Hypothetical: Best fit for 12th Big 10 team?

[MililaniBuckeye]

if you get rid of the divisions and play the two best teams then you get rid of any doubt about the champion.

Dude, are you stubborn on purpose or do you have to work at it? What if your top team is 8-0 in conference and has already beaten the runner-up 7-1 team head-to-head? Are you really going to make them play again? What if you have two teams tied at the runner-up position...how do you determine which plays the top team? What if you have three teams tied at the top (hell, the Big 10 had one year where there was a four-way tie)...what do you do then? And if a conference does what you suggest (eliminate divisions) then why should a conference even expand to 12 teams?

Our current conference set-up is just fine, thank you. It's not all that often that we have two teams tied at the top of the conference at the end of the year that haven't played each other during the season, and when there is (ala 2002) it usually works out right.

 

[martinss01]

Dude, are you stubborn on purpose or do you have to work at it? What if your top team is 8-0 in conference and has already beaten the runner-up 7-1 team head-to-head? Are you really going to make them play again? What if you have two teams tied at the runner-up position...how do you determine which plays the top team? What if you have three teams tied at the top (hell, the Big 10 had one year where there was a four-way tie)...what do you do then? And if a conference does what you suggest (eliminate divisions) then why should a conference even expand to 12 teams?

Our current conference set-up is just fine, thank you. It's not all that often that we have two teams tied at the top of the conference at the end of the year that haven't played each other during the season, and when there is (ala 2002) it usually works out right.

yeah, he didn't answer my question on how he thinks multiple teams and clearly undeserving teams should be handled either.

 

[hoyalawbuck]

I'd prefer none, because I don't want a playoff. As Scooter pointed out, the playoff is usually played the third Saturday in November, in Columbus or AA, and an additional playoff would only detract from that game. But if I had to pick one, I'd go with Syracuse. (Pitt or WVA would be better matches, but I don't want them competing with us for recruits).

 

[High Lonesome]

iowa comes to twon 9/24 and plays um at home 10/22

Ok I was wrong on the year; however, it has been well documented, on this board, that sometime in the near future Iowa misses the two toughest games in the big 10, How in the hell can they rightfully be called big ten champions if they do not beat osu or mich? If someone can answer this question, with a solid response, then i will never say another word about the championship game.

 

[Zurp]

Ok I was wrong on the year; however, it has been well documented, on this board, that sometime in the near future Iowa misses the two toughest games in the big 10, How in the hell can they rightfully be called big ten champions if they do not beat osu or mich? If someone can answer this question, with a solid response, then i will never say another word about the championship game.

You're right. I think it's 2007 or 2008 that Iowa doesn't play OSU or UM. However, we don't know that Iowa will beat the other 8 teams. We don't know that OSU or UM will win all of their games. It might happen. But I'd guess that it won't. The way it is currently set up, you have to win all your games, or the chances to become conference champion is no longer in your hands. In the Big 12, SEC, and MAC, you just need to hope to have the better record than your half of the conference, and you're in the championship game.

Question for my own curiosity, and not to make a point: how often, since the Big 12 was started, have two teams been undefeated in conference play before the Big 12 championship game? Maybe I'll research it when I get some time, but maybe someone here knows the answer.

 

[stxbuck]

I picked Notre Dame, because I think they're the only ones who MAY be the 12th team. IF the Big 10 goes to 12, I believe it will be ND.

However, I would LOVE to see the Big 10 stick it to ND by inviting someone else. I think Missouri is already in a "top" conference, and isn't looking to move. Same with Iowa State. I always liked the idea of Marshall or Louisville (who isn't on the list). I'd never thought of Miami (OH), BG, or Northern Illinois. I like Marshall or Louisville over any of those three, though.

I'd also never thought of Syracuse. They seem to be a good idea, as the Big Least is crumbling, the Big 10 is probably their best hope.

So I picked ND, but mainly because "Staying at 11", or "dropping a team and returning to 10" weren't choices.

Syracuse will not leave the Big East for one reason-hoops. Basketball is what drives the Big East-why do you think they added Marquette, UC, and DePaul.
To be honest, it is a good thing that V-Tech and Miami left-they were football first schools, the rest of the league, w/ the exception of WVU-are definitely hoops schools.

 

[Sloopy45]

Unless you're adding a legitimate Midwest National Power, it makes no effin' sense whatsoever to add a 12th team to the Big Ten.

All the Big Ten traditions (most notably the OSU-scUM game) would be shot to shit with the addition of the 12th team. Unless I can get a school with the football-pedigree & revenue potential of a Notre Dame, I'm standing pat.

Think about it: I'm completely changing the dynamic of the biggest annual event in the Conference (we might not play in the last game every year, we might not even play every year, etc.) to add a Northern Illinois?? Or Syracuse?? Is that a joke??

Unless Notre Dame gets the nod, none of those other teams are even in consideration. Next please.

 

[BuckeyePride]

as Notredame chief will tell you... NotreDame is too smart to join the Big 10. They don't want to loose 3-4 games every year. Pitt panthers should be looked at. They have been doing well.

 

[High Lonesome]

You're right. I think it's 2007 or 2008 that Iowa doesn't play OSU or UM. However, we don't know that Iowa will beat the other 8 teams. We don't know that OSU or UM will win all of their games. It might happen. But I'd guess that it won't. The way it is currently set up, you have to win all your games, or the chances to become conference champion is no longer in your hands. In the Big 12, SEC, and MAC, you just need to hope to have the better record than your half of the conference, and you're in the championship game.

