Looks like the Big Ten primarily wants to figure out whether no-divisions helps their chances in the next playoff format, and also whether to play 8 conference games instead of 9 to accommodate more games vs. Pac-12 and ACC teams.

My guess...
(1) They will eventually decide that a no-division format is best for the 12-team playoff that 9 of the 10 FBS conferences are already willing to vote for.
(2) They will stick with 9 conference games. Any games with Pac-12 or ACC opponents will be marketed as such, but they won't require each Big Ten team to schedule a Pac-12 or ACC opponent in every season. Also: A few years ago, the Big Ten considered playing 10 conference games a year just because teams in their west division want more games against the big brands in the east. They will probably never play 10, but it seems very unlikely they'll have enough votes to drop from 9 to 8 for any reason whatsoever.

https://theathletic.com/news/big-ten-dis...D4tO9pYmP/

Quote:The future College Football Playoff format could have a major impact on whether the Big Ten eliminates divisions or changes the number of its annual conference games, Iowa athletics director Gary Barta told The Athletic.

The Big Ten currently has East and West divisions and plays a nine-game conference schedule that includes three cross-divisional games. Big Ten administrators have discussed dropping to eight games beginning in 2023 so it can create matchups with teams from the Pac-12 and ACC conferences, with which the trio has a working arrangement called The Alliance.

There also are serious discussions about the Big Ten ending divisional play with schools playing three opponents annually and cycling through the other 10 teams either every other year or two years on, two years off.

"We've had several conversations," Barta said. "One of the things that we're watching is whether it's related to The Alliance, which we're talking through and/or, what gives us the best opportunity to have the most success in the College Football Playoff format?

"We’re wondering if we're going to know what the format is before we have to make that decision. So, we're kind of waiting to see where that lands. But we have had active conversations about the schedule beyond 2022."

(01-26-2022 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Looks like the Big Ten primarily wants to figure out whether no-divisions helps their chances in the next playoff format, and also whether to play 8 conference games instead of 9 to accommodate more games vs. Pac-12 and ACC teams.

IMO, the takeaways are:

1) The B1G expects there to *be* a new playoff format, meaning they don't expect anyone to carry their stonewalling as far as keeping the current 4-team CFP, at least not beyond 2026.

2) The B1G expects that a "top x champs" autobid format, not "P5 autobids", is likely to be the format. Because if it's "top x", then it behooves every conference to abandon divisions, to avoid some 7-5 team making the CCG and upsetting the standard-bearer, possibly knocking the conference out of the playoffs.

(01-26-2022 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Looks like the Big Ten primarily wants to figure out whether no-divisions helps their chances in the next playoff format, and also whether to play 8 conference games instead of 9 to accommodate more games vs. Pac-12 and ACC teams.

IMO, the takeaways are:

1) The B1G expects there to *be* a new playoff format, meaning they don't expect anyone to carry their stonewalling as far as keeping the current 4-team CFP, at least not beyond 2026.

2) The B1G expects that a "top x champs" autobid format, not "P5 autobids", is likely to be the format. Because if it's "top x", then it behooves every conference to abandon divisions, to avoid some 7-5 team making the CCG and upsetting the standard-bearer, possibly knocking the conference out of the playoffs.

Great point on #2. If you have an auto-bid for your champ, you don't care if 7-5 Northwestern upsets 12-0 Ohio State (actually ensures another team in the playoffs)

If yo u don't, you want 12-0 Ohio State matching up against 11-1 Penn State, with Penn State's only loss at the Horseshoe. That way, you know your champ will be a top 4 champ.

If they unilaterally scrap divisions, does that mean they need a rule change to hold a (lucrative) CCG? Will they get that rule change?

(01-26-2022 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Looks like the Big Ten primarily wants to figure out whether no-divisions helps their chances in the next playoff format, and also whether to play 8 conference games instead of 9 to accommodate more games vs. Pac-12 and ACC teams.

