Potential changes to the B1G title game

[tomdalton22]

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.

So every sport that has divisions is wrong? (which is pretty much every professional sport and every college football conference that has enough teams)

 

[tinselwolverine]

So every sport that has divisions is wrong? (which is pretty much every professional sport and every college football conference that has enough teams)

Of course not but - regional divisions are brand new to the B1G.

And - what, 5 years ago divisions at all were brand new.

So thinking about how sort of natural regional divisions are in
other sports and concluding that changing that would be a radical departure from the norm, in B1G football regional divisions themselves are a radical departure from the norm already - One of a number of radical departure from the norm.

According to the article the Big 12 and the ACC seem to be the primary supporters of this type of "realignment."

I'm curious to see what other conferences are going to do when the opportunity to change the format comes about.

 

[tomdalton22]

Of course not but - regional divisions are brand new to the B1G.

And - what, 5 years ago divisions at all were brand new.

So thinking about how sort of natural regional divisions are in
other sports and concluding that changing that would be a radical departure from the norm, in B1G football regional divisions themselves are a radical departure from the norm already - One of a number of radical departure from the norm.

According to the article the Big 12 and the ACC seem to be the primary supporters of this type of "realignment."

I'm curious to see what other conferences are going to do when the opportunity to change the format comes about.

I get all of that. I guess I feel that most people that are endorsing some kind of system where there aren't divisions but the "best two teams" play for a championship are just looking for a "second chance". If there aren't divisions just declare a champion after the regular season like they did prior to the divisions.

 

[Spartanmack]

So every sport that has divisions is wrong? (which is pretty much every professional sport and every college football conference that has enough teams)

I didn't say that and I don't think it. I made the point that for the B1G it's sub-optimal or inferior to not having 2 divisions. It's probably also true for other CFB conferences, but I don't really care what those other conferences do.

It's also very different from every other sport that has divisions. first, the NHL, NFL, MLB and NBA all have more than 2 divisions and the teams in those divisions play each other 2 or more times each year and then, except in the NFL they all play pretty much every other team in their conference, if not every team in entire league. Those leagues also have a great deal more parody than you have in CFB conferences and CFB in general. So while divisions may make sense for some sports leagues, they're not a one size fits all solution for all sports.

To me, the shortcomings of a 2 division B1G conference far outweigh any benefits, if there are any. Do you think having 2 divisions is superior to not having them for the B1G? if so, why? Is there a better argument than the fact that other sports have divisions?

 

[Spartanmack]

I get all of that. I guess I feel that most people that are endorsing some kind of system where there aren't divisions but the "best two teams" play for a championship are just looking for a "second chance". If there aren't divisions just declare a champion after the regular season like they did prior to the divisions.

Even without divisions, each team will have only played 8 of 13 possible opponents and some of them would have played tough teams on the road while others at home. And it's very possible that the 2 best teams could have the same record and won't have already played each other. Without divisions, you have less controversy and still have as much or more value to a championship game. Plus, you have the added benefit of the greater probability of getting the two best teams in the game.

With divisions you still have that "second chance" risk plus a back door for inferior teams in the weaker division to backdoor their way into the championship game.

 

[tomdalton22]

I didn't say that and I don't think it. I made the point that for the B1G it's sub-optimal or inferior to not having 2 divisions. It's probably also true for other CFB conferences, but I don't really give a shit what those other conferences do.

It's also very different from every other sport that has divisions. first, the NHL, NFL, MLB and NBA all have more than 2 divisions and the teams in those divisions play each other 2 or more times each year and then, except in the NFL they all play pretty much every other team in their conference, if not every team in entire league. Those leagues also have a great deal more parody than you have in CFB conferences and CFB in general. So while divisions may make sense for some sports leagues, they're not a one size fits all solution for all sports.

Do you think having 2 divisions is superior to not having them for the B1G? if so, why? Is there a better argument than the fact that other sports have divisions?

I think having 2 divisions and having the division winners play for the conference championship is better than having no divisions and taking the two "best teams" and having a championship game. If there are no divisions then don't have a championship game. Just play out the regular season and at the end you have a regular champion.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think having 2 divisions and having the division winners play for the conference championship is better than having no divisions and taking the two "best teams" and having a championship game. If there are no divisions then don't have a championship game. Just play out the regular season and at the end you have a regular champion.

Well, the conference$ have learned to love conferen$e champion$hip game$.

This article is the first I've heard of this possible format. It is definitely conceptually different, but college football has always been "different."

I'll be interested to see what the other conferences are going to do regarding the possibility of implementing this kind of change.

 

[tomdalton22]

Well, the conference$ have learned to love conferen$e champion$hip game$.

This article is the first I've heard of this possible format. It is definitely conceptually different, but college football has always been "different."

I'll be interested to see what the other conferences are going to do regarding the possibility of implementing this kind of change.

