Does having balanced divisions matter?
Unbalanced at first, now balanced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC_Championship_Game#Results
Balanced at first, now unbalanced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_12_Championship_Game#Results
Seriously, if Michigan and OSU are in the same division, go 11-0, meet, play, then the winner has to play a 8-4 Iowa team for the championship, does that diminish ANYTHING? Nope, it's a fucking sweet coronation for the winning team. And if the 12-0 loses to Iowa (I'm looking at you Penn State) then they don't deserve to be the conference champion despite the better record.
What's acceptable there anyway? 12-0 loses to 9-3? 10-2? What's the line at which the other division was weak and doesn't deserve the title if they upset the favorite?
Or is it that one division is strong, beats the shit out of each other then the 9-3 survivor plays a 11-1 "shitty" division team and wins (or loses, proving the shitty division wasn't that shitty)? I fail to see how it's an issue. The Nebraska-UT game was pretty sweet despite the records. Then again, UT did beat Colorado 70-3 in a B12 champ game in 2005. But shit happens man.
I just want someone to explain to me why equal division strength is a concern at all over, say, Academics or expanding the money pool.
Edit: Actually, just explain to my why it would matter at all, irrespective of anything else.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:15 PM ^
you're right in that it doesn't matter, but the big twelve game has been one sided (10-4 in favor of the south,) theoretically however, Nebraska and Colorado should be able to compete with Texas and Oklahoma. I don't think anyone saw those two programs taking a downswing when the game was put into place.
Edit: Same goes for Kansas State.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:55 PM ^
Nebraska going downhill was a surprise, but historically Colorado hasn't been very good. They came out of nowhere to be awesome under Bill McCartney, faded under his successor, Neuheisel, and have never returned. KSU, similarly, was an absolute football wasteland for years. It has returned to its traditional irrelevance.
Meanwhile, Texas and Oklahoma happened to both be in a temporary downswing when the Big 12 was founded, but historically they, along with NU, are two of the three main historical powers in the league - and Texas A&M, over the years, hasn't been that far behind. The B12 would have done better to have put Oklahoma in the North, IMO. The Texas schools are always going to have access to a lot of local talent, so it'd make more sense to overload the North to compensate. If it couldn't work geographically, they should have gone with an East-West setup that split up OU and UT.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:05 AM ^
Here's what I don't understand: why do we all assume that the divisions would have to be geographically separated? I get that it's sort of the intuitive way to divide a conference, but don't things like rivalries and balance seem more important that whether we can draw a line on the map that neatly divides all the teams?
It's not like you can say that the travel would be a huge problem, because all of the teams have already been playing each other. Why would it matter if one conference was made up of (to pick teams largely at random) PSU, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, MSU and Purdue, and the other was Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Pitt?
The only tricky part I can see is what to name the divisions, but presumably we can figure out something.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:09 AM ^
NOOOO! They don't matter at all. Let's put 11 teams in one division, and Northwestern in the other one.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:07 AM ^
I second this proposal. As a connoisseur of hyperbole I suggest you swap Northwestern for Indiana.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:18 AM ^
while your overall thoughts may be correct. i think the problem occurs from the belief(mine and obviously others) that while a nebraska might once in a while provide a great game for texas. the weaker division is nothing but a whipping boy for the other and that is never any good. i say somehow use a very complicated system based on the last 15 yrs and divide the conf. based on strength of team. that way each conference has a shot every yr not just that once in a blue moon that someone other than Mi, OSU, Penn. have a remote shot.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:45 AM ^
A subpar team has a better chance to win the conference by winning their division (without PSU/OSU/UM) with a 6-2 conference record (5-3 isn't outrageous) and then winning a one game playoff vs PSU/OSU/UM in the championship game.
Tennessee would have made like every SECCG in the 90s if it wasn't for Florida in the same division. If Florida and Tennessee were split, each year the game would have been the same. Same with UT and Oklaholma, 5 of the last 6 years would have been the same game. Having a weaker division actually makes it MORE likely for some teams to win the conference.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:02 AM ^
While TV probably isn't to concerned with how the divisions are balanced, I'm guessing they would much prefer a championship game that pits a couple of teams that are ranked pretty high vs a championship game with a 11-1 vs 9-3/8-4 team.
The people at CBS have probably been doing cartwheels the last couple of years with the Florida/Alabama match-up pitting top 5 teams against each other. Whereas the people at ABC have probably been hoping and praying that the Big 12 north would consistently get some solid teams.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:38 AM ^
A one-sided conference championship game would not get very good ratings unless the game had implications for who would go to the championship game.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:45 AM ^
My reasoning for desperately wanting balanced divisions is because of the very concept of what a championship game means.
I know that expansion, like everything else in college football, is basically just a financial decision.
But to ignore how things are and focus on how they should be for a minute, the decision to add a 12th team should be based on creating a better way to determine the Big Ten champion.
The current system results in co-champions more often than not because there are 11 teams and only 8 conference games. By adding a 12th team and making two divisions, the main goal is supposed to be that the TWO BEST TEAMS will face off in the Championship Game.
I know this is not always the case, but isn't that what the goal of a Championship game is supposed to be?
I hate watching Texas-Oklahoma play mid-season when they are both on the same side because most years they are the two best teams in the conference. In my mind, that is the basically the Big 12 Championship Game. What happens in December is just one more chance for the South winner to prove itself, or get tripped up.
THAT is why having balanced divisions matters. Because you are trying to create a system where the two best teams get to go for the roses.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:49 AM ^
"By adding a 12th team and making two divisions, the main goal is supposed to be that the TWO BEST TEAMS will face off in the Championship Game.
I know this is not always the case, but isn't that what the goal of a Championship game is supposed to be?"
No, in college football, that is not what the conference Championship's purpose is. The purpose of a 12 team championship game is to ensure that there are no more split conference championships, and increase exposure and revenue for the conference. It does this very well (exception: 2008 Big XII).
December 16th, 2009 at 2:04 AM ^
You can't force things to be even. If Iowa doesn't lose Stanzi to injury, they probably win the Big10. PSU blew hard in the early 2000s. UM is horrible right now. MSU always sucks. Even OSU had a couple down years in the Justin Zwick era.
Besides, for a small sample size bonus, the B12 game this year was supposed to suck and was awesome, and the SEC game this year was supposed to be awesome and sucked instead.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:46 AM ^
In my opinion, the only thing Divisions should be used for is to guarantee the games that are important to each fanbase every year.
By splitting east/west, all the rivals still play each other every year, with the exception of Indiana/Purdue (assuming Pitt). Having one guaranteed cross-over every year, similar to the SEC, should take care of this relatively small problem.
Give Michigan Minnesota every year, play for the Brown Jug. Then they get Pitt, PSU, OSU, MSU, and IU every year, and rotate the rest through. Who would honestly be unhappy with that?