Yea but that’s one game anything can happen in any game. OSU beat B10 west teams Iowa and Wisconsin soundly while Purdue lost to them. It’s not one game here or there, it’s the whole season body of work. If things are even for the most part then you can go down to splitting hairs about individual games etc…
This.
Yes, but OSU and PSU didn't play the same schedules as Purdue. That's the point of divisions - you play the same schedules as everyone else in the division and the team with the best record is the "winner." I couldn't care less about rankings; that's just sports writers jerking off.
I’m talking about CFP rankings because that’s what will determine playoff spots. People may not like the committee but at least they actually watch the games and put some effort into it, more than most of these other rankings.
But Purdue didn't "have an opportunity for a playoff spot" ... Purdue could have won by 30 last night and they weren't getting a playoff spot. Same as Utah, same as Kansas State, same as LSU. These conference championship games were not play-in games. Hell, they couldn't even get you knocked out of the playoffs (as TCU proved).
I’m not talking about yesterday.
But they won't be for a playoff spot, as Utah and Kansas State just proved. They should be (imho), but they won't be. Personally, I think the playoffs should be the five conference winners (as determined by the conference), any undefeated teams (non Power 5) and then 0 to 3 at large teams. But they don't really care about my opinion.
What do you mean they won’t be for a playoff spots? They will be in the future in a 12 team playoff. Utah would’ve gotten a top 4 seed and a bye and KSU would be in. TCU and USC would’ve made it well but they would’ve lost their byes they had going into the weekend.
We are playing for the Pinstripe Bowl. Never heard of this CCG, what is that?
That’s part of the Rutgers Football problem..blind loyalty to a HC who clearly is not a B1G HC.
Kevin warren doing Kevin warren things. Let’s hope someone with smarts talks to him
Well of course not this year but these conferences are scrapping divisions not for the present but for the future. They have an eye on the 12 team playoffs and trying to ensure that the teams in their conferences with best seasons have the best shot to get in.
It's going to be a delight watching Michigan and Ohio State playing back-to-back weeks every year to end the season. *Fart Noise*
I just provided facts that didn’t fall in line with your claim of divisions being the only place to compare.
I feel like we are each having different debates. Divisions are the only place where teams are compared with MOSTLY the same schedule. It's not perfect because of the crossover games, so ideally either they would eliminate crossover games or don't have them count for conference standings. The rest of your post is about the divisions being unbalanced, which I've been saying this whole time should be addressed by rebalancing them. Scrapping them just exacerbates the problem that we both pointed out, which is that it doesn't make much sense to compare win and loss records of teams that play different schedules. You provided a great example of how a 33% variation in the schedule can skew the standings. Now imagine you get rid of divisions and you have one team playing a conference schedule that is 67% different than another team's conference schedule. That doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse.
This is the easiest solution
Man you think they are gonna give us a schedule break, we will see Michigan,State Penn and Ohio State every year and the will probably replace Indiana with USC or UCLA. Those are the 2 teams that will get a break, think they won't help to ensure that the West Coast teams make a bowl in 24,25 and 26. Its about the $$$.
Agree. What some people fail to grasp is that the B1G doesn't care if the teams in its two biggest markets, not including LA yet, are competitive, let alone successful. The B1G let Northwestern flounder for decades and didn't lift a hand to help them, they only wanted access to the Chicago market, not a winner in Chicago. Same deal for us, the B1G doesn't care if we go 1-8 in the conference for all eternity, as long as they have access to the NY market. Therefore, we will not get a scheduling break no matter what the conference format. The West Coast teams will want access to the NY market, our schedule will not get any easier even if they get rid of the divisions.
As is, Rutgers and Maryland, despite having teams that would consistently beat 1/2 the teams playing in bowl games, have empty stadiums. Yes, my proposal would help ensure better records and better attendance for the bottom half of the league. As you are aware, this is all about money. That's why the NFL does this.
Did you really mean to say that Rutgers "would consistently beat 1/2 the teams playing in bowl games?" I find that difficult to believe.
The NFL has a draft and owners spending billions to buy (and hundred plus millionevery year), because of the opportunity to win. Other pro leagues too.
I understand and respect your POV on this. But this is all about money now. It is to the advantage of the conference to prop up teams that are struggling and keep all stadiums full.
You have to be kidding, right? You know who runs the B1G, you are a smart guy based on your posts, you know the history and you know the chances of any of the powers in charge even considering that type of proposal. This isn't the NFL, this is a conference whose main objective is to see that Michigan and OSU win football games, period, and if that ever stopped being the case, they would realign the conference in a nano second. The rest of the participants are necessary foils. That is why many Penn State fans hate the conference and why USC fans over time are in for a rude awakening.
They can re-align the conference every year, nothing is going to stop USC from being a powerhouse if it is allowed to spend money to buy players. It has a bigger pool of donors than Michigan and Ohio State. It probably has the biggest pool of donors in the country, with the possible exception of Texas.
What you are saying is fair. But they did put OSU and UM in the same division as Penn State. So they literally split geographically by east and west (Purdue is slightly more west than U of Indiana) rather than have shenanigans to give those teams a more competitive advantage.
Teams in bowl games have to have at least a .500 record.. Of the four teams that Rutgers beat, all had losing records. None won over four games. So I am surprised, to say the least, that you believe that our team would "consistently beat 1/2 the teams playing in bowl games."
Bottom line, don't look for the B1G to give us any help out of this mess, we have to dig ourselves out of this hole.
BTW, my recollection -- I'm probably wrong -- is that as of 1958, the NFL East consisted of the New York Giants, the Philadelphia Eagles, the Washington Redskins, the Cleveland Browns, the Detroit Lions, and the Chicago Cardinals (soon to move to St. Louis). The West was the Baltimore Colts, the Pittsburgh Steelers, the Chicago Bears, the Green Bay Packers, the San Francisco 49ers, and the Los Angeles Rams. Shortly after that, the Minnesota Vikings and the Dallas Cowboys entered as expansion teams.
