PAC 12 to change conference championship game format
This means the theoretical dream scenario of a team playing each other in the regular season, conference playoff, and overall playoff is now possible.
That's always been possible. This just makes it more likely.
not sure how this is a good thing for us since we're not in the western (cupcake) division. if we beat ohio, great, but if not then its highly likely that a subpar team from the western division still gets to square off against either ohio or us, with occasional sparty/PSU input.
Please tell me that in the case of a 3 way tie all 3 teams play each other at the same time, same space, and in the case of a 2 way tie for 2nd place, both teams combine their rosters to take on the 1 seed. In all honesty, what the hell would they do in the case of three 1 loss teams or one 0 loss team and more than 2 1 loss teams?
I believe the current tiebreaker after head-to-head records is the highest-rated team in the CFP. Which means it will be pretty easy to figure out.
Possible Solution: if Star Trek could come up with Three-dimensional chess, why can't the B1G figure out a way to modify a football field and rules and allow three teams to compete with each other at one time?
Uh, no I don't think so. Isn't it more likely that the BIG west-equivalent team lost 2 games, whether to an East crossover or because they're not great, and so it would be:
OSU: 9-0
UM: 8-1
UW: 7-2
But Wisconsin still goes bc they won the division. That's the problem.
This is bad for every team in the cupcake division that used to get a shot at the BIG champ, even though none of them won it. And it's good for all teams in the East that felt they were the 2nd best in the division and wanted a BIG champ rematch.
Call me whatever you like, but any scenario where we might have to beat OSU twice to win the B1G, I want no part of.
Exactly. Can’t for the life of me see why a Michigan fan would want the B1G to follow suit.
Say what you want about the Big Ten and the divisional power imbalance, but the current setup is as favorable as possible for Michigan. They never have to play OSU twice, and M/OSU/MSU play comparable schedules. Just wait until MSU stops having to play OSU, and winning The Game just earns you a rematch.
This is not good for Michigan. No other school will end up with more difficult permanent games in the schedule.
So what the hell is the point of divisions then?
Just do what the B12 does
Easier for the Big 12 to do it considering they only have 10 teams instead of 14 like the B1G. Everyone plays everyone and it’s simple. Gaps in the schedule and it can get complicated
Let’s just make the damn super conference already
This would be a horrible thing for Michigan and the Big Ten. It means constant rematches with Ohio State. I much prefer to get a patsy from the Big Ten West in the title game; there's no real prestige to winning the division, so who cares that northwestern makes it to the odd title game? It makes even less sense in the Big 12's round robin format. Abolish conference title games
I love Michigan pride/arrogance, but in a given year, without flu/snow, we could not beat OSU once, let alone twice in a row. Just ask any pizza deliver man at your front door.
Why would it mean "constant rematches" between OSU and U-M?
Looking at the 1993-2010 era (11+ team conference, pre-divisions), it would have happened 4 times (1998, 2003, 2006, 2007). But there are 4 other match-ups that would have occurred multiple times, U-M/OSU isn't that much of an outlier.
---------
Showing my math for that era:
1993 - Wisky vs OSU (both tied for first, no others tied).
1994 - PSU vs. OSU (distinct 1st and 2nd).
1995 - NW vs. OSU (distinct 1st and 2nd).
1996 - OSU vs NW (both tied for first, no others tied)
1997 - U-M vs PSU (U-M distinct 1st, PSU was 2-0 amongst the 3 teams tied for 2nd).
1998 - OSU vs U-M (3 teams tied for 1st: OSU was 1-0, U-M 1-1, Wisky 0-1 in round robin).
1999 - Wisky vs MSU (Wisky distinct 1st, MSU beat U-M head-to-head for 2nd).
2000 - Purdue vs NW (3 teams tied for 1st: Purdue 2-0, NW 1-1, U-M 0-2 in round robin).
2001 - Illinois vs U-M (distinct 1st and 2nd).
2002 - OSU vs Iowa (both tied for 1st, no others tied).
2003 - U-M vs OSU (U-M distinct 1st; OSU beat Purdue head-to-head for 2nd).
2004 - U-M vs Iowa (both tied for 1st, no others tied).
2005 - PSU vs OSU (both tied for 1st, no others tied).
2006 - OSU vs U-M (OSU distinct 1st; U-M beat Wisky head-to-head for 2nd).
