Potential changes to the B1G title game

[Sbee]

http://spartanavenue.com/2015/05/05/new-championship-game-format-benefits-michigan-state/

I'd love to see this for MSU, it would be great for the conference as well. it would be tough to make it to the top 2 because you'd have to beat OSU. I'd love to get rid of divisions and just take the top 2, it would equal out the scheduling and not give Wisconsin a clear path to the title game every year.

 

[tomdalton22]

I would not be a fan of this. If the two teams are from the same division they will have already played. If that is the case don't even have a conference title game...just declare the team that is ranked the highest the champion.

 

[Michchamp]

http://spartanavenue.com/2015/05/05/new-championship-game-format-benefits-michigan-state/

I'd love to see this for MSU, it would be great for the conference as well. it would be tough to make it to the top 2 because you'd have to beat OSU. I'd love to get rid of divisions and just take the top 2, it would equal out the scheduling and not give Wisconsin a clear path to the title game every year.

Hopefully they only use it when the west division team has a clearly worse conference record & lower ranking(s); there's already enough subjectivity in the confernce title game based on the unbalanced divisions.

 

[Michchamp]

I would not be a fan of this. If the two teams are from the same division they will have already played. If that is the case don't even have a conference title game...just declare the team that is ranked the highest the champion.

it's kinda stupid, yeah.

I'd hate to listen to all the whining about who goes if West #1 is 10-2 (7-1) and East #2 is 11-1 (7-1). unless of course West's conf loss was to East #2... then screw them.

Hopefully they just come up with a list of tie-breakers so you more or less know who is going based on records, head-to-head, etc. alone.

 

[SpartyNash]

Just as tomdalton and MC said, I hope this is only used when one side is awful because I hate seeing rematches, it makes the first game pointless. If the West winner is 8-4 but OSU, MSU, and Michigan are all 9-3 and above and clearly better than the West winner (beating them head to head, better conference record, etc.), then this is a great idea I think. Or just redo the divisions because every idiot on the planet knew they were unbalanced to begin with.

 

[Spartanmack]

they should either rebalance the divisions or scrap them altogether. They could give each team 2 protected rivalries then put the rest on home-and-home rotations then the 2 teams with the best conference record (tiebreakers could be some combination of head-to-head and national ranking, non-conference, etc) play in the B1G champ game. The chances of getting the 2 best teams in the B1G champ game go up tremendously.

Or they could stop being dirty money grubbing whores and kick RU, MD, Neb and PSU out of the B1G and not even have a conference championship game that 2 of those teams will probably never play in anyway. But in order for that to happen Jim Delaney and half the assholes that run/ruin the B1G would all have to go down in a plane crash or something like that. Then they'd have to be replaced by people who aren't money grubbing whores.

 

[tomdalton22]

they should either rebalance the divisions or scrap them altogether. They could give each team 2 protected rivalries then put the rest on home-and-home rotations then the 2 teams with the best conference record (tiebreakers could be some combination of head-to-head and national ranking, non-conference, etc) play in the B1G champ game. The chances of getting the 2 best teams in the B1G champ game go up tremendously.

Or they could stop being dirty money grubbing whores and kick RU, MD, Neb and PSU out of the B1G and not even have a conference championship game that 2 of those teams will probably never play in anyway. But in order for that to happen Jim Delaney and half the assholes that run/ruin the B1G would all have to go down in a plane crash or something like that. Then they'd have to be replaced by people who aren't money grubbing whores.

Don't kid yourself...part of the reason that MSU's football program has become relevant is because of the improvements done to the facilities. Those "money grubbing whores" are a big reason for the influx of cash to all big 10 programs...including MSU

 

[Spartanmack]

Don't kid yourself...part of the reason that MSU's football program has become relevant is because of the improvements done to the facilities. Those "money grubbing whores" are a big reason for the influx of cash to all big 10 programs...including MSU

I'm not kidding myself or anyone else but a lot of B1G teams have also had significant investment in facilities and have been in decline, like Michigan and Nebraska, or haven't gotten a significant boost from improved facilities like Minnesota. The conference overall was in decline for awhile which probably had as much to do with MSU rebuilding the program as any new facilities have but both are minor compared to the effect of having better coaching and an AD who cares about winning and an administration that doesn't do everything they can to screw it all up so I'll hold off on thanking those whores for a bit.

I'm aware that I benefit tremendously from the BTN and it's nice to be able to drive 30 minutes to Piscataway or a few hours to College Park to see my teams play. They're still whores who have destroyed decades of tradition for big money and expedited a transition to a model that's making college sports look more and more like the pros with outrageous ticket prices, seat licenses, labels and ads on every square inch of the stadium, 4.5 hour games, etc, etc.

 

[tomdalton22]

I'm not kidding myself or anyone else but a lot of B1G teams have also had significant investment in facilities and have been in decline, like Michigan and Nebraska, or haven't gotten a significant boost from improved facilities like Minnesota. The conference overall was in decline for awhile which probably had as much to do with MSU rebuilding the program as any new facilities have so I'll hold off on thanking those whores for a bit.

