Divisionless Big Ten and CCG

[africamurphy]

Lost in all the hubbub about the new scheduling format and our "rival" is the decision to go divisionless in 2024. Here's what that would have looked like over the past 9 years.

2014: No. 5 Ohio State vs. No. 13 Wisconsin (unchanged)
2015: No. 5 Michigan State vs. No. 4 Iowa (unchanged)
2016: No. 7 Penn State vs. No. 6 Wisconsin -> No. 2 Ohio State replaces Wisconsin*
2017: No. 8 Ohio State vs. No. 4 Wisconsin (unchanged)
2018: No. 6 Ohio State vs. No. 21 Northwestern -> No. 7 Michigan replaces Northwestern*
2019: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 8 Wisconsin (unchanged)*
2020: No. 4 Ohio State vs. No. 14 Northwestern (unchanged)
2021: No. 2 Michigan vs. No. 13 Iowa -> No. 7 Ohio State replaces Iowa*
2022: No. 2 Michigan vs. UR Purdue -> No. 4 Ohio State replaces Purdue*

*a rematch of regular season game in the CCG

Observations:
1. OSU and UM would have been a rematch 3 times. But if you go back to the previous 10 years, it would have hardly happened once (RichRod and Brady Hoke years when UM was down)
2. 5 of the 9 years features rematches (as just stated, 3 were OSU/UM). This is interesting because it means that half the time, when two teams play during the regular season, one knocks the other out of a top ranking. When they don't play, both teams can elevate higher in the rankings.
3. By adding USC, you've upped your perennially elite teams and put another key team in the mix. In a divisionless Big Ten, OSU would have been to 8 of 9 CCGs, Wisconsin 3, Michigan 3, and PSU/NW/MSU/Iowa one each. In a divisionless Big Ten though, those western participants aren't likely to have such unscathed records heading into the final weekend. NW and Iowa and Wisconsin playing the same strength of schedule as OSU/UM/PSU/USC means that those west frontrunners are likely to have lower records.

From a PSU lens, we are glad to have more equal strength of schedule as the rest of the Big Ten. The Big Ten East logjam has hurt us as much as anyone else. But we still have to beat a few top 15 teams to have a special season; that doesn't change.

The playoff starting in 2024 also makes this less relevant. All of these re-imagined games would have had seeding impact for the first round bye. And for first round home games. However, most losers would have made it into the 12-team playoff no matter what (2014, 2020 perhaps could have seen someone bounced from a first round road game and out of the playoff...)

 

[JWB389]

Lost in all the hubbub about the new scheduling format and our "rival" is the decision to go divisionless in 2024. Here's what that would have looked like over the past 9 years.

2014: No. 5 Ohio State vs. No. 13 Wisconsin (unchanged)
2015: No. 5 Michigan State vs. No. 4 Iowa (unchanged)
2016: No. 7 Penn State vs. No. 6 Wisconsin -> No. 2 Ohio State replaces Wisconsin*
2017: No. 8 Ohio State vs. No. 4 Wisconsin (unchanged)
2018: No. 6 Ohio State vs. No. 21 Northwestern -> No. 7 Michigan replaces Northwestern*
2019: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 8 Wisconsin (unchanged)*
2020: No. 4 Ohio State vs. No. 14 Northwestern (unchanged)
2021: No. 2 Michigan vs. No. 13 Iowa -> No. 7 Ohio State replaces Iowa*
2022: No. 2 Michigan vs. UR Purdue -> No. 4 Ohio State replaces Purdue*

*a rematch of regular season game in the CCG

Observations:
1. OSU and UM would have been a rematch 3 times. But if you go back to the previous 10 years, it would have hardly happened once (RichRod and Brady Hoke years when UM was down)
2. 5 of the 9 years features rematches (as just stated, 3 were OSU/UM). This is interesting because it means that half the time, when two teams play during the regular season, one knocks the other out of a top ranking. When they don't play, both teams can elevate higher in the rankings.
3. By adding USC, you've upped your perennially elite teams and put another key team in the mix. In a divisionless Big Ten, OSU would have been to 8 of 9 CCGs, Wisconsin 3, Michigan 3, and PSU/NW/MSU/Iowa one each. In a divisionless Big Ten though, those western participants aren't likely to have such unscathed records heading into the final weekend. NW and Iowa and Wisconsin playing the same strength of schedule as OSU/UM/PSU/USC means that those west frontrunners are likely to have lower records.

From a PSU lens, we are glad to have more equal strength of schedule as the rest of the Big Ten. The Big Ten East logjam has hurt us as much as anyone else. But we still have to beat a few top 15 teams to have a special season; that doesn't change.

The playoff starting in 2024 also makes this less relevant. All of these re-imagined games would have had seeding impact for the first round bye. And for first round home games. However, most losers would have made it into the 12-team playoff no matter what (2014, 2020 perhaps could have seen someone bounced from a first round road game and out of the playoff...)

I heard a report of a separate analysis that had PSU in the champ game in 2019 vs. OSU.

