Totally Bats: Big Ten Sans Divisions
Much as we hate to admit it, the B1G's two best teams just played a classic. And as much as I dislike these teams and their coaches, I hate it more that immediately after the game everybody was talking about the (probable) rematch in Indianapolis. Obviously a ton of things can and will happen between now and then, but these two teams are certainly the favorites to meet in the Inaugural playoff game. And by definition, that game will be more important than this game. It's not too hard to imagine that in a few years down the line, Michigan and Ohio will meet in Ann Arbor or Columbus with only 1 out-of-conference loss each - and absolutely nothing on the line, since the rematch a week later will define their seasons. While the M-OSU situation could be avoided by putting them in the same division, there's no getting around the fact that with a 12 team conference, a rematch in the title game is inevitable at some point. Unless we go with my totally bats idea.
What if the B1G played a round robin schedule (11 conference games) and worked out a deal with the NCAA that because of this, every team in the conference could play 13 games? (Isn't that deal-making how the SEC Title Game started this craziness off anyway?) Obviously, this would mean we only play a cupcake out of conference other than ND - but really, isn't that the scenario we're faced with after 2012 anyway? This also might mean a return to co-champs and other such nonsense, but since the Rose Bowl bid no longer goes to the co-champ who hasn't been to it for the longest time, we'll know who the "de facto" champion is anyway. I can already think of a few reasons it'll never happen (and feel free to post plenty more, BTCG=$$$$ for conference being #1) but am I just being incredibly old-fashioned in wanting a system like that instead of the current B1G setup, or are there any other MGoBloggers who'd rather have that?
October 23rd, 2011 at 2:20 AM ^
The out of conference games are too important and exciting to do this. 9 conference games is too much and hurts the conference nationally because of the higher number of necessary losses. Look at the PAC10 before and the BIG12 now.
October 23rd, 2011 at 2:31 AM ^
And no way the NCAA lets one conference go to 13 games without every other conf doing the same. And since they recently went to 12 games, and the bowl season gets longer and longer... no way we're going to 13 games. And AD's and coaches would hate a 13 game season for many many reasons.
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:08 AM ^
I think the point about the NCAA is true, and I can see coaches wouldn't be for it, but AD's look at an extra game as extra revenue with which to run the department, no?
October 23rd, 2011 at 6:17 AM ^
I tend to think there are a few conferences that have every reason to keep things as they are because of the current revenue picture. It may materially hurt a few smaller programs when we go back to 9 conference games, for there maybe teams that were scheduled by one or two school in, say, the B1G, that suddenly find themselves schedule by one one school or indeed none at all.
October 23rd, 2011 at 7:45 AM ^
I see your point, MAC teams would absolutely hate the payday that they lose from this, and plenty of other mid-majors as well.
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:31 AM ^
Seems like something like this would make a lot of sense if the NCAA instituted a tournament - increase the number of in-conference games to help better define who belongs in and who belongs out... Right now with the current system out of conference games often play a huge part in determining strength of schedule for bowl considerations.
October 23rd, 2011 at 3:37 AM ^
I personally wouldn't mind an extra game. Gives us an extra week of the best sport in America!
October 23rd, 2011 at 7:53 AM ^
would be unique, Crazy absurd and FUN....Its not like it would happen EVERY year just once in a blue moon..Why all the hysteria and Horror? its 2011...things have changed...catch up
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:14 AM ^
The scenario he laid out was more than back to back, it was back to back with the first game played given the certainty that they would meet again next week. Under that scenario, it is highly likely the first game would be pretty bland so as to save the "good stuff" for when it mattered.
October 23rd, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^
A scenario in which Michigan and OSU both have their respective divisions locked up regardless of the outcome of The Game is going to be pretty rare. If/when that ever does happen it's still the biggest rivalry game out there so I doubt it'll be a disappointing game.
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^
And if either team has a shot at getting into the championship game, that first game will mean something.
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:55 AM ^
Not my scenario and I suppose you could always argue that the game means pride, but under the OP's scenario (both teams entering the game with 1 out-of-conference loss) what exactly would the first game mean? It is the rematch that determines who wins the Big Ten Championship. If you're thinking that the first game has NC implications, that is fairly unlikely in the scenario since both teams already have a loss. Further, the goal is to win the Big Ten Championship.
It seems likely under this scenario, a two game strategy would be developed and the game plan of the first game would be to maximize the chances of winning the second game. This would likely result in a game plan for the first game which is different than if you were focusing solely on the first game.
Do I think the scenario will be a common occurence? No. Is it possible? Yes.
October 23rd, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^