ADVERTISEMENT

End of Divisions Not a Done Deal

Why on Earth would Warren keep divisions? USC would've met the same fate as Purdue if they faced Michigan last night if they couldn't handle Utah. Just moving Purdue to the East seems counterproductive. West is now 0-8 in the Champ Game and I doubt UCLA/USC would end that streak based on Friday night.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MikeR0102
How exactly is the schedule going to work?
And how would the championship game participants work?

Going to have OSU-UM, rematch in CCG, then both make CFP and potentially a 3rd time again?
 
It’s a done deal. There won’t be divisions. Let’s worry more about our football program in general because if our esteemed HC can’t recruit athletes and evolve himself to todays game then it don’t matter whether there are divisions or not because we ll get our ass kicked regardless of who we play.
 
The B1G West has continually proved the concept of divisions without an NFL draft/payment structure does not work. I have no idea what data points Warren is looking at to even consider keeping divisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RU2131
It’s a done deal. There won’t be divisions. Let’s worry more about our football program in general because if our esteemed HC can’t recruit athletes and evolve himself to todays game then it don’t matter whether there are divisions or not because we ll get our ass kicked regardless of who we play.
Right. Even if we hand picked our conference schedule this year our record would have been the same.
 
This is just an acknowledgement that is isn't official yet. But they have to end these divisions. To keep it, you'd have to move Purdue and one other team to the East so that USC and UCLA could be in the West. While that would improve the overall quality of the west, you're still stuck with a lot of competitive imbalance.

Once they are one big division, what I hope they do is create schedules for each team based on competitive balance the way they do in the NFL. And when they match us up against ACC or Pac 10 teams, let the bottom feeders play each other and the top teams play each other. This is pretty much how these basketball "challenge" tournaments work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cicero grimes
This is just an acknowledgement that is isn't official yet. But they have to end these divisions. To keep it, you'd have to move Purdue and one other team to the East so that USC and UCLA could be in the West. While that would improve the overall quality of the west, you're still stuck with a lot of competitive imbalance.

Once they are one big division, what I hope they do is create schedules for each team based on competitive balance the way they do in the NFL. And when they match us up against ACC or Pac 10 teams, let the bottom feeders play each other and the top teams play each other. This is pretty much how these basketball "challenge" tournaments work.
They'd only have to move Purdue to the East if they kept divisions. There's already 7 teams in each division so if the East added Purdue, they'd have 8 teams and the West would have 6 teams plus USC/UCLA moving in. I think Warren ends divisions though so it's a moot point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wheezer and Jimpeg
This is just an acknowledgement that is isn't official yet. But they have to end these divisions. To keep it, you'd have to move Purdue and one other team to the East so that USC and UCLA could be in the West. While that would improve the overall quality of the west, you're still stuck with a lot of competitive imbalance.

Once they are one big division, what I hope they do is create schedules for each team based on competitive balance the way they do in the NFL. And when they match us up against ACC or Pac 10 teams, let the bottom feeders play each other and the top teams play each other. This is pretty much how these basketball "challenge" tournaments work.

And how does Conference Championship game work then?
 
And how does Conference Championship game work then?
The same way they do in the PAC12 and B12. The top 2 teams play for the championship. There might be some convoluted tie breakers like the PAC12 this year but the teams that fall into the top 2 spots play for the championship.

The ACC will be eliminating divisions for next year. IIRC the SEC is also eliminating divisions when Texas/OU join.

You'll get repeats in champ games and possibly 3peats with the CFP, the chips fall where they fall. It happens in other sports too.
 
While there generally hasn’t been balance and this year’s difference highlighted it to almost a maximum amount, the conference actually has to be pleased with the end result.

Two teams from the conference should be going to the CFP. If tOSU had lost to UM again, that wouldn’t have happened. Maybe dumb luck.

If they can get around the $$$ issue with the CCG, I wonder if it would be in the conferences best interest to eliminate it with the new format. That way the CCG loser would have a better chance of remaining in the top 8 and get a CFP home game.
 
Divisons are the only place where you have teams compared to each other on a mostly level playing field. They all play the same schedule except for a couple crossover games with the other division. Eliminating divisions means you have standings that compare teams with potentially very different schedules. Say you have Ohio State undefeated, then Michigan with losses to Ohio State and Penn State, and then Wisconsin with one loss to Michigan but never had to play the two teams Michigan lost to, you'd have Wisconsin in 2nd and Michigan in 3rd even though Michigan is probably the better team and beat Wisconsin head to head. With divisions eliminated, you create more arguments over "if this team had that team's schedule, they'd be in the championship game." Just what we need in college football, more arguments over who deserves to advance to the next stage of postseason play.

Divisions are perfectly fine as long as they are balanced. We don't need to scrap divisions, we need to rebalance them. Do something like every three years or so rebalance them based on the previous three years' results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cicero grimes
The same way they do in the PAC12 and B12. The top 2 teams play for the championship. There might be some convoluted tie breakers like the PAC12 this year but the teams that fall into the top 2 spots play for the championship.

The ACC will be eliminating divisions for next year. IIRC the SEC is also eliminating divisions when Texas/OU join.

