Would a Big Ten Championship Game Help?
One of responses in a forum post got me to thinking about whether a Big Ten Championship game would be helpful in propelling a team to the MNC game.
The short answer is no. Analysis follows: let's see what couldhave happened the past 3 years.
- 2008 Last year Ohio State and Penn State shared the Big Ten Championship. They probably would have played in a hypothetical B10 championship... but PSU had already beaten OSU earlier in the year. Even had they played a championship game, PSU would not have gone to the MNC game had they won, and OSU (and the B10 in general) probably would have lost out on the 2nd BCS bid. Reverse the situation and OSU doesn't get to the MNC with a win, and PSU may lose a BCS bid if they lose. The net result is negative: one BCS game, a bunch of teams bumped down a peg, and a random mediocre Big Ten team may get shut out of a bowl.
- 2007, The Michigan-Ohio State game has a slightly different meaning. If Michigan wins, The B10 championship is suddenly Michigan-Illinois. If Ohio State wins, the B10 championship is Michigan-OSU. Playing the hypothetical game here can take you to all sorts of different places. Anyways, tOSU won, and In the 1-2 week after rematch, Henne and Hart are still banged up meaning we probably lose again. If OSU wins they still go to the MNC, while Michigan still goes to the Citrus Bowl. If OSU loses, they probably don't go to the MNC game, Michigan goes to the Rose Bowl, OSU probably gets an at large BCS bid, and Illinois is shut out of the BCS. There is no possible gain here in Big Ten terms, they have 2 BCS teams regardless, but they could potentially lose a MNC contender.
- 2006, UM and OSU have a titanic showdown in The Game. This is where it gets interesting. If UM loses, it would prompt a rematch in the B10 championship, as they had beaten 1 loss Wisconsin early in the year. If Ohio State loses, then what? Michigan would have beaten both teams, both with 1 loss. Who plays in the B10 game? Assuming OSU wins the regular game again, the Big Ten Championship is still fraught with peril. If OSU wins again they still get to go to the NC, and Michigan is eliminated from any talk about going to the National Title game. If Michigan wins, there's a 4 team logjam at the top, with UM, UF, USC, and OSU, as well as a 1 loss UW team that would probably be out of the running. The MNC has the potential to shut out both Big Ten teams, and let UF and USC play. The Big Ten had a legitimate shot at putting 2 teams in the national title game, and in this scenario, could end up with 0.
There are plenty of other messy scenarios out there. What happens in the case of a 3 way tie (ala the B12 last year). Hell, the Big Ten has even had a 4 way conference championship tie, what then? Sure the Big Ten could split into divisions, but who's the 12th school? Bringing back U-Chicago's athletics? Will we change our name (Because you have to admit 11 schools in the Big Ten is pushing it, 12 would just make it too confusing) to the Big Lake Conference? Do we go to 10 schools? Are we kicking Northwestern out?
Oh, and if you were wondering, there's no way a B10 championship would have helped in: 2005 (12-0 Texas/USC), 2004 (12-0 USC/Oklahoma), 2002 (12-0 OSU/Miami), 2001 (Undefeated Nebraska/Miami), 2000 (Oklahoma, 1 loss FSU. Big Ten Champ was 4 loss Purdue), 1999 (Undefeated VTech/FSU), or 1998 (Undefeated Tennessee/FSU)
The only time a championship game could have hepled was in 2003, when 1 loss Michigan wins the Big Ten. That year, 1 loss Michigan and USC were on the outside looking in while 11-1 LSU and Oklahoma were playing for the NT. We were a distant 4th to the 3 other teams, but a Big Ten championship game MAY (may!) have pushed us over the edge.
1 opportunity to improve the Big Ten's situation out of 11 isn't really great. You have to trade that off with 3 potential opportunities that a Big Ten team can stumble and not go to the NT game. And yes, a conference championship would most likely bring in lots of revenue and exposue. However, without a championship game, the Big Ten has one of the easier routes to the National Title game, and it looks like a championship game would be an obstacle for a perfect team more often than it would be to boost a 1 or 2 loss Big Ten team in.
