Shama: Big Ten Realignment May Come Next Week

[BleedGopher]

Big Ten Realignment May Come Next Week

Conference realignment of schools will be discussed among Big Ten athletic directors early next week in Chicago, Gophers football coach Tim Brewster said. Officials representing the league office and conference schools are expected to meet about how the Big Ten will position itself into two football divisions with the arrival of Nebraska as a 12th member in 2011. The gathering in Chicago will also include the conference’s annual media football kickoff with all 11 head coaches having news conferences on Monday.

Brewster said he’s firm about one expectation for scheduling starting in 2011. He wants Wisconsin and Iowa on Minnesota’s schedule each season, even if all three schools aren't in the same division.

Is he concerned that annually the Badgers and Hawkeyes won’t be on the Minnesota schedule? “No, absolutely not, because that’s vital to our conference,” he told Sports Headliners.

Preserving historic football rivalries is expected to receive the highest of priorities when commissioner Jim Delany and others decide who to place where in two six team divisions. What’s the timeline for a decision?

Brewster said he isn’t sure “but this has got to get in place because there’s a tremendous amount of time” involved with scheduling preparation and details. He’s confident Delany will present a plan at the earliest date once things are in place.

Gophers athletics director Joel Maturi told Sports Headliners he will be surprised if he leaves Chicago on Tuesday without knowledge of a working model for realignment. The model might not be a finished product but certainly a significant step in that direction.

Maturi said he doesn’t know how the Big Ten will ultimately group its 12 schools in various sports. It’s presumed football will have two six-team divisions but basketball, for example, might have a single 12 team league. The advantage for football having two divisions is to allow the conference to stage a lucrative and high profile conference championship game between the two winners.

Brewster will take three players to Chicago to participate in the media sessions, quarterback Adam Weber, defensive tackle Brandon Kirksey and safety Kim Royston.

Brewster plans to tell the media he believes his team, picked by most writers to finish near the bottom of the conference standings, has a “chance to be much better than most people think.” Brewster has a lot of confidence in his fourth Gophers team, a group that is more athletic than in the past.

He has also been impressed with the summer workouts of his team. “Guys are so much stronger, so much bigger,” he said.

A more physical, athletic and better conditioned team can provide a payoff during the season to the messages the Gophers had on their workout shirts this summer: “Finish. Compete Forever.”

Brewster’s Gophers have sometimes been challenged to win games in the fourth quarter. That’s been a reason the team finished around .500 each of the last two seasons, 7-6 in 2008 and 6-7 in 2009.

“We want to take games into the fourth quarter and win games in the fourth quarter,” Brewster said.

http://www.shamasportsheadliners.com/

Go Gophers!!

[loki]

I get a "tremendous" kick out of Brewster's language usage. For example, his use of the word tremendous to describe the blaise phrase amount of time cracks me up. How about "a lot of time" or it's "going to take some time." Trememdous means "arousing awe or wonder because of extreme size, power, majesty, etc..." Time just doesn't seem that tremendous too me. Not everything can be tremendous or maybe it can. Anway, back to the article, the only answer that I will be tremendously satisfied with is geography based divisions.

[RodentRampage]

I've not seen any split that makes even the remotest bit of sense that doesn't have Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin in the same division. The claims that Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska don't balance Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State are weak, and insufficient to override an east west split.

The Big Ten should go with the East-West split, and if it doesn't work out, then they can address it later. Moving Penn State to the West does impose a cost on fans who want to travel to road games, it makes it a longer and more expensive trip. Given how dominant Ohio State has been, moving Penn State to the West provides a further imbalance, by giving Ohio State an easier path to the championship game. Why should Ohio State only play one of the top teams in division play (Michigan), while the teams in the west would have to play 2 of the top teams? Perhaps their goal is to ensure that either Ohio State or Michigan is in the championship game. Maybe they wake up with night sweats over a Minnesota-Indiana championship game.

[frozengopher]

Maybe they wake up with night sweats over a Minnesota-Indiana championship game.

