2011 Big Ten Legends Division Race

[MililaniBuckeye]

So we very well may be looking at the situation of knowing before we even play Michigan that we have to beat them twice in a row to win the conference.

Which is fucking precisely why Michigan and Ohio State were put in seperate divisions. I still loathe the idea...

Does Luke Fickell keep his job if he goes 2-0 against TSUN in his first year at the helm?

If he runs the table and then beats Michigan again for the conference title, how in the hell does he not be retained after going 10-3 overall and 2-0 against Michigan with all the problems he was handed?

 

[JXC]

Divisional play certainly has its positives and negatives. It adds excitement to the mix as more teams are in play going into November than the past. However, there are weird quirks that just don't sit right, such as the one you mention.

The other quirk that doesn't sit right with me is how a divisional champion is decided. One part of me gets why it is based upon how you perform in all of your conference games, but there is another part that thinks a divisional champion should be based only on divisional play.

I look at one possible scenario this year where Ohio State could go 5-0 in their division, yet not win it if Penn State doesn't lose another game besides Ohio State and goes 4-1 in the division. Again, part of me gets it as they would have a better conference record; but the other part of me asks if Ohio State is undefeated in the division and beats Penn State, why should their two losses against non-divisional opponents affect the division's outcome? It gets even worse when one looks at the cross-divisional opponents of the two schools: Ohio State has Nebraska (7-1), Michigan State (6-2), and Michigan (7-1); while Penn State has Nebraska (7-1), Iowa (5-3), and Northwestern (3-5). Something just doesn't sit right with such a scenario.

I am going to point out all the reasons why I think changing this rule would be a bad idea.

First off, if this were the rule, then why even play inter-division games? If you don't count them, then they just become the same as a non-conference game.

Also, if we just had to go 5-0, then the Michigan game at the end of this year would have far less on the line. One of the things that has made that game great is that there is usually conference championships on the line. Granted I'd care more about this game than any other, even if nothing but beating their asses was on the line.

Additionally, no sport just uses division games. And I'm pretty sure none of the other conferences do either. If we did, it would only be a matter of time before the B1G championship game would become a big joke for the nation. Imagine a scenario for next year...

Ohio State is 11-1 (7-1), with their only loss to Penn State on the road, but have wins against Michigan, Nebraska, and at Michigan State, plus the other four Leaders division teams.

Penn State has an up and down year, going 8-4 (5-3), with a non conference loss at Virginia, and losses at Iowa, at Nebraska, and against Northwestern, but beat the five Leaders division teams.

Nebraska is 11-1 (7-1), with their only loss coming to Ohio State.

Under current rules, the championship game is Ohio State vs. Nebraska. But if the rules were changed, it would be Penn State vs. Nebraska. I am sure most Buckeyes would be furious. The nation would laugh at the stupidity of the conference, and what could be even worse, is maybe Nebraska gets the win, and gets the nod to the NCG over Ohio State, or two non B1G teams get it. Whereas, if Ohio State played Nebraska, then the winner would get the SOS boost to get into the NCG.



Bottom line is this...if you somehow do go 5-0 in the division, then the ONLY way you can get kept out of the CCG is if you go 1-2 in games vs. the other division, and this assumes another team in your division goes 7-1. That seems fair. This system even allows for you to slip up once, but why get a chance to slip up twice. This is a lot more fair then the "team that hasn't gone to the Rose Bowl in the longest" rule that used to be in place. I understand that the schedules aren't balanced, although there will be more balance when the conference goes to a 9 game schedule. But there hasn't been balance in the past either. All conference games need to have meaning!

 

[jwinslow]

Which is fucking precisely why Michigan and Ohio State were put in seperate divisions. I still loathe the idea...


If he runs the table and then beats Michigan again for the conference title, how in the hell does he not be retained after going 10-3 overall and 2-0 against Michigan with all the problems he was handed?

I assume this is superseded by how can OSU NOT rehire Tressel if they can prove there was a gag order ?

