Effects of B1G Realignment (aka Rutgers Ruins Everything)
So, in the aftermath of the Penn State and then Notre Dame games, I got to thinking about how individual events can have an outsized impact. Better officiating in the PSU game, or one additional catch and Michigan's right in the hunt for the Big Ten East title. Instead...
Then it hit me: This is all Rutgers' fault. Legends and Leaders went away in 2014 with the introduction of Rutgers and Maryland. Suppose it hadn't. Now, granted, teams' schedules would have changed, but...
If you keep everybody's records the same, these are the title games we'd have had:
- 2014: MSU (Legends) vs. OSU (Leaders) -- was OSU vs Wisconsin.
- 2015: Iowa vs OSU -- was MSU vs Iowa
- 2016: Michigan vs. PSU -- was PSU vs Wisconsin
- 2017: Northwestern vs. Wisconsin -- was OSU vs Wisconsin
- 2018: Michigan vs. OSU -- was OSU vs Northwestern
Now, I'm not saying Michigan would have won both of those games (although I'm sure Don Brown would have loved another shot at OSU last year). But the narrative would sure feel different if they'd won even one. (And Michigan did beat PSU by 39 points in Ann Arbor in 2016...)
Anyway, this is obviously academic; Michigan needs to play the hand they're dealt (and geographic regions do make more sense than Legends & Leaders ever did).
Still, if you were looking for one more reason to be angry with Jim Delany.. or with Rutgers... here you go.
October 30th, 2019 at 3:12 AM ^
Ahh yes. This feels good to think about?
October 30th, 2019 at 9:39 AM ^
Rutgers is the lump of charcoal in the Big 10 candy sack.
October 30th, 2019 at 3:39 AM ^
There are plenty of reasons to lament Rutger’s inclusion in the league, but I will grant you that this is yet a new one.
L&L was an absolute disaster and needed to end anyway. (I realize this post is mainly in good fun.)
October 30th, 2019 at 4:49 AM ^
Indeed, it's mainly in good fun... but it also goes to show how what a bad idea a 14-team conference is in the first place; it's almost impossible to get balance over the long term, and you rarely end up with the two best teams in the championship game. (The L&L setup wouldn't have put the two best teams in every year either, to be clear).
I don't see the Big Ten contracting any time soon, though, so I think this is just going to get worse...
October 30th, 2019 at 10:10 AM ^
That's what I don't like. Michigan and OSU will never play for a B1G title, at best only a berth in the title game. A lot of Michigan fans love tradition, but I would love a 7:30 Dec 1 M vs OSU B1G title game, on a neutral field, on national TV. Guarantee that would get more eyeballs than Alabama vs anyone in the SEC East.
October 30th, 2019 at 12:36 PM ^
It would be nice in the sense that it'd have been good for Michigan these past few years but I feel pretty iffy about Michigan vs Ohio State in back to back weeks. Really puts the winner of the first game in a tough spot tbh.
October 30th, 2019 at 10:17 AM ^
12 teams seemed perfect. Especially with a 9 game conference schedule. You only miss 2 teams per year, and if you are undefeated, and miss an undefeated, you'd see them in the championship game. Main issue is the balance of the two divisions, but I'm more ok with East/ West, especially with Michigan OSU playing once. I like the finality of playing once.
You play 4 years, you should get to play against every team in the conference home and away at least once.
October 30th, 2019 at 12:00 PM ^
You say over time but I don’t even think it was balanced from the start (East and West). Michigan, MSU, OSU, and PSU all in the same division?
October 30th, 2019 at 12:02 PM ^
At the time, PSU was an also-ran (Michigan wasn't much better), and Nebraska was expected to be a powerhouse.
Historically, MSU is an also-ran.
October 30th, 2019 at 12:07 PM ^
This.
October 30th, 2019 at 10:19 AM ^
At least we had the fun of having Paterno's name stripped from the trophy.
Cue the Judge.
October 30th, 2019 at 2:57 PM ^
The divisions are so unbalanced now that Leaders and Legends looks appealing. The East is brutal and will always be that way since there are 3 national level programs in the division with only maybe 1 in the West and that's second tier.
October 30th, 2019 at 4:03 AM ^
The big assumption here is that the B1G would have stayed at 12 and kept Legends and Leaders. Even if they did the former, I highly doubt they would have done the latter.
Remember the league was getting a lot of flak back then for splitting UM/OSU, as well as it being just dumb, arbitrarily split divisions. I think even if they would've added Mizzou/Texas or UVA or Pitt/Syracuse or whoever else was rumored at the time, or even if they had kept at 12, they would have still gone east/west, moving Purdue over to the east if necessary.
October 30th, 2019 at 4:44 AM ^
Oh, in reality, I agree. None of us liked the Legends and Leaders setup even beyond the stupid names. It just so happened that Michigan moved from what would have been the easier division to one of the two toughest divisions in college football.
