Any further news/rumors about a move to eliminate divisions?

How do you feel about it?

Well it's summer break, so pretty dead. I imagine they will continue to study the concept in the competition committee, and it will be discussed. It's not one of those immediate actionable things. This is something for the next schedule cycle.

I actually expect the B1G to not be particularly active this next year on anything. This is the first year of the new commissioner, and he will be getting a feel for the layout of the land.

Frankly I think it would be good to get rid of divisions in Football. It would be nice for Ohio State to play Wisconsin and Illinois a bit more often, and it's not the end of the world to not play one of Purdue, Michigan State, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland in any given year to make room. I'm sure the sentiment is similar at other schools. I think like the SEC basketball schedule, shadow divisions would still kind of exist, but there would be more crossover to play schools in the "other" division.

Obviously it makes expansion easier, since you could add just one good fit school instead of having to have even numbers.

For the CCG it's kind of unimportant. Sure it could lead to a rematch of Michigan vs Ohio State or Wisconsin vs Iowa, but the CCG still wont be what it was intended until an automatic playoff berth is on the line. It'll just be a "data point" with more chances to knock a school out than in. Divisions or no Divisions, it makes no difference.

(06-13-2019 12:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Well it's summer break, so pretty dead. I imagine they will continue to study the concept in the competition committee, and it will be discussed. It's not one of those immediate actionable things. This is something for the next schedule cycle.

I actually expect the B1G to not be particularly active this next year on anything. This is the first year of the new commissioner, and he will be getting a feel for the layout of the land.

Frankly I think it would be good to get rid of divisions in Football. It would be nice for Ohio State to play Wisconsin and Illinois a bit more often, and it's not the end of the world to not play one of Purdue, Michigan State, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland in any given year to make room. I'm sure the sentiment is similar at other schools. I think like the SEC basketball schedule, shadow divisions would still kind of exist, but there would be more crossover to play schools in the "other" division.

Obviously it makes expansion easier, since you could add just one good fit school instead of having to have even numbers.

For the CCG it's kind of unimportant. Sure it could lead to a rematch of Michigan vs Ohio State or Wisconsin vs Iowa, but the CCG still wont be what it was intended until an automatic playoff berth is on the line. It'll just be a "data point" with more chances to knock a school out than in. Divisions or no Divisions, it makes no difference.

Agree, can the divisions. You're in the same conference as each other for one reason, to play each other. Allows for this to happen, especially when playing 9 conference games.

ACC wanted this a few years ago but AH Delaney didn't want to help the ACC out.

I think Big Ten (and others worry) was doing away with divisions would risk restarting realingment. It would make expansion easier if 2 division round robin not a concern.

All that said, I then and continue to support a divisionless structure (lock 2 or 3 teams a piece).

(06-13-2019 02:26 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I think Big Ten (and others worry) was doing away with divisions would risk restarting realingment. It would make expansion easier if 2 division round robin not a concern.

All that said, I then and continue to support a divisionless structure (lock 2 or 3 teams a piece).

I sort of agree. It's caused a lot of issues in the SEC as well.

Doubt it had anything to do with realignment. Mostly paranoia a non division conf could work the system to jump a B10 champ. But that happened with div, so now....

(06-13-2019 02:13 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  ACC wanted this a few years ago but AH Delaney didn't want to help the ACC out.

Absolutely shortsighted move on his part. But isn't he a lawyer by training? Most are reactive, rarely are they proactive.

I like the division structure. It allows for a clear division winner. When there's a two way tie for first in a division it goes to the H2H winner. In the unusual circumstance that it's 3 or more you hand it to the highest ranked team.

With that said, the Big Ten West could use some beefing up and Oklahoma could remedy that. The carrot for the university president at OU to pull that trigger is the Big Ten Academic Consortium.

My prediction is that the Big Ten will get rid of divisions starting in 2022.

This way, they will complete the 6-year cycle from 2016-2021 where everybody plays everybody at least twice, once at home, once at the other guys place.

Then in 2022, it will switch to a schedule where everybody gets 5 permanent rivals and plays everybody else twice in 4 years.

(06-13-2019 12:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Well it's summer break, so pretty dead. I imagine they will continue to study the concept in the competition committee, and it will be discussed. It's not one of those immediate actionable things. This is something for the next schedule cycle.

I actually expect the B1G to not be particularly active this next year on anything. This is the first year of the new commissioner, and he will be getting a feel for the layout of the land.

Frankly I think it would be good to get rid of divisions in Football. It would be nice for Ohio State to play Wisconsin and Illinois a bit more often, and it's not the end of the world to not play one of Purdue, Michigan State, Indiana, Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland in any given year to make room. I'm sure the sentiment is similar at other schools. I think like the SEC basketball schedule, shadow divisions would still kind of exist, but there would be more crossover to play schools in the "other" division.

Obviously it makes expansion easier, since you could add just one good fit school instead of having to have even numbers.

For the CCG it's kind of unimportant. Sure it could lead to a rematch of Michigan vs Ohio State or Wisconsin vs Iowa, but the CCG still wont be what it was intended until an automatic playoff berth is on the line. It'll just be a "data point" with more chances to knock a school out than in. Divisions or no Divisions, it makes no difference.

It’s horrible for cogs. In a 14 team conference you will always be dealing wiith tiebreaks and vastly different schedules

There won't be enough votes in favor of allowing everyone to have CCGs without divisions until at least a few more conferences want to adopt that format. Until that point arrives, the conferences who don't plan to do it will be suspicious of those that want it.

BTW, in 2016, the Big Ten supported the compromise that allowed the Big 12 (and any other league with 10 or fewer teams) to stage a no-division CCG, but the SEC and AAC voted against the rule change. The Pac-12 didn't vote (presumably missed the vote).

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...title-game

Yeah the ACC and the American could benefit to have no divisions. The NC ACC Schools could them play each other every year as well get all other ACC teams on the schedule in three years. Same goes for the American with Navy and being able to play more Eastern teams

(06-13-2019 02:13 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  ACC wanted this a few years ago but AH Delaney didn't want to help the ACC out.

The ACC knew the B1G wouldn't support their idea, but it was the SEC that threw the ACC under the bus, when they sided with the B1G.
The SEC is just as sinister as the B1G, maybe more so.

(06-14-2019 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-13-2019 02:13 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  ACC wanted this a few years ago but AH Delaney didn't want to help the ACC out.

The ACC knew the B1G wouldn't support their idea, but it was the SEC that threw the ACC under the bus, when they sided with the B1G.
The SEC is just as sinister as the B1G, maybe more so.

As I recall the ACC idea was just that: "We have an idea, but we're not totally sure how we want to do this (cuz we want to always position our teams in the most favorable position), so if you could just go ahead and approve our right to make up our minds later, that would be cool."

Now, that was before anyone thought that the playoff committee would have such difficulty accepting our conference champion as our primary applicant, so perhaps nothing really matters anymore.