Though we don't know for certain if the Big Ten will stop at 12 or add two to four more teams to the fold, we can be fairly confident that a championship game will be in place by 2011 when Nebraska begins league play. When Jim Delany publicly admits to presuming something, that something is on its way. This is the second in at least a two-part series examining the considerations and consequences of creating a football championship game in the Big Ten. Previously: Potential Venues.
The goal: Create a conference championship that keeps the conference in the national spotlight, is a television juggernaut, and prepares the winner (and to some degree the loser) for a successful bowl showing. Oh, and make tons of money. The SEC, with its huge ratings, 12-6 bowl record out of the winner, and ascension to the college football mountain has achieved this. The ACC, with half-empty stadiums and and often lousy matchups, has not. So, how do we get to the former?
Divisional Alignment
This is obviously the most critical issue to iron out and thousands of gallons of hypertext have already been spilled articulating the proper direction the conference should take. In so many words, Delany has given us two clues: some rivalries are more important than others (Ohio State-Michigan will be taken care of; Michigan State-Penn State, maybe not) and geography, while a concern, will not override other, more logical considerations.
| Western |
Eastern |
| Illinois |
Indiana |
| Iowa |
Michigan |
| Minnesota |
Michigan State |
| Nebraska |
Ohio State |
| Northwestern |
Penn State |
| Wisconsin |
Purdue |
| PURE GEOGRPAHY |
If you split the conference on geography, you're looking at an "Eastern" and a "Western" conference split at the at the border between Indiana and Illinois. This works out almost too neatly. The Western division is fertile ground for nouveau rivalries, the Buckeyes would be free of a dreaded rematch with the Wolverines, and the states of Indiana and Michigan keep their in-state rivalries. Further, athletic department travel costs are kept down and fans have road trips that do not require an extra a day off of work in most cases (especially in the Eastern division).
The problem with this setup is you now have the three traditional conference powers, Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State, in the same division (see the old Big 12 South). This is bad for a host of reasons (the fear of having lopsided games) and almost certainly a situation the Big Ten will not allow. So, the solution would seem simple: move one of the three to the other division. It can't be Ohio State or Michigan, for the previously mentioned fear of seeing the teams play two games in a row to end the season. Michigan State is a possibility, but Little Brother has a pretty esteemed rivalry of its own with the Wolverines and similar considerations must be given to that. That leaves Penn State.
Using Sagarin data from the
The Only Colors, MGoBlog points out that we have a 30% chance of
getting a better championship game in the last decade if Penn State is shipped west. The move wouldn't be easy. Penn State's travel will double, causing more missed classes for athletes, painful road trips for fans, increased operating costs for the athletic department, and most importantly, fuel for the persecution complex that floats in the heads of all Penn State fans.
| Western |
Eastern |
| Illinois |
Indiana |
| Iowa |
Michigan |
| Minnesota |
Michigan State |
| Nebraska |
Northwestern |
| Penn State |
Ohio State |
| Wisconsin |
Purdue |
| THE NEW HAWTNESS |
However you slice it, someone from the eastern edge of the Big Ten is not going to be happy. However, Brian does point out an interesting option:
If you want to go straight geography for non-revenue sports, fine by me, but in football I think the Big Ten will align things in a a way likely to avoid the Big 12 problem, and putting Michigan/Ohio State opposite Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/Penn State is the most likely way to get sexy championship games.
Would the Big Ten dare to get creative like that? You could even throw all 12 teams into a single division for revenue sports outside of football. Basketball, baseball, wrestling and every other sport settles its championship with a postseason tournament or meet in which invitations go out to all teams.
Avoiding Rematches
The SEC has had tremendous luck, seeing only five rematches of regular season games in the 18 years they've held a conference championship. Last year, the Gators and Tide met for the first time in the SEC Championship Game. This year, they'll meet in the regular season. It's the type of luck that has given Northwestern shares of the conference title when Ohio State rotated off the schedule and is more common than you'd think.
I believe the Big Ten will likely stick with an eight-game conference schedule, meaning teams will play the five teams within their own division as well as three teams from the other side. Tossing out quality and treating the teams in the league as 12 equal units, the chance of a team meeting another team twice in the same season is
about 8% 50%. Creative scheduling by the league office can obviously drive this down, but likely won't be employed.
In the rare occasion that a rematch does occur, I think most Buckeye fans would be able to live with it, so long as it's not a rematch with the Wolverines. Which it won't be. Because the two will be in the same division.
