Why divisions anyway?
With all the recent pimp slapping we've been getting, I'd like to know why the conference needs to be split into divisions in the first place. There are 12 teams, so a conference championship game is going to be played regardless of what fans want. If we really want to conserve as much about the Big 10 as possible, why couldn't we just keep the one conference and send the top two teams to the conference championship? Same Big 10, just with an added conference championship game between the regular season and the Rose Bowl. This way we could still play OSU at the end of the regular season, and if in the aftermath of that game the top two teams are us and the buckeyes, then so be it; if not, the top two teams in the conference play.
Why so much love for divisions?
August 26th, 2010 at 10:36 PM ^
1. Have 2 divisions
2. ???????????
3. Profit
August 26th, 2010 at 10:44 PM ^
Having two divisions definitely beats collecting underpants...
The OP makes a very good point. Why should The Big Ten necessarily adopt something that's been done before.
The catch is that the NCAA requires two divisions to allow a conference championship game. But those guys seem to be eminently reasonable and flexible...
August 27th, 2010 at 1:37 AM ^
2+2 name?
August 26th, 2010 at 10:38 PM ^
I heard this discussed on Rivals Radio a few weeks ago, but it's hard to follow 'dem Southern boys sometimes. They seemed to think it would work and didn't really have a reason why it wouldn't. So I guess I've been wondering the same as it comes up
That said, I'm sure there are many downsides I'm not aware of. This conference deal is one topic I'm remaining purposely ignorant on - I just don't have the energy
August 26th, 2010 at 10:38 PM ^
thinking of the other large conferences, they all have divisions. Maybe following precedent, maybe scheduling would be too difficult otherwise, maybe profit as noted above...
August 26th, 2010 at 10:39 PM ^
For the simple reason that the NCAA requires a conference to be split into two divisions if you want to play a championship game. The reasoning for that, I don't know, but that's why.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^
How the hell are you gonna determine the top two teams? Having two divisions provides an easy tiebreaker (head-to-head) in case of an identical record. Without divisions, you can have multiple teams tied at the top, without a decent tiebreaker.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:47 PM ^
http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/102204aad.html
Not saying it's easy, but they do have a procedure for breaking ties.
How many times has there been a three or more way tie at the end of the season?
August 26th, 2010 at 10:48 PM ^
A tiebreak would be more complicated, but it could be done, much like how automatic bids work in bowls. If it weren't for the NCAA rule the others are talking about, I think it'd be the best scenario for Michigan.
August 27th, 2010 at 11:12 AM ^
You run into the same issues with tiebreakers in divisions. That's what caused the Texas-Oklahoma-Texas Tech fiasco. They were equal in every way and head-to-head was circular. So, they used the BCS, which basically meant that the team that lost first got to go to the Championship Game.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:40 PM ^
I believe the NCAA requires conferences to have two divisions to have a championship game. And you need 12 teams before you can split into two divisions, which is why it hasn't happened to the Big Ten yet.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:54 PM ^
I was pre-law one semster- I wonder what the exact wording of the rule is. Is it possible that the rule simply presumes that the 2 divisional champions would play in the title game? Could you split into divisions but ignore them for the purpose of selecting the second best team to go in the championship basing it on over all conference record?
August 27th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
Nope. It says that you have to have two divisions of 6 teams or more. All the teams have in a division have to play a round-robin and the winner of the divisions go to the championship game.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:43 PM ^
How many times has there been a three way tie for the Big Ten title?
If we add another Big Ten game, that would leave 3 teams off the schedule like it has been since PSU joined (I think). Then play off the top two teams. It makes perfect sense to me, but I'm probably missing something.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:45 PM ^
We only leave 2 off the schedule. 8 games, 11 teams, can't play ourselves
August 26th, 2010 at 10:48 PM ^
I'm an idiot.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:55 PM ^
I pretty much prove that wrong on a daily basis
August 27th, 2010 at 12:08 AM ^
Not very often. Only three times the last 25 years.
2000, 1998, 4-way in 1990
August 26th, 2010 at 10:43 PM ^
The major problem without divisions is tie-breakers.
With 12 teams in a conference, and 8 conference games (for now), that means that there are 3 teams each year that a certain team will not play, the teams will have to rotate on and off the schedule similar to the way they do now...but this means that each team is not playing a quarter of the conference.
Ties at the top of the conference at the end of the season will be a mess. Nobody wants to be in or out of the Conference Championship game due to the number of penalty yards they obtained over the conference schedule (or some other dumb tie-break rule). When the teams are split into divisions, then each team would play the other 5 in their division every year, and play 3 cross-over games that would rotate each year.
That way, if there is a tie at the top of a division, the only tie-breaker you need is head-to-head. Then it is clear who goes to the championship game.
August 26th, 2010 at 10:49 PM ^
That way, if there is a tie at the top of a division, the only tie-breaker you need is head-to-head.
The 2008 Texas team can only wish this were true.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:26 AM ^
No one won the head to head tie breaker that year. It was a 3 way tie between OU, Texas and Texas Tech. They all went 1-1 against each other.
August 26th, 2010 at 11:49 PM ^
True, but if head to head is used as the tie breaker then the cross divisional conference games are absolutely meaningless, including the Michigan-Ohio State game! On the other hand with only 5 divisional games ties at the top of the division will likely be common. By making the overall conference record the first tie breaker the cross divisional games will be as important as regular conference games now due to the statisticaly higher probabilty of I tie in a 5 game "season" . (I haven't actually done the math on that but it seems intuitively correct)
August 27th, 2010 at 12:19 AM ^
It would still be overall conference record that would seed the teams in each division, not record just in games within the division.
Head-To-Head would be the first TIE-BREAKER
Michigan vs. OSU would still be extremely important if it was a cross-over game, but I am all for them being in the same division, playing once a year, on the last game of the regular season. Most seasons, this should basically (hopefully, puts a lot on the game) be a play in to the Big 10 Championship game...
August 26th, 2010 at 11:43 PM ^
This is phase one of expansion in the Big 10. We will have 7 or 8 team divisions before its all said and done. So they are gonna split them now and then just add on later. My best guess.
August 27th, 2010 at 1:30 AM ^
It's called making more money from having a Conference Championship Game between the two division winners.
Not to mention there's no way schools are going to only have 6 home games every other year (5 home conference games, 6 away conference games and one home non-conference game). That's a lot of revenue lost when compared to 7 or 8 home games every year.
August 27th, 2010 at 2:37 AM ^
Divisions or no divisions, the plan would still involve moving The Game.
August 27th, 2010 at 8:27 AM ^
here's the rule:
17.9.5.2(c)
Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game
between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two
divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition
among the members of that division;