Obviously this doesn't factor in divisions or a twelfth team, but those two factors cannot be ignored. For example, we would more than likely be in the same division as Ohio State to prevent The Game from happening twice. That creates a massive shift in the power of the conference and the way these things shake out. Let's use the most commonly thought up divisional alignment and say, Syracuse because they would have been a non factor during this period:
EAST: Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Indiana, Syracuse
WEST: Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Iowa, Purdue
In this example, Penn State has a rematch with Iowa in the 2008 title game. If Iowa again pulls the upset, they go to the Rose Bowl and Penn State is a definite maybe for an at-large bid. Ohio State is in either the Citrus or Outback Bowl. If Penn State avenges the loss, they go to the Rose Bowl and Iowa heads to the Citrus Bowl. In this situation, 10-2 Ohio State is still in the picture for an at large bid to the BCS and likely gets it.
In 2007, we get Ohio State and Illinois. If Illinois repeats, they go to the Rose Bowl and Ohio State likely gets an at large bid and we still go to the Citrus Bowl. If Ohio State wins, they still qualify for the title game but Illinois is likely knocked out of BCS contention and takes our place at the Citrus while we head to the Outback.
In 2006, Ohio State plays Wisconsin. If the Buckeyes win, everything remains as it was... they go to the title game, we go to the Rose and Wisconsin heads to the Citrus. If the Badgers win, they go to the Rose and Ohio State gets an at large bid. Meanwhile, we're still ranked high enough to be in the BCS, but we're forced into the Citrus because there are already two teams ahead of us.
As to your later points... it's a gross simplification to say something like "Only option is Chicago coming back lolol"... there is a commonly held shortlist for Big Ten expansion (Missouri, Pitt, Syracuse, Notre Dame and, less frequently these days, Rutgers) that have been discussed at length. Rename the conference? Why? The Atlantic 10 has 15 members and nobody ever mentions it. The fact is Big Ten expansion is going to come within the next decade and we might as well accept it and have fun speculating who it will be. When Delany steps down, one of the first moves the conference will make is an exploration into a title game and expansion.
First and foremost, he did not say U-Chicago was our only choice. Or even a choice. He was making light of the fact that there are no great Big 10 expansion options. And there aren't. The only reasonable options make no sense geographically, or hurt the conference's overall strength (or maintain they don't want to do it).
However, having gone to a MAC school, I can tell you that conference title games are a poor design by definition. There's nothing like having a better record than another team, having already beaten them in the regular season, and then having to face them again when your star back has turf toe.
"There's nothing like having a better record than another team, having already beaten them in the regular season, and then having to face them again when your star back has turf toe."
Exactly. I hate all conference championship games with a passion, and this is the reason. They are entirely superfluous, and especially in football, reduce the meaning of the regular season. (I understand that there a couple of teams that don't play each other, but more often than not you are simply repeating an earlier game.) A national title playoff is appropriate because of the scattered nature of the top teams, but a conference title game is not IMO.
This is one of the biggest problems that I have with conference championship games and is one of the reasons that I really like the MGoPlayoff model.
If it wasn't clear, I was making a joke. Big Ten expansion may loom in the future, but outside of the obvious Notre Dame, there are no real attractive candidates so far. This could change if Syracuse climbs back to respectability, if Rutgers can make an extended run.
Regardless you are missing my main point, I was trying to disprove the theory that by simply having a title game, the Big Ten could send more teams to BCS games/National Title games. From what we know of the BCS era, it could have only hurt us, by potentially knocking teams out of contention rather than sneaking more in.
I've thought about a B10 title game and had long discussions about it. To me, the most important part of a B10 title game would be to have one that doesn't diminish the importance of any game, especially any rivalry game, most especially the Michigan-OSU game.
Sicne I don’t forsee a future where we have a B10 title game but still only have 12 members in the B10, I’ve focused mostly on the logistics of a B10 title game when we have 12 members.