The All-Important Tiebreaker
Say goodbye to shared conference championships (which will no doubt please Nittany Lion fans). An interesting side effect of the move to a title game could be a bit of a hit to the wallets of Big Ten coaches. Tressel's contract, for instance, provides for bonuses should the team win the Big Ten championship. In 2011, that will be a little tougher to accomplish (though smart agents will surely get some coin for their coach winning a division). At any rate, the odds of tying atop a six-team conference are higher than an 11-team conference and it's crucial that the league has a sane policy in place to select game participants.
The SEC has
a solid model, taking into account only things that come about on the field of play. Hopefully, the Big Ten will borrow from the SEC and avoid promoting their current Rose Bowl tiebreaker, which
defaults to BCS rankings after head-to-head and winning percentage are exhausted. You might remember that setup
wreaking havoc on the Big 12 South two years ago. Avoid it like the plague.
Television
The Big Ten will accept bids to televise the game and the two players that will be most interested are ABC and Fox. Fox is itching to add more college football programming and ABC suddenly finds itself missing one of its two championship game partners (insert joke here about ABC wishing it could dump its other partner, the ACC). Last season, the SEC Championship kicked off at 4:00pm ET, while the Big 12 and ACC both kicked off at 8:00pm. Whoever picks up the Big Ten's game should be able to plug it into the same slot occupied by the Big 12. Jim Delany wins again.
I'd love to hear your thoughts. As a thank you for reading this post brought to you by TL;DR,
here's former running back Maurice Hall, as a news anchor in a Disturbed video.
Comments
In the SEC, Alabama's biggest rivalry outside of Auburn is Tenn. They are in different divisions but a protected rivalry. I think every team has one of those cross-division rivalries. I think OSU v PSU has become a great rivalry and would hate to see it broken up.
I have no problem with OSU and UM in different divisions, so long as they play at the end of the regular season. The Game will always help determine the B10+ champion. That's what matters. Rematch? Well, first UM needs a team.
I say split on purely geographical lines. Having a Penn State be in the "west" is just plain dumb.
Besides, why is everyone even thinking of putting PSU out there? Power balance? That's a fools game. You can predict future power. Hell, right now Wisc, Iowa, Neb is more well rounded group of teams that Ohio State, mich and PSU are. We need to move a rebuilding, full of questions, no QB Penn State over there to Balance things out while keeping RichRod's rolling wreck? A FOOLS GAMES!
The balance problems in the old Big XII stemmed form inequitable power and revenue sharing, not because TX and Ok where both in the south.
Teams rise and fall. You put PSU, Neb, Iowa and Wisc all in the same division, and then see what is looks like when they are all firing on 8 cyl and Ohio State and mich are having down years. Your monkeying with the system would render the championship game you are "trying" to protect a complete and utter joke.
Is there a rule that says there has to be divisions? For some reason I thought I remember one, but honestly I don't feel like looking it up. That seems like the best way to balance it. #1 plays #2. End of story.
Other than that there's no way to split them based on 'competitive balance' unless the divisions can change year to year. In just the last decade, PSU had it's dark years, Michigan is having them now, OSU had Tress's first year, Nebraska had been down almost 10 years. Outside of those periods, those teams all also had dominant runs.
And to clarify I think changing divisions would be dumb, just saying that's the only way to keep it balanced.
No way can you go by pure geography--the conference is loaded way too much to the east.
When was the last time that Ohio State had a down year and PSU, Nebraska, Iowa nd Wisconsin are "all firing on 8 cyl?" That's what I thought--never.
Boy, I don't know if JoPa is going to be happy about having to travel to Lincoln, Neb., and then Madison, Wis. the following weekend.
But, he was pushing hard for a championship game.
I heard interesting new names for the two divisions on another website: The Great Lakes Division(East) and the Great Plains Division(West). I thought those sound sweeter than just "East" and "West."
I agree with most too though, that putting PSU in the Great Plains(West) Division would be very problematic for their student-athletes. The BigTen teams are more evenly matched in the BigTen than the Big 12 and team strength comes and goes. You have to keep PSU/OSU/UM in the same division(Great Lakes) East, IMO.
Do it like the ACC...just divide the conference evenly with no regard for geography.
---Great Lakes---
Penn State
Iowa
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Michigan State
Indiana
---Great Plains---
Ohio State
Michigan
Minnesota
Purdue
Illinois
Nebraska
A North/South division scheme would work better. With Mich, Iowa, and Wisc. in the North, and OSU, Penn St. and Neb in the South. Pretty good competitive balance when all teams are having good years. Add in yearly cross-division rivalry games and you're all set.
