- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Anybody else think the B1G messed up the new divisions set to begin in 2014?
Posted on 7/16/13 at 10:09 pm to molsusports
Posted on 7/16/13 at 10:09 pm to molsusports
quote:
It seems to me that the Big 10 has had a problem with tOSU dominating the rest of the conference lately but their bigger problem for the future is they've settled on divisions that will make the imbalance worse. Three of the top four programs are in the Big Ten East (Michigan, tOSU, PSU)
It sounds counter intuitive, but I'd argue that its better to have all thew dominant powers in 1 division in that case. In this set up only 1 of those 3 can play in the CCG in any given year. If you split them up, aren't they more likely to face each other in the CCG? Use the Big 12 as an example. Texas and OU more or less dominated the conference since 2000. If they were in different divisions, they would have played in the CCG in 2000, 03, 04, 06, and possibly 08 depending on what division TTU was in. KSU won the Big 12 CG in 2003, other than that either UT or OU won anyway ever year after that.. At least by them being in different divisions, KSU did win one and Mizzo, CU and NU all got to at least play for the title.
This post was edited on 7/16/13 at 10:11 pm
2
Posted on 7/16/13 at 10:12 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:This makes sense, but the divisions are more balanced than most are realizing.
It sounds counter intuitive, but I'd argue that its better to have all thew dominant powers in 1 division in that case. In this set up only 1 of those 3 can play in the CCG in any given year. If you split them up, aren't they more likely to face each other in the CCG? Use the Big 12 as an example. Texas and OU more or less dominated the conference since 2000. If they were in different divisions, they would have played in the CCG in 2000, 03, 04, 06, and possibly 08 depending on what division TTU was in. KSU won the Big 12 CG in 2003, other than that either UT or OU won anyway ever year after that.. At least by them being in different divisions, KSU did win one and Mizzo, CU and NU all got to at least play for the title.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 10:13 pm to Moustache
quote:
The only reason they were good before is Barry Alvarez and then Bob bostad. When Bostad and Doering both left Bielema he fell on his face.
Am I on the SEC Rant?
Posted on 7/16/13 at 10:23 pm to CtotheVrzrbck
Who cares about the new divisions! 
They're both slow!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FACT!
Now you are.
They're both slow!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FACT!
quote:
Am I on the SEC Rant?
Now you are.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 10:24 pm to CtotheVrzrbck
Posted on 7/16/13 at 10:37 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
It sounds counter intuitive, but I'd argue that its better to have all thew dominant powers in 1 division in that case. In this set up only 1 of those 3 can play in the CCG in any given year. If you split them up, aren't they more likely to face each other in the CCG?
why wouldn't you want want two of the better teams to meet in the CCG? It seems to me the SEC has benefited greatly from the divisions being fairly balanced
Posted on 7/16/13 at 10:48 pm to Bunk Moreland
I can't tell you how bad I hope Bielema runs it up on SEC teams. All of the shite we've taken and the disaster that resulted from the Bob P fiasco and lame duck coaches last season.
A few 63-14 skull draggings will put a smile back on my face.
A few 63-14 skull draggings will put a smile back on my face.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 11:55 pm to molsusports
quote:
why wouldn't you want want two of the better teams to meet in the CCG? It seems to me the SEC has benefited greatly from the divisions being fairly balanced
I think you are making 2 different arguments. On the one hand you are saying 1 division is too stacked and on the other saying only a couple of teams have dominated the conference. If you only have 2 or 3 top programs, spreading the them out makes the divisions look more balanced on paper, but it doesn't make the league overall more balanced. If you want more different teams to win, then you'd be better off keeping the historically dominant programs in the same division. Or to put another way, you list of conference winners won't change by putting tOSU and UM in different divisions.
With the SEC you have balance because you have 6 maybe 7 now with A&M, that can and have won at a high level. 6 different SEC teams have won the NC since 1980, 5 since 1998, only 4 teams currently in the B1G have won a NC in that same time and 2 of those (PSU and NU) were not in the B1G last time they won.
Posted on 7/16/13 at 11:56 pm to CtotheVrzrbck
quote:
I can't tell you how bad I hope Bielema runs it up on SEC teams. All of the shite we've taken and the disaster that resulted from the Bob P fiasco and lame duck coaches last season.