I would say MN and Nebraska have been improving recently. UM's problems are a direct result of shitty coaches.

MN records over the past 10 seasons

7-5
6-7
1-11
7-6
6-7
3-9
3-9
6-7
8-5
8-5 (2014)

Nebraska...since 2005 has had one losing season (5-7 in 2007) but has had 9 or 10 wins and 4 losses in 7 straight seasons.

You don't have to thank the money grubbing whores but do you really think MSU would be where it is today without the $45M a year it receives from the Big 10 network?

 

[Spartanmack]

I would say MN and Nebraska have been improving recently. UM's problems are a direct result of shitty coaches.

MN records over the past 10 seasons

7-5
6-7
1-11
7-6
6-7
3-9
3-9
6-7
8-5
8-5 (2014)

Nebraska...since 2005 has had one losing season (5-7 in 2007) but has had 9 or 10 wins and 4 losses in 7 straight seasons.

You don't have to thank the money grubbing whores but do you really think MSU would be where it is today without the $45M a year it receives from the Big 10 network?

so Jerry Kill doesn't get the credit for Minnesota's first winning season in 5 years (2013) and back-to-back winning seasons for the first time in who knows how long? You think it was TCF Bank stadium which opened in 2009?

Michigan put $226mm into their stadium vs. Minnie's $288mm new stadium. And Michigan's woes are all due to coaching while Minnie's success is due to investment in facilities, not Jerry Kill who had success at Southern Illinois and Northern Illinois and in 3 years turned Minnie into a winning program. Maybe Michigan should have dumped another $62mm into their renovation.

As for Nebraska they had exactly 1 BCS bowl appearance. Since joining the B1G they've beaten 1 ranked team (MSU) and won 1 bowl game. If Nebraska was satisfied with 4 losses a year, they wouldn't have fired their last two coaches. Improving teams don't fire their coaches (except for Minnesota when the fired Mason).

I don't know if MSU would be where they are nationally without the money but I never said that they would be. However, every school in the B1G is getting $45mm a year so you can't say they wouldn't be competing for conference championships without it. I do know that MSU's woes and recent resurgence were way more the result of coaching decisions than facilities.

 

[tomdalton22]

so Jerry Kill doesn't get teh credit for turning around the program, you think it was TCF Bank stadium which opened in 2009?

Michigan put $226mm into their stadium vs. Minnie's $288mm new stadium. And Michigan's woes are all due to coaching while Minnie's success is due to investment in facilities, not Jerry Kill who had success at Southern Illinois and Northern Illinois and in 3 years turned Minnie into a winning program. Maybe Michigan should have dumped another $62mm into their renovation.

As for Nebraska they had exactly 1 BCS bowl appearance. Since joining the B1G they've beaten 1 ranked team (MSU) and won 1 bowl game. If Nebraska was satisfied with 4 losses a year, they wouldn't have fired their last two coaches. Improving teams don't fire their coaches (except for Minnesota when the fired Mason).

I don't know if MSU would be where they are nationally without the money and I never said that they would. But everyone in the B1G is getting $45mm a year so you can't say they wouldn't be competing for conference championships without it.

no...I don't know any of that. But I do think that some of the other conferences would be widening the gap if it weren't for the money the BTN provides each team. You call them money grubbing whores and I call them good businessmen.

 

[Spartanmack]

no...I don't know any of that. But I do think that some of the other conferences would be widening the gap if it weren't for the money the BTN provides each team. You call them money grubbing whores and I call them good businessmen.

If you want to say the exposure and the $45mm per year per team has helped the B1G overall become more competitive nationally, I'll agree with that to an extent.

I'm not saying that there has been no benefit from it - there has been, like being able to watch every MSU game on TV in New Jersey. It's clearly not all bad. But overall, I don't like what money is doing to college sports. The business part is taking over and I don't like it as much as I used to because of that. Commercializing college sports, turning them into corporate expense account events and pricing families out of the experience isn't good business in my mind - it's what money grubbing whores do.

Sadly, the trend seems to be irreversible and there's no way we're going back to the way things were. So how about we discuss something more relevant, like my more serious suggestion that they scrap the divisions altogether, give each team 2 protected rivals and have the other 11 teams on 2 year home-and-home rotations. Then the top 2 teams play each other in the money grubbing whores B1G champ game. Tiebreakers could be head-to-head, national ranking, nonconf record, RPI, etc

 

[tomdalton22]

If you want to say the exposure and the $45mm per year per team has helped the B1G overall become more competitive nationally, I'll agree with that to an extent.

I'm not saying that there has been no benefit from it - there has been, like being able to watch every MSU game on TV in New Jersey. It's clearly not all bad. But overall, I don't like what money is doing to college sports. The business part is taking over and I don't like it as much as I used to because of that. Commercializing college sports, turning them into corporate expense account events and pricing families out of the experience isn't good business in my mind - it's what money grubbing whores do.