IMO, the takeaways are:

1) The B1G expects there to *be* a new playoff format, meaning they don't expect anyone to carry their stonewalling as far as keeping the current 4-team CFP, at least not beyond 2026.

2) The B1G expects that a "top x champs" autobid format, not "P5 autobids", is likely to be the format. Because if it's "top x", then it behooves every conference to abandon divisions, to avoid some 7-5 team making the CCG and upsetting the standard-bearer, possibly knocking the conference out of the playoffs.

A 7-5 team winning a division is almost impossible, even more so with 9 conference games, because it would pretty much require a team that lost 3 non-conference games to win its division.

A 9-3 team winning a division and pulling off a CCG upset is very possible, though. And a no-division format only slightly reduces that possibility. In 2021, the SEC was the only P conference in which both CCG teams had only one loss, and the other 4 still would have had at least one team in the CCG with multiple losses even if all of them, and not just the Big 12, used a no-division.

The no-division format helps a CCG upset loser's chances of getting an at large playoff place, in that the loss isn't as bad on paper if they can only lose to the best or 2nd best team in the conference, as opposed to being knocked off by the winner of an inferior division. But even then there's no guarantee that the CCG loss won't knock them out.

Not playing a CCG is the only sure way to solidify your top team's place in a playoff, and to not hurt the playoff chances of a potential CCG loser. But apparently there's no conference willing to leave CCG money on the table to do that.

So this year looking at things- the only P5 conference that would have seen it's CCG matchup change is Big Ten. Instead of Michigan vs #13 Iowa, it'd have been Michigan vs #7 Ohio St.
looking at G5- AAC had 11 team 1 division only so they're obviously fine. SBC and CUSA would have had same matchup. Not as sure on MAC/MWC- it'd have gone to tiebreakers.
edit- so looking- MAC would have been 3 way tie with EMU, KSU, and NIU. they all split 1-1. Would have gone to deep tiebreakers
MWC- Fresno didn't play either Utah St or Air Force. So USU with their win would have gotten the spot based on beating Air Force. So same matchup as original.

So very possible only Big Ten would see matchup change this season.

(01-26-2022 04:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  So this year looking at things- the only P5 conference that would have seen it's CCG matchup change is Big Ten. Instead of Michigan vs #13 Iowa, it'd have been Michigan vs #7 Ohio St.
looking at G5- AAC had 11 team 1 division only so they're obviously fine. SBC and CUSA would have had same matchup. Not as sure on MAC/MWC- it'd have gone to tiebreakers.

Yeah, IMO there is rarely going to be much of a difference from the conference's point of view, unless two divisions are so imbalanced that one division dominates the other in cross-division games.

The factor unrelated to playoff format is whether the conference members want conference games to be distributed differently (more rotation of opponents with only 2 or 3 "protected" matchups) than they are in a two-division format.

(01-26-2022 04:11 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 03:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Looks like the Big Ten primarily wants to figure out whether no-divisions helps their chances in the next playoff format, and also whether to play 8 conference games instead of 9 to accommodate more games vs. Pac-12 and ACC teams.

IMO, the takeaways are:

1) The B1G expects there to *be* a new playoff format, meaning they don't expect anyone to carry their stonewalling as far as keeping the current 4-team CFP, at least not beyond 2026.

2) The B1G expects that a "top x champs" autobid format, not "P5 autobids", is likely to be the format. Because if it's "top x", then it behooves every conference to abandon divisions, to avoid some 7-5 team making the CCG and upsetting the standard-bearer, possibly knocking the conference out of the playoffs.

A 7-5 team winning a division is almost impossible, even more so with 9 conference games, because it would pretty much require a team that lost 3 non-conference games to win its division.

A 9-3 team winning a division and pulling off a CCG upset is very possible, though. And a no-division format only slightly reduces that possibility. In 2021, the SEC was the only P conference in which both CCG teams had only one loss, and the other 4 still would have had at least one team in the CCG with multiple losses even if all of them, and not just the Big 12, used a no-division.