To solve the problem, I simply added two rules:
1. A B10 title game shall not be played unless there are 2+ teams with the same conference record
2. In the event of rule 1 being satisfied, if there are only two teams with the same conference record, a B10 title game shall only be played if and only if the two teams have not already played each other; if they have played each other than the winner of the B10 will be whichever team won that game
This obviously means that Michigan and OSU will never meet in the B10 title game as it’s impossible for the teams to have not played each other. It also guarentees that the B10 title game will never be between two teams from the same division as they will have all played each other, thus it will act just like a normal title game between divisions but it’ll only happen every couple of years.
The obvious problem comes when more than just two teams have the same conference record. There are many solutions that could be used for this. Personally, I advocate rewarding the two teams that had the hardest road to their record, thus I would say that the two teams that must be considered to be allowed to play in the B10 title game would be the two teams with the hardest strength of schedule. This isn’t the only way it could be done but it’s the way that I think would result in the strongest scheduling by teams.
Regardless, once the tie had been broken and the two teams decided on, then the additional two rules would be applied. If the two teams then still needed to play, it would be done.
One of the big advantages of this in my mind is that it’s possible to split up the conference into divisions and have the divisions be fairly even. Thus, Michigan and OSU could be in separate divisions as putting them in the same division would almost certainly make that division the hardest division every year. Then, it would just have to be a part of the scheduling that Michigan and OSU still meet every year as the last game of the year for them.
I’ve tried to divide the teams into divisions (normally using ND as the 12th team) and have them be fairly balanced while still including geography as a factor in the selection. I haven’t come up with divisions that I actually like and think would be fairly balanced every year.
Let’s see what this does to the B10 in the last few years. Since I can’t figure out every scenario involving ND as the 12th team, I went with Syracuse for the 12th team and assumed that they would never win the conference or end up tied for it.
- 2008: PSU and OSU tie but PSU beat OSU head-to-head so there’d be no title game
- 2007: OSU won the B10 outright
- 2006: OSU won the B10 outright
- 2005: PSU and OSU tie but PSU beat OSU head-to-head so there’d be no title game
- 2004: Iowa and Michigan tie but Michigan beat Iowa head-to-head so there’d be no title game
- 2003: Michigan won the B10 outright
- 2002: Iowa and OSU tie and never played each other, thus there is a B10 title game
He was making light of the fact that there are no great Big 10 expansion options. And there aren't. The only reasonable options make no sense geographically, or hurt the conference's overall strength (or maintain they don't want to do it).
I'm not sure how you are defining reasonable in this context. Reasonable as in, likely to happen, or reasonable as in "they're worthy enough"? And geographically... do you mean the school would have to be in the midwest? I find it hard to believe that there are zero options. Pittsburgh, ND, Cincinatti and Missouri, to me, seem feasible (from a geographic perspective.) The likelihood of it happening is pretty slim, but you never know.
ND doesn't want to. They've made that pretty obvious. I feel like Mizzou is just a little too far out. It's a bit much to travel. I may be mistaken, but I feel like you'd be hard pressed to get anything but Mizzou fans at their games, and to get any of their fans at away games.
Pitt and Cincy, maybe, but are they really going to enhance the Big Ten's national profile?
Definitely agree on ND. They have no financial incentive to join the big ten. Additionally, they enjoy the freedom to schedule games as they see fit. How would they maintain having USC/Stanford rivalries on their schedule? What would this do (if anything) to the annual Michigan/ND contract?
I can't speak for Mizzou fans, since I don't know (m)any; but, that might even prove you to be right as well. I do think they make more sense in the Big 12 conference, I just wanted to make the geographic case for Mizzou. It's about the same drive to Minnesota. (But I understand the 10 hour drive is pretty brutal.)
Although it doesn't have the history of an ND, Cincinatti is on a huge upswing. (IMO) As far as competition goes, I think it does raise the overall bar for the big ten (would you rather play Indiana this year or Cincinatti?)
Pitt is probably a stronger pick up (at least perception wise), but would they really make the leap?
I don't know if either Pitt/Cincy would enhance the Big 10 national profile, but they definitely wouldn't hurt. If we really care about national perception, I think the mere fact that we have a big 10 title game would command more respect than our current process. If we added Eastern, then I think perception would be hurt.