2007 - OSU vs U-M (OSU distinct 1st; U-M beat Illinois head-to-head for 2nd).
2008 - PSU vs OSU (both tied for 1st, no others tied).
2009 - OSU vs Iowa (OSU distinct 1st; Iowa beat PSU head-to-head for 2nd).
2010 - MSU vs Wisky (both tied for 1st, no others tied)
-----------
beyond that, for those interested (the match-ups do tend to favor a cross-divisional final in this era, simply due to more unbalanced schedules vs the 1993-2010 era):
2011 - MSU vs Wisky/U-M (I have no idea how that latter tie gets broken: PSU is out of the 2nd place tie though because Wisky beat them).
2012 - Nebraska vs U-M (distinct 1st and 2nd - once we consider OSU & PSU were ineligible).
2013 - MSU vs OSU (distinct 1st and 2nd).
2014 - OSU vs Wisky/MSU (another case: unclear how 2nd place tie gets broken).
2015 - Iowa vs MSU (Iowa distinct 1st; MSU beat OSU for 2nd).
2016 - PSU vs OSU (both tied for 1st, no others tied).
2017 - Wisky vs OSU (distinct 1st and 2nd).
2018 - OSU vs U-M (3 way-tie for 1st; OSU 1-0, U-M 1-1, NW 0-1 in round robin).
2019 - OSU vs Wisky (OSU distinct 1st; Wisky 1-0, Minn 1-1, PSU 0-1 in 2nd place round-robin).
2020 - COVID year where the B1G makes up their own rules!
2021 - U-M vs OSU (both tied for 1st, no others tied).
Good stuff. Replace the word constant with something like occasional, and I get where Wolverine15 is coming from. I don't really want to play Ohio State in consecutive games, though there is also some attraction to that. I don't agree with the abolish conference championship games, though. They're some great football.
It's a more difficult exercise to validate --- but I think 2006 was the only year where a OSU/U-M Championship game was guaranteed prior to the regular season match-up.
2007 for instance. If U-M had beaten OSU (as opposed to reality), then U-M is 7-1 and Illinois & OSU are 6-2. But Illinois had beaten OSU the week before, so the title game would have been U-M vs Illinois. So OSU had to beat U-M simply to get a chance at the hypothetical 2007 B1G title game.
I have no real problem with OSU needing to do it again. It's their own fault (because they lost to Illinois, a team U-M was able to defeat, on the road no less as opposed to at home) that they need to win 2 straight games against U-M to win the conference title.
---------
Edit. I was wrong. 2003 would have also been a OSU vs U-M title game, even if OSU beat U-M (as opposed to the real-life result). Purdue lost to both OSU & U-M, so they lose both possible 2nd place ties.
As for the other years:
1998 - title game is Michigan vs Wisky if Michigan had defeated OSU.
2018 - title game is Michigan vs NW if Michigan had defeated OSU.
2021 - title game is OSU vs MSU if OSU had defeated Michigan.
I know this seems like crazy talk and I can't believe I am saying it but if the B1G moves to this format, I say remove the divisions and even remove all the protected games and randomize the schedules. Yes, I know losing OSU (and MSU to a lesser extent) some years would be weird, but we would still play them most years, plus if we did not and had a good team, we would have the added shot of playing one of them in the championship. Kills me to say that but why put Michigan (and OSU) to a competitive disadvantage? We have already killed off most of the tradition anyway.
Imagine a year in which Michigan and OSU do not play in the regular season but each goes into the title game unbeaten. It would be epic.
There is no scenario in which I would ever be ok with a chance that Michigan does not play Ohio State. Conference titles are awesome and national titles are cool too but watching Ohio State fans after losing to Michigan is a much more enjoyable experience for me.
I get that and generally agree. But for example the shine from this year would be considerably less had we won the game and then gone on to lose to OSU the next week in the championship game. It would almost be like 42-27 didn't happen. Which it definitely did by the way. Not enough people are talking about that.
I want to play OSU, MSU and Minnesota every year.
Seems like there ought to be some innovative approach that has high likelihood of M playing OSU each year (maybe not guaranteed), without having to play twice.
