I was listening to ESPNU on the way to work this morning and the discussion was that the BIG has not been in the playoffs since going to 9 conference games. I am torn about the subject, I see benefits and drawbacks, especially if it makes it that much tougher for NU to reach the playoffs in the next four years. I would love to hear what others think about the extra conference game and is it worth it.
Nine conference games
- Thread starter focohusker
- Start date
SEC plays the system the way it should be played. Choose the easiest path to the playoffs if that is your goal.
Exactly, Delany cares MORE about money and not caring as much playing for the National Championship..
Fight a guy with one arm tied behind your back, then whine when your opponent kicks your ***.
http://www.espn.com/college-footbal...o-plans-reduce-number-league-games-nine-eight
Check out this recent article on ESPN about it. Unlike Delaney - who is an idiot for money - I actually prefer, you know, being in the CFP than playing 9 conference games. This is like them only caring about the Rose Bowl than wanting to be actually good as a whole. What does it do competitively? Show off how “good” we are in the bowl season that no one remembers the year later? Delaney is a POS.
Check out this recent article on ESPN about it. Unlike Delaney - who is an idiot for money - I actually prefer, you know, being in the CFP than playing 9 conference games. This is like them only caring about the Rose Bowl than wanting to be actually good as a whole. What does it do competitively? Show off how “good” we are in the bowl season that no one remembers the year later? Delaney is a POS.
If the SEC and ACC won’t go to 9, then I hope we bring it back to 8. I’m tired of those teams getting practices in Mid November and padding the W column while we beat the crap out of each other. Bet ya OSU would’ve rather had UMass than Purdue...it just pisses me off.
There are multiple articles out stating we are looking to add Texas and OU to the B1G with no divisions. Top two teams will face each other likely for a 2nd time for the conference title. That means teams have to make it through Michigan, Michigan St, Nebraska, Ohio St, Oklahoma, Penn St, Texas, and Wisconsin just for the right to play the best of the bunch again for the title. If these changes take place, the only way the B1G will send a team to the playoff ever again is if we are guaranteed that the conference champ makes it in.
Delaney... awesome for making money, terrible for winning titles!
Man, 16 teams with (I assume) a 9-game conference schedule. A given team isn't playing 6 of the other teams in the conference, and the standings are supposed to resemble close to best to worst? Given how the Big Ten schedules currently, it wouldn't be unfathomable for a team to miss most of the perennially strong programs and slide up toward the top of the standings, just look at Nebraska basketball a couple times when we've only played the best teams once instead of twice.
It's taking a handicap relative to other conferences (9 conference games) with respect to qualifying for the playoff and making it worse because you know Delaney sees all of those $$$ by having the top teams play each other more often.
I don’t buy with that many teams that Delany wouldn’t have divisions.If that is the case why isn’t he doing now with 14 teams?
And no way are you going to have a 9 game schedule playing all these teams.Michigan,Ohio St ,Wisconsin, Penn St, Michigan St, Oklahoma and texass
You can't have 16 teams in a conference and no divisions and then pick the top two teams if you only play 9 conference games. There is absolutely no way to come up with a consistent schedule. It only works for the Big 12 because there are only 10 Teams.
I guess I thought in an article I read, the divisions would still exist but it would NOT be guaranteed that division champs would play for the league championship.
The league could pick the two best teams who may be in the same division. So this year it MAY have been a rematch between OSU and Michigan.
The league could pick the two best teams who may be in the same division. So this year it MAY have been a rematch between OSU and Michigan.
Well it better be pretty clear cut who the top 2 teams would be especially in you have 4 teams that have 7-2 records.. Better not also be a popularity contest either..
It would have been hard to argue this year that these were the absolute top teams. Michigan only beat Northwestern by 3 and that is after Northwestern had a 17-0 lead. Once Michigan got boatraced by Ohio State could you imagine the outcry if they would have played a week later for the conference championship.
I like two cupcakes and a power five as the third team. Another cupcake later
We shouldn't shoot ourselves in the knees. This is obvious.
We should no longer schedule OOC teams that have a percentage chance to beat us. We should play the game, until it's blown up.
We shouldn't shoot ourselves in the knees. This is obvious.
We should no longer schedule OOC teams that have a percentage chance to beat us. We should play the game, until it's blown up.
Ha!
Big Bucks Big 10 ... show me the money. It's all about the the BTN TV contract, with zero regard for National titles
That's an easy cop out answer. Yes, the solution always is to "just win". Point being the Big Ten has put itself at a competitive disadvantage relative to similarly-sized conferences who play one less conference game. The Big Ten is guaranteed an extra 0.5 losses per team each season compared to the SEC and ACC (all three are 14-team conferences). The SEC isn't scheduling extra Power 5 conference opponents with that extra game, they are scheduling mid-majors and FCS (can't speak to the ACC as I haven't looked at their scheduling practices like I did for the SEC).
Given the scheduling practices, it shouldn't be a shock when the Big Ten in the aggregate has 12-12.5 more losses than the SEC (0.86-0.89 more losses per team).
It's not as simple as "just win".
EDIT: The extra crossover game is a crossover, so a given team plays 3 against the other division with 9 total conference games rather than 2 with 8 total. Look at Ohio State the last two seasons...
2017:
11-2 after the CCG.
Lost vs. #5 Oklahoma (eventual playoff qualifier).
Lost at Iowa (finished 8-5) in a crossover game.
Finished #5 in the final CFP rankings.
2018:
12-1 after the CCG
Lost at Purdue (finished 6-6) in a crossover game.
Finished #5 in the final CFP rankings.