You'll get repeats in champ games and possibly 3peats with the CFP, the chips fall where they fall. It happens in other sports too.


Current system: we need to finish ahead of 6 teams (including OSU, UM and PSU) to make CCG

Future system: we need to finish ahead of 14 teams (including OSU, UM PSU, Wisconsin, USC, UCLA, Minnesota)

How exactly is this better?
 
This is just an acknowledgement that is isn't official yet. But they have to end these divisions. To keep it, you'd have to move Purdue and one other team to the East so that USC and UCLA could be in the West. While that would improve the overall quality of the west, you're still stuck with a lot of competitive imbalance.

Once they are one big division, what I hope they do is create schedules for each team based on competitive balance the way they do in the NFL. And when they match us up against ACC or Pac 10 teams, let the bottom feeders play each other and the top teams play each other. This is pretty much how these basketball "challenge" tournaments work

you can hope dont see that happening...A 1 game hoops tournament is much different than league wide college football schedule (NFL encourages parity)

I would imagine to keep rivalries each team will be allocated 2 game slots for team's rivalry per year, then rotate the remaining games on home/away basis. I would imagine RU would be assigned rivalry games with MD and PSU...( unfortunately i would like Indiana as a rivalry but they would probably get Purdue and MSU)
 
Divisons are the only place where you have teams compared to each other on a mostly level playing field. They all play the same schedule except for a couple crossover games with the other division. Eliminating divisions means you have standings that compare teams with potentially very different schedules. Say you have Ohio State undefeated, then Michigan with losses to Ohio State and Penn State, and then Wisconsin with one loss to Michigan but never had to play the two teams Michigan lost to, you'd have Wisconsin in 2nd and Michigan in 3rd even though Michigan is probably the better team and beat Wisconsin head to head. With divisions eliminated, you create more arguments over "if this team had that team's schedule, they'd be in the championship game." Just what we need in college football, more arguments over who deserves to advance to the next stage of postseason play.

Divisions are perfectly fine as long as they are balanced. We don't need to scrap divisions, we need to rebalance them. Do something like every three years or so rebalance them based on the previous three years' results.

From an easy “best record advances to CCG” to everyone’s favorite“let the CFP Committee rankings decide who advances to CCG”.

What could go wrong?? Haha
 
Current system: we need to finish ahead of 6 teams (including OSU, UM and PSU) to make CCG

Future system: we need to finish ahead of 14 teams (including OSU, UM PSU, Wisconsin, USC, UCLA, Minnesota)

How exactly is this better?
It's not meant to be about us or anyone, it's meant to be about not letting a fluky unranked Purdue from taking a spot from a more deserving team.
 
It's not meant to be about us or anyone, it's meant to be about not letting a fluky unranked Purdue from taking a spot from a more deserving team.

I agree. Just was confused by the “we need to end divisions to benefit Rutgers” posts.

Wait - ready for this troll?
You better sit down…..😎

What about exposure for the lower level Big Ten teams? Think how much this will benefit the Purdue program. Otherwise it’ll be the same rotation of blue blood schools.
Just like G5 getting a CFP AQ in the 12 team playoff…….
Haha just messing around.

James Franco Flirt GIF
 
  • Haha
Reactions: rutgersguy1
Current system: we need to finish ahead of 6 teams (including OSU, UM and PSU) to make CCG

Future system: we need to finish ahead of 14 teams (including OSU, UM PSU, Wisconsin, USC, UCLA, Minnesota)

How exactly is this better?
Nick … the rebuild, pal, the rebuild. Only 4 more years and seven games against Wagner and we’ll be close to bowl eligibity. The Morocco Bowl, I can’t wait.
 
This is just an acknowledgement that is isn't official yet. But they have to end these divisions. To keep it, you'd have to move Purdue and one other team to the East so that USC and UCLA could be in the West. While that would improve the overall quality of the west, you're still stuck with a lot of competitive imbalance.

Once they are one big division, what I hope they do is create schedules for each team based on competitive balance the way they do in the NFL. And when they match us up against ACC or Pac 10 teams, let the bottom feeders play each other and the top teams play each other. This is pretty much how these basketball "challenge" tournaments work.
Lame Lou…so, have the better teams play harder schedules. And we play weaker schedules because we can’t compete fair and square ? And on top of that we get to play the weakest OOC too ? Pathetic.

On top of all that, maybe give us an auto +8?win credit so we finish near the top of the conference every year. Does that work for you ?
 
Divisons are the only place where you have teams compared to each other on a mostly level playing field. They all play the same schedule except for a couple crossover games with the other division.
About that "except" part that comprises 33% of a team's conference schedule. In 2021:
  • Iowa didn't play tOSU Mich, MSU and RU. The sum of their records was 25-11
  • NU didn't play PSU, MD, Ind, and RU. The sum of their records was 9-27
Doesn't seem "mostly level" to me. I'm sure it is just a coincidence that Iowa won the division that year.
Eliminating divisions means you have standings that compare teams with potentially very different schedules. Say you have Ohio State undefeated, then Michigan with losses to Ohio State and Penn State, and then Wisconsin with one loss to Michigan but never had to play the two teams Michigan lost to, you'd have Wisconsin in 2nd and Michigan in 3rd even though Michigan is probably the better team and beat Wisconsin head to head.
So would a theoretical 1-loss Wisconsin be worse than a PU team that finished with the 4th best record at 6-3 in the conference? PU's schedule included a loss to the 7-2 3rd best record team, and worse yet, did not include a game against either of the two teams with the best records.
 