Play 7 conference games (purposely not playing your top rival in these 7 games) with the top 8 teams being placed in a conference playoff and the other 6 teams playing in a losers bracket. In week 8, you play your rivalry games (if both teams are in the bracket, ie M plays OSU if both are in top 8, which seems likely in most years). 4 winners of "top 8" team games play continue playoff in week 9 (winners of these 2 games play in ccg, everyone else is done). Losing teams from "top 8" games go to losers bracket and rivals in the expanded losers bracket that hadn't already played would match up in week 9. You could even have a priority list of rivals. Efforts would be made to match up these priorities if those teams hadn't already played and to avoid rematchs.
So, lets say M priorities are 1) OSU, 2) MSU, 3) Minn ... Week 8, MI would play OSU if they end up in the same bracket (having not played them in "regular" season). Week 9, M plays MSU if they are in the same bracket and haven't already played or Minn if M and MSU are not in the same bracket or if M and MSU has already played provided M and Minn are in the same bracket for week 9 and haven't already played.
By my count, 4 of the 7 conference title games since 2015 would've been between teams from the East (I used overall record as a tie-breaker when the runner-up from the East had same record as leader in the West):
2016 (PSU-OSU)
2018 (OSU-UM)
2019 (OSU-PSU)
2021 (UM-OSU)
It would suck to have to face them in a rematch the years that we won. But it might be nice to get a second chance in the years that we lost (like 2018).
My UFR of this thread:
+2 for informative thread title
-1 for redundant thread
+1 because it was not obvious the other thread was referring to this topic
I wish we could live in a world where nuance was prevalent. In this case, I would like to see scenarios where Conference Championship Games are dependent on whether or not the top-2 teams played already. If not...sure have a CCG. If not and a scenario where it comes down to a Michigan-OSU game and both will finish top-2 regardless, a repeat game need not happen.
But that would eliminate $$$ and so my idea is literally the stupidest concept to conference commissioners and everyone who dips their toes in the pool of money college football...is.
This would be counter productive and lead to the B1G sitting at home on the day before selection Sunday. Just keep the divisions as is. The great thing about CFB is that all the different conferences are unique. Just because the Big 12 and PAC 12 have adopted this model, doesn’t mean the other leagues have to do it too.
Why do people want this/think its a good idea? Or think its good for Michigan?
Have fun complaining about the two teams in the BIG title game each year because of the schedules they played.
This sounds like a horrible idea if other conferences (cough SEC) are playing 8 conference games and championship game against the opposite side and 4 cupcakes. This basically adds a 10th game for the Big 10 champ to possibly lose and maybe lose a shot at the Playoffs with that 10th game being the hardest possible matchup.
I get the Pac-12 doing it for better ratings and to improve strength of schedule in a conference that has had a rough 7-8 years or so. But why would the B1G do it? Michigan's reward for beating OSU at home is to go to Indianapolis and try to do it again the very next week?
One of the few advantages of the unbalanced divisions (B1G East and SEC West in particular) is that getting to the title game is, in theory, easier. Winners of those divisions have played a tough schedule, they don't need more "prove it" games to get to the CFP.
The B1G is going to do what makes them the most money.
If that means hoping for a re-match of Michigan and Ohio St, the B1G will take it. Just like when they split them for the Legends and Leaders divisions
It would be interesting (no, not really) to play The Game with both teams having secured a spot in the championship the next week. Vanilla offenses, any starter with a ding of any sort resting.
I don't think the concept of having conference championships is compatible with the concept of a national playoff. Yet $$$. Hopefully, they'll go away when the playoffs expand.
While we are throwing out all tradition, if the B1G were to make this move I wonder if we should move the Michigan/OSU game elsewhere in the season to avoid playing consecutive weekends? It’s sacrilegious, but if we are going that way I don’t think we should allow revered tradition to keep Michigan at a competitive disadvantage.
Though in the Legends and Leaders era, the B1G did not seem concerned about consecutive weeks of Michigan vs. OSU, so maybe it doesn’t even matter at all.
If the playoff expands, hopefully conference championship games go away too. They’re already a pseudo-component of the current system.
I assume they'll create some pod-like system that will function as divisions in that it'll maintain consistent rivalries and limit the chances of the 2-3 best teams not meeting in the title due to unbalanced SoS.
I hope the B1G doesn't change anything. Frankly I don't understand the change to let each conference determine their champions. Was there some sort of uproar? I think the rule they should have changed was the number of conference games required. It is so unfair that the sec and acc only play 8 conference games.