B1G Looking to Change CCG Criteria?

How should the teams be selected for the B1G CCG?

  • Total voters
    66
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 

 
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

 


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). 

 
Cdog923 said:
The more I hear him talk, the closer I think Delaney needs to be to retire. 
Click to expand...
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.

 


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.

 








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.

 
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.

 
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.   

 
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.   
Click to expand...
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top