I brought this up on the poll question the other day, and it didn't spark a conversation. But I think it's an important discussion. Does a conference HAVE to split its conference up into divisions if it reaches 12+ teams? I was under the impression that all it means is that a conference is then allowed to host a conference championship game, but it certainly doesn't have to. And if it doesn't have to, then are there NCAA stipulations about the representatives coming from divisional play?
What I'm getting at, of course, is a 4th option that the B1G did not propose in their survey, which is "No divisions - the two teams with the best records meet in Indianapolis for the B1G championship game." I think it bears some consideration considering this won't be the last time a 4+ loss team gets a chance to upset a 1- or 2-loss team to get the B1G bid to the major bowls/playoffs. The SEC has seen 3-loss teams in their championship game several times (some resulted in an upset), so it's not crazy.
I obviously favor the east-west split, as does probably 80% of people who took the survey, but I think I would have favored a no-division option had it been presented. I think that would give a lot more freedom and fairness in scheduling.
I can't find the source now but I believe the requirement is 12 teams and 2 divisions minimum.
If we go to 16 teams, I would prefer they break down the schools into 4 four-team "pods" instead of 2 divisions of 8 teams. You end up playing other members of the conference much more frequiently.
I couldn't find the requirements on the web, either.
****edited******
This response removed. After further research, I was wrong. Correct answer is below.
Oops- I stand corrected. The rule has been changed since it came into existence. Pods used to be allowable, as was any arrangement, but that is no longer true.
The rule is 17.9.1.2 (c) and states not only that there must be at least twelve teams and they must be in divisions, but also that every team in each division MUST play every other team in the division.
Although the MAC has been violating this rule since 2007 though as one of their divisions is 7 teams, and not every team in that division plays every other each year. It's actually possible for their to be two undefeated teams in that one division.
The NCAA has never challenged the MAC.
Thanks for clearing that up. Bummer then, I guess. One of the biggest irritations over the years when the Big Ten was at 11 with no title game was that the two best teams in the conference didn't necessarily play each other...like in 2006 when Wisconsin at 11-1 and Ohio State at 12-0 didn't play each other, and in 2002 when Ohio State and Iowa didn't play each other. So, I would figure that since rematches will happen at some frequency anyway, wouldn't it be better for everyone's strength of schedule for two teams with the best records to play each other in the last game, regardless if they had already played each other?
So, I guess it's option-2 or bust.
Wonder what would be wrong with going to a pod system with a Divisional Playoff round, ala the NFL?
The rule states that there must be at least two Divisions for a Conference Championship Game but I don't read anywhere that it prohibits the establishment of a Pod System with each Pod's Champion playing each other for their respective Division titles. Play each team from your own pod, then play the winner of your 'rival' pod each year to determine the matchups for the B1G Championship Game.
Ultimately, it would boil down to each university giving up the gaurantee of an early-season-cupcake-of-a-home game for the mere possibility to play in a Divisional Championship Game, but if the increased revenue from fan interest as well as from Television is substantial enough, I think the schools would listen.
I know this sounds a lot like a playoff, but with the B1G's image taking the hits it has over the past few years it could go a long way to help re-establish the Conference's reputation as a football power.
“Right now, Michigan is not at the pinnacle of college football, and that’s all Urban Meyer cares about...He’s been there and knows what it takes to get there.”
Can anyone explain to me the downside to the inner/outter option on the BTN survey?? It looked good to me but I see most people prefer the east/west option. I would like to hear why everyone thinks it is a better option and what they have against the other option that I like.
Yes there are two Buckeyes in Ann arbor on this site!
I think people see it as less balanced competitively. The travel is also not fair for the outer teams compared to the inner teams.
I actually like the inner-outer division for the Buckeyes, though. I don't give a rip about the other teams. As long as OSU and Michigan are in the same division. As long as "The Game" remains "The Game" and doesn't turn into "a Game".
As long as "We'll get those ***** next year" doesn't turn into "We'll get those ******* next week in the Title Game".
Class of 2010
I prefer the inny outty too because when further expansion comes (and it will) it makes it easier to digest. Just add the new markets to the outer ring and expand the inner. I like the balance of power inthis formation long term. One thing the SEC does right is it has an even split with its storied programs. So when UF is down, UGA picks up, or when Auburn went down in flames (and Arky) there is always bama or lsu.
With inner outer, you have psu wisky and Neb on one side. Northwestern and rutgers will probly have a good year every now and then. On the other, OSU, UM, and sparty is enough. Now you have to understand this is a long term view....10 to 20 years.
As I see it, we will be okay either way, but the outer games have absolutely no tradition and it just becomes a made-for-TV deal with no Big 10 flavor whatsoever. 45OH below makes a good point below that it allows for expansion, but I think the best it could offer would be something like the Redskins-Cowboys NFC East rivalry though even more transient because of the ebb and flow of college programs. MSU/Penn State was the best we got when we tried to manufacture rivalries.
Matthew's right. The travel isn't fair whatsoever.