I (unfortunately) do know Missouri fans, and they have no interest in joining the Big 10. Their main rivalries are with Kansas and Nebraska, and they'd have to give that up. The only school that Mizzou has any relationship with in the Big 10 is Illinois. And the Big 10 doesn't gain much, outside of perhaps a little bit more of the St. Louis market (although the Big 10 is already covered pretty well in St. Louis because of Illinois.)
Mizzou would in no way have to give up those rivalries. Plenty of major OOC rivalries exist: Florida/FSU, ND/USC, Michigan/ND, etc. Mizzou's pretty firmly entrenched in the Big 12, though, especially as they're becoming a power in the North division.
I've also heard people talk about iowa state? yeah they were worse than us last year, but maybe in a few years if they perk up, they should think about adding them if ND still doesn't want to. then YCU could fill their spot.
Hell no. The Big Tens national perception is already terrible enough. Adding Iowa State would be like scooping water into a sinking ship. We would look even worse with the Cyclones.
Cincinatti doesn't have the academic credentials. They'd be excluded on that alone.
Divisions would be the main factor in the teams that made it in.
They already get to cherry-pick a nice mini-BT schedule whenever they want. Playing UM, MSU, and Purdue, with an occasional game against another Big Ten school gives their schedule enough credibility to keep them overrated, and they don't have to travel too far to any of the schools.
The only way the Big Ten will ever get ND to join under the current circumstances is to boycott them until they do. Because of the money, that isn't happening. ND won't ever want to join the Big Ten until they become such a weak program that even their name won't justify their "Norte Dame Broadcasting Company" contract anymore.
When they become that weak, the Big Ten won't want them anymore.
Conference Championship games are played between the division champions, and not the two best teams in the conference. Taking the Big 12, how many times in the past 5-10 years have Texas and Oklahoma been the best two teams in the Big 12? Fairly many. How many times have they played in the championship? Zero. Last year, you argue that UT, Okla, and TT are the 3 best teams in the B12. Only Okla played in their championship game.
Even if you mandate that the game is the best 2 teams in the conference, how many years (in the B10) would that be UM vs tosu? This would be redundant SO often. AND it would minimize the importance of THE GAME.
The only reason that it works in the SEC is that they generally get 2 teams that haven't played, but are on the same level. So that game is between 2 top 10 teams. AND their divisions are relatively equal, even through the ebbs and flows of power teams and talent pools. The only way that the B10 could hope to accomplish this is to add Notre Dame -- nobody else nearby has the national prestige to break into the top end of the conference (after they fire their satellite and hire a coach) and then break up the "big 4" (UM, tOSU, PSU, ND), the "mid 4" (MSU, Wisc, Ill, Iowa) and the "bad 4" (NW, Minn, IU, PU) into two different divisions that make geographical sense that still make the traditional rivalries go. I don't think this is realistic.
mainly because i think it would devalue THE Game, which normally is a pusedo champ game anyway ... the game should be our last non bowl game of the season
As I have posted, and as the OP infers, the Big Ten still has one of if not the easiest routes to the NC game. The only thing that adding a hokey title game will accomplilsh is to give the champion (this should almost always be UM, OSU, or PSU from here on out) another chance to lose and get knocked out of the NC game.
I'm still in favor of a playoff with the first round played during title game week. Let conferences decide whether or not they want their championship games to be in a round of sixteen (or maybe a twelve-team draw) or if they want to seed the teams nationally.
I'm for seeding nationally and mixing things up a little bit. If it ends up Oklahoma-Texas, Florida-Alabama, or UM-OSU, there might be complaints from some parts of the country, but at least there would be no doubt that the teams had earned their way to the game.
Besides, does anyone really think Utah would have beaten Alabama if it were part of a playoff to determine the National Champion? I'm guessing that most who do reside in Utah.
This post got me thinking about why we are even discussing a possible championship game in the first place. I agree with most of the comments above on the pro's and con's. It seems a big issue most people have with the Big 10 scheduling is that we are done playing football (out of sight, out of mind) much earlier than a lot of other conferences due to the lack of a Big 10 title game.