I lol'd. And this is probably true. What it all comes down to is that cfb is cyclical, and there is no way you can assume OSU will be dominant and Indiana won't 10-20 years from now (Guffaw if you want, but there is no way anyone thought we would be where we are now 55 years ago). Break 'em east/west and continue the rivalries. The rest will sort itself out.

[re3886]

Tre-men-dous: adjective
extraordinarily great in size, AMOUNT, or intensity
extraordinary in excellence
dreadful or awful, as in character or effect; exciting fear; frightening; terrifying.

Time is a measurement, therefore it fits the amount part of the definition.

I think he overuses some words, but this constant droning on about tremendous is getting old.
Everybody has words that are favorites, or words they fall back on. I do it, you do it, but we don't have people walking around writing down what we say. Time to move on.

East-West makes the most sense. Unlike the old Big 12, it works for the Big Ten, I for one think that OSU, PSU, and Mich is pretty close to Wisc, Iowa and Neb for balance. Time will shift things Mich will sack Rich Rod, and get better. Teams will fall, hopefully Wisc, lol. Teams will rise, hopefully us, and it will work out. If not? Just change it later. My question is this? Will the West division be allowed to kick off at noon when playing in that time zone?

[loki]

I agree it's getting old...He's a smart guy he should improve his word usage.

[re3886]

I agree it's getting old...He's a smart guy he should improve his word usage.

I lean on hopefully too much. It's not as easy as you think. I tend do it when speaking extemporaneously, hopefully I can fix it. :rolleyes:

I wonder if the media people at the "U" work on it with him?

[loki]

I remember when Tom Kelly would use the words "and again" over and over again and I would start to focus my attention on those words instead of the message. It would drive me crazy. Eventually, I think he worked with someone and stopped using those words as much. It would be a great idea for TB to work with someone to change his adjective usage just a bit. I have to admit it is fun counting his use of that word and others when he talks. In his world everything is GREAT(:

[SelectionSunday]

Hopefully, nobody will have a tremendously difficult time accepting the Big Ten's final decision on football divisions, no matter the outcome that comes out of Chicago. I'm extremely & tremendously excited to find out how the divisions will pan out the first few seasons after Nebraska arrives.

[loki]

ARRRGGGHHHHHHHH! Slowly being driven insane....I mean tremendously and extremely insane.

[re3886]

S.S., you did miss the second "hopefully" though. :clap:

[howeda7]

There seems to be consensus to re-evaluate in 10 years, so if they have any sense, they'll go East/West and then 'fix' it in 10 years if it's really that terrible.

[MrGopher]

There seems to be consensus to re-evaluate in 10 years, so if they have any sense, they'll go East/West and then 'fix' it in 10 years if it's really that terrible.

I feel like that's the best way to do it.

Plus it might only be four or five years before two more schools are added. We can evaluate it again then as well. :rolleyes:

[Schnoodler]

Penn state isn't going to take a hit to make anybody happy. The furthest east team is not going to the west. If they break up PSU, OSU and Michigan, it will be the most western team joining the west. Which I think would be just tremendous.

[MrGopher]

Penn state isn't going to take a hit to make anybody happy. The furthest east team is not going to the west. If they break up PSU, OSU and Michigan, it will be the most western team joining the west. Which I think would be just tremendous.

If you have a mostly-geographic alignment, there is no way they will break up Michigan and OSU.

Historically and geographically, the MSU-Mich-OSU grouping is more important to the fans than Mich-OSU-PSU.

Switching PSU for Illinois is the best way to do it, other than straight geography of course.

The fundamental problem, is that we are trying to make two divisions out of three logical groups:
A. Minn, wisc, Iowa, Neb
B. Ill, NU, Pur, Ind
C. Mich, MSU, OSU, PSU

Add in the component of "competitive balance" and there simply is no perfect solution.

[Schnoodler]

If you have a mostly-geographic alignment, there is no way they will break up Michigan and OSU.