Question for my own curiosity, and not to make a point: how often, since the Big 12 was started, have two teams been undefeated in conference play before the Big 12 championship game? Maybe I'll research it when I get some time, but maybe someone here knows the answer.

Its not a sure thing that they go undefeated, but it is by no means impossible or even really that unlikely. Iowa is a solid team that very well could run the table that year. As for the big 12, I don't like the way that they do it either. Beating only half the confrence is a bad way to decide things as well. To answer your question, I don't know that 2 undefeated teams have ever met each other in the championship game. That doesnt really matter to me though. My question is if Iowa goes undefeated against the big ten and tOSU only loses to mich. How would this board keep from being in an uproar about not having the opportunity to beat the shit out of a so-called champion on the field.

 

[Sloopy45]

High Lonesome: "Its not a sure thing that they go undefeated, but it is by no means impossible or even really that unlikely."

Actually, it is very unlikely that a 2nd tier school in a BCS conference goes undefeated. The only schools with a shot to run the table are the ones with enough talent to survive the upsets & pitfalls typical of a BCS schedule. Perfect example: Wisconsin should've, by all accounts, run the table last year, but they didn't because they didn't have enough horses to survive a let-down against MSU. Iowa in 2002 is another great example of this.

"How would this board keep from being in an uproar about not having the opportunity to beat the shit out of a so-called champion on the field."

To answer your question, it has happened many times before: Wisconsin won two Rose Bowls w/o going through the Buckeyes, Iowa went to the Orange Bowl w/o OSU on the slate, and Northwestern won their two Big Ten titles w/o playing the Bucks. Success in the Big Ten during the year that the Bucks aren't on the schedule is no surprise to anyone on this board.

 

[High Lonesome]

High Lonesome: "Its not a sure thing that they go undefeated, but it is by no means impossible or even really that unlikely."

Actually, it is very unlikely that a 2nd tier school in a BCS conference goes undefeated. The only schools with a shot to run the table are the ones with enough talent to survive the upsets & pitfalls typical of a BCS schedule. Perfect example: Wisconsin should've, by all accounts, run the table last year, but they didn't because they didn't have enough horses to survive a let-down against MSU. Iowa in 2002 is another great example of this.

"How would this board keep from being in an uproar about not having the opportunity to beat the shit out of a so-called champion on the field."

To answer your question, it has happened many times before: Wisconsin won two Rose Bowls w/o going through the Buckeyes, Iowa went to the Orange Bowl w/o OSU on the slate, and Northwestern won their two Big Ten titles w/o playing the Bucks. Success in the Big Ten during the year that the Bucks aren't on the schedule is no surprise to anyone on this board.

Normally I would agree with you but the fact that this second teir team is not going to play either or the 1st teir teams in the confrence drastically increases their chances.

As of now i am agreeing to disagree. This is my last post on this thread. I am sorry for my stubborness

 

[Zurp]

My question is if Iowa goes undefeated against the big ten and tOSU only loses to mich. How would this board keep from being in an uproar about not having the opportunity to beat the shit out of a so-called champion on the field.

The way I see it, if Ohio State loses to Michigan, or to Michigan State or Penn State or Indiana or anyone, I don't see how Ohio State should be allowed to call themselves the conference champion. Once you lose a game, you leave your fate up to other teams.

Personally, I would like to see more conference games. I'd like to see more college football, and I would like to avoid the situation you brought up. But if Ohio State finishes 7-1, losing to Michigan, Michigan finishes 6-2, losing to let's say Purdue and Minnesota, and Iowa finishes 8-0, not having to play Michigan or Ohio State, I'd say, "Damn - Ohio State should have beat Michigan," before I'd say, "Too bad Ohio State doesn't play Iowa."

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

How in the hell can they rightfully be called big ten champions if they do not beat osu or mich? If someone can answer this question, with a solid response, then i will never say another word about the championship game.

Because they had the best record given the schedule put in front of them. Guess what, life ain't always fair. Besides, using Michigan and Ohio State isn't always the best gauge. Take 2002 for example, when everyone in the country was saying we "dodged" Iowa when they pulled and 11-1 regular season and 8-0 conference season out of their ass...never mind that the schedule was made years in advance and is a rotating schedule independent of past records. How was Ohio State supposed to know Iowa was going to be that good that year? Hell, Iowa had only one other on-loss year (1991) since 1960. You play your schedule, you beat your schedule, you get your rewards...plain and simple.

 

[Sloopy45]

I personally don't see what a Title game does besides gumming up the works. Does it really validate an undefeated season by running through a chump team in your Conference's other division AFTER you've already beaten all the heavies in your own division?

The SEC Title game in '96 got a Gator team that lost their last game into the Sugar Bowl by beating an average (at best) 'Bama team, 45-30.

In '01, the Big 12 Title game allowed a bad Nebraska team to back into the Rose Bowl.

In '03, the result of the game was absolutely meaningless, as Oklahoma lost & went to the Sugar Bowl anyway.

I realize you have to be loyal to your conference, but all these Big 12/SEC fans thumping their chests about the Title Game doesn't make any sense to me. Never has.

 

[High Lonesome]

I don't know if i can say this any more clear...I don't like the big 12 system, and i recognize that i am breaking my vow of silence on here but this line got me worked up.

"In '03, the result of the game was absolutely meaningless, as Oklahoma lost & went to the Sugar Bowl anyway."


It was hardly meaningless as it forced the longhorns to the holiday bowl as Kstate was allowed to go to the Fiesta bowl. I guess you don't remember this though because we didn't have aaron rodgers on our team to let the world know about it