I don't understand

Discussion in 'Football' started by 4thngoal, Dec 7, 2018.

  1. 4thngoal

    4thngoal Well-Known Member

  2. okeefe4prez

    okeefe4prez Well-Known Member

    It's moronic to do away with the divisions. The divisions and soft title game aren't the reason OSU missed the playoffs the last two years. Getting their asses kicked by Iowa and Purdue is the sole reason they did not get in. Maybe they could re-allign the divisions again, but the problem is Michigan has 2 protected games (MSU and OSU) that have to be played every year. That's the driver in the whole thing. Plus, when you add Rutgers and Maryland, you add more teams that makes it harder to keep protected rivalries alive. Jim had a choice between money and retaining the goodwill and tradition of the conference and he took the money.
     
    homes, Ree4 and ThunderHawk like this.
  3. westender

    westender Well-Known Member

    Divisions are dumb. Should be best two teams getting in based on records and tie breaks. Have some protected games (2 or 3) so we can always beat up on Huskers annually.
     
  4. pythagoras

    pythagoras Well-Known Member

    "Divisions are dumb" Yeah all the divisions in almost every sport under the sun are so dumb. Good lord.
     
  5. PlatypusMessiah

    PlatypusMessiah Well-Known Member

    I like divisions. It builds rivalries. Divisional games gives teams a schedule that is relatively similar to the teams that they are competing against. It’s better for the staff because they can design a team be competitive in their division and worry about the championship game if it comes about.

    Personally, I like the divisions as they stand. I’m growing a genuine hatred for Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Northwestern. When we didn’t have divisions, I looked forward to playing Michigan (but I don’t think big blue carried about playing Iowa). In the last 5 years, I think the West is only 4 or 5 games under 500 in cross games. tOSU struggles in cross games. I know the West hasn’t faired well in championship games, but you could of said the same thing for the SEC when they split into divisions (with Florida and Tennessee beating down West teams). You can divide teams however you want, the group with Ohio St. would fair better in championships because they either are represented by tOSU or a team that’s good enough to beat them.

    My largest beef with the CFP is the elitism that it is generating. If you got rid of divisions, the elitism will grow. Knocking Oklahoma out of a Big 12 championship game isn’t happening soon. Knocking tOSU, Clemson, or Alabama out of a divisionless championship game would also be hard to do. For 85% of the power 5 teams. You need an undefeated season to make the CFP. For everyone else, a division championship and a conference championship are outstanding goals. Northwestern’s season is incredible because of their division win.
     
  6. SteveGarvey1

    SteveGarvey1 Well-Known Member

    I suspect most, if not all, the teams in the West would oppose getting rid of divisions. Why wouldn't they?
     
  7. 4thngoal

    4thngoal Well-Known Member

    Let's get real, this is all about OSU not getting in the cfp.
    So because the west is getting stronger and beating the top teams from the East, all the sudden maybe it's not such a good idea?
    This is nothing more than "entitlement" "blue blood" bullshit.
    Curb stomp a few of the "best" the "blue bloods" and suddenly they want to change the rules.
     
    Ree4, SmokeTownHawk and Hawkfnntn like this.
  8. Hawkfnntn

    Hawkfnntn Well-Known Member

    That's it. It's just a whatever way the wind is blowing thing for them year to year...
     
  9. hawkdrummer1

    hawkdrummer1 Well-Known Member

    The Big Ten has been around for years.... we don't need divisions to build rivalries. I'd suggest divisions have done more to soften some rivalries. Iowa-Michigan for example.
     
  10. westender

    westender Well-Known Member

    Nah, it is what other conferences and teams get away with in comparison. If I weren't currently lazy I would find the exact tweets from Dochterman that clearly illustrate it. There is no need to play a strong schedule. It is not being rewarded by committee. It is clear.
     