Historically and geographically, the MSU-Mich-OSU grouping is more important to the fans than Mich-OSU-PSU.

Switching PSU for Illinois is the best way to do it, other than straight geography of course.

The fundamental problem, is that we are trying to make two divisions out of three logical groups:
A. Minn, wisc, Iowa, Neb
B. Ill, NU, Pur, Ind
C. Mich, MSU, OSU, PSU

Add in the component of "competitive balance" and there simply is no perfect solution.

You're assuming OSU and Michigan want to be together. The prize will be the conference title game. Penn State isn't going to take the hit. It's far more likely they'll keep all three together than move Penn State to the West. It really doesn't matter what anybody wants if Penn State won't agree to something clearly bad for them. Moving to the west is bad for them. They simply won't agree to such a thing. So just put it out of your head.

[badgergopher]

You're assuming OSU and Michigan want to be together. The prize will be the conference title game. Penn State isn't going to take the hit. It's far more likely they'll keep all three together than move Penn State to the West. It really doesn't matter what anybody wants if Penn State won't agree to something clearly bad for them. Moving to the west is bad for them. They simply won't agree to such a thing. So just put it out of your head.

Why do you think PSU will have a veto?

[SelectionSunday]

Not that they'll have a choice, but football-wise if I'm Penn State and I have the choice of being in a division with Ohio State or in a division without Ohio State, I'd choose the latter. The most difficult path to a Big Ten Championship Game is playing OSU every season.

[MrGopher]

You're assuming OSU and Michigan want to be together. The prize will be the conference title game. Penn State isn't going to take the hit. It's far more likely they'll keep all three together than move Penn State to the West. It really doesn't matter what anybody wants if Penn State won't agree to something clearly bad for them. Moving to the west is bad for them. They simply won't agree to such a thing. So just put it out of your head.

You're right, I don't know what Mich and OSU want. But unless we do a zipper-style division setup (something like Minn, Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, OSU, PSU-----wisc, Neb, NU, Ind, Mich, MSU), then why on earth would Mich and OSU want to be separate? All indications are that the league wants to avoid having a rematch championship game only a week after they've already played.

If PSU really and truly objects to moving west, then they likely wont force them too. But I think that PSU is the best choice, from a league-wide standpoint, to move west.

Would I rather have Michigan as a division rival? Yeah! But sadly its not all about the Gophers.

[Schnoodler]

I think they'll have alot of say if it appears they're being unfailry treated and being forced to do something cleary bad for them to preserve the OSU/Michigan game. So in a sense they have Veto Power over this matter. The default solution will be geographical, any other alignment will require a unanimous decision. No one team, expecially one as prominent as PSU is going to take the brunt of such a decision. That's not to say there won't be politics and enticements to sway a vote or two.

If they break up the three, Michigan is coming this way. I don't think once it becomes obvious that the three will be in the same division and Michigan is looking at not seeing a comference title game or a big bowl for a few more years they'll think long and hard about moving.

[MrGopher]

I think they'll have alot of say if it appears they're being unfailry treated and being forced to do something cleary bad for them to preserve the OSU/Michigan game. So in a sense they have Veto Power over this matter. The default solution will be geographical, any other alignment will require a unanimous decision. No one team, expecially one as prominent as PSU is going to take the brunt of such a decision. That's not to say there won't be politics and enticements to sway a vote or two.

If they break up the three, Michigan is coming this way. I don't think once it becomes obvious that the three will be in the same division and Michigan is looking at not seeing a comference title game or a big bowl for a few more years they'll think long and hard about moving.

Okay. We both agree that straight-up geographical is best.

You say Michigan moves west in the next-best scenario. I wouldn't be offended. It does fit their fight song to be in "the west", so I'll go along with it. :)

My question to you: Who moves East?

[GoAUpher]

Why do you think PSU will have a veto?

Exactly. I suspect the rules will make it a 2/3 vote wins situation (like it is for everything else they take votes on). Which means 8 schools would have to be in favor and to block the move PSU would need 4 other schools to agree with it.