The no-division format helps a CCG upset loser's chances of getting an at large playoff place, in that the loss isn't as bad on paper if they can only lose to the best or 2nd best team in the conference, as opposed to being knocked off by the winner of an inferior division. But even then there's no guarantee that the CCG loss won't knock them out.

Not playing a CCG is the only sure way to solidify your top team's place in a playoff, and to not hurt the playoff chances of a potential CCG loser. But apparently there's no conference willing to leave CCG money on the table to do that.

7-5 Wisconsin won the 2012 B1G Championship Game, with the top two teams in the division being ineligible
8-4 Northwestern lost in the 2018 B1G Championship Game, losing all three non-conference games. They were ranked #21 going into the game. Had they won, Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Washington all would have been ranked higher, and would not have been the highest B1G team. Fresno State was #19 in the post-CCG poll.

(01-26-2022 04:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 04:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  So this year looking at things- the only P5 conference that would have seen it's CCG matchup change is Big Ten. Instead of Michigan vs #13 Iowa, it'd have been Michigan vs #7 Ohio St.
looking at G5- AAC had 11 team 1 division only so they're obviously fine. SBC and CUSA would have had same matchup. Not as sure on MAC/MWC- it'd have gone to tiebreakers.

Yeah, IMO there is rarely going to be much of a difference from the conference's point of view, unless two divisions are so imbalanced that one division dominates the other in cross-division games.

The factor unrelated to playoff format is whether the conference members want conference games to be distributed differently (more rotation of opponents with only 2 or 3 "protected" matchups) than they are in a two-division format.

I think it'd be bigger for the G5 to help them out some years actually.

(01-26-2022 04:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  If they unilaterally scrap divisions, does that mean they need a rule change to hold a (lucrative) CCG? Will they get that rule change?

Yes, they need a rule change.

My educated guess is that if the Big Ten wants it, they'll get the rule change since they were the ones that blocked that rule change (previously proposed by the ACC) in the past. If the Big Ten is supporting it now, then it almost certainly will get passed (as the ACC has been on the record as wanting it and, seeing the SEC's plans for 4-team pods, the SEC is going to want it, too).

As others have noted, it behooves everybody to scrap divisions in a 6+6 CFP in order to ensure that the two best teams (regardless of location) are meeting in the CCG.

The ACC has wanted this for some time.

Since divisions one of the division winners was 2 or 3 losses worse than the second place team in the other division in 2018, 2017, 2012, 2009, and 2005. That's roughly every three years that the far and away best two teams are in the same division.

They should scrap divisions, but keep a few games annually for rivalry purposes:

Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State and Purdue
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan: Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State
Michigan State: Indiana, Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois
Ohio State: Illinois, Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Purdue: Illinois, Indiana
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

Northwestern is a flexible rivalry game, especially if the game is in Evanston, since so many B1G alumni live in the Chicago-area. All other games can easily be interchangeable based on projections.

(01-26-2022 04:30 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 04:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 04:19 PM)stever20 Wrote:  So this year looking at things- the only P5 conference that would have seen it's CCG matchup change is Big Ten. Instead of Michigan vs #13 Iowa, it'd have been Michigan vs #7 Ohio St.
looking at G5- AAC had 11 team 1 division only so they're obviously fine. SBC and CUSA would have had same matchup. Not as sure on MAC/MWC- it'd have gone to tiebreakers.

Yeah, IMO there is rarely going to be much of a difference from the conference's point of view, unless two divisions are so imbalanced that one division dominates the other in cross-division games.

The factor unrelated to playoff format is whether the conference members want conference games to be distributed differently (more rotation of opponents with only 2 or 3 "protected" matchups) than they are in a two-division format.

I think it'd be bigger for the G5 to help them out some years actually.

Right. If there's a 6+6 format, a G conference might think, the committee doesn't like us anyway and we need every possible edge, so let's make absolutely sure our top two teams are in the CCG.

