Can someone please explain why big10 football needs divisions?*
- Thread starter PSU_sues_ncaa_big10
- Start date
I'm pretty sure that prior to this season (until the Big XII got it's way) that conferences were required to have 12+ teams and 2 division in order to stage a championship game.
Maybe if you still have 12+ teams divisions are a requirement but I don't know that for sure. Not having divisions would, at least IMO, cause a lot of scheduling issues. It's easy when you have 8-10 teams--everyone can just play everyone.
Maybe if you still have 12+ teams divisions are a requirement but I don't know that for sure. Not having divisions would, at least IMO, cause a lot of scheduling issues. It's easy when you have 8-10 teams--everyone can just play everyone.
Not sure considering there's only two teams in the conference. One day away from the most important game in college football (I'm like a coiled spring in anticipation).
I initially thought for the conference championship, but the big 12 has a championship and no divisions. No clue really
That was the original rule. If you recall, when the Big 12 still had twelve teams, it was separated into two divisions and had a championship game. After Nebraska and Colorado left. the championship game was discontinued. After lobbying by the Big 12, the NCAA changed the rule and the championship game was reinstated this year.
And why do ohio st and mich have to play at the end of the year every year?
Thankfully we got away from playing mich st at the end of the year.
Thankfully we got away from playing mich st at the end of the year.
I'd be fine with it. 14 teams, 1 division. Each team has 3 guaranteed rivalries - teams they play every year. The other 10 teams rotate through the schedule - you'd play them 6 times every 10 years.
The one thing you would HAVE to ensure is that for every combination of 3 teams, there is at least 1 game among them. This does happen now, of course, with the divisions but may not given what I propose above. That "every combination of 3 teams must have 1 game among them" provision would eliminate the potential for 3 undefeated teams and thus an undefeated team not automatically going to the Title Game.
The one thing you would HAVE to ensure is that for every combination of 3 teams, there is at least 1 game among them. This does happen now, of course, with the divisions but may not given what I propose above. That "every combination of 3 teams must have 1 game among them" provision would eliminate the potential for 3 undefeated teams and thus an undefeated team not automatically going to the Title Game.
You mean better than posting dumb questions? Why not? Knock yourself out.
One of the reasons for the divisions is to make it easier for all of the Big Ten teams to play the same number of Big Ten opponents. One year, under Earle Bruce, Ohio State lost 1 game. Another team (I don't remember which one) lost 1 game but played one more Big Ten game. The non-OSU team had a higher winning percentage than OSU and the non-OSU team went to the Rose Bowl.
The scheduling screwed OSU (could have been OSU athletic administrations fault) and really irritated Bruce.
The scheduling screwed OSU (could have been OSU athletic administrations fault) and really irritated Bruce.
Because there is no better spectacle in all the world than um playing Tosu. It is a magical experience.
Michigan, 1982, was 8-1 with a loss to OSU. OSU was 7-1, losing earlier that year to Wisconsin.
With the current number of teams, divisions aren't needed to schedule the same number of conference games. Does make it much easier to determine who is in the conference championship game.
Similar threads
