Jump to content
Mavric

B1G Looking to Change CCG Criteria?

B1G CCG  

65 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I like the division system but dislike the current alignment. Overall, the East Division has a higher percentage of what I would consider well-positioned, traditionally successful football programs. It reminds me a lot of the Big 12, which had a similar fault.

 

I'd be interested to see what would've been the result of a 'two best teams' system say over the last five years.

 

Edit - I looked into the standings. Assuming it's based on things like conference records, head to heads, etc., here are some possible match ups for what the B1G CCG would've been based off a system like the one being discussed in the last five years (hypothetical is bold, actual is standard):

 

- 2018: tOSU vs. MU (same division) (actual game: tOSU vs. NW)

- 2017: tOSU vs. Wisconsin (actual game: tOSU vs. Wisc.)

- 2016: Penn St. vs. tOSU (same division) (actual game: PSU vs. Wisc.)

- 2015: Iowa vs. MSU (actual game: Iowa vs. MSU)

- 2014: tOSU vs. Wisconsin or MSU (possible same division) (actual game: tOSU vs. Wisc.)

***Division Changes***

- 2013: MSU vs. tOSU (actual game: MSU vs. tOSU)

 

So, based off these, here would've been the appearances by team (the asterisk indicates a possibility since I don't know which team would've made it in 2014):

 

- tOSU: 5 (4)

- MU: 1 (0)

- *Wisc.: 2 (3)

- PSU: 1 (1)

- *MSU: 3 (2)

- Iowa: 1 (1)

- NW: 0 (1)

 

Ultimately, tOSU would've gained an extra chance in 2016. MU would've gained an extra shot this year. MSU may have benefited in 2014. NW would have had zero. Approx. 50% of the match ups may have been the same, so, that's a fairly significant shake up.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Enhance said:

I'd be interested to see what would've been the result of a 'two best teams' system since 2010 in the B1G. I'll look into it unless someone else can get to it first. I wonder if it would've favored certain teams more than others.

 

 

  • Plus1 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Division winners...I originally suggested Division winners, but that Delaney should re-balance the divisions. 

 

But we're going to see more realignment soon (as in ~2020), and Frost is looking to have Nebraska back on track by then. Add to that a capable Purdue, a Wisky program that reloads, a Northwestern program that almost always plays above its talent, and a Minnesota program that appears to be on the upswing, and the West may be the top-heavy division in short order. 

 

Save for swapping an Illinois for a competent program (e.g. Michigan State--but with a guaranteed crossover with Michigan) I don't see how rearranging the chairs would benefit the conference long-term. Nor would shutting out a division from conference championships because there just happens to be two good teams in a division.

 

In short, it's not prudent to f*** with the B1G just because the college playoff system is broken and inept. Better to change/expand it to improve than to do something that looks knee-jerk and reactionary. 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Delany is a moron. 

 

Hes making this harder that what it really is. Remove the 9th conference game and go back to having 4 non-conference games. Both the ACC and SEC follow this and are both successful with it

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

 

I'm already way over the eyeball test nonsense that leads to the CFP. The way I view it, the division is the first round of the playoffs, the CCG the second, then you get two more rounds to crown a champion. The system is already perverted and it's now going down to the conferences (see the big 12). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

The more I hear him talk, the closer I think Delaney needs to be to retire. 

His decision-making process and responses to those decisions seem to flip-flop and change with the direction of the wind.

 

1.  Nebraska joins the conference, the conference decides to split into "competitively balanced" divisions, which nobody knew who was in what division.

2.  Delaney goes after Rutgers and Maryland, only because of the markets they are close to, rather than any athletic performance standard.  Gotta pump up those BTN subscribers!

3.  When Rutgers and Maryland are added, they scrap the Legends and Leaders division, and go East-West.  The divisions make sense and are easier to understand, but now people are complaining about competitive imbalance.

