Completely Bats 14-Team Big Ten Proposal
It's so crazy it might work
And now for something completely different: I'm on record that the idea of a 14-team Big Ten is basically insane. But if, hypothetically, this occurs, this is a completely insane way of tackling the insane topic of a 14-team college football conference that's so crazy it might work.
The Big Ten implements a limited promotion/relegation structure that sees full-round robins within each group and significant interaction between groups. They add a ninth conference game.
Bo/Woody Group
Top five teams.
Play: each other (4), three in group two (3), two in group three (2).
Tiller/Mason Group
Middle four teams.
Play: each other (3), three in group one (3), three in group three(3).
Williams/Dinardo Group
Bottom five teams.
Play: each other (4), three in group two (3), two in group one(2).
At year's end, the following things happen:
1) the bottom team in group one and the top team in group two swap groups.
2) ditto for groups two and three.
3) the second-to-last team and second-place team in each group plays a playoff game to see whether they stay in their group or switch.
4) The top two teams play a championship game. One team is always the winner of group one. The other team could be the second place team in group one or a really good group two or three winner: any undefeated (in conference) group two/three winner gets an auto-bid to the championship game. If there are two, group two gets priority. If the second-place Group 1 team has the same record as a group two or three team and the lower team has a H2H win, they get the bid. There would probably be some complicated formula that would allow lower division teams into the game if they outperformed the group one teams sufficiently.
Why do this?
It would be pretty intense, right? Every team in the middle group would be clawing to advance or descend. Everyone in the top group would be clawing for the conference title or to avoid getting relegated. The teams at the bottom would be playing to advance and would have a better shot at bowl eligibility. Almost every game in the Big Ten would be critical. No one would be fighting for the Alamo Bowl, they'd be fighting for the right to compete for the conference championship.
Also, it creates a lot more quality matchups between top teams and minimizes face-beatings. All the good teams you want to see play will play. You can even protect a rivalry or two by guaranteeing that if rivals are in different groups they will play each other.
Bonus: It sidesteps the debate about whether to make Big X divisions geographically coherent or wildly unbalanced.
Why not do this?
College football teams can vary so wildly from year to year that the best team in the conference might not make the championship. Earlier this decade, Penn State went from two consecutive losing seasons that would have found them in the bottom group to an 11-1 Orange Bowl winning team.
It's really complicated.
The NCAA would have to sign off on not only a crazy championship game but two other championship-ish games, and they probably wouldn't. And it would blow everyone's minds.
February 11th, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:08 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:11 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:32 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
Overall, I like it. When preparing to throw away 70 years of tradition, don't consider half-measures, do something revolutionary!
February 11th, 2010 at 12:16 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:27 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:28 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:48 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:29 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:46 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:49 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:53 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 1:23 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 12:56 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 1:18 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 1:30 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 5:31 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 1:20 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 2:56 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 3:22 PM ^
February 11th, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^
February 12th, 2010 at 8:36 AM ^
Comments