The Big Ten has long-term fixed crossover opponents (Ohio State's fixed crossover has been and will be Nebraska over a 5-6 year period), the other two crossovers are essentially randomly selected (or at least we can't figure out the rhyme or reason for some other than making sure teams end up with 4 home conference games one year and 5 the next).
Assuming the Big Ten would do permanent or long-term fixed crossovers with only 8 conference games, there becomes a 1/6 chance they play Iowa in 2017 (would be in place of Illinois (finished 2-10)) or Purdue in 2018 (would be in place of Minnesota (finished 6-6, like Purdue)), and 1/36 chance they play Iowa in 2017 AND Purdue in 2018. Insert an FCS opponent like the SEC plays, and that is not only a near-guaranteed win for Ohio State each year, it is also less physically taxing on starters (because they will likely be pulled early) and gives backups extended live action.
I'm not an Ohio State apologist or sympathizer, but they are great for this example.
Last edited:
It is simple to say just win. However if you talk to conference coaches ask them how much easier it is to prepare for the next game after playing a non con game against a lesser team than it is following any conf game. I know the answer but evidently some do not. Keep living in your own little world void of realisms and actual life!
Alabama has proven this theory wrong a couple times, lose and don't win your division, let two other teams play in the Conference Championship game and boom, sneak in the playoffs.
Throw in he's been commissioner since 1989. He was stubborn for almost a decade regarding the Big Ten champion's exclusive tie-in with the Rose Bowl that it cost his conference a shot at one national title (1994 Penn State) and an opportunity for an undisputed title another year (1997 Michigan).
He has added 6 teams and a CCG in that time.
Saluno, I can definitely appreciate where you’re coming from on this and yes absolutely you are correct it puts the Big Ten and a competitive advantage and for the record I stand with you all in thought of if the SEC and ACC are doing it then we should as well, I do think the big ten needs to play the system how the rest is playing it... but with all that said it does not change my thoughts of just win... if Ohio state doesn’t lose va Purdue they’re in, yes it is hard to go undefeated any more but it’s not impossible... the good teams find a way to win, the great teams don’t need to search hard for that way to win... winning is your ticket to the show and that’s the bottom line. We have to play with the cards we are dealt until Delaney decides he is done with putting the Big ten at a disadvantage and that’s the whole point of my just win “cop out” statement. I’d hope that in a situation where the ACC, Big12, SEC, Big10, and PAC12 all have an undefeated team, that the confrence that played 9 confrence games and ran the table would be in over a team that played 4 cupcakes... that’s just the way I look at it
I will agree with you that Delaney is f'ing over the conference < EDIT: on the field (not financially) > as a whole on the national scale.
Last edited:
Same to you, I appreciate the quality of input on this topic
I'll play referee and scorekeeper....
It was/ is stupid for the Big Ten to create rules that put them at a competitive disadvantage to other leagues. However, saying it is simply a matter of winning, is just silly. I think 14 out of 14 Big Ten teams could handle Samford, Wafford, The Citadel, Murray St, E. Tenn St, etc....
No I absolutely agree tuco and that’s basically what I was saying in my second post, but until the BIG10 goes that route, as cliche as it is or “cop out” it’s exactaly what needs to happen... I’m not saying I agree with it or that I like it... just saying it don’t make since to cry about it cuz I don’t think Delaney will change it... so the last remaining option is to “just win” so as silly as it may seem it’s the reality of the situation
I think the issue is that "just win" isn't really a solution. That is just saying deal with it.
I ask you this, if Purdue would have won the West, and Ohio St would have avenged their only loss, would they have been in the playoff? Would OU still be in the playoff? Or would Georgia had stayed in front of both. My gut says that the committee wouldn't have wanted to try and break the "tie" between tOSU and OU and would have just said Georgia's loss to Alabama was a better loss than Texas or Purdue and went that way.
I know it is hypothetical, but I believe when you give yourself another opportunity to play a P5 team, you run the risk of losing that game.
The fairest way to deal with it would be to prohibit FBS teams from playing FCS teams. But as a fan of college football at all levels, those games for The Citadel and E. Tenn St fund their programs for the season. Taking those away, would not be good for FCS football as a whole.
As an educator, I am for anything that gives kids a chance to continue to play a sport and get all or some of their college paid for.
First I want to thank you and Saluno for the discussion I much rather the debates over the attacking that typically happens when these debates happen. Second I think you are absolutely correct with your hypothetical situation I think the committee would say the GA loss was better because it was to Alabama and you all know what the perception is of the SEC. which is why I go back to the whole I definitely agree with there needs to be changes to the scheduling for the BIG10. Now I do love to play devils advocate but when I’m presented with an aguement that doesn’t sound more like crying or complaining I have a hard time going against it, and you sir just did that, the “ just win” is most definitely not a solution to the problem it’s the answer to the problem we currently have. If tOSU wins vs Purdue none of this is an issue, and that’s where some of the posts come across as complaining. Delaney does need to open his eyes and realize that the BIG10 can still rake in money by having 8 confrence games compared to the 9 but until that happens I’m sorry to keep saying it, “just win” and we won’t need to have this discussion
The extra game is damaging not so much to the top team(s) in the conference, but to the perception of the conference as a whole. Passing out an additional guaranteed loss to half the team hurts those teams who lose the 9th conference game much more than it helps those who win it.
Any number of losses over 2 and suddenly you don't seem like an elite team. That's how the psychology works, a negative event is much more salient than a positive one.
It takes roughly 5 good interactions with somebody to balance out one bad one. I would argue that ratio is pretty close for W-L in college football as well, you need about 5 wins for every loss to seem like a very good team.
Have to agree with you there, I think they would put Georgia in for exactly that reason, and because Bama-UGA was a close game while Purdue smacked OSU.