[GoAUpher]

I think they'll have alot of say if it appears they're being unfailry treated and being forced to do something cleary bad for them to preserve the OSU/Michigan game. So in a sense they have Veto Power over this matter. The default solution will be geographical, any other alignment will require a unanimous decision. No one team, expecially one as prominent as PSU is going to take the brunt of such a decision. That's not to say there won't be politics and enticements to sway a vote or two.

If they break up the three, Michigan is coming this way. I don't think once it becomes obvious that the three will be in the same division and Michigan is looking at not seeing a comference title game or a big bowl for a few more years they'll think long and hard about moving.

I dunno. I'd love to believe you're right, but everything all the AD's are saying makes it sound like they want competitive balance to come first and a common refrain in that theme is that PSU, OSU, and Mich can't stay together.

Michigan wouldn't be the team to move divisions because of the fact that they can only have 1 protected cross division rival (probably...I've yet to see a suggested setup that works another way). And that would mean that Michigan wouldn't play MSU every year which won't fly.

[MrGopher]

I dunno. I'd love to believe you're right, but everything all the AD's are saying makes it sound like they want competitive balance to come first and a common refrain in that theme is that PSU, OSU, and Mich can't stay together.

Michigan wouldn't be the team to move divisions because of the fact that they can only have 1 protected cross division rival (probably...I've yet to see a suggested setup that works another way). And that would mean that Michigan wouldn't play MSU every year which won't fly.

Yes. Exactly. If there are veto powers, then MSU would certainly veto this one.

[GoAUpher]

Yes. Exactly. If there are veto powers, then MSU would certainly veto this one.

Well, I'd say its not happening even if there aren't veto powers. There are some rivalries that will just be protected at all costs. And the MSU/Mich game is one of those.

[RodentRampage]

With 12 teams, everyone has a veto, but it comes at a steep cost: leave the conference. Penn State could wreck the whole divisional setup by leaving the Big Ten. Of course, they won't. But if they felt sufficiently strongly about it, they could use this as leverage. Moving Penn State to the West means that Penn State's fans have to make much longer trips to travel to road games.

There's no need for anything but an East-West split. But if it was needed to move a team for balance, that team would be Michigan. It's nearly as good a geographical split as the straight east-west split. But it would upset some rivalries, and the Big Ten won't do that. Fine, then stop talking about competitive balance.

The east-west split preserves both rivalries and competitive balance.

[GoAUpher]

With 12 teams, everyone has a veto, but it comes at a steep cost: leave the conference. Penn State could wreck the whole divisional setup by leaving the Big Ten. Of course, they won't. But if they felt sufficiently strongly about it, they could use this as leverage. Moving Penn State to the West means that Penn State's fans have to make much longer trips to travel to road games.

There's no need for anything but an East-West split. But if it was needed to move a team for balance, that team would be Michigan. It's nearly as good a geographical split as the straight east-west split. But it would upset some rivalries, and the Big Ten won't do that. Fine, then stop talking about competitive balance.

The east-west split preserves both rivalries and competitive balance.

I'm hoping the conference comes to the same conclusion when all is said and done. :(

[MrGopher]

With 12 teams, everyone has a veto, but it comes at a steep cost: leave the conference. Penn State could wreck the whole divisional setup by leaving the Big Ten. Of course, they won't. But if they felt sufficiently strongly about it, they could use this as leverage. Moving Penn State to the West means that Penn State's fans have to make much longer trips to travel to road games.

There's no need for anything but an East-West split. But if it was needed to move a team for balance, that team would be Michigan. It's nearly as good a geographical split as the straight east-west split. But it would upset some rivalries, and the Big Ten won't do that. Fine, then stop talking about competitive balance.

The east-west split preserves both rivalries and competitive balance.

I seriously doubt that PSU would give even a hint that they would leave. Being in the wrong division is way better than being in any other conference, or being independent. PSU knows that. Nobody would take that threat seriously.