 

[Mufasa94]

I heard a report of a separate analysis that had PSU in the champ game in 2019 vs. OSU.

Both were 7-2 in conference. I think somewhere down the tie breaking list common opponents comes into play, and PSU lost to Minn, which may have decided it (UW lost to Illinois).

It seemed that in 2019 the pollsters stopped dropping teams at all in the rankings for losing the CCGs also. Don’t agree with it.

 

[CJFisJoePaII]

Lost in all the hubbub about the new scheduling format and our "rival" is the decision to go divisionless in 2024. Here's what that would have looked like over the past 9 years.

2014: No. 5 Ohio State vs. No. 13 Wisconsin (unchanged)
2015: No. 5 Michigan State vs. No. 4 Iowa (unchanged)
2016: No. 7 Penn State vs. No. 6 Wisconsin -> No. 2 Ohio State replaces Wisconsin*
2017: No. 8 Ohio State vs. No. 4 Wisconsin (unchanged)
2018: No. 6 Ohio State vs. No. 21 Northwestern -> No. 7 Michigan replaces Northwestern*
2019: No. 1 Ohio State vs. No. 8 Wisconsin (unchanged)*
2020: No. 4 Ohio State vs. No. 14 Northwestern (unchanged)
2021: No. 2 Michigan vs. No. 13 Iowa -> No. 7 Ohio State replaces Iowa*
2022: No. 2 Michigan vs. UR Purdue -> No. 4 Ohio State replaces Purdue*

*a rematch of regular season game in the CCG

Observations:
1. OSU and UM would have been a rematch 3 times. But if you go back to the previous 10 years, it would have hardly happened once (RichRod and Brady Hoke years when UM was down)
2. 5 of the 9 years features rematches (as just stated, 3 were OSU/UM). This is interesting because it means that half the time, when two teams play during the regular season, one knocks the other out of a top ranking. When they don't play, both teams can elevate higher in the rankings.
3. By adding USC, you've upped your perennially elite teams and put another key team in the mix. In a divisionless Big Ten, OSU would have been to 8 of 9 CCGs, Wisconsin 3, Michigan 3, and PSU/NW/MSU/Iowa one each. In a divisionless Big Ten though, those western participants aren't likely to have such unscathed records heading into the final weekend. NW and Iowa and Wisconsin playing the same strength of schedule as OSU/UM/PSU/USC means that those west frontrunners are likely to have lower records.

From a PSU lens, we are glad to have more equal strength of schedule as the rest of the Big Ten. The Big Ten East logjam has hurt us as much as anyone else. But we still have to beat a few top 15 teams to have a special season; that doesn't change.

The playoff starting in 2024 also makes this less relevant. All of these re-imagined games would have had seeding impact for the first round bye. And for first round home games. However, most losers would have made it into the 12-team playoff no matter what (2014, 2020 perhaps could have seen someone bounced from a first round road game and out of the playoff...)

There's one huge difference though, which you failed to mention. Had the B1G gone Divisionless for CCG and just sent two highest CFP Ranked teams, duhO$U likely doesn't go to CFP last year and may not have gone in 2016. USC took their 2nd loss in the PAC12 CCG (both to Utah) and it dropped them behind duhO$U who didn't have to play a rematch CCG in B1G. duhO$U likely misses playoff last year if they went to B1G CCG.

Playing a rematch and potentially losing for a 2nd time to the same ultra-highly rated team in the CCG won't hurt you in 2024 as it is going to be a 12-team Format and your ticket would already be punched prior to CCG result.

 

[africamurphy]

Both were 7-2 in conference. I think somewhere down the tie breaking list common opponents comes into play, and PSU lost to Minn, which may have decided it (UW lost to Illinois).

It seemed that in 2019 the pollsters stopped dropping teams at all in the rankings for losing the CCGs also. Don’t agree with it.

I thought it used CFP to determine who the top ranked teams are. It'd be interesting to see if the Big Ten published its new criteria for "top 2."

We were #10 and Wiscy #8 in 2019

 

[africamurphy]

There's one huge difference though, which you failed to mention. Had the B1G gone Divisionless for CCG and just sent two highest CFP Ranked teams, duhO$U likely doesn't go to CFP last year and may not have gone in 2016. USC took their 2nd loss in the PAC12 CCG (both to Utah) and it dropped them behind duhO$U who didn't have to play a rematch CCG in B1G. duhO$U likely misses playoff last year if they went to B1G CCG.

Playing a rematch and potentially losing for a 2nd time to the same ultra-highly rated team in the CCG won't hurt you in 2024 as it is going to be a 12-team Format and your ticket would already be punched prior to CCG result.

Great point.

So last year, OSU was #5 and UM was #2 heading into the CCG.

Winner would have gotten first round bye. Loser would have been #5 (first at-large) and would have gone home and played Tulane (Group of 5 rep) two weeks after the CCG.

Clemson would have been the biggest "winner" in the future 12-team format. They would have catapulted from #9 to #4 as the fourth-highest rated champ after their CCG win (although the committee could have elevated Utah above them for a better CCG win (over #4 USC)).