Absence of Divisions in Power 4

[Sheffielder]

Just curious how people feel about the absence of divisions in the Power 4 and how long you/we think that condition will last.

I think the abolition of divisions is a reaction to the *previous* format of the College Football Playoff, but I think it will be less than four years before we see a return of them for two reasons:

1. Conference championships matter less than they ever have in the era of a 12-team playoff. The peril of championship mismatches and upsets no longer threaten a conference's whole postseason existence.
2. "Traditional powers" won't thrive for very long in this "all or nothing" environment. They need banners to hang and can't go years and years without them...even/including us.

 

[techtim72]

Just curious how people feel about the absence of divisions in the Power 4 and how long you/we think that condition will last.

I think the abolition of divisions is a reaction to the *previous* format of the College Football Playoff, but I think it will be less than four years before we see a return of them for two reasons:

1. Conference championships matter less than they ever have in the era of a 12-team playoff. The peril of championship mismatches and upsets no longer threaten a conference's whole postseason existence.
2. "Traditional powers" won't thrive for very long in this "all or nothing" environment. They need banners to hang and can't go years and years without them...even/including us.

Agreed.

 

[zeek55]

Just curious how people feel about the absence of divisions in the Power 4 and how long you/we think that condition will last.

I think the abolition of divisions is a reaction to the *previous* format of the College Football Playoff, but I think it will be less than four years before we see a return of them for two reasons:

1. Conference championships matter less than they ever have in the era of a 12-team playoff. The peril of championship mismatches and upsets no longer threaten a conference's whole postseason existence.
2. "Traditional powers" won't thrive for very long in this "all or nothing" environment. They need banners to hang and can't go years and years without them...even/including us.

Winning the Big Ten is harder than getting a CFP bid at this point.

You get a CFP bid for likely just being in the top 10-11 at the end of the year (assuming the 12th CFP bid goes to a G5 team not ranked in the top 11 and rest of the 4 conference champs will typically be top 10-11 teams).

Whereas to win the Big Ten, you probably need to be a top 3-4 team or capable of beating a top 3-4 team like a 12-0 or 11-1 Ohio State or USC or Oregon or Michigan or Penn State...

So the question is how do programs measure success?

Getting CFP bids is more of a reasonable goal than winning the conference. I don't know that banners are as important; winning the Big Ten is still meaningful in that it's a great accomplishment, but generally just making the CFP is probably more important to top programs.

Take Penn State for example, say they make the CFP 4 times in the next decade while not winning the Big Ten at all. Is that a successful decade? Probably yes.

 

[NUCat320]

Being that the conference championship carries no weight at this point, which conference will be the first to just add another week of regular season games the first week of December? The B1G is currently still an uneven number of home and road games, right?

 

[TheC]

Winning the Big Ten is harder than getting a CFP bid at this point.

You get a CFP bid for likely just being in the top 10-11 at the end of the year (assuming the 12th CFP bid goes to a G5 team not ranked in the top 11 and rest of the 4 conference champs will typically be top 10-11 teams).

Whereas to win the Big Ten, you probably need to be a top 3-4 team or capable of beating a top 3-4 team like a 12-0 or 11-1 Ohio State or USC or Oregon or Michigan or Penn State...

So the question is how do programs measure success?

Getting CFP bids is more of a reasonable goal than winning the conference. I don't know that banners are as important; winning the Big Ten is still meaningful in that it's a great accomplishment, but generally just making the CFP is probably more important to top programs.

Take Penn State for example, say they make the CFP 4 times in the next decade while not winning the Big Ten at all. Is that a successful decade? Probably yes.

But I think the OP's point was that winning the Big Ten West is not as hard. It used to give programs like ours a goal to aim for that wasn't out of the question.