[RodentRampage]

Those who want to move PSU to the West want to have 4 of the top 6 teams in the West, with only 2 of the top 6 in the East. That means you take the best team in the conference, and give them a much easier schedule: they have to play less tough teams to win the division, just one (Michigan) in the division, and who knows if Michigan will come back to their past form?

Meanwhile, over in the West, teams would have to play a much more brutal schedule. If you're Iowa, for example, Wisconsin, Nebraska and Penn State are every-year opponents. In the East, OSU would only have Michigan among the tougher teams to contend with on a regular basis.

Or if you're a team like Minnesota, you'll get 4 of the top 6 every year, while Indiana would have only 2 of the top 6 every year.

I was joking about the Big Ten being scared of a Minnesota/Indiana championship game. But the more I think of it, the more sense it makes. It does seem that they are trying to clear a path for OSU or Michigan to be in the championship game each year. There are times to make the marketing people leave the room. Anything but an east-west split not only doesn't help competitive balance, but makes the conference radically unbalanced.

[Unregistered User]

Does anyone think that there will be complaints if it does come down to a straight East/West split? Who would the complainers be?

Whatever happened to the results in this survey? (http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?t=18231) Wasn't Skalmo going to post this on a forum for each University and aggregate the results?

[GoAUpher]

Does anyone think that there will be complaints if it does come down to a straight East/West split? Who would the complainers be?

I'd say some in the media and folks from OSU/Michigan who are cool with PSU being in another division. I doubt anyone else would care much. Everyone in the West would probably be the happiest as it results in ok distances for road trips, protected rivalries, etc.

[MrGopher]

Does anyone think that there will be complaints if it does come down to a straight East/West split? Who would the complainers be?


Off the top of my head, the minor complaints would be:

1. Nebraska wants to play Mich, OSU, and PSU (and vice versa).
2. Illinois has two trophy games against 'eastern' teams (Purdue and OSU)
3. Minnesota has two trophy games against 'eastern' teams (Mich and PSU)
4. Missouri and Iowa St. will not be happy that they are not in either division ;)

Adding a ninth conference game would soften the blow of most of the above issues.

And major complaints could be:
1. The East might be dominant (but I doubt it)
2. The West is not as marketable, nationally at least
3. Purdue and Indiana will have a brutal schedule every year. (Think Baltimore Orioles)

[Unregistered User]

Off the top of my head, the minor complaints would be:

1. Nebraska wants to play Mich, OSU, and PSU (and vice versa).
2. Illinois has two trophy games against 'eastern' teams (Purdue and OSU)
3. Minnesota has two trophy games against 'eastern' teams (Mich and PSU)
4. Missouri and Iowa St. will not be happy that they are not in either division ;)

Adding a ninth conference game would soften the blow of most of the above issues.

And major complaints could be:
1. The East might be dominant (but I doubt it)
2. The West is not as marketable, nationally at least
3. Purdue and Indiana will have a brutal schedule every year. (Think Baltimore Orioles)

My point is that most of the "issues" that people are wringing their hands over will work themselves out over time. And as far as cross division rivalries, they have already said those can be protected rivalries. I just don't see a lot of complaining outside of a small conclave of B10 un-named officials who continue to clamor about "competitive balance". And once the alignment is in place, I really doubt that anyone would hear word 1 from the B10 offices because none of them would dare open their mouths at that time for fear of making the office look foolish.

So, to keep beating that dead horse, East/West and just get it done. Work out the rivalries and everyone is good to go.

[badgergopher]

Does anyone think that there will be complaints if it does come down to a straight East/West split? Who would the complainers be?

Whatever happened to the results in this survey? (http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?t=18231) Wasn't Skalmo going to post this on a forum for each University and aggregate the results?

I browsed the osu boards and they seem to be in favor of psu going west.

[RodentRampage]

I browsed the osu boards and they seem to be in favor of psu going west.

Gives them a much easier path to the divisional championship. No wonder they favor it.

[MrGopher]

I browsed the osu boards and they seem to be in favor of psu going west.