This all has the benefit of hindsight, of course. At the time, PSU was down, Nebraska was thought to be up, and the divisions seemed to be reasonably balanced.
October 30th, 2019 at 11:54 AM ^
They need to rebalance somehow, rather than just wait indefinitely for someone besides Wisconsin to become good in the West. There are generally three top 15'ish programs in the East every year, for now and for the likely future.
The East winner has been the B1G champ every year since they went away from Leaders and Legends.
October 30th, 2019 at 10:27 AM ^
The division split was not arbitrary. It was designed to make the divisions as equal in strength as possible. The teams were divided into tiers according to their records.
They would have been better served to modify them somewhat to preserve rivalries. Instead of putting UM and OSU into the first tier and NU and PSU in the second, they could have put them all into one and kept UM and OSU together.
October 30th, 2019 at 2:21 PM ^
The B1G office wanted the possibility of an OSU-UM championship game. That's also why there was talk about moving The Game to October.
YUCK!!!!
October 30th, 2019 at 3:29 PM ^
Last game of the regular season forever!
October 30th, 2019 at 4:42 PM ^
Agree, I cannot see any other scenario than THE Game as the last game of the season
October 30th, 2019 at 9:25 PM ^
I agree Yuck, but it is already moved to the weekend after Thanksgiving which sucks too.
October 30th, 2019 at 5:12 AM ^
So not Maryland’s fault? Just Rutgers?
October 30th, 2019 at 8:20 AM ^
Oh, them too, absolutely. Rutgers is a deserving punching bag, but Maryland is just as out of place.
October 30th, 2019 at 9:39 AM ^
Nope, Maryland is blameless. I get to see Michigan at Maryland every other year. NJ is too far for me to drive so all fault in this is Rutger fault.
October 30th, 2019 at 5:26 AM ^
I shudder to think how a Michigan OSU rematch would've gone a week later in Indy. If you thought BPONE was bad this season, imagine consecutive weeks with losses to OSU
October 30th, 2019 at 6:05 AM ^
pretty sure this would've been the collective result....
October 30th, 2019 at 11:50 AM ^
Owning a cool coat? I'd take that.
October 30th, 2019 at 6:53 AM ^
I dislike divisions in general. Play everyone (except your two protected rivals) an equal amount instead of having effectively six protected rivals, which means that the others may as well not be in the same conference as you.
October 30th, 2019 at 7:22 AM ^
i'd go with only counting intra-division games with tie breakers choosing the CCG participants, and some expansion of the Playoffs.
2 team protected will still be unbalanced.
consider likely split for current east: teams.
M=osu, msu
osu=psu, M
msu=ind, M
psu=mary, osu
rut=mary,?
ind=msu, pu
mary=psu, rut
M & osu are disadvantaged.
October 30th, 2019 at 9:03 AM ^
One protected rivalry game is enough. I don't feel the need to play MSU every year and it would make scheduling much easier.
Play a round robin with 8 teams and OSU at the end. Conference championship game is the two best teams, even if that sometimes means a rematch on neutral ground.
But even if they keep the divisions, they could do a lot better with the scheduling. We shouldn't be playing any west team two years in a row, nor should we have to wait a damn decade to play Minnesota for the Jug.
October 30th, 2019 at 6:58 AM ^
I propose a trade with the ACC. Rutgers for Syracuse.
October 30th, 2019 at 7:00 AM ^
Hell, think about if we got Nebraska instead of Wisconsin with the crossover like OSU did. That's 9-4 in 2017 and Michigan is still 7-1 with a close road loss at Penn State as their only setback.
October 30th, 2019 at 8:16 AM ^
You’re forgetting the home loss to MSU
October 30th, 2019 at 9:37 AM ^
Sorry should’ve clarified. Meant we’d be 9-4 in 2017 and 7-1 this year.
October 30th, 2019 at 9:44 AM ^
Got it, that makes more sense to me now.
October 30th, 2019 at 8:52 AM ^
Maybe if we played Nebraska instead of Purdue, Speight stays healthy all year and we win all those close games, including Wisconsin.
October 30th, 2019 at 7:08 AM ^
There is no good reason for splitting a conference into Divisions. Play a revolving 9 game schedule and put 2 best teams in Championship game.
Divisions were created to ease travel. They may serve a purpose for some sports but not football where there are only 4-5 road games.
October 30th, 2019 at 8:20 AM ^
Totally agree. And it has a far better chance of assuring that the two best teams play for the championship. It is a far better benefit to the conference in the age of the playoff that the Conf championship game pits the two best teams against each other because the winner has a much stronger win to add to their resume.
October 30th, 2019 at 8:25 AM ^
Divisions were a requirement to play a championship game. I'm not sure we would have had them otherwise. The Big 12 was smart to petition for a rule change that the Big Ten should consider taking advantage of.