4.  The move to the 9-game conference schedule is a good move, in theory, however if the SEC and ACC aren't forced to do the same, it puts the Big Ten at a competitive imbalance compared to those 2 conferences.  The Big Ten has high thoughts of grandeur for themselves, but the rest of the country doesn't hold those same opinions.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

 

 

I agree with Sam the West does not get the hype the East does but the West has put forth some pretty good teams. Plus these things ebb and flow and we could be entering a stretch where the West is the more dominant division. In 2018 the West has 5 teams to qualify for a Bowl and the East has 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I mean part of what we're talking about is that league schedules for West teams are easier than for East teams, right? 

 

Like 2015 Michigan was probably better than 2015 Iowa. But their schedule was much harder. 

 

It's worth noting that although there have been some good games, the West is yet to win a championship game.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated my post above with a brief, non-scientific look at some possible CCG match ups that would've happened in the last five years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what happens when the conference misses out on it's second playoff in a row.  Are we trying to reinvent the wheel here?  Division realignment sounds like a good idea until it doesn't.  College football is cyclical.  Take the Big 12 for example.  When it was first formed, the strength of the conference was in the North.  A little less than a decade later, it was clearly in the South.  Since we've belonged to the B1G, there has only been two years where teams with the best records didn't play in the conference title game.  One was 2012, but that was because of sanctions.  The other was 2016.  In 2016, both Penn State and Ohio State were one loss conference teams while Wisconsin was a two loss team.  It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to change things.   

  • Plus1 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, junior4949 said:

This is what happens when the conference misses out on it's second playoff in a row.  Are we trying to reinvent the wheel here?  Division realignment sounds like a good idea until it doesn't.  College football is cyclical.  Take the Big 12 for example.  When it was first formed, the strength of the conference was in the North.  A little less than a decade later, it was clearly in the South.  Since we've belonged to the B1G, there has only been two years where teams with the best records didn't play in the conference title game.  One was 2012, but that was because of sanctions.  The other was 2016.  In 2016, both Penn State and Ohio State were one loss conference teams while Wisconsin was a two loss team.  It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me to change things.   

Outlined this above (probably while you were typing), but you're forgetting this year - NW wouldn't have played in the 2018 CCG game if it was the two best teams. So, a minimum of 3/7 (~43%) of the match ups being different is fairly significant if you think about it.

 

Just to reiterate, I'm not pining for the 'two best teams' system. I'm only pointing out possible discrepancies based on what happened vs. what may have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change Divisions and the 8 game BIG schedule sounds like the best way to keep competitive balance in the BIG as well as on par with the other P5 schools. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Warrior said:

Change Divisions and the 8 game BIG schedule sounds like the best way to keep competitive balance in the BIG as well as on par with the other P5 schools. 

I don't get the need to change divisions.  Who knows what programs will look like 5 years from now.  Are you going to change divisions every 5 years, based on recent performance?

  • Plus1 5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I don't get the need to change divisions.  Who knows what programs will look like 5 years from now.  Are you going to change divisions every 5 years, based on recent performance?

 

The only change that I think should be made is moving Michigan State back to the West. Swap them with Purdue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

The only change that I think should be made is moving Michigan State back to the West. Swap them with Purdue. 

 

 

Purdue is 13-12 over the last two seasons trending up while Michigan State is 17-8 over the last two seasons trending down. And Purdue is about 150 miles west of Michigan State lol

  • Plus1 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd assume if you're going to go with the two best teams, than you'll do away with the divisions altogether? They'd seem pointless at that point, unless you were going to be try and use the divisions to preserve old rivalries.... And if you keep the divisions you'll continue to have an unbalanced schedule, giving some teams an advantage over others....

 

As it would concern Nebraska? Well, it would surely make the path to the B1G Championship game more difficult (not to mention the Playoff).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Purdue is 13-12 over the last two seasons trending up while Michigan State is 17-8 over the last two seasons trending down. And Purdue is about 150 miles west of Michigan State lol

 

And this why we should do away with the West/East division names! We need something that really embodies the B1G, and all her tradition. Something that screams SUCCESS.....

 

 

..... I've got it! Legends and Leaders! It's perfect!

 

 

 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

Purdue is 13-12 over the last two seasons trending up while Michigan State is 17-8 over the last two seasons trending down. And Purdue is about 150 miles west of Michigan State lol

 

Michigan State is a more natural rival for us. Plus, Leaders and Legends.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they get rid of the divisions (which  would be stupid) than what are they going to do with the rivalry games when planing everyone’s schedules? 