Thi$ i$ true. And I don't think there i$ anything wrong with that.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think having 2 divisions and having the division winners play for the conference championship is better than having no divisions and taking the two "best teams" and having a championship game. If there are no divisions then don't have a championship game. Just play out the regular season and at the end you have a regular champion.

Ok, but unless I missed something the only reasons you've provided for that thinking are 1) other sports have it and 2) the no-division solution offers teams a second chance. It's clear that reason 2 doesn't go away by having divisions and it's not at all clear the divisions are a 1 size fits all solution.

Just look at the B1G Champ game - there have only been 4 (really only 3 legitimate ones since in 2011 one division had to send their 3rd best team because of hte PSU and osu suspensions). And already we've had at least 1 game where 1 team shouldn't have been there - 2014. MSU had the better record than Wisco, was ranked higher and had the same B1G record. Granted we had lost to OSU already but Wisco lost to Northwestern for crap's sake. And the badgers got their asses handed to them. The game was a joke.

 

[tomdalton22]

Ok, but unless I missed something the only reasons you've provided for that thinking are 1) other sports have it and 2) the no-division solution offers teams a second chance. It's clear that reason 2 doesn't go away by having divisions and it's not at all clear the divisions are a 1 size fits all solution.

Just look at the B1G Champ game - there have only been 4 (really only 3 legitimate ones since in 2011 one division had to send their 3rd best team because of hte PSU and osu suspensions). And already we've had at least 1 game where 1 team shouldn't have been there - 2014. MSU had the better record than Wisco, was ranked higher and had the same B1G record. Granted we had lost to OSU already but Wisco lost to Northwestern for crap's sake. And the badgers got their asses handed to them. The game was a joke.

true...but last year it was the right game. MSU already lost to OSU and Wisconsin never had a chance. MSU had their chance hosting OSU and lost.

edit BTW...MSU had the same record as Wisky after the regular season. 10-2 with 7-1 conference records

 

[Spartanmack]

true...but last year it was the right game. MSU already lost to OSU and Wisconsin never had a chance. MSU had their chance hosting OSU and lost.

Wisco lost to Northwestern. They didn't deserve a chance - that was proved unequivocally on the field. They got DESTROYED 59-0. Even Rutgers and Illinois scored 2 TDs on the Buckeyes. It was not the right game.

 

[tomdalton22]

Wisco lost to Northwestern. They didn't deserve a chance - that was proved unequivocally on the field. They got DESTROYED 59-0. Even Rutgers and Illinois scored 2 TDs on the Buckeyes. It was not the right game.

in hindsight you can say that. Hypothetically, prior to that game if MSU and Wisky were both eligible there wouldn't have been a single person that would have thought MSU should get another shot over Wisky (well, outside of MSU fans)

Both had the same overall records, the same conference records AND MSU already proved that they couldn't beat OSU.

 

[tinselwolverine]

in hindsight you can say that. Hypothetically, prior to that game if MSU and Wisky were both eligible there wouldn't have been a single person that would have thought MSU should get another shot over Wisky (well, outside of MSU fans)

Both had the same overall records, the same conference records AND MSU already proved that they couldn't beat OSU.

Maybe Condoleeza Rice could be appointed to choose the two most deserving teams.

Although that might give Maryland an unfair advantage.

 

[Spartanmack]

in hindsight you can say that. Hypothetically, prior to that game if MSU and Wisky were both eligible there wouldn't have been a single person that would have thought MSU should get another shot over Wisky (well, outside of MSU fans)

Both had the same overall records, the same conference records AND MSU already proved that they couldn't beat OSU.

So you're saying the hypothetical pre-game analysis is more valuable data than the actual results of the game? That's crazy. Looking at things in hindsight is how you learn from your mistakes so you can mitigate the chance of repeating them. And it's patently ridiculous to say that losing a game is proof that you can't beat a team - wisco beat MSU in the B1G champ game after losing to them in the regular season...

And I guarantee you there are people outside the MSU fanbase that would make that argument. MSU had lost to Oregon and OSU while wisco had lost to LSU (.500 in SEC) and NW (5-7, 3-5). There would be plenty of people making that argument. And then they would have been saying "I told you so" and they would have been right.

 

[tomdalton22]

So you're saying the hypothetical pre-game analysis is more valuable data than the actual results of the game? That's crazy. Looking at things in hindsight is how you learn from your mistakes so you can mitigate the chance of repeating them.

And I guarantee you there are people outside the MSU fanbase that would make that argument. MSU had lost to Oregon and OSU while wisco had lost to LSU (.500 in SEC) and NW (5-7, 3-5). There would be plenty of people making that argument. And then they would have been saying "I told you so" and they would have been right.

PRIOR to the Big 10 championship game, no reasonable person would say that MSU deserved another shot over Wisky.

How do you know that OSU wouldn't have beaten MSU 59-0 as well? We don't. All we do know is MSU had their shot (AT HOME) and lost by 12

 

[tinselwolverine]

And I guarantee you there are people outside the MSU fanbase that would make that argument. MSU had lost to Oregon and OSU while wisco had lost to LSU (.500 in SEC) and NW (5-7, 3-5). There would be plenty of people making that argument. And then they would have been saying "I told you so" and they would have been right.