Oh yeah, here's the math.
http://shirtswithrandomtriangl...
pure geography makes the most sense, even if it means the winner from the east plays nebraska or iowa every year. right now from the east it would be either us or PSU until UM gets its act together.
i agree with the person who said you can't predict future power. UM could be down for years with the human capital drain from that area. one of the reasons that the SEC has become so powerful is the migration of workers from the midwest to the south. we may have seen UM enter the abyss, never to return. motor city and all its components are dead.
Go Bucks!!!
Cant have OSU, Mich, and Penn St. in the same division.... those are the 3 primiere teams in the league. They have to be seperated to have the other division be legit. OSU and Mich should be in the same division to avoid a rematch in the champ. game.... Their game should be high stakes and for a berth in the Champ. game. Penn State should be in the same division with Mich State and Nebraska.
I think your 8% number is wrong.
It should be 50%. During the regular season, as you said, each team plays 3 teams from the opposite division. In a championship game, they would play one of 6 teams from the opposite division. So, 3/6 = 50% of playing the same team again in a championship.
nice except michigan has more lake exposure than indiana.
for that matter ohio has more lake exposure than indiana
The thing is Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan have a trend of being very good for oh 50 years or so. You can't look at 2 off years by Michigan and say they aren't going to be good again, when their whole history says they've been very good. Penn State had a few bad seasons in the early 2000's but they are back and have been two 2 BCS games in what 5 years. To me, you CAN"T put all 3 in the same division.
Yeah, Penn State needs to be in the other division to even things out.
To me, you have to have one of the Big 3 in the West for TV ratings. People want to Ohio State play Penn State or Nebraska in the Championship game. They don't want to see Iowa and Michigan squaring off. If TV and the money from TV were the driving force for expansion, it certainly will be considered when planning divisions for a championship game. Put Penn State in the West, have them as the one team the Buckeyes are guarrenteed to play every year from the other division, and Then you have 2 teams in each division that will command high ratings for a championship game.
I hope that is a sarcastic comment
Looking back at the last 10 years shows that these 2 divisions might not be that far off. It's amazing how much teams fluctuate. Here's how the matchups could have played out in a championship game, and if the Big Ten's top two teams wouldn't be playing against each other it's noted. Final rank in (). And these are only their Final rankings, so the matchups would have been different based on conference records and rankings before the championship game (for instance Mich would have been ahead of OSU in 2003, but OSU ended the season with the higher ranking).
2009 - OSU (7) vs. Iowa (12) --- PSU left out (8)
2008 - PSU (7) vs. Iowa (21) --- OSU left out (11)
2007 - OSU (5) vs. Wisc (23)
2006 - OSU (3) vs. Wisc (6)
2005 - PSU (3) vs. Wisc (17) --- OSU left out (4)
2004 - Mich (13) vs. Iowa (10)
2003 - OSU (7) vs. Iowa (13) --- Mich left out (10)
2002 - OSU (1) vs. Iowa (9)
2001 - Mich (23) vs. Neb (5) --- Wisc left out (17)
2000 - Mich (10) vs. Neb (5) --- Illinois left out (9)
Basically 4 out of the 10 years would have put the top two teams together, and the only noticeable East/West problems would have been 2005 & 2008.
The number would be a little smaller - maybe a lot smaller - assuming that the three teams that the top team from the opposite division didn't play would have a better chance of making the championship game. I'm sure there is some way to represent that mathematically, but it's too early in the day for that.
The general idea behind the above approach could be right: achieve competitive balance while spreading out the geographical burdens. It seems unfair to make PSU do all the work by itself.
However, the above alignment trades Nebraska for PSU, not significantly balancing out the eastern (or "Great Plains") tilt. It's also only so-so on preserving rivalries (Delaney's second most important criteria). Unless you lock in two cross-divisional rivalries (which would mean that Ohio Sate would rarely see certain teams from the other division), then Minn would lose either Iowa or Wisc as rival, and both games are considered sacrosant. Also, shipping Nebraska away from Iowa/Wisc (and across from PSU) would smother several potential rivalries in the crib.
What's noticeable to me is that these matchups are still lame in that only twice in 10 years would it have been a Top 10 clash.
This seems like the best way..Cliff covered it for us, and he had the same as the first Eastern/Western Division. If you look up and down at the divisions, you will notice that the powers really do even out.