I think the current move to push college football to look more and more like a pro league has a fundamental flaw. The pro leagues all have a system - i.e., the draft - that allows for the possibility of a competitive rebalancing. It isn't perfect, but it allows teams like my Cincinnati Bungles to occasionally threaten the power franchises. Heck... who the power franchises are in the NFL change every 3-5 years because of this. In college football, the rich have always gotten richer, but we all learned to live in that system because fans of different teams could set different goals. For the Ohio States, it's National Championship or bust. For the Northwesterns its winning a lower tier bowl game and maybe winning your division every once in a while. We'll see if that changes in the coming years, but if it does, then college football has a problem. No fan base is going to stand for meaningless games against other teams that also have nothing to really play for.

 

[AdamOnFirst]

In college football, the rich have always gotten richer, but we all learned to live in that system because fans of different teams could set different goals. For the Ohio States, it's National Championship or bust. For the Northwesterns its winning a lower tier bowl game and maybe winning your division every once in a while. We'll see if that changes in the coming years, but if it does, then college football has a problem. No fan base is going to stand for meaningless games against other teams that also have nothing to really play for.

I had to reread this to catch your meaning, but you share my perspective exactly, and this is one of the two things I hate about a 12 team playoff (the other being the proliferation of teams that just aren't that good getting in just so we can justify having more games). Middling to good bowl opportunities are a critical, critical thing.

However, we DO now get a higher aspiration: make the playoff. Yeah, it's not a championship like winning the big ten west, but you get some actual meaningful national pop out of it rather than just a regional opportunity and a very longshot bid at throwing a turd in the national party.

 

[SmellyCat]

I love bowl season, but the CFP is REALLY going to suck the air out of bowl season in the near future, especially as more and more players in the also-ran bowls decide to sit out or enter the portal or go pro or whatever. Those games were already getting close to being irrelevant to most people.

The combination of making a boatload of money and the absolute need to crown a championship every year is never going to go away, but if the playoffs go as suspected (with the same 8-10 teams every year and a couple of occasional surprises at the 9-12 seeds), it might get even more boring than usual for the other 120 teams.

 

[techtim72]

One thing the pros do which helps teams develop is weighted schedules. The worst teams play easier schedules. Doesn't get focused on much because all anyone cares about is wins. I don't know how this would play in the Big Ten. Probably not good. The best teams have the largest attendance and contribute the most revenue and media coverage plus no one wants to see the best teams "unfairly" hurt in their quest for the playoffs. In this setup one possibility is, say, the bottom tier teams only play one game against the top tier teams.

 

[TheC]

I had to reread this to catch your meaning, but you share my perspective exactly, and this is one of the two things I hate about a 12 team playoff (the other being the proliferation of teams that just aren't that good getting in just so we can justify having more games). Middling to good bowl opportunities are a critical, critical thing.

However, we DO now get a higher aspiration: make the playoff. Yeah, it's not a championship like winning the big ten west, but you get some actual meaningful national pop out of it rather than just a regional opportunity and a very longshot bid at throwing a turd in the national party.

Are you say I no write no gud?

 

[hdhntr1]

Are you say I no write no gud?

Actually I think he said he don't read good

 

[zeek55]

But I think the OP's point was that winning the Big Ten West is not as hard. It used to give programs like ours a goal to aim for that wasn't out of the question.

I think the current move to push college football to look more and more like a pro league has a fundamental flaw. The pro leagues all have a system - i.e., the draft - that allows for the possibility of a competitive rebalancing. It isn't perfect, but it allows teams like my Cincinnati Bungles to occasionally threaten the power franchises. Heck... who the power franchises are in the NFL change every 3-5 years because of this. In college football, the rich have always gotten richer, but we all learned to live in that system because fans of different teams could set different goals. For the Ohio States, it's National Championship or bust. For the Northwesterns its winning a lower tier bowl game and maybe winning your division every once in a while. We'll see if that changes in the coming years, but if it does, then college football has a problem. No fan base is going to stand for meaningless games against other teams that also have nothing to really play for.

That's all completely fair.