10-3 is not enough to eliminate Meyer, particularly since they lost to a bad Miami team and only won 1 of 3 against the best of the big ten, and looked very unimpressive in the two losses.

the rest of the slate has one team that might be a quality opponent in Michigan. I'm not sure that nearby them twice proves anything more than once. beating Nebraska would be a lot better.

 

[buckeyegrad]

I am going to point out all the reasons why I think changing this rule would be a bad idea.

First off, if this were the rule, then why even play inter-division games? If you don't count them, then they just become the same as a non-conference game.

I understand what you are saying. Like I said, I'm divided on division play. I get why Penn State should get the nod for having the better conference record and I'm not going to whine and complain if the scenario happens--after all, we simply didn't take care of business. This doesn't change the fact that something just doesn't seem right with it.

Also, if we just had to go 5-0, then the Michigan game at the end of this year would have far less on the line. One of the things that has made that game great is that there is usually conference championships on the line. Granted I'd care more about this game than any other, even if nothing but beating their asses was on the line.

For me, this is not an argument against divisional records deciding divisional champions; but rather, why it was idiotic to place OSU and scUM in different divisions.

Additionally, no sport just uses division games. And I'm pretty sure none of the other conferences do either. If we did, it would only be a matter of time before the B1G championship game would become a big joke for the nation. Imagine a scenario for next year...

Granted, none of the other BCS conferences do it this way and so there is that precedent. However, the no other sport argument falls flat for me. Most other sports (thinking professionally) that use divisions have wild card slots that still allow teams to play for the championship. Sure, baseball didn't before going to three divisions and inter-league play; but then, you also got to play the same teams in your division multiple times unlike the one time only of college football. In other words, and apples and oranges thing.

Ohio State is 11-1 (7-1), with their only loss to Penn State on the road, but have wins against Michigan, Nebraska, and at Michigan State, plus the other four Leaders division teams.

Penn State has an up and down year, going 8-4 (5-3), with a non conference loss at Virginia, and losses at Iowa, at Nebraska, and against Northwestern, but beat the five Leaders division teams.

Nebraska is 11-1 (7-1), with their only loss coming to Ohio State.

Under current rules, the championship game is Ohio State vs. Nebraska. But if the rules were changed, it would be Penn State vs. Nebraska. I am sure most Buckeyes would be furious. The nation would laugh at the stupidity of the conference, and what could be even worse, is maybe Nebraska gets the win, and gets the nod to the NCG over Ohio State, or two non B1G teams get it. Whereas, if Ohio State played Nebraska, then the winner would get the SOS boost to get into the NCG.

This is a good counter argument against only using divisional record. The half of me that understands using the entire conference record appreciates it.

Bottom line is this...if you somehow do go 5-0 in the division, then the ONLY way you can get kept out of the CCG is if you go 1-2 in games vs. the other division, and this assumes another team in your division goes 7-1. That seems fair. This system even allows for you to slip up once, but why get a chance to slip up twice. This is a lot more fair then the "team that hasn't gone to the Rose Bowl in the longest" rule that used to be in place. I understand that the schedules aren't balanced, although there will be more balance when the conference goes to a 9 game schedule. But there hasn't been balance in the past either. All conference games need to have meaning!

Perhaps going to 16 teams eventually, so that divisional record holds more weight (not absolute weight) also helps with the quirkiness of divisions. After all, seven out of eight or nine, seems more "fair" (for lack of a better word) than five out of eight. Not to say it solves all problems, but still, better.

 

[Saw31]

The matchups of the first two seasons were created solely to generate TV ratings. It sucks for some of us, but it may be better for the conference overall.

Nebraska's cross-division games are Ohio State, Penn State and Bucky. You're not even remotely trying to be fair if you create that schedule for Nebraska and leave Purdue, Indiana and Illinois off, just like Ohio State isn't being remotely treated fairly with TSUN, Sparty and NU.

You just have to fall on your sword for the greater good of the Big Ten and do your best.

Yup, I think I said the same over on Huskerboard when the schedules came out. Make a splash with the Nebraska announcement. Then make a year long splash with big time matchups. I would have done the same if I was doing the scheduling...