Yeah, I think my number is too high. It should be (1/6 * 1/6 * 1/2) or 1.39% assuming all teams are equal, right?
I think that's a function of the relative strength/weakness of the conference of late instead of the system.
Also, as Brian pointed out, if you ship Penn State west, you improve three of those games. '09 and '03 become two more top matchups.
Very true. I wasn't speaking so much against the CCG, but the fact the teams just aren't that great. Good, but not great.
My biggest thing is, from a ratings and money standpoint, people will want to watch Ohio State v Penn State. Or Nebraska V Michigan etc in a championship game. I don't think Iowa or Wisconsin v Ohio State/Michigan will get you those kind of ratings. So in order to give the best chance for a "sexy" matchup in the championshp game you have to put 2 power names in each division. To be sure, ratings will be good either way, but to make it a game everyone across the US wants to see it has to be 2 brand names that everyone in America can say, I'd like to see that game. The only way the Big 10 can do that is by breakering up Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State somehow. That's why, in my opinion, it's not that big of a deal to have Penn State playing west and make Ohio State their cross division rival.
I think college football is stupid.
Going into this, I was inclined to reject the E/W split as being competitively unbalanc ed. Since I've had a chance to run some of the 10 yr, 25 yr numbers, etc., though, I've begun to warm up to the idea, mainly because there is a particular program not-to-be-named that its perceived to be elite for which the numbers do not support that perception. This mystery program might or might not wear old fashioned uniforms and have a coach who has occasional in-game personal emergencies.
If they do W/E split, to even things a bit, they should put MSU in the west and ILL in the east - that helps achieve relative balance and frees Ohio State from having to protect that as a cross-divisional "rivalry." Obviously, Mich v. MSU would be protected as such.
=O
Kyle is right.
The flaw is that you counted all 12 teams. You cannot count teams in your own division as two teams from the same division cannot meet in the CCG..
Think of it this way:
1) Put the names of all 6 teams in the other division in a hat as a potential CCG opponent.
2) Draw a team.
3) What is the likelihood that it is a team you played during the regular season?
It is 3 in 6 or 50%.
Correct.
Point taken, but you started off by discussing the SEC's luck in avoiding rematches in CCGs. If things are truly random there is a 50% chance of a rematch in the championship game, regardless of who is playing.
Your calculation was the odds of any one team getting a rematch. Getting a rematch implies getting to the CCG. I would expect any one team's fans would be much happier with a rematch in the CG than not making it at all so I don't understand what value there is in a "pct chance of rematch".
If you do take the "any one team" approach your original 8% was correct. It is computed as 1/6 *3/6 = 3/36 = 1/12 = 8.333...%
What happened here? The post to which I thought I was replying now just says "Correct".
When the SEC split into divisions, they separated their two winningest programs in Tennessee and Alabama. Over the last 20 years, those teams have each won championships, but they have also gone through spouts of intense irrelevance as well.
Penn State was very good in the mid 1990s, and then wasn't for another 10 years. Over that time, Wisconsin won the conference, went to 2 or 3 Rose Bowls, Iowa won a share, Northwestern got to a Rose Bowl in 95, and Purdue won it in 01.
My point is, Having Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin in a division is pretty powerful. I think it offsets Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State fairly well. Maybe not from a long-term historical perspective, but it works for today and the future.
No kidding. I only went back 10 years, and in the five years of 2000 - 2004 their final computer rankings were 68, 66, 18, 92, & 75 respectively.
Magic/Editorial change of mind. :)
The power of the press :)
My point is, Having Nebraska, Iowa, and Wisconsin in a division is pretty powerful. I think it offsets Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State fairly well. Maybe not from a long-term historical perspective, but it works for today and the future."
I have thought similarly when I saw this alignment. Actually, until Michigan comes back or MSU steps it up a notch I think Nebraska, Wisky, Iowa is a tougher division.
yeah but the year they were 18th for final rankings they gave Ohio State a great game and got screwed on calls against Iowa and Michigan. The officiating for Penn State was horrible that year. I remember seeing a picture in USA today outside of Joepa's office he had a little refferee doll hanging by a nuesse from his doorknob.
The early 2000's Penn State was mostly bad. But before and since they ahve been pretty damn good overall. Not to mention they are a power house name. It's not neccessarily competitive balance as it is balancing out the powerhouse names for ratings sake.
