Potential changes to the B1G title game

[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.

That sentence was incomplete in my original post. Apologies for that. Under the plan I'm proposing, the criteria would be clearly defined and absolute. MSU and Wisco tied for overall and conf record and did not play each other so the tiebreaker would have gotten to strength of schedule or ranked opponents/quality wins or something like that that in this case would have put one team ahead of the other (in this case, most likely MSU). There would have been discussion before and quite possibly after. But I don't think that worse than an arbitrary geographic split putting wisco in the game then realizing after the fact that that method produced a bad result.

I think a lot of people, yes, MSU fans in particular, were looking at wisco w/ losses NW and LSU and thinking MSU was screwed by being in the much tougher division.

 

[tinselwolverine]

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...

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

Well, the regional divisions are formulaic and objective inasmuch as east is east and west is west anyway.

Last year was the first season of geographic divisions for the B1G, along with the first season of a whole bunch of other things too, so I'm not going to say that it's the best set up or not the best set up for the "new" conference.

Apparently a non-divisional formula is being looked into elsewhere; I've stated on this thread this is the first I've heard of it - except of course for going back to the time before divisions.

So I don't have much of a reaction yet either way.

 

[Spartanmack]

Well, the regional divisions are formulaic and objective inasmuch as east is east and west is west anyway.

Last year was the first season of geographic divisions for the B1G, along with the first season of a whole bunch of other things too, so I'm not going to say that it's the best set up or not the best set up for the "new" conference.

Apparently a non-divisional formula is being looked into elsewhere; I've stated on this thread this is the first I've heard of it - except of course for going back to the time before divisions.

So I don't have much of a reaction yet either way.

East is east and west is west - that fact is unassailable. It's the first I've heard of it as well - I've been in favor of rebalancing as I thought that was easier to get done but this is encouraging and now I'm all-in for no divisions. When Delaney calls me, I know exactly what I'm going to say to that money grubbing whore.

 

[johnny2x2x]

East is east and west is west - that fact is unassailable. It's the first I've heard of it as well - I've been in favor of rebalancing as I thought that was easier to get done but this is encouraging and now I'm all-in for no divisions. When Delaney calls me, I know exactly what I'm going to say to that money grubbing whore.

I know they make schedules years in advance, but what about shuffling the divisions yearly. Who says they have to be set in stone from year to year? Would you really care if your school was in the West one season and the East next? You could protect the important rivalries, but assure parity. Wouldn't seem terribly difficult to come up with a way to do it every season.

they could even do it like a draft. This year maybe MSU and Wisky in the West, OSU and Nebraska in the East. I can guarantee you an MSU vs OSU BTG would be the best thing possible for the conference this season.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Or they could just keep the divisions as they are, and a trade off the names "East" and "West" every year.

That way instead of the East winning almost every year, the West would win about half the time.

 

[tomdalton22]

All of this complaining got me thinking...what year was it that the best team in the BIG 10 didn't play in and win the Big 10 championship game?

 

[Spartanmack]

All of this complaining got me thinking...what year was it that the best team in the BIG 10 didn't play in and win the Big 10 championship game?

2012. And in 2011 the best team played in but didn't win the game. But that's not the issue. You want the best 2 teams, not just the best team. So even if the best team was always in the B1G champ game, that's not evidence that divisions are optimal or even adequate.

And who's complaining? We're having a conversation about what we all think is best for the B1G.

 

[tomdalton22]

2012. And in 2011 the best team played in but didn't win the game. But that's not the issue. You want the best 2 teams, not just the best team. So even if the best team was always in the B1G champ game, that's not evidence that divisions are optimal or even adequate.

And who's complaining? We're having a conversation about what we all think is best for the B1G.

OSU wasn't eligible in 2012 so that really doesn't count. The best teams played in 2011 and it seems like they settled that game on the field.

 

[Spartanmack]

OSU wasn't eligible in 2012 so that really doesn't count. The best teams played in 2011 and it seems like they settled that game on the field.

I know, but that's still the last time the best team didn't play in the championship game. The best team doesn't always win the game, but the conference championship game should always be played between the 2 best teams, assuming one of them doesn't get caught cheating.

 

[Spartan23MSU]

I think it was 2011 when we beat Wisconsin in the last second then lost to them in the title game. Well, we split and they get the B10 Championship? Thats weak in every sense of the word and needs to be ammended. If it comes down to playing a third game, so be it.

 

[Sbee]

If you had a choice would you always want the best two teams or the best team from the east vs the best from the west which could be 1 vs 2 but could also be 1 vs 4 or 5?

I would rather it go by big ten record only as opposed to bcs ranking though since that could entice teams to schedule easy non conference games to get to the title game.

 

[Spartanmack]

B1G record would have to be 1st. Ranking could and probably would need to be somewhere in the hierarchy of tiebreakers, after head-to-head of course.