A few 63-14 skull draggings will put a smile back on my face
don't hold you breath
well maybe you'll get Kentucky sometime
Posted on 7/17/13 at 12:07 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
I think you are making 2 different arguments. On the one hand you are saying 1 division is too stacked and on the other saying only a couple of teams have dominated the conference. If you only have 2 or 3 top programs, spreading the them out makes the divisions look more balanced on paper, but it doesn't make the league overall more balanced.
that's true to some extent. it doesn't balance the conference as a whole but it does a better job of distributing the best teams between the divisions... as we've seen in the Big 12 that's something that should be considered.
quote:
If you want more different teams to win, then you'd be better off keeping the historically dominant programs in the same division.
I don't want to gerrymander the system to give teams that are less deserving a better chance to win. that's a dishonest way of attempting to claim there's more parity than there is.
Posted on 7/17/13 at 12:19 am to H-Town Tiger
As long as the resources are there programs will capitalize on opportunities.
South Carolina capitalized on Tennessee becoming a dumpster fire. So would a program taking advantage of a path to success in another division with programs in a rut or just historically not strong. Someone would rise to the top as a solid contender.
I think it makes more sense to not create a biased setup in alignment and scheduling. Ex- the Missouri addition to the eastern division of the SEC. That is just stupid.
We do the same thing with biased polls by making prestige a factor. That is why I am all about objective criteria and not the "eye test".
South Carolina capitalized on Tennessee becoming a dumpster fire. So would a program taking advantage of a path to success in another division with programs in a rut or just historically not strong. Someone would rise to the top as a solid contender.
I think it makes more sense to not create a biased setup in alignment and scheduling. Ex- the Missouri addition to the eastern division of the SEC. That is just stupid.
We do the same thing with biased polls by making prestige a factor. That is why I am all about objective criteria and not the "eye test".
Posted on 7/17/13 at 7:21 am to molsusports
quote:
as we've seen in the Big 12 that's something that should be considered.
When the Big XII started, the balance of power was in the North, it shifted to the South because Texas and OU were underachieving and hired good coaches, while Nebraska didn't. Colorado imploded due to scandals, plus they don't have a natural recruiting base that really wouldn't change if OU and Texas were in different divisions. Synder retired from KSU. What is there to consider? How would different divisions have changed any of that?
quote:
I don't want to gerrymander the system to give teams that are less deserving a better chance to win. that's a dishonest way of attempting to claim there's more parity than there is.
Well, they've set up the divisions in the B1G geographically, it seems some of you are arguing they should gerrymander the divisions in order to distribute the historically dominant programs. In the end I really don't get the what the issue is, other that saying maybe the East will win the B1G CG more often.
2 other things to consider; Ohio State and Michigan is a rivalry that needs to be protected, if they are in different divisions, you would have to have permanent opponents, which is not ideal and can lead to having teams in the same conference not playing each other for up to 8 years which is absurd. Next from a conference perspective, if you top teams do play twice, you run the risk of knocking one of them out of the playoff or better bowl position.
This post was edited on 7/17/13 at 8:46 am
Posted on 7/17/13 at 7:36 am to SprintFun
quote:
This thread just proves that people will always bitch no matter what they do.
This divisional lineup is better than Leaders/Legends by a mile.
Posted on 7/17/13 at 5:09 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
When the Big XII started, the balance of power was in the North, it shifted to the South because Texas and OU were underachieving and hired good coaches, while Nebraska didn't. Colorado imploded due to scandals, plus they don't have a natural recruiting base that really wouldn't change if OU and Texas were in different divisions. Synder retired from KSU. What is there to consider? How would different divisions have changed any of that?
Look at the map and where the recruiting is. The Big 12 should have realized there were no talent rich states in the Big 12 North and that would be a long term problem.
If anything the Big 10 has more options in this respect than teh Big 12 did. The Big 12 had states like Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, and Nebraska in the North where football talent only slightly exceeds what you find in Montana, the Dakotas, or Wyoming. That's a big problem. That's been a strength in the SEC where there are fertile recruiting grounds throughout the conference and the few teams without this advantage (e.g. Arkansas, Kentucky and perhaps Tennessee) compete at a recruiting disadvantage.
quote:
Well, they've set up the divisions in the B1G geographically, it seems some of you are arguing they should gerrymander the divisions in order to distribute the historically dominant programs. In the end I really don't get the what the issue is, other that saying maybe the East will win the B1G CG more often.
Here I think you misunderstand my point or misrepresent your earlier point. Before you seemed to argue that is you put a disproportionate number of the good teams in just one division that's a potentially good thing because the representative of the lesser division may vary more often and therefore the conference champ may vary more often (instead of typically being one of three to four teams)
I find a couple of things wrong with that division of programs (even setting aside the recruiting issues of having almost all your good recruiting grounds in one division).