October 30th, 2019 at 8:30 AM ^
So would you be cool with not playing MSU & OSU in some years? Most fans would not
October 30th, 2019 at 8:53 AM ^
I could live without playing MSU every year. They're like service academies except our guys get hurt after the whistle against Sparty, not on cut blocks during the play.
October 30th, 2019 at 7:11 AM ^
Rutgers is so awful.
What an absolute waste for expansion.
October 30th, 2019 at 10:01 AM ^
Given the fact that the ACC, Big 12, and PAC-10 are filled with terrible teams I’m ok with having a couple easy conference wins on the schedule.
October 30th, 2019 at 7:31 AM ^
I never blame officiating for a loss unless that call either ends the game or could have. So, OSU I'm 2016, yup that's a tough 50/50 call that cost the game, but still close enough to go either way. PSU however, officiating didn't cost the game... plenty of time to overcome it...a dropped TD cost an opportunity to win, not even guaranteeing a win so it's hard to complain too much.
My hope for conference alignment...force all P5 conferences to have 12 teams, no divisions, no out of conference games, play everyone once, top two winning percentages play in conference championship. All P5 get playoff bids, then 3 at large bids. Allow regional games for home field advantage up until NC game, which is at neutral site.
October 30th, 2019 at 7:51 AM ^
Is that not a logical fallacy, though? Every call and every point is worth the same, regardless of when they are made in the game. A call that gives Penn State a touchdown in the first minute is worth the same as a call that gives them a touchdown in the final seconds. People only think the call matters more later because there's less time to respond or react to it.
I don't understand why college basketball and the NFL put emphasis on reviewing calls in the last minutes of a game without giving the same attention to the rest of the game. Case in point, that AWFUL extensive review of the last national championship game with Virginia and TTU. They spent minutes zooming in to microscopic levels to see that the ball that a Virginia player deflected out of bounds BARELY grazed a TTU player. Literally a call that is never, ever made at any point of a game decided the national championship because of overemphasized importance of the last minutes
October 30th, 2019 at 8:19 AM ^
People only think the call matters more later because there's less time to respond or react to it.
That is literally the exact reason it DOES matter more. "All the points count the same" is true in a technical sense, but leverage absolutely does matter - a ton. If a genie pops out and says, "You can have a four point lead at any point in this game, and you get to pick exactly what the clock reads," what are you gonna choose? 18 minutes to go in the first half, or 1 second to go in the second half? If you have a perfect play drawn up guaranteed to give you a basket, why would you ever use that play early? No, you wait til you really need that basket, or else just don't use it in that game.
The logical fallacy is ignoring leverage. What matters is your chance of winning the game. A play that increases your chances of winning the game by 10% is a lot more important than one that increases your chances by 0.5%. People say "yeah, but if you're up by 20 then it doesn't matter at all." True, but it took 10-20 plays to get you there instead of just one or two.
October 30th, 2019 at 8:21 AM ^
Is that not a logical fallacy, though? Every call and every point is worth the same, regardless of when they are made in the game.
I wasn't a philosophy major so I'm not sure. Here's how I think about it...one can assume the game is the game and until something different happens everything prior remains the same. So, at the end of the game nothing changes but the very last call which changes the outcome. However, you can't make that same case with something earlier because who knows how the rest of the game would play out if the score was different or there was a different set of circumstances. But, in my example nothing changes, but the last call and there's nothing after that so you don't have to worry about how that changes the rest of the game after the changed call.
October 30th, 2019 at 9:58 AM ^
This is the correct take. Saying a call in the first half cost you a game is not logical. Let's say the call that you think was missed is made in your favor. The entire game from that point forward is completely different. Watch Final Destination. Any of them. Once one moment changes, every moment from there moving forward is different. If the call in the PSU game that is being referred to happens in your favor, you guys could have won the game, or it could have gone the other direction, PSU turns the gas on because it's now a fight in the first half and it's a blowout. You never know.
October 30th, 2019 at 8:20 AM ^
' PSU however, officiating didn't cost the game... plenty of time to overcome it...a dropped TD cost an opportunity to win, not even guaranteeing a win so it's hard to complain too much."
I understand your point, but sometimes if officiating digs a big enough hole, you run out of time trying to dig your way out. (I understand that wasn't the case with Michigan vs PSU).
Also to your 1st point. A bad call that ends the game shouldn't matter to you either because the team had all game to pull ahead or play better in order to prevent themselves from even being in such a close game.
My personal opinion is that officials absolutely can change a game no matter when a call is made. One bad call typically doesnt move the needle for me, but multiple bad calls against one team is unacceptable. We have to have replay on pass interference!
October 30th, 2019 at 8:35 AM ^
Also to your 1st point. A bad call that ends the game shouldn't matter to you either because the team had all game to pull ahead or play better in order to prevent themselves from even being in such a close game.
I can never agree with an argument that says a team should have to blow out its opponent in order to avoid the effects of bad officiating, while the opponent can merely play well enough to keep it close. That's holding one team to a higher standard than the other and requiring them to play better than they should have to in order to win.