 

You have some teams that have rivals with 1 team, others with 2 teams and some teams with 3 rivals. 

 

So with no divisions how do you decided what rival games get to be played every year, which ones you kick to the curb or do you keep every rival game played every year which I would think would screw up a “balanced” schedule within the whole conference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

Michigan State is a more natural rival for us. Plus, Leaders and Legends.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not only that but Michigan State has accomplished more within the B1G compared with Purdue since Nebraska has joined the league

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no natural rivalry with MSU. Of any kind. There's just a series that has been competitive and exciting that we've been on the winning side of.

  • Plus1 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me this just reeks of tOSU whining and crying because they were a 1 loss team on the outside looking in. If they change it to appease them, I’ll start hating them like I hated texass for abusing their power and influence. 

 

Keep it as is, or get rid of one conference game. Sick of this changing things every 3 yrs crap 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Ten: "Let's make sure we make it even HARDER to send a team to the playoff!"

 

SEC: "......how can we make Alabama play the Citadel twice every year...."

 

Pac 12: "What's a playoff?"

  • Plus1 4
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Landlord said:

There's no natural rivalry with MSU. Of any kind. There's just a series that has been competitive and exciting that we've been on the winning side of.

 

....and there isn't a rivalry with Iowa, either. 

 

giphy.gif

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter, it's all BS forum speak.  If they can make this a 16 team league with 4 pods they are going to do it.  If Oklahoma, Texas or Notre Dame(hahahahhaaha) can be convinced to join with say Kansas we will have 4 pods that make 2 divisions.  On the East will be the Michigan/MSU/Indiana/Purdue pod and the tOSU/PSU/Rutgers/MD pod.  In the West will be the Nebraska/Iowa/Kansas/Oklahoma pod and the Wisconsin/Minnysoda/Illinois/NW pod.  Best 2 pod winners face off, done and done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Redux said:

It doesn't matter, it's all BS forum speak.  If they can make this a 16 team league with 4 pods they are going to do it.  If Oklahoma, Texas or Notre Dame(hahahahhaaha) can be convinced to join with say Kansas we will have 4 pods that make 2 divisions.  On the East will be the Michigan/MSU/Indiana/Purdue pod and the tOSU/PSU/Rutgers/MD pod.  In the West will be the Nebraska/Iowa/Kansas/Oklahoma pod and the Wisconsin/Minnysoda/Illinois/NW pod.  Best 2 pod winners face off, done and done.

 

 

We'd likely get Northwestern or Illinois in ours and Iowa in their place. Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesota would not be broken up imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impetus for this would just seem to be the same old song and dance from the B1G of promoting tOSU and Michigan over everyone else. Northwestern getting in there must've really got under their skin.

 

I'm not too worried about realigning for competitive balance now. When we start pulling our own weight in the West, things will be much more balanced. That may not have been the case since they went east-west but Frost has us on track to fix their competitive balance problem.  But I guarantee you that if they do try realignment, tOSU and Michigan will be in different divisions and will still play each other every year in the regular season, just like the did with Leaders and Legends. They want that and the rematch in the ccg....every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

We'd likely get Northwestern or Illinois in ours and Iowa in their place. Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesota would not be broken up imo.

 

Both sets of pods still make up a division, they aren't really being broken up.  But I think the Big Ten would be more interested in keeping Nebraska vs Iowa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dewiz said:

If they get rid of the divisions (which  would be stupid) than what are they going to do with the rivalry games when planing everyone’s schedules? 

 

You have some teams that have rivals with 1 team, others with 2 teams and some teams with 3 rivals. 

 

So with no divisions how do you decided what rival games get to be played every year, which ones you kick to the curb or do you keep every rival game played every year which I would think would screw up a “balanced” schedule within the whole conference

I think the answer to this is, unfortunately, pretty easy - the conference would prioritize the rivalries they feel matter and sacrifice the others. Case in point - the Big 12 prioritized the Texas/OU rivalry vs. the NU/OU one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with 14 (and even 12) team conferences is that if you are not playing a round robin schedule, then there are going to be unbalanced schedules.  The Big 12 (and the old Pac 10) had it perfect with a round robin to determine the best team, but the Big 12 got $ hungry (and missed a playoff) so they decided to add a CCG when it is not needed.