So that brings me to the reason I am writing. Why not arrange some type of game a week or two after the season is over with one of the other conferences that also lack a championship game? The Pac 10 jumps out to me initially. Heck, it could even be organized along the lines of the "Big 10/ACC challenge" in basketball. This way, the Big 10 (or just the participating teams) would gain more exposure and potentially boost their bowl resumes. Plus, I would love to see a home-and-home series against USC or UCLA in December weather. I know it would most likely be next to impossible to get teams to sign on to this, but I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding Big 10 teams playing non-conference games in December in an effort to stay relevant (and given the fact that a Big 10 championship game seems unlikely).
I'm sorry, but any argument for competent geography in Big Ten expansion went out the window when we added a team that is half way between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and is 5 hours from the nearest school in the conference.
The problem is, as long as the BCS holds a spot for them every year, there is no reason for them to join a conference. If the BCS could force them to join a conference they would jump at the B10. Without that scenario, the NBC $$ and BCS $$ make ND too profitable on their own.
Pitt, Syracuse, Mizzou, Cinci don't "add" to the B10. The B10 won't expand unless it gets a school that adds to the quality, prestige and marketability of the Conference.
As far as divisions and a Championship game go, The Game will cease to exist if a championship game is added and much of the tradition that has been built over the years with that rivalry will go away.
On the other hand, if we lose many more to tosu, there won't be a rivalry to speak of anyway.
Why will they go away? Did they go away when we played in Hawaii the week after the Ohio State game in 1998? I wish people would know what the hell they're talking about.
I completely disagree with the idea that in 2006 Michigan and Ohio State could both have been excluded from the MNC game.
USC is irrelevant--the second spot in the MNC game was down to Florida and Michigan. If Ohio State wins, they are obviously still in. If Michigan wins, there's no possible way that USC jumps Michigan when we were ahead of them even before an extra hypothetical win over OSU.
So if Michigan wins the championship game rematch, it's down to Florida, Michigan, and Ohio State for the two spots in the game. At the minimum, one Big Ten team makes it into the MNC, and I think it's pretty likely that there's a third (third!) game between Michigan and Ohio State to settle the championship.
I don't agree with the details of your analysis, but I still came to the same conclusion. There are two main routes to the NC game:
-Go undefeated in a weaker conference
-Have one loss in a strong conference
Right now the Big Ten is a weaker conference, so we are better off having just the regular season to maximize the chances of an undefeated team. If our conference schedule was stronger than the Big 12 but they leaped ahead due to the championship game, then we should add a championship game too. The SEC, due to having a strong conference schedule, benefited from having a championship game in 2006 (2008 was a push, 2007 was a benefit or possibly a push if Georgia would have made it in otherwise).
Don't like a Big Ten Championship game. You want to put in some byes and stretch the season a week, maybe 2. Yeah, okay as long as its voluntary. We can plan for 12 teams when that happens. And did I see a comment suggesting we open with OSU in 2010? That's funny.
Unless,of course, it is a night game with Metallica rawk blasting and smoke machines and neon maize jerseys and flamed helmets. Have the Blue Angels drop off a Green Beret via jet pack to bring the game ball.
What could possibleye go wrong?
There are no options for a 12th team right now outside of Notre Dame. Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, West Virginia, and especially Cincinnati (35,000 seat stadium? PLEASE!) make absolutely no sense. They do not increase the footprint, especially into new areas or areas that would be interested.
And this won't be too much about academics. The Big Ten needs a football SPLASH. Someone sexy, otherwise, the college football world goes, "Um yeah. They just added another Minnesota. WHOOPEEE!" And to add a 12th team just to add a 12th team and a championship game, thereby jeopardizing or confusing existing rivalries would be STOOPID.
Why do you think it hasn't happened? The Big 10 still longs for Notre Dame, and no one else makes sense unless it's a Biggie that wants to bolt from another conference. And the Big 10 will stay with 11 teams for at least the next 10-15 years unless Notre Dame or another Big Timer wants in.
Comments