OSU beat IU. IU doesn’t belong in the Championship game. They may not even be able to put a team on the field for that game anyway.....Covid and all.......
Big 10 changes mind.
- Thread starter NVboiler
- Start date
The rule was put in place to prevent a team like IU or Purdue or Maryland going 3-0, 4-0 and winning their division in the event a team like Ohio St or Wisconsin were upset going 6-1 or 7-1. I have no issue with the B10 changing their arbitrary rules as Ohio State beat Indiana head to head, but let’s not be naive as to thinking this would happen if the roles were reversed.
If a rule is flawed and needs to be changed, it doesn't matter whether the rule will be invoked or not. You change the rule because it is bad, and the sooner the better. You don't wait and see if the rule will be invoked as to try and cover up the fact that it was a crappy rule to begin with. The only reason I brought up Wisconsin is to point out that this scenario has been on the radar screen for months, not something that just occurred to people within the past week. From the start the criteria should have been if a team leads their division by more games than it has left to play, they clinch. It's simply the magic number concept. At best, the Big Ten was trying to get away without having to admit they made a stupid rule until they had no other choice. At worst, WHO was affected by the rule influenced the decision to change it.
People keep acting like this is an Ohio State issue when really it's a program quality issue. I fully believe that if IU were undefeated and ranked #4 in the country the rule would have been changed for them as well.
I can't understand why the Big 10 couldn't get it right the first time. They had plenty of time to consider all the possible outcomes and decide what would be fairest to all teams involved. This just shows their gross incompetence. And I truly believe that OSU gets special treatment, and this is an altering of the rules to serve them and help to get OSU into the playoffs.
It's primarily about the $$$. The Ohio State brand impacts this decision, but the main driver is getting a team into the CFP. So, yes, in your scenario, it is possible the rule would have been changed to get a team into the CFP.
What if Team A was 4-1 and Team B was 4-2 and Team A had beaten Team B, but the teams were ranked #16 and #23 and neither one was in the discussion for the CFP? Would the rule have been changed in that scenario? Is it really about fixing a bad rule in the name of fairness or is it all about the conference getting a high profile team into the CFP?
If the roles were reversed and it was IU 5-0 (with a win over Ohio State) and Ohio State was 6-1 I'd like to think IU would be near the 4 range. I mean hell they're 12th now with 1 loss so not that far-fetched. But yes your main point stands. If this were anybody but Ohio State, the B10 isn't caving.
I don't think they fully anticipated how hard it would be to get in 6 games and as motivation for teams to try and use all precautions to try and get there. Despite teams best efforts, it ended up to be proven tough for many and the rule did serve the purpose of preventing teams using it as an excuse to call off games, not that I think any really would.
Getting rid of it now, was the correct decision. The fact that it screws IU is just that much better.
Maybe not. But those are a whole lot of variables that have been moved around. Once teams start losing the picture gets muddy. With Ohio State being undefeated the picture is crystal clear. Yes it’s about fixing a bad rule in the name of fairness because you can’t close out your conference’s best team on a technicality. And yes it’s about the conference getting a high profile team into the CFP.
Similar threads
