B1G Looking to Change CCG Criteria?
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
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?'
Last edited by a moderator:
junior4949
All-American
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?
Crusader Husker
All-Conference
Completely agree and, ultimately, that's the biggest problem. Based on the data I pulled together above, the more recent elite B1G teams would've benefited directly (tOSU, MU, etc.) with an additional chance at a conference title.
It really boils down to excitement, revenue, and ratings. If the league felt good about the matchup last Saturday then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The problems: Nebraska isn't very good, Wisconsin isn't very sexy or nationally appealing even when they are good, and neither is Northwestern.
This also goes back to what I said above that the current division splits are, in my opinion, ludicrous. The east has three traditional powers in one division and only one in the west, and the one in the west hasn't had it's you-know-what together for 20 years.
Landlord
Banned
I did? I don't remember saying that.
Is it? I don't know or don't think so. The Big 12 had the same format we have now - geographical divisions with division winners in the conference championship. I thought we left the Big XII because we couldn't trust the stability of the conference with other schools flirting with greener pastures - not because the conference catered to specific schools. Sure the offices and championship game went down to Texas or whatever but that's....small potatoes imo? Most of the things we didn't like about the Big XII were things that we were very biased towards/against or things that we actually voted for, like unequal revenue sharing. We just didn't like it when those things bit us in the a$$.
Red Five
Heisman Trophy Winner
Yup, this would be the answer to matching the 2 "best" teams in the CCG.
Nebraska, Iowa, Minny, and Wisky fit perfectly as each others 3 "rivals". And it would actually fell like a conference, where you would get to every stadium once every 4 years (instead of Indiana finally getting to visit Lincoln in year 9).