improving. This is not the NFL where every team gets the same chance to win the Super Bowl due to free agency, revenue sharing and the draft. Here, the rich naturally recruit the best. The final four system makes this even worse as is becoming even clearer as each year goes by.
 

To make it fair they could balance it out based on history. You shouldn't have to play Michigan, Ohio State, and Michigan State in the same year. Historically Ohio State and Michigan are the best two teams. Obviously some years are outliers but you could essentially play OSU, PSU, Indiana, and Rutgers and then another team plays Michigan, MSU, and Maryland or however it works out.
 

Veritas said:
The crossover games are exactly that in that who you play is determined by how well you have played in the immediate past. Thus, for example, OSU gets, on average harder crossover games than does Rutgers.
Click to expand...

LOL - that's not how it works at all.
 

Veritas said:
I do not want any sort of system that does not intentionally stir the pot. The crossover games are exactly that in that who you play is determined by how well you have played in the immediate past. Thus, for example, OSU gets, on average harder crossover games than does Rutgers. This gives the down and out team a small edge towards improving. This is not the NFL where every team gets the same chance to win the Super Bowl due to free agency, revenue sharing and the draft. Here, the rich naturally recruit the best. The final four system makes this even worse as is becoming even clearer as each year goes by.
Click to expand...
I wish that was true.
Similar to how in the NFL you play two other division teams that finished at the same spot you did the season before.
 

So, every league in every sport counts every league game in the standings. Somehow, it’s wrong in college football? Weird logic.
 

CheapSkate said:
I have always had this issue with the divisional structure as it sits in college football.

Lets assume Iowa and Minnesota each win out. Minnesota has a 8-1 conference record, while Iowa is 6-3. However, looking at just games against the West, they both would be 5-1 with Iowa owning the head-to-head win.

Obviously I'm not breaking news with the idea that the Gophers have a favorable schedule this season, and they don't need to apologize for it. But I've always thought it odd to base "division titles" on unbalanced schedules, when it would be just as easy to only use the divisional record.
Click to expand...
You must be an Iowa fan.
 

All the teams in the BIG share equally in the TV revenue.
At the end of the day no institution is going to give that up because their schools have a hard time competing in football.
It may come as a surprise to some but athletics including football is not the main objective of decent universities. It may well be the very best academic schools put little emphasis or moneys into sports.
 

highwayman said:
So, every league in every sport counts every league game in the standings. Somehow, it’s wrong in college football? Weird logic.
Click to expand...
This is all I was thinking.

Vikings can go 0-6 vs division and go 10-6 for the year. Doubt people would grumble much if they made the WC despite being swept by GB.
 

It’s true, you can argue “what’s the point of a league if a league game doesn’t even count for your standing in (a division of) the league?”

So then my only counter to that is saying football is the only sport in the league that separates into divisions,and therefore you could think of it as two separate leagues that share a TV agreement, have a scheduling agreement, and play a game between respective league champions to determine an overall champion.
 

Bruno22 said:
This is all I was thinking.

Vikings can go 0-6 vs division and go 10-6 for the year. Doubt people would grumble much if they made the WC despite being swept by GB.
Click to expand...
There would be quite a lot of grumbling, from everyone outside Minn.
It’s just such a far-fetched hypothetical that it hasn’t happened before. That I’m aware of.
 

MnplsGopher said:
It’s true, you can argue “what’s the point of a league if a league game doesn’t even count for your standing in (a division of) the league?”

So then my only counter to that is saying football is the only sport in the league that separates into divisions,and therefore you could think of it as two separate leagues that share a TV agreement, have a scheduling agreement, and play a game between respective league champions to determine an overall champion.
Click to expand...

How is that different from the MLB? Teams play 85% of their games within their league, have playoffs to get a champion from each league, and then those champions play for an overall champion. They even call them leagues rather than divisions. They still have interleague games count.

The system works the way it is. Over time, teams will play the same average level of competition from the other division. There are years where that's not true but everyone will get their turn. That helps give decent teams changes to win their division rather than letting the good teams dominate year after year.
 

compromise: Division title is based on record within the division - but the cross-over games are the 1st tie-breaker. If (let's say) WI and MN both go 6-1 in the division, but MN is 2-1 in its cross-over games and WI is 1-2, MN wins the division. That provides an incentive to win cross-over games.
But, if MN is 6-1 in the division and WI is 5-2, Gophers win division. cross-over games only count for overall record and placement in the bowl pecking order.
 

GoGophersUMN said:
How is that different from the MLB? Teams play 85% of their games within their league, have playoffs to get a champion from each league, and then those champions play for an overall champion. They even call them leagues rather than divisions. They still have interleague games count.

The system works the way it is. Over time, teams will play the same average level of competition from the other division. There are years where that's not true but everyone will get their turn. That helps give decent teams changes to win their division rather than letting the good teams dominate year after year.
Click to expand...
Every point you made here is valid. It’s just another way to do it, that could work. As I said in my post a few back, I think it would become more valid if the conference grew so large that you would be playing mostly division games anyway, just to get them in.
 

Bruno22 said:
This is all I was thinking.

Vikings can go 0-6 vs division and go 10-6 for the year. Doubt people would grumble much if they made the WC despite being swept by GB.
Click to expand...
Not fair to compare NFL. GB and NYJ are a lot closer in ability than tOSU and Rutgers are. Many similar examples.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
compromise: Division title is based on record within the division - but the cross-over games are the 1st tie-breaker. If (let's say) WI and MN both go 6-1 in the division, but MN is 2-1 in its cross-over games and WI is 1-2, MN wins the division. That provides an incentive to win cross-over games.
But, if MN is 6-1 in the division and WI is 5-2, Gophers win division. cross-over games only count for overall record and placement in the bowl pecking order.
Click to expand...
That sounds good until you remember that when there are two 5-1 (not 6-1) teams there is always a head-to-head tiebreaker. It would be especially unfair to have the cross-divisional games preempt head-to-head.

Also it's just a more complex way to get the same result we already would have.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom