Mailbag question: Big Ten Conference
Mailbag question: Big Ten Conference
All the talk seems to be that the Big Ten will copy the other twelve-team conferences.
First, they will divide into two six-team divisions. Second, the champions of each division would then meet in a championship game. I think this is a bad approach. The biggest problem is that while a school may play everyone in the same division, it still would not play all the teams in the other division. So we end up with the same mess we have now where a team can avoid playing the top teams (e.g. not playing Ohio State and Michigan) and then win the division or conference titles.
I think a better plan would be to simply increase the number of conference games from 8 to 9 and then take the top two teams for the championship game. You could end up with teams playing twice but that could happen in a divisional setup as well. What is ensured is that if one division is weak and the other is strong, the best two teams still play in the championship.
It would require some tiebreaker rules, or better, have an extra game to break the ties. This approach would maintain all traditional rivalries and end of season match-ups (e.g. Michigan vs. Ohio State). It would also show that the Big Ten has a better idea.
What do you think?
Alan K.
———————————-
Thanks for the question, Alan.
With a transition to a 12-team (so-far) league, plenty of “solutions or protocols” have been put forth. It is hard to say right or wrong to any imagined solution, as each has a different underlying perspective based on a set of real or imagined scenarios. Before going on, the NCAA has requirements limiting the number of games a team may play. This effectively eliminates any play-in games.
Actually, GBMWolverine would like to see a sixteen-team conference with two eight-team divisions. Like all followers of Big Ten football, our staff members were very excited to hear all the buzz associated with the “what ifs” of the recent gold rush among the conferences for prized teams, and, most importantly, increased revenue.
But the gold rush found some pyrite (fool’s gold) at the end of round one of college football reconstruction. The gold turned to pyrite for some when the Big 12 Conference caved in by giving Texas a most favorable team status to remain in the conference, instead of bolting to the Pac10 Conference and taking other Big 12 teams on the Longhorn coattails. All of us saw how involved and provincial the Texas situation was, reaching clear to the depth of the Texas Legislature.
Our favored scenario is a team playing (if the league goes to 16) the other seven teams within its division, plus two or three crossover games (which means the conference would have to go to 9-10 conference games). This would not be popular with some teams since it would likely negate some out of conference wins needed to make bowl games. Many teams from the Big Ten have gone to bowls with six or seven wins the last few years.
This would leave room for two or three regional, out of conference rivalry games that teams have always played, or a team could choose to play one big-time team, along with filling out the schedule with easier competition. For example, Nebraska could again annually play a team like Oklahoma and renew a rivalry that was split up, for some reason, when the Big 12 was formed.
Having the crossover games are key, we believe, for keeping traditional games alive, a situation that is best for college football’s history, tradition and the loyal, passionate fans that support the sport with uncompromised loyalty and attendance.
Michigan, many would maintain, should always be playing Ohio State, Michigan State, and perhaps Minnesota (the sometimes overlooked, but very historical Little Brown Jug). Of course such an assumption would be based on each team’s division assignment.
The biggest debate might end up being the Michigan-Ohio State question. Some will want the rivals within the same division to eliminate the possibility of playing twice a year.
Others might opt for the two rivals to be located within different divisions, providing a possibility of a re-match game in the Big Ten championship game. Those not in favor of the above choice contend that such an alignment would take away from “The Game” and playing back-to-back games might tarnish the end of the season match-up.
Fans likely look at what is best for their team and not the entire conference. As followers of the Big Ten, GBMWolverine does not want the Big Ten Conference to become a watered-down league (Nebraska strengthens the league). Some conferences appear to add teams, just to add teams (and gain revenue).
Some want a North/South arrangement, while others want an East/West arrangement, and some support picking teams based on a perceived equalization remedy (balance of power is always subject to change). The equalization/balance of power solution does not necessarily factor in distance, rivalries, etc.
Still, even if the equalization formula is not adopted, the Big Ten must be careful not to set up a split whereby one division is clearly superior to the other (see the recent history of the Big 12).
A smart alignment could actually enhance the rivalry. Remember all the talk about Michigan and Ohio State’s possible re-match in the National Championship game? Michigan fans certainly were in favor of that potential rematch, especially playing on a neutral field away from Columbus.
One final point of discussion associated with Big Ten alignment is the nature of the championship game. Who should play? The two division winners will likely be the hands-down choice over the two best records. There will be ties, both within the division and out of division. Head-to-head result is almost always the deciding factor leagues assign to such judgments.
There will also be discussion/decision making about the location(s) of the championship game. If the decision is outdoors, should the game be played on the campus of the team with the best overall record? Should the game be played at a neutral site?
Should the game be played at an indoor structure, and if so which structure? Should the game be rotated among a number of elite possibilities, notably the new football facilities within the Big Ten Conference geography, such as Lucas Oil Field, where the Indianapolis Colts play, or Ford Field, where the Detroit Lions play?
Would we like to see the game played at the Packer’s Lambeau Field? Sure, but most teams in the Big Ten Conference have Fieldturf, so doubt is cast as to whether playing at Lambeau field on the painted grass/dirt in December is an optimum way of showcasing conference talent in a championship game. Those probing eyes that will vote for the two teams playing for the BCS championship game will be in full mode.
Whatever happens, some will be happy and others disappointed in the direction the Big Ten chooses to embark. But both sides must temper a judgment on the success of the decisions associated with alignment since it will take a few years to actually assess how realignment choices play out.
Written by GBMWolverine Staff
Go Blue — Wear Maize!