Two caveats to the W/E split:
1). The W/E split should be predicated on the assumption that there's only 3 elite programs in the BT: OSU, Mich, Nebr, and that therefore you have to split it 1 and 2 somehow, so why not W/E. Yet, if PSU gets what it probably wants - an annual cross-divisional rivalry with Nebr - that'd have to play all 3 elites on an annual basis. Although I'm not sold on PSU's elite status, and although I can't stand 'em in Oct. and Nov., I don't want to see that valuable PSU "brand" possibly get marginalized like that. To be fair, PSU should be able to lock in OSU and Nebr and play Michigan on a regular, rotating basis, but that'll require separating them from Mich's division.
2). On Nebr (hopefully they've temporarily stopped reading this blog after all the initial warm welcomes): the Huskers used to completely dominate the old B8, using a model that was so successful that it prompted lots of imitators. Since 1996 (when they joined the B12), their win percentage has still been very good, but more like Mich's than Ohio State's. Before Pelini, there were fears that Nebr would never return to the elite talent level it enjoyed in the good old days. Will Nebr be able to anchor the west division like Ohio State (and, eventually, Michigan) will anchor the east? Wisc. and Iowa have become solid top 20 programs, but potential anchors they ain't.
On the other hand, the worries about the BT making same divisional alignment mistakes as former B12 might undersell the strength of the new BT. The new BT has 3-4 top 10 programs and another two programs in the 15 - 25 range = 6 top 25 programs total. Even with Nebr, the B12 has not had that for about a decade: Tex, Okla, Nebr for sure. When the conference was formed, TAM, K ST, Colorado would have been in top 25, but have fallen down considerably. And I'm not ready to replace them with the likes of TT, OKST, which were in the B12 south, anyway. Could the west division of the BT decline? Sure, but I feel that Wisc and Iowa are here to stay for awhile.
What about a North and South?
South
OSU
Nebraska
Illinois
Iowa
Indiana
Penn State
North
Wisconsin
Minnesota
MSU
Michigan
Northwestern
Purdue
I think that we're trying to avoid having scUM in another division to 1) keep the game in its normal time slot and 2) not play them twice a year possibly and have it diminish the game.
Your an idiot Saab. And don't start making comments like what a strong point I prove because its really all that needs to be said.
It will be interesting what the Big Ten does with its tv contract. But just a word of warning, if we go to Fox or CBS or even NBC. ESPN is really gonna start dumping on us! BIG TIME!
I agree.
They have already anyway. The other day on the Scott Van Pelt show that's all the guy was doing. It was Van Pelt but the other guy on there with him. He was talking about how the SEC is still was still far and away number 1, with the Big 12 next and then the rest. That's never going to change. Now, if there was not a BTN they would be ok with the Big 10 because it's not thier chief rival broadcasting ou games.
geography never lies.
I think you have UM in the opposing divisions. How great would a CCG game be? Great. Why "dreaded"? If there is a rematch (which you make sound like it would happen every year), I'd look at it as double-or-northing with the winner having a good chance of making it to the NCG.
If OSU beats UM in the last game of the reg. season, chances are they would fall behind the next best team anyhow. Additionally, if you counterbalance UM with Wisconsin and Nebraska, you should be assured that this will be no walk in the park for them.
If OSU beats an undefeated UM team and they remain in the first in the division (say the next best team has 2 losses), then it's best for everyone if there is a rematch to raise the stakes even higher. This CCG matchup would NOT be same game. It would be on a neutral site and there could be a lot of interesting scheming we didn't see the week before.
In the other division you can counterbalance OSU with Penn State and Iowa. Putting OSU, UM, and PSU would make it way too stacked. The second scenario is also too lopsided with 1 excellent team (PSU) and 3 really good teams (Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa). Meanwhile the other division would have two excellent teams (historically) in OSU and UM, one good team in Mich State, and 3 of the weakest teams in the Big Ten.
As I've mentioned before...
With 3 games being played against opposing division teams, there is a decent chance we are going to get a rematch of some kind. If it's not OSU-UM, it's just going to be someone else. I don't see the big difference here.
This is the thing I dislike about the Big 12 South. You have the two best teams in the same division. These two teams usually play early in the season and so many times I would have liked to have seen a rematch, because the teams have changed. I didn't want to see Texas-Mizzou. I wanted to see Texas-OK again. Again, I think it's best for everyone involved to put the two best teams in the CCG, whether you like idea of a rematch or not. The goal isn't to avoid rematches at all costs.
I come to this site to avoid things like thinking and math. All of this stuff is making my brain get tired.