Are they in favor of that over a straight east-west split? Or just in favor of that over Michigan moving west?

[RodentRampage]

And major complaints could be:
1. The East might be dominant (but I doubt it)
2. The West is not as marketable, nationally at least
3. Purdue and Indiana will have a brutal schedule every year. (Think Baltimore Orioles)

The East could be dominant, but so could the west. If it is just one team (OSU) dominanting, it is impossible to balance that out.

The West is highly marketable, you just have to market it.

It's not so clear that having to play OSU. Michigan and Penn State is really all that more brutal than playing Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin. But moving Penn State to the West CLEARLY makes our schedule brutal. We would play at LEAST 4 of the top 6 each year, possibly all 6. In some years, Purdue and Indiana would play only 2 of the top 6, and at worst, play 5.

[Stargenes]

I think they'll have alot of say if it appears they're being unfailry treated and being forced to do something cleary bad for them to preserve the OSU/Michigan game. So in a sense they have Veto Power over this matter. The default solution will be geographical, any other alignment will require a unanimous decision. No one team, expecially one as prominent as PSU is going to take the brunt of such a decision. That's not to say there won't be politics and enticements to sway a vote or two.

If they break up the three, Michigan is coming this way. I don't think once it becomes obvious that the three will be in the same division and Michigan is looking at not seeing a comference title game or a big bowl for a few more years they'll think long and hard about moving.

Lets not be foolish. Michigan may have even a higher probability of having a Breakout season in 2011 than the Gophers. I just do not think we can assume Michigan will stay down very long at all.

[howeda7]

Speaking of Michigan being the team that comes West, Michigan and MSU are a package deal IMO. If Michigan is coming West, so is MSU. The only way that might work is to simply swap the Michigan schools and the Illinois schools. This avoids breaking up Illinis and NW as in the PSU/Illinois swap and avoids the problem of Michigan not playing MSU. It also still leaves at least some semblance of geography intact.

It also has not been definately decided that these divisons won't be used for basketball. Getting MSU to the West helps balance out OSU, Purdue and Illinois being in the East (and Indiana if they ever right the ship.) Swapping Illinois for PSU would make using the divisions for basketball scheduling a joke (PSU, Iowa, Nebraska and NW all being in the same division cannot happen, though it would be fun for Bucky and the Gophers I guess)

[2727Gopher]

Speaking of Michigan being the team that comes West, Michigan and MSU are a package deal IMO. If Michigan is coming West, so is MSU. The only way that might work is to simply swap the Michigan schools and the Illinois schools. This avoids breaking up Illinis and NW as in the PSU/Illinois swap and avoids the problem of Michigan not playing MSU. It also still leaves at least some semblance of geography intact.

It also has not been definately decided that these divisons won't be used for basketball. Getting MSU to the West helps balance out OSU, Purdue and Illinois being in the East (and Indiana if they ever right the ship.) Swapping Illinois for PSU would make using the divisions for basketball scheduling a joke (PSU, Iowa, Nebraska and NW all being in the same division cannot happen, though it would be fun for Bucky and the Gophers I guess)

Well, I think it's pretty definite that the divisions are football only. However, if they did decide to use divisions in other sports and they don't divide strictly by geography, I would assume that each sport would have a different divisional alignment. Michigan State is the premiere Big Ten basketball school, but in football, they're average. Penn State is one of the top football programs, but one of the worst basketball programs. You would need to completely re-think the divisions for each sport.

[RodentRampage]

Lets not be foolish. Michigan may have even a higher probability of having a Breakout season in 2011 than the Gophers. I just do not think we can assume Michigan will stay down very long at all.

Perhaps not. But must we then assume that Iowa and Wisconsin will not be able to remain good teams? The justification for moving Penn States depends on making that assumption.

[RodentRampage]

I seriously doubt that PSU would give even a hint that they would leave. Being in the wrong division is way better than being in any other conference, or being independent. PSU knows that. Nobody would take that threat seriously.