 

I have always thought that if you are doing divisions, you should only count your inter-division record.  Why should team Nebraska be penalized for playing #1, #2, and #4 in the East when Iowa plays #3, #5, and #6?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite will always be the old Big 12 model.  Your 3 cross foes alternate every 2 years after a home and home.  Yeah we didn't play OU anymore, but the balance was solid.

 

I would hate to get rid of conference title games.  Unless you have 10 teams and play the other 9, they are a necessity.  Unless we add the divisional championship meetups as round 1 of a larger playoff field, which I have suggested, title games matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Redux said:

My favorite will always be the old Big 12 model.  Your 3 cross foes alternate every 2 years after a home and home.  Yeah we didn't play OU anymore, but the balance was solid.

 

 

 

This x100000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Can we get rid of Rutgers and Maryland and then move MSU to the west?

AGREE,  besides TV sets, R & M added nothing to the conference except for Maryland's upset of Texas this year.:hookerhorns

 

Perhaps is in a few years, OU will end up in the West Division wt Nebraska after the Big 12 folds.  We get our real rival game and the West Div

gets added respectability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a band-aid solution to a problem that doesn't even exist.

 

You can't ignore divisions in a 14 team conference. It's too big with divisions, but nobody is going to come to their senses on that, so patchwork divisions it is.

 

The "problem" with not getting into the CFP is your second best team got annihilated by your best team whom lost by 29 to a 6-6 team. The problem the year before was your best team got upset by 31. 

 

This "weak division" isn't a problem for Clemson. They went into their title game basically in the CFP. They also didn't lose by 30 to teams they were heavily favored against.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Enhance said:

Outlined this above (probably while you were typing), but you're forgetting this year - NW wouldn't have played in the 2018 CCG game if it was the two best teams. So, a minimum of 3/7 (~43%) of the match ups being different is fairly significant if you think about it.

 

Just to reiterate, I'm not pining for the 'two best teams' system. I'm only pointing out possible discrepancies based on what happened vs. what may have happened.

 

Two best teams, two best records; there is a difference.  Northwestern only had one conference loss heading into the title game which was to Michigan.  They beat the same Purdue team that blasted Ohio State.  Michigan is the same team that got drilled by Ohio State one week before the conference title game.  I didn't forget about 2018.  Northwestern had the same conference record as Michigan.  Northwestern hadn't played Ohio State.  I'm not sure why anyone would want to watch a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan when they just played the week before.  This is why I think it would be dumb to change things from how they currently are.

  • Plus1 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Jim Delaney can create a Big Ten Championship committee to determine who the "best 2 teams" are in the conference, and they can play each other in Indianapolis.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the B1G is truly about NC's.  They act as if $, prestige, and "doing things the right way" are the most important things.  They don't want to "roll in the mud with they pigs" (SEC).  If the did worry about NC's in FB they would balance the cross overs and go back to 8 game schedules.  The old division also was much better.  To do nothing means it is not important.  We have not had our conference champ in for 3 years.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conference championship game acts as a national eliminator and yet teams are selected for the conference title game based on league record only. It's sad when Northwestern 8-4 has the best conference record and would have even got to Indy based on an overall of 8-4, but nothing chaps my rear more than seeing conference title game representation determined by a head-to-head win when overall decides the outcome. For instance, if Northwestern had one conference loss this year, but three out of conference losses and played Wisconsin, which had one conference loss and was perfect out of conference, and then took the lead in the division with four overall losses compared to two overall losses for the Wisconsin team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, junior4949 said:

 

Two best teams, two best records; there is a difference.  Northwestern only had one conference loss heading into the title game which was to Michigan.  They beat the same Purdue team that blasted Ohio State.  Michigan is the same team that got drilled by Ohio State one week before the conference title game.  I didn't forget about 2018.  Northwestern had the same conference record as Michigan.  Northwestern hadn't played Ohio State.  I'm not sure why anyone would want to watch a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan when they just played the week before.  This is why I think it would be dumb to change things from how they currently are.