The thing is, how is it going to be decided?

The regional conference championship format may have its flaws, but one of those flaws isn't that it's arbitrary.

You have two conference winners and they play. That's the formula.

What I really dislike about having a committee deciding the final for a football was at the end of the day the choices were arbitrary. Despite the BCS's flaws one of them wasn't that it was arbitrary. Sure each individual pollsters decision was arbitrary, but the result of the polls themselves were not-The results of the polls were the results of the polls, and those results were put in with the computer results and at the end of it all you had a formulaic result.
It amused me when USC ranked number one in both polls was not included in the championship game for the BCS by virtue of the entire formula, and everybody started scrambling trying to "fix" the formula, when in fact USC's exclusion
more demonstrated that the formula was actually working.

So if the conference moves to a non-divisional top two finishers play in the championship game, I would want the meaning of the top two to be specific and exact going in So if the conference moves to a non-divisional top two finishers play in the championship game, I would want the meaning of the top two to be specific and exact-the top two vote getters in the coaches poll?

Fine. If that's what's agreed upon fine. Everybody would know going in what the qualifications were.

 

[Spartanmack]

PRIOR to the Big 10 championship game, no reasonable person would say that MSU deserved another shot over Wisky.

How do you know that OSU wouldn't have beaten MSU 59-0 as well? We don't. All we do know is MSU had their shot (AT HOME) and lost by 12

There definitely would have been discussion about who should play OSU in the Champ game. And although we don't know that MSU wouldn't have lost 59-0 we also don't know that MSU wouldn't have given them a better game or possibly even won it. But we do have data to look at and it clearly suggests an osu/MSU rematch would have been a better game. The osu/MSU game was a 2 score game for all but about 5 minutes and Wisco was never even in the game. If either team proved they couldn't beat osu, it's wisco.

This is clear and obvious evidence that the division system allows weaker teams to sneak into the championship game. You don't get nearly as much risk of that w/o the divisions. The divisions system screws over the better teams and more importantly the fans who pay good money for tickets to the game.

 

[tinselwolverine]

There definitely would have been discussion about who should play OSU in the Champ game.

That's the thing. There should never be a discussion. The qualifications should be clear and absolute.

So if all of last season's results were replicated in a non-divisional formula with the two highest ranked teams qualifying for the conference championship game, it should be MSU under the agreed upon rules.

 

[Spartanmack]

The thing is, how is it going to be decided?

The regional conference championship format may have its flaws, but one of those flaws isn't that it's arbitrary.

You have two conference winners and they play. That's the formula.

What I really dislike about having a committee deciding the final for a football was at the end of the day the choices were arbitrary. Despite the BCS's flaws one of them wasn't that it was arbitrary. Sure each individual pollsters decision was arbitrary, but the result of the polls themselves were not-The results of the polls were the results of the polls, and those results were put in with the computer results and at the end of it all you had a formulaic result.
It amused me when USC ranked number one in both polls was not included in the championship game for the BCS by virtue of the entire formula, and everybody started scrambling trying to "fix" the formula, when in fact USC's exclusion
more demonstrated that the formula was actually working.

So if the conference moves to a non-divisional top two finishers play in the championship game, I would want the meaning of the top two to be specific and exact going in So if the conference moves to a non-divisional top two finishers play in the championship game, I would want the meaning of the top two to be specific and exact-the top two vote getters in the coaches poll?

Fine. If that's what's agreed upon fine. Everybody would know going in what the qualifications were.

I know it's the current formula and it's clear and well defined but it is totally arbitrary - breaking things up on a geographic basis in no way enhances the goal of getting the 2 best teams into the Championship game. That's arbitrary unless the goal is not to get the 2 best teams in the champ game but instead to mitigate travel costs or something like that. So I'm saying that formula is highly flawed and scrapping the divisions would be better. Of course you would have to have a logical and clearly defined system for determining the top 2 (conf record, overall record, national ranking, head-to-head, strength of schedule, etc would all be things to consider when defining the top 2 and tiebreakers). I doubt any system would completely eliminate any controversy but for the reasons I've already listed in this thread, I think the no-division solution is clearly better.

The pro-division argument seems to that it's better because it just is. I don't accept that.

 

[Spartanmack]

That's the thing. There should never be a discussion. The qualifications should be clear and absolute.

So if all of last season's results were replicated in a non-divisional formula with the two highest ranked teams qualifying for the conference championship game, it should be MSU under the agreed upon rules.

But there's always discussion and controversy both before and after. What's better, a little controversy before the game or egg on your face after? Granted, this is a fairly weak sample size but it only took 3 years for this to happen in the B1G and w/ Michigan likely on the rise and Nebraska mired in mediocrity and Wisco having issues, I think the imbalance will get worse and persist for awhile. I'm not saying my solution is perfect, just that it's a lot better.