  11. westender

    westender Well-Known Member

    Not talking about any other sport there junior. We talking NCAA football and specifically the Big Ten. That is the board we are on.
     
    lightning1 likes this.
  12. okeefe4prez

    okeefe4prez Well-Known Member

    As much as you want to believe it, Iowa-Michigan is NOT a rivalry. Michigan has its rivals: OSU, MSU and Notre Dame. Iowa's rivals are Minnesota and Wisconsin. I guess you can add ISU and Nebraska if you desire, but the ISU series isn't that old and Nebraska is more of a forced geography thing for the conference. Iowa needs to play its border teams every year. That was the whole freaking point of conferences - create geographic proximity so you'd have a set schedule of teams nearby back when teams had to travel by land to play. Rivalries formed naturally. You hated the teams closest to you.

    That's why I hate Rutgers and Maryland joining the conference. I don't give a shit if Iowa plays Rutgers or Maryland. Nebraska makes sense. Penn State made sense because they were independent and needed a home and we had to keep them away from the eastern conferences.

    Don't get me wrong, I loved watching Iowa and Michigan when I was a kid because Michigan was the bully that we could beat (OSU, not so much when it mattered), but to me the rivalries that make the Big Ten great are the border war games, not going halfway across the country to play Penn State or Rutgers.
     
    Ree4 and ThunderHawk like this.
  13. ThunderHawk

    ThunderHawk Well-Known Member

    I still don't consider Rutgers and Maryland to be B1G teams. They're like impostors forced upon us by a nefarious king.
     
    Ree4 likes this.
  14. ThunderHawk

    ThunderHawk Well-Known Member

    Truth.

    When the Boat Rowing Rodents beat the Badgers a few weeks ago, you could tell that it really meant something to them.
     
  15. HawksMN

    HawksMN Well-Known Member

    Agreed our two rivals are Minney and Whiskey. The rest is concocted.
     
  16. pythagoras

    pythagoras Well-Known Member

    Sports have divisions. Get with it already. B1G going away from divisions is a terrible idea. Being different in this specific situation is in fact a fucking dumb idea.
     
  17. guffus

    guffus Well-Known Member

    The main reason this idea of getting rid of divisions appeals to me is it creates a way to play all the teams in the Big Ten more often. If you do the math, you could still set up schedules where each team could get 5 permanent rivals they play every year, and 8 teams they play 50% of the time. This type of schedule appeals to me more than divisional schedules.

    But if the Big Ten must have divisions, I like the east-west setup.
     
    HuckFinn likes this.
  18. guffus

    guffus Well-Known Member

    The funny thing is that OSU, Mich and NW all finished 8-1 this year. It is not even clear who would win the tiebreaker to determine which 2 teams make it to the CCG.
     
  19. guffus

    guffus Well-Known Member

    If you set up a schedule with 5 permanent rivals it could look something like this

    Team - 5 rivals
    Neb - Iowa, Minn, Wisc, NW, PSU
    Iowa - Neb, Minn, Wisc, NW, ILL
    Minn - Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Mich, Indy
    Wisc - Neb, Iowa, Minn, NW, MSU
    NW - ILL, Neb, Iowa, Wisc, Pur
    ILL - NW, Indy, Pur, Iowa, OSU
    Pur - Indy, NW, ILL, Mich, Rut

    Indy - Pur, ILL, MSU, MD, Minn
    MSU - Mich, Wisc, Indy, PSU, Rut
    Mich - OSU, MSU, Pur, Minn, MD
    OSU - Mich, PSU, ILL, Rut, MD
    PSU - OSU, MD, Rut, MSU, Neb
    MD - PSU, Rut, OSU, Mich, Indy
    Rut - PSU, MD, OSU, MSU, Pur
     
  20. PlatypusMessiah

    PlatypusMessiah Well-Known Member

    It’s not the same as the Big 10 days of my youth. When you missed only 1 team a year, everyone in conference was your rival. Expansion put an end to those days.
     
Loading...