We'll have to see how things evolve the next couple of years as schools start funding NIL and seeing the results of what teams get to the CFP/win conferences and the broader impact on the postseason including bowl games.

It's just hard to know right now before the 12 team CFP has happened once or the players get paid by schools directly.

We really need to get to 2028-2030 and see what things look like over a multi-year span.

 

[TheC]

That's all completely fair.

We'll have to see how things evolve the next couple of years as schools start funding NIL and seeing the results of what teams get to the CFP/win conferences and the broader impact on the postseason including bowl games.

It's just hard to know right now before the 12 team CFP has happened once or the players get paid by schools directly.

We really need to get to 2028-2030 and see what things look like over a multi-year span.

I agree, but just fundamentally, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen to go to a pro-like model without any competitive balance protections in place.

I'm not an expert on soccer, but as an outsider who goes to Spain a lot, I kind of laugh at La Liga. Their pro soccer league seems ridiculous to me as an outsider. You have two teams that have all the money and all the prestige and then a bunch of other teams that play the role of the Washington Generals every year. I don't understand how that can be fun. If college football is heading that way, then it will become just as ridiculous.

 

[loyolacat]

I just miss a brisk, with a chill in the air trip to Iowa in November with a chance to win the West.....

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I agree, but just fundamentally, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen to go to a pro-like model without any competitive balance protections in place.

I'm not an expert on soccer, but as an outsider who goes to Spain a lot, I kind of laugh at La Liga. Their pro soccer league seems ridiculous to me as an outsider. You have two teams that have all the money and all the prestige and then a bunch of other teams that play the role of the Washington Generals every year. I don't understand how that can be fun. If college football is heading that way, then it will become just as ridiculous.

What becomes interesting is how the "real" students respond to the all the "we're just winging it" changes being made in athletics.
Believe it or not, most high achievers didn't go to college to watch highly paid athletes play sports.

 

[TheC]

What becomes interesting is how the "real" students respond to the all the "we're just winging it" changes being made in athletics.
Believe it or not, most high achievers didn't go to college to watch highly paid athletes play sports.

While some students are die-hard sports fans, I agree that many are not. However, a lot of students know to follow the fun. As we saw with our basketball team these past two years, if you're team is doing well, there is excitement that creates a feed forward loop where the games are now the place to be. If the team becomes irrelevant because there is nothing to play for, then the games become non-events and the students will non-follow.

 

[Sheffielder]

Being that the conference championship carries no weight at this point, which conference will be the first to just add another week of regular season games the first week of December? The B1G is currently still an uneven number of home and road games, right?

I wouldn't say they carry "no" weight - winning your conference title and having a high rank gets you a bye.

But...I definitely think we will see incidents as early as this season where certain teams know they will make the playoffs, and then bench their starters for late-season games, including rivalries. And this is where "what makes college football so special" goes out the window.

 

[Sheffielder]

I love bowl season, but the CFP is REALLY going to suck the air out of bowl season in the near future, especially as more and more players in the also-ran bowls decide to sit out or enter the portal or go pro or whatever. Those games were already getting close to being irrelevant to most people.

The combination of making a boatload of money and the absolute need to crown a championship every year is never going to go away, but if the playoffs go as suspected (with the same 8-10 teams every year and a couple of occasional surprises at the 9-12 seeds), it might get even more boring than usual for the other 120 teams.

Regarding the bowls...I will say this: I'm always going to be more interested in Northwestern playing in the Toilet Bowl in Little Rock on Dec. 22 against UL-Lafayette than I will be in a playoff game. And I will travel there, spend money, etc. I believe many fans feel this way about their individual team.

I also think ESPN and the rising tide of Fox Sports will make the money work for tv rights on the bowl games, because live sports content will hold its value to some reasonable level...especially on the Wednesday between Xmas and NYE at 3 p.m. in the afternoon when people are sitting around looking for content.