 

 

You're all over the place with your argument.

 

Yes, Northwestern had the same conference record as Michigan. But, as you say, Northwestern hadn't played Ohio State. They also hadn't played Penn State. So they had the same conference record but they got it playing a schedule that didn't involve the two other best teams in the conference, so...

 

Regardless, why anyone would WANT a rematch of OSU/Michigan is irrelevant if OSU/Michigan were the two best teams.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BIG could force the CFP committee's hand if they pulled out of it. The criteria for getting in should be the same for everyone. Equal number of conference/P5 games and conference champs get to go. That would make the CCGs the first round like most people agree. It would also force ND to join a conference.

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Crusader Husker said:

I don't think that the B1G is truly about NC's.  They act as if $, prestige, and "doing things the right way" are the most important things.  They don't want to "roll in the mud with the pigs" (SEC).  If the did worry about NC's in FB they would balance the cross overs and go back to 8 game schedules.  The old division also was much better.  To do nothing means it is not important.  We have not had our conference champ in for 3 years.

The Big Ten has always been about themselves rather than the rest of the college football landscape.  Before Nebraska joined the Big Ten, the conference valued conference championships and the Rose Bowl over National Championships.  Like you point out, they think the conference is "better" than the other conferences in terms of $, prestige, academics, and the overall student-athlete experience.  They make decisions with an internal point of view, rather than looking how their decisions impacts things with the rest of the NCAA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, junior4949 said:

Two best teams, two best records; there is a difference.  Northwestern only had one conference loss heading into the title game which was to Michigan.  They beat the same Purdue team that blasted Ohio State.  Michigan is the same team that got drilled by Ohio State one week before the conference title game.  I didn't forget about 2018.  Northwestern had the same conference record as Michigan.  Northwestern hadn't played Ohio State.  I'm not sure why anyone would want to watch a rematch of Ohio State and Michigan when they just played the week before.  This is why I think it would be dumb to change things from how they currently are.

Of course there's a difference, but going off of the tweet that started this whole thing, Delaney talked about best teams - not best records.  Using 'records' is a bit disingenuous to the conversation. There'd probably be a slew of non-divisional tiebreakers put into place with this system, but it'd be somewhat convoluted since there wouldn't be a round robin.

 

Since NW, MU, tOSU and Purdue all beat at least one of each other, but didn't all play each other, a tiebreaker would probably come into place to benefit Michigan since they had the better overall record and played tougher conference opponents. (Better record is currently a high priority tiebreaker in the B1G standings, so I imagine it would maintain such if they got rid of the divisional tiebreakers).

 

I agree that it would be really lame/boring if MU and tOSU played a week after their rivalry game, but it's very possible in a 'best team' scenario, and I sort of think that's why they're talking about changing it. B1G officials probably looked at the Texas/OU rematch and thought 'why can't we have that?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

You're all over the place with your argument.

 

Yes, Northwestern had the same conference record as Michigan. But, as you say, Northwestern hadn't played Ohio State. They also hadn't played Penn State. So they had the same conference record but they got it playing a schedule that didn't involve the two other best teams in the conference, so...

 

Regardless, why anyone would WANT a rematch of OSU/Michigan is irrelevant if OSU/Michigan were the two best teams.

 

If you go back to my first post in this thread, you will read I specifically said two best records.  I didn't say anything about two best teams.  You said I forgot about this year.  I didn't because I specifically said two best records which Northwestern had this year.  Until each and every B1G teams plays one another head-to-head, it's going to be difficult to say who the best two teams are.  Last year, are we sure the two best teams played in the B1G title game?  I mean Wisconsin didn't play either Penn State or Michigan State. 

 

Arguing whether the two teams in the conference championship need to be the best two teams or have the best conference records really doesn't matter that much to me.  If they change the rules and the format, it just solidifies my thought how they're basically catering to one or two programs in the B1G.  Isn't this one of the major reasons we left the Big 12? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×