Sadly, the trend seems to be irreversible and there's no way we're going back to the way things were. So how about we discuss something more relevant, like my more serious suggestion that they scrap the divisions altogether, give each team 2 protected rivals and have the other 11 teams on 2 year home-and-home rotations. Then the top 2 teams play each other in the money grubbing whores B1G champ game. Tiebreakers could be head-to-head, national ranking, nonconf record, RPI, etc

Fair enough.

If there is going to be a Big10 championship I say leave it like it is. The two division champs face off. If you can't win your division why should you get another shot at the team that did? It could also benefit the second place team (like MSU this year) in getting a better bowl game.

 

[Michchamp]

i think if they try to rebalance the divisions, they'll only create more problems. it's not like the west will always suck. presumably nebraska or UW will hire a decent coach in the next couple years and be good, if not great, consistently again. there shoukd be one additional worthy competitor from among Iowa/Minn/&Northwestern once and a while.

 

[Sbee]

i think if they try to rebalance the divisions, they'll only create more problems. it's not like the west will always suck. presumably nebraska or UW will hire a decent coach in the next couple years and be good, if not great, consistently again. there shoukd be one additional worthy competitor from among Iowa/Minn/&Northwestern once and a while.

I'd prefer taking the two top teams and scrapping the divisions. either way you get two teams playing for the title, you want the best two, going that route gives you the best chance of the best title game. of course the balance of power could change but you still want the best teams playing. the big thing about this would be scrapping divisions and getting more balance in the schedule. I'd love to play traditional big ten teams like Wisconsin and Iowa more and not be locked into playing Rutgers and Maryland ever year.

 

[Michchamp]

you guys won't be able to keep playing those sweet barnstormer games at WMU and CMU if we went to a longer conference schedule though. :no:

 

[Spartanmack]

Fair enough.

If there is going to be a Big10 championship I say leave it like it is. The two division champs face off. If you can't win your division why should you get another shot at the team that did? It could also benefit the second place team (like MSU this year) in getting a better bowl game.

This argument presumes that the divisions add some value and that they are evenly balanced at least over the long run. That's a pretty weak starting point. And look at your example with a slight twist - what if Wisconsin loses to the east division champ but wins the west and is ranked lower than the #2 east team, is wisco more worthy of another shot at the East champs than the #2 east team just because they happen to be in a different division? That makes no sense. In fact, you could have a division winner lose to the top 2 teams in the other division and have a worse record than both - why should they play in the Champ game? The likelihood of getting the best 2 teams in the championship game is much greater without the divisions.

The divisions ad no value - they don't create greater equity in strength of schedule, they decrease the likelihood that the best 2 teams will play in the B1G Championship game, they can become unbalanced and stay unbalanced for extended periods of time. Other than maybe, MAYBE slightly reducing travel costs and of course selling B1G East & West Division Champion merchandise, I don't see how the divisions ad any value at all.

 

[Spartanmack]

you guys won't be able to keep playing those sweet barnstormer games at WMU and CMU if we went to a longer conference schedule though. :no:

Did you mean barnburners, like the games michigan has had recently with northeast powerhouses UConn and UMass? Far be it from me to speak for sbee, but it seems like he is arguing that without the divisions we'd play more legacy B1G teams as we'd rotate off RU and MD instead of playing them every year, and not that he wants more conference games each year.

 

[Michchamp]

Did you mean barnburners, like the games michigan has had recently with northeast powerhouses UConn and UMass? Far be it from me to speak for sbee, but it seems like he is arguing that without the divisions we'd play more legacy B1G teams as we'd rotate off RU and MD instead of playing them every year, and not that he wants more conference games each year.

no. the term barnstorming was used in CFB to refer to travelling to face unique opponents on the road and generate publicity; here's an example.

In this case, I was using the term ironically for humorous effect, since one of you fags (was it Johnny?) had listed a "prime time" game @ WMU as one of those "the whole country would be watching" or something like that.

Like "Yeah, real barnstormer..."

DO you get it, now?

Jerk.

 

[Spartanmack]

no. the term barnstorming was used in CFB to refer to travelling to face unique opponents on the road and generate publicity; here's an example.

In this case, I was using the term ironically for humorous effect, since one of you fags (was it Johnny?) had listed a "prime time" game @ WMU as one of those "the whole country would be watching" or something like that.

Like "Yeah, real barnstormer..."

DO you get it, now?

Jerk.

I know what barnstorming is but since our games against the directional schools aren't barnstorming games I figured you had no idea what you were talking about (thanks for removing any doubt) or maybe you meant barnburners, like the games you've had w/ the huskies, minutemen and the mountaineers (App St, that is). And thanks for showing your true colors with yet another homophobic slur. Just so we're clear, were you name calling at the end or is that your new autosignature? If it's the latter, why shorten it, jerkoff?