probably still have it.. just do top 4 finishers.. 1 v 4, 2 v 3, winners for the championshipSo if divisions are eliminated no championship game?
14 B1G teams, you play 8 of them in a season and miss 5. How can you have 14 teams in one standings when their schedules will have minimal similarity - you may only have 3 or 4 common opponents?
Nothing to worry about, there’s no way that a Kevin Warren type would arrange the schedule so that it would benefit an OSU or Michigan (just to pick 2 random programs). /sThis is my concern. It works great for Big XII (current model) when you play everyone. Not as practical when contenders will have obvious advantages based on schedule randomness.
Guessing the extra available game in the schedule would be a guaranteed alliance game. Goes into a pot and you play a random PAC-12/ACC game. This way you can wait to schedule these games to maximize matchup balance. Also wonder if Big Ten would roll back their FCS rule.
I'd prefer Iowa rather than Purdue/indiana.I may be wrong but I bet this 8 game, no division system will work something like this. X team will have 3 guaranteed opponents each year and will split the 5 games against the other 10 teams. Team X will play 5 teams home and home in years 1 and 2 and then the other 5 teams home and home in years 3 and 4. This will allow a 4 year player to play against every B1G team during their time at home and away.
As for Illinois' guaranteed 3 teams, I am betting it will be Northwestern (Rivalry Week/Thanksgiving), Purdue, and Ohio State, with Indiana potentially taking Purdue's place. These games are all traditional rivalry games and playing Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. 2 times in 4 years would be relatively easy to schedule around.
If the B1G expands to 16 team, the process can be repeated with a 9 game schedule with 3 being annual opponents and having the 6 rotating games.
Make Iowa a trophy game? Fight of the Ear of Corn?I'd prefer Iowa rather than Purdue/indiana.
Hard to see Illinois not play Iowa every year, that doesn't make sense to me.I'd prefer Iowa rather than Purdue/indiana.
"Which are the Big 10?" Could become a meaningful question.Implement relegation you cowards!
"Which are the Big 10?" Could become a meaningful question.
Or would relegation be to the MAC?
www.illinoisloyalty.com
I'm not sure what this does for the money side of it. Better non-con matchups is better for the money part, but I don't see any additional $$ getting rid of divisions. What I do see is that the teams currently in the East may get "better" schedules by having more games with West teams. It's kind of fun watching the meat grinder of the East with tO$U, scUM, and PedSU all thinking they're superpowers.The only thing I’m confident about at this point is that they will screw it up. If only we could add a few more teams, and then not play each other, except some teams every year and others once a decade, then we could crown a true champion and not have to worry about parity of scheduling by divisions. Honest to god, you can’t fix stupid.
Just come out and say all we care about is the money. At least that would be logical and truthful.
I agree and don’t forget MSU thinks they are a super power too. The added games that come at the expense of conference matchups I’m sure are expected to draw a bigger national audience. There is no way 8 conference games in a 14 team league will ever come up with a fair schedule. The divisions with a championship game was as close as it ever would come imo and gives more possible outcomes for the most teams. What’s being talked about is a path to irrelevance for the majority of schools. Of course we’ve been irrelevant for a long time now, but the divisions give us a possible path. I don’t see it with what’s being talked about now. And change for the sake of change is a real pet peeve of mine. Plus I’m old, so I’ve got that going for me too.I'm not sure what this does for the money side of it. Better non-con matchups is better for the money part, but I don't see any additional $$ getting rid of divisions. What I do see is that the teams currently in the East may get "better" schedules by having more games with West teams. It's kind of fun watching the meat grinder of the East with tO$U, scUM, and PedSU all thinking they're superpowers.
Kevin Warren: "Well, my job here is done. You're welcome OSU and Michigan."I agree and don’t forget MSU thinks they are a super power too. The added games that come at the expense of conference matchups I’m sure are expected to draw a bigger national audience. There is no way 8 conference games in a 14 team league will ever come up with a fair schedule. The divisions with a championship game was as close as it ever would come imo and gives more possible outcomes for the most teams. What’s being talked about is a path to irrelevance for the majority of schools. Of course we’ve been irrelevant for a long time now, but the divisions give us a possible path. I don’t see it with what’s being talked about now. And change for the sake of change is a real pet peeve of mine. Plus I’m old, so I’ve got that going for me too.![]()
Didn't play them for 15 years straight in 50s and 60s.Hard to see Illinois not play Iowa every year, that doesn't make sense to me.