What I absolutely think will kill bowl games are players opting out. It's fair to argue that we won the Las Vegas Bowl in December because so many of Utah's players did this. Maybe we'll get to a point where bowls themselves pay players bonuses to participate, or programs will save a pot of money for this...but I'm not a happier college football fan knowing so-and-so refused to play in the bowl game unless he got paid $25,000 to suit up.

 

[Sheffielder]

But I think the OP's point was that winning the Big Ten West is not as hard. It used to give programs like ours a goal to aim for that wasn't out of the question.

I think the current move to push college football to look more and more like a pro league has a fundamental flaw. The pro leagues all have a system - i.e., the draft - that allows for the possibility of a competitive rebalancing. It isn't perfect, but it allows teams like my Cincinnati Bungles to occasionally threaten the power franchises. Heck... who the power franchises are in the NFL change every 3-5 years because of this. In college football, the rich have always gotten richer, but we all learned to live in that system because fans of different teams could set different goals. For the Ohio States, it's National Championship or bust. For the Northwesterns its winning a lower tier bowl game and maybe winning your division every once in a while. We'll see if that changes in the coming years, but if it does, then college football has a problem. No fan base is going to stand for meaningless games against other teams that also have nothing to really play for.

I would also argue pro leagues have divisions where, in any given season, you get to hang a banner by being better than just three other teams. College football is moving in precisely the opposite direction. It's literally possible that Wisconsin won't win another Big Ten championship in this lifetime. Does their fanbase look as solid 10-15 years from now if they're never in contention?

To @zeek55 's point, maybe it becomes about being in the Top 12 and hanging a CFP banner (not unlike "Sweet Sixteen" etc.) - Wisconsin is more likely to make the playoff before they win the conference.

 

[SmellyCat]

Regarding the bowls...I will say this: I'm always going to be more interested in Northwestern playing in the Toilet Bowl in Little Rock on Dec. 22 against UL-Lafayette than I will be in a playoff game. And I will travel there, spend money, etc. I believe many fans feel this way about their individual team.

I also think ESPN and the rising tide of Fox Sports will make the money work for tv rights on the bowl games, because live sports content will hold its value to some reasonable level...especially on the Wednesday between Xmas and NYE at 3 p.m. in the afternoon when people are sitting around looking for content.

What I absolutely think will kill bowl games are players opting out. It's fair to argue that we won the Las Vegas Bowl in December because so many of Utah's players did this. Maybe we'll get to a point where bowls themselves pay players bonuses to participate, or programs will save a pot of money for this...but I'm not a happier college football fan knowing so-and-so refused to play in the bowl game unless he got paid $25,000 to suit up.

Agree wholeheartedly. I would also say I'm about as interested in a random matchup of two teams I don't care about on a Wednesday afternoon on Dec. 27 than I would be to watch a playoff game that starts at 9:00 p.m. and has a 30-minute halftime and multiple sideline reporters. Sure, when Georgia plays Ohio State in the final I might watch some, but unless the game seems like it's going to be close, I'll probably not even stay up for the finish.

 

[techtim72]

Agree wholeheartedly. I would also say I'm about as interested in a random matchup of two teams I don't care about on a Wednesday afternoon on Dec. 27 than I would be to watch a playoff game that starts at 9:00 p.m. and has a 30-minute halftime and multiple sideline reporters. Sure, when Georgia plays Ohio State in the final I might watch some, but unless the game seems like it's going to be close, I'll probably not even stay up for the finish.

You never know when a game will catch your interest. Some of the best games I have watched are two relative no-name teams going after each other. I tend to drift around watching games until I see something - player, intensity, style, whatever - that catches my interest. I remember half-watching Iowa women's basketball several years ago and seeing this skinny guard sinking shots from the concourse and commenting about it on this board. Way before all the national hype on Caitlin Clark.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I agree with this crazy notion that (my) viewership is largely dependent on the competitiveness of the game.
Its a sport. I want to watch games where the teams are evenly matched and playing hard.
I get nothing out of gross mismatches. Never have. Never will. I'd rather mow the lawn.