Current system: we need to finish ahead of 6 teams (including OSU, UM and PSU) to make CCG

Future system: we need to finish ahead of 14 teams (including OSU, UM PSU, Wisconsin, USC, UCLA, Minnesota)

How exactly is this better?
I agree with you.

I would rather see two (7) Team divisions in the East and West.

Maybe move a few teams to a different division to break up the Big Ten East imbalance and keep the rivalry games.

You can switch to four Pods with the next expansion of additional teams.
 
The same way they do in the PAC12 and B12. The top 2 teams play for the championship. There might be some convoluted tie breakers like the PAC12 this year but the teams that fall into the top 2 spots play for the championship.

The ACC will be eliminating divisions for next year. IIRC the SEC is also eliminating divisions when Texas/OU join.

You'll get repeats in champ games and possibly 3peats with the CFP, the chips fall where they fall. It happens in other sports too.

How do you accomplish that if you don’t play everybody in the conference?
 
Let's just let Michigan and Ohio State sort it out in private, of course, and then they can let "the public" know what best suits them.
That is what happens, isn't it?

Here's an issue with no divisions... what if there were no divisions this year? Well, Michigan handily beats OSU in their annual match and then they play again the following week, indoors, in Indianapolis.

Isn't that what would happen MOST years with no divisions?

Now.. I am not offering a solution.. but that's a problem, IMO. Maybe they could move the OSU-UM game to the FIRST game of the year.. or near that.. like Texas-Oklahoma. Then if they wind up being the top-rated team to play for B1G championship it will be better received no matter how they do "pods" or whatnot.
 
About that "except" part that comprises 33% of a team's conference schedule. In 2021:
  • Iowa didn't play tOSU Mich, MSU and RU. The sum of their records was 25-11
  • NU didn't play PSU, MD, Ind, and RU. The sum of their records was 9-27
Doesn't seem "mostly level" to me. I'm sure it is just a coincidence that Iowa won the division that year.

So would a theoretical 1-loss Wisconsin be worse than a PU team that finished with the 4th best record at 6-3 in the conference? PU's schedule included a loss to the 7-2 3rd best record team, and worse yet, did not include a game against either of the two teams with the best records.
Ok so you acknowledge the issue of having teams play different schedules in conference, but you want to further magnify that problem by increasing the variation from 33% to potentially as high as 67% by scrapping divisions?
 
Last edited:
It's not meant to be about us or anyone, it's meant to be about not letting a fluky unranked Purdue from taking a spot from a more deserving team.
Why are they less deserving? They won their division.

EDIT:
As an aside, the two divisions benefits Rutgers immensely. Right now, we occupy the most valuable real estate possible ... the best division in college football. If we could create a 7 team conference out of any schools and put us in it, it would basically look exactly like it does right now, except Indiana would be swapped for Notre Dame. If we could develop rivalries with anyone we choose, these would be the schools.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Knight Shift
The B1G West has continually proved the concept of divisions without an NFL draft/payment structure does not work. I have no idea what data points Warren is looking at to even consider keeping divisions.
Warren is an ex-NFL guy.
Can we look at NIL salary caps, and instead of fines like the NFL, payment of those fines to the teams most under the NIL salary cap? Asking for some B1G fan friends. 😂
 
Warren is an ex-NFL guy.
Can we look at NIL salary caps, and instead of fines like the NFL, payment of those fines to the teams most under the NIL salary cap? Asking for some B1G fan friends. 😂

Not NIL but he should look into AD/football spending caps.

Cut out all that extra money the schools with big donors get that other schools (Rutgers) don't have ability to spend.
 
The folly of entire division set up as currently constituted in the B10 was on display last night as there was a 4 loss team playing the the conference championship while not 1 but 2 top 8 ranked teams watched from their living rooms.
Yup. Watching the championship games this weekend it struck me that every game was ranked team vs ranked team except the Big Ten.
 
Why are they less deserving? They won their division.

EDIT:
As an aside, the two divisions benefits Rutgers immensely. Right now, we occupy the most valuable real estate possible ... the best division in college football. If we could create a 7 team conference out of any schools and put us in it, it would basically look exactly like it does right now, except Indiana would be swapped for Notre Dame. If we could develop rivalries with anyone we choose, these would be the schools.
Michigan 9-0, OSU 8-1, PSU 7-2, Purdue 6-3…that’s why they’re less deserving. They’re not ranked either. If they had the conference record and ranking to justify taking a playoff spot from another conference mate then no problems but they don’t.
 
Call me old fashion, I like the conference divisions ( East/West >North/South)
In some conferences that is the only way some programs would have a shot at going to the Championship game.
Of course some divisions will be far weaker, that's why the programs in that division have a shot.
 
ADVERTISEMENT