I'm not so sure going division-less equates with support of the 6-6 playoff structure. What going division-less does do is open up possibilities for further growth of conferences, limited of course by profitability. It also frees expansion from having to keep divisional balance in mind.

I do think that regardless of the eventual CFP model it will help ensure that we have better entrants.

Until we know how many conferences we end up with following pay for play I don't think we should anticipate any particular model for playoff expansion.

(01-26-2022 04:43 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  They should scrap divisions, but keep a few games annually for rivalry purposes:

Illinois: Northwestern, Ohio State and Purdue
Indiana: Purdue, Michigan State
Iowa: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska
Maryland: Penn State, Rutgers
Michigan: Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State
Michigan State: Indiana, Michigan, Penn State
Minnesota: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Nebraska: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
Northwestern: Illinois
Ohio State: Illinois, Michigan, Penn State
Penn State: Maryland, Michigan State, Ohio State, Rutgers
Purdue: Illinois, Indiana
Rutgers: Maryland, Penn State
Wisconsin: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

Northwestern is a flexible rivalry game, especially if the game is in Evanston, since so many B1G alumni live in the Chicago-area. All other games can easily be interchangeable based on projections.

I think the Big Ten would make everything even with all schools getting 3 permanent annual rivals. That allows each school to play everyone else either every other year or 2 years on/2 years off. I can't see the Big Ten having some schools with 4 rivals and others with just 1.

Also, I see it as being much simpler.

Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska would be virtually guaranteed to stick together as a pod.

Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue and Indiana also makes sense as a pod.

From there, the Eastern half of the league splits into 3-team mini-pods with one cross-pod rival each.

Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State are mini-pod 1.

Penn State, Rutgers and Maryland are mini-pod 2.

Ohio State-Penn State, Michigan-Rutgers and Michigan State-Maryland are the cross-pod rivals.

That gives everyone 3 annual rivals each in a logical geographic distribution with all of the major rivalries covered.

(01-26-2022 04:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-26-2022 04:09 PM)ken d Wrote:  If they unilaterally scrap divisions, does that mean they need a rule change to hold a (lucrative) CCG? Will they get that rule change?

Yes, they need a rule change.

My educated guess is that if the Big Ten wants it, they'll get the rule change since they were the ones that blocked that rule change (previously proposed by the ACC) in the past. If the Big Ten is supporting it now, then it almost certainly will get passed (as the ACC has been on the record as wanting it and, seeing the SEC's plans for 4-team pods, the SEC is going to want it, too).

As others have noted, it behooves everybody to scrap divisions in a 6+6 CFP in order to ensure that the two best teams (regardless of location) are meeting in the CCG.

It behooves the top 25 programs or so. Not the rest. The Big 10 West schools will have to beat out Ohio St., Michigan AND Penn St.

(01-26-2022 04:38 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The ACC has wanted this for some time.

Since divisions one of the division winners was 2 or 3 losses worse than the second place team in the other division in 2018, 2017, 2012, 2009, and 2005. That's roughly every three years that the far and away best two teams are in the same division.

That's because the ACC is too stupid to create logical divisions.

Divisionless will lead to messy tie breakers and lots of aggravation—mark my words

The data back to the 90s supports this.

(01-26-2022 06:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Divisionless will lead to messy tie breakers and lots of aggravation—mark my words

The data back to the 90s supports this.

Exactly.

And you will have vast disparity in schedules. All you have to do is look at the 11 team Big 10. Basically, whoever managed to skip Ohio St. and Michigan immediately became a contender. And that was with only 11 teams and 8 games, so you only missed 2 teams.

Its a really, really horrible idea that flies against one of the key tenets of expanding the playoffs-deciding it on the field. Now it will be decided by the schedule makers and obscure tiebreaks.

One of the worst ideas out there for any conference over 12 teams and its problematic for 11 and 12 team conferences.

I once saw an idea that conferences could do divisionless so long as it was impossible for more than 2 teams to go undefeated. This would make divisions mostly necessary for conferences with more than 12 teams.