I think this provides better balance (historically speaking) and is more geographically correct:
South - Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana
North - Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Northwestern, Minnesota
Nebraska-Iowa:: You could flip Iowa with Wisconsin, so that Nebraska isn't obligated to chewing up 1 of their 3 cross-divisional games a year for the sake of the rivalry (if you want to install this is a rivalry like I've heard many people bandying about).
I just wanna see somebody get tackled.
See, that's what I'm saying. It's not fair to compare the dividing of the Big Ten to the old-Big XII. The Big XII North had Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Colorado and Missouri, which simply are not powerful football programs. Iowa and Wisconsin are pretty stellar names in the biz. Throw in Nebraska, and that's a hell of a division.
Plus, the Big XII North had the deck stacked against it with the southern teams getting all the money in an unequal sharing program. The Big Ten doesn't do it that way.
I think people are over-thinking it. Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa offset Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State fairly well.
ask and you shall receive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
damn, i was totally expecting this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
not really a tackle, but still effing awesome
not nearly as awesome as pee wee de-cleatings.
I said this on another post, but I think splitting teams into divisions causes more problems than not. So why even do it? Have a 9 game conference schedule and after the nine games are played #1 and #2 can play in the CCG.
I don't think we need a CCG if we are playing 9 conference games with a built-in "bye" that is going into December, anyways. I'm not even sure a conference championship game is going to make all that much money, especially if you are only going to have 1 BCS birth instead of possibly two.
1994, off the top of my head.
"your"? Impressive argument. You've swayed me!
Now, is "Anonymous" your last name, or first?
did you see #99 for that peewee team n red? he was like 5'10 250 at 10 years old!
Nik, Best.Buckeye.Hit.Ever
Make that the yellow team.
Did you hear how squeaky that quarterback's signal calling was? It was like Mickey Mouse on helium.
Ladies and gentlemen, the judges have ruled a no contest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
You want a tackle...... I've got something for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Not bad, try this on for size
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=dfkWuDTsicg
that's helmet to helmet, i hope that guy got a penalty for that
the darrion scott one was pretty awesome, but i've always enjoyed that katz hit
Uhhh...not sure. Still the greatest HIT ever.
yeah, don't come on here and call names... anonymously no less, just b/c someone made you look stupid. Honestly, it sounds to me like this Saab guy knows his stuff (and has good taste in cars, too).
You have to give props to Hartline on this one. I mean the guy play receiver not safety, linebacker, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
is buckeye your first or last name?
So just throwing it out there, but what about the crazy possibility of more than two divisions?
Why do we have to split into divisions, I like it the way it is. Keep most of the tiebreakers except to BCS ranking one and away we go. Championship game can be whatever we make it every year. - Conference universitys used to vote on who to send to the Rose bowl as part of the tiebreaker rules. Or the two highest ranking at the end of the season. I don't know about you but if two teams with great records and ranked highly played twice in a year as long as one of them is tOSU I'm all for it.
Was that a Pelini sighting at 0:13?
yessir, that was indeed Pelini
Three divisions of four teams; each team has one permanent rival in each of the other divisions, and teams rotate which full division they play each year. Division winners - plus the next best team - go into a three game conference championship.
Tsunami Division:
OSU (UM, Ill)
PSU (Pur, Neb)
Minnesota (Iowa, Wisc)
Indiana (MSU, NW)
Tempest Division:
UM (OSU, Wisc)
Iowa (Minn, Neb)
MSU (Ind, Ill)
Pur (PSU, NW)
Tornado Division:
Neb (PSU, Iowa)
Wisc (Minn, UM)
Ill (OSU, MSU)
NW (Ind, Pur)
Obviously this could be reworked to save some rivalries and even out the competitive balance a little. Could even be used without the wildcard, just take the top two division leaders and use a lot of tie-breakers.
i like that idea, and it'd probably work even better than 4 3-team divisions with that wildcard in there.
12, one team divisions battling it out. That's the answer.
http://www.blackheartgoldpants...
this right here is the answer
i gotta say, BHGP has some of the best commenters ever, lol
Stick Michigan in the West--after all, according to their annoying fight song they claim to be the champions of that particular geography...
I totally agree with 'saab . . . The ACC tried to split up Florida State and Miami with hopes of them meeting in the conf. championship, and it never has happened. They even go so far as to have the conference championship in Florida every year.
Putting Penn State in the West is crazy and unfair to them. Counting on Michigan being a "premier team" even in the next five years could be a stretch. Geographical alignment makes sense.