One, you want to be fair and this proposal isn't fair. Putting a bunch of good teams in just one division is unfair to those good teams (relative to what opportunity they would have in the opposite division) and unfair to the lower tier teams in that good division (relative to the opportunity for success they would have in the opposite division).
Two, you want your conference championship game to take off like the SEC's CCG has - it should be potentially viewed as a major bowl game or a playoff game in the BCS (to get your team noticed by the voters and improved in the polls). That's not really going to happen if you pair up one of your best teams against a middle tier team. All you have managed to accomplish in that scenario is put your really good team at risk of an upset loss and qualifying a less deserving team for your most prestigious bowl game (Rose Bowl bid).
quote:
2 other things to consider; Ohio State and Michigan is a rivalry that needs to be protected, if they are in different divisions
This is a distraction argument relative to our discussion. I haven't proposed putting tOSU and Michigan in different divisions - I just don't want to put three of the top four programs in the Big 10 in the same division.
quote:
can lead to having teams in the same conference not playing each other for up to 8 years which is absurd.
This is why 14 team conferences with "traditional" divisions don't work and why the Big 10 and SEC need to look into the roommate switch proposal. It can preserve traditional rivalries and allow you to rotate through an entire 14 team conference (home and away) in only four years.
quote:
Next from a conference perspective, if you top teams do play twice, you run the risk of knocking one of them out of the playoff or better bowl position.
As we've seen in the SEC this can work for or against a conference with about equal frequencies. SEC teams have often benefited from playing in the SEC CCG.
Posted on 7/17/13 at 5:51 pm to molsusports
quote:
Look at the map and where the recruiting is. The Big 12 should have realized there were no talent rich states in the Big 12 North and that would be a long term problem
And who would have seen that circa 1995 when Nebraska was winning 3 titles in 4 years? That's just 20/20 hindsight. All those teams played at least 1 game in either Texas or Oklahoma every year.
quote:
Here I think you misunderstand my point or misrepresent your earlier point
Im not really arguing for any particular set up. Earlier you and some others where arguing that 1 division was stacked and then arguing that only a handful of teams were winning the conference every year. I was just suggesting that if your concern was that only a handful of teams were winning the league, then you'd be better off having those teams in the same division. I have no real preference and lean toward basic geographic set ups because its easy and subjective. Trying to guess who will be good over more than the next couple of years is fool hardy at best. It seems safe to say tOSU and UM will always be good, but who could have predicted what happened at PSU? How will that affect them long term?
We haven't mentioned the ACC, which split what all assumed would be the dominant powers in FSU and Miami, in different divisions. They had them play the first game for several years to space out a potential ACC CG match-up which hasn't happened. Both are clearly in a talent rich areas and have massive, recent success. Many were saying when Miami, VT and BC joined the ACC would be the #2 or #3 conference and instead what happened? In tanked, Miami and FSU fell off, VT won as much by default. Going on 10 years in and Miami has yet to make the ACC CG, let alone face FSU. Scrub teams like Wake Forest, GT and BC have gone to the ACC CG. VT at least held up their end. Now, really, who would have predicted that? Scandal and bad coaching hires have hurt miami and the dominance of the SEC is also hurting them since they compete for the same recruits. There is no way you can tell me how it will look in 5, let alone 10, 20 years.
This post was edited on 7/17/13 at 6:10 pm
Posted on 7/17/13 at 6:37 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Look at the map and where the recruiting is. The Big 12 should have realized there were no talent rich states in the Big 12 North and that would be a long term problem
And who would have seen that circa 1995 when Nebraska was winning 3 titles in 4 years? That's just 20/20 hindsight. All those teams played at least 1 game in either Texas or Oklahoma every year.
It is 20/20 hindsight with respect to the 90s Big 12 but since we know there was a problem in retrospect and since that was a contributing factor to the lack of success of the conference perhaps other conferences should learn from that mistake.
quote:
Im not really arguing for any particular set up.
you just want to argue without purpose?
quote:
I was just suggesting that if your concern was that only a handful of teams were winning the league, then you'd be better off having those teams in the same division.
Again, I think you intentionally misunderstand or misrepresent the point. The Big 10 seems to lack a depth of quality teams but the best programs they have are disproportionately placed into one of the two divisions.
This is a problem for several reasons touched on recently in this thread with respect to fairness and parity.
If you want to play the "no one can know the future" card then fine. Abandon all hope of planning for the future. While you're at it rearrange the SEC by putting Alabama and Auburn in the East and Missouri in the West so it makes more geographic sense.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News