I doubt they would leave. But they would be able to wield considerable power with that threat. The question would be who would flinch first in this game of chicken? Would the other 11 Big Ten Schools consider it so overwhelmingly important to move Penn State to the West that they could call Penn State's bluff?

[howeda7]

Well, I think it's pretty definite that the divisions are football only. However, if they did decide to use divisions in other sports and they don't divide strictly by geography, I would assume that each sport would have a different divisional alignment. Michigan State is the premiere Big Ten basketball school, but in football, they're average. Penn State is one of the top football programs, but one of the worst basketball programs. You would need to completely re-think the divisions for each sport.

That's why Michigan and MSU to the West would make sense for both sports. An East/West alignment with Mich/MSU swapped for Illinois/NW would be very balanced for basketball and decent for football as well, though the West would be stronger.

As for whether they'd use the divisons for other sports, maybe, maybe not. Several other conferences use thier divisions for football and basketball but not the other sports. Rest assured they would not have different divisions for each sport in any case. Frankly, outside of football and basketball, the other sports are not signficant enough for them to bother. They would either use the divisons that are already in place or none at all.

[RodentRampage]

Swapping MSU-Michigan for Illinois-Northwestern still leaves the problem of OSU-Michigan. The other schools will kowtow to OSU and Michigan. I would prefer not to have protected cross-divisional rivals, it unbalances things too much.

That still has the problem of making the west brutal, with 4 of the top 6 teams. There's nothing you can do to balance out one dominant team: You can only lose to OSU once. (not counting the conference championship game, for nitpickers.)

[Schnoodler]

Maybe we need to have a division for OSU and Michigan. and another one for the other ten teams.

[2727Gopher]

That's why Michigan and MSU to the West would make sense for both sports. An East/West alignment with Mich/MSU swapped for Illinois/NW would be very balanced for basketball and decent for football as well, though the West would be stronger.

As for whether they'd use the divisons for other sports, maybe, maybe not. Several other conferences use thier divisions for football and basketball but not the other sports. Rest assured they would not have different divisions for each sport in any case. Frankly, outside of football and basketball, the other sports are not signficant enough for them to bother. They would either use the divisons that are already in place or none at all.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, if they ignore geography when creating divisions (which would be for "competitive balance") and then keep the same division format for any other sport, they'll all be proven to be frauds. There's no reason why you couldn't have different divisions in different sports, and "competitive balance" would require you to do that.

[Schnoodler]

I think Maturi already said that they probably won't have the same alignment in all sports. They like the 12 team format in basketball because of the tournaments.

How much does football rivalries extend to the other sports? Does it at all, if it does I think you'd want consistency across programs. If not I'd go geographic in all others, just from a cost stand point.

[Rosemountian]

If it is a 2/3 majority, I can promise that the 6 schools in the "west" would vote against moving Penn State to the West. (except maybe the school moving to the weaker "east")

[Schnoodler]

I think that's it in a nutshell Rose, it's only really good for three schools that Penn State be the one to go. Three more are probably on the fence, and six more don't want it. Plus if you consider what might be a little hidden animosity about OSU and Michigan thinking they're prima donnas, maybe the votes arent' going their way when the more logical solutions for everyone doesn't support that vote.

i really think in the end, the only vote that wouldn't generate strong opposition will be the east west split. With maybe one exchange along the imaginary line. An even that probably voluntary. i could see a school wanting the bigger revenues of being in the east, and opting to cross that way, as much as i could see one wanting to go to the west to get away from the big three.

[RodentRampage]

Good point, we'll get the East-West split if the western schools insist upon it. Iowa and Wisconsin should certainly vote against it, as the idea that an E/W split is unbalances really is a slap in their faces. I doubt Nebraska wants any part of a top-heavy West. Illinois and Northwestern should object. Minnesota though, I don't know what Maturi will do, even though an E/W split is best for Minnesota.

Plus, I can't imagine that it is too appealing for Penn State, it puts them into a top-heavy division and makes travel much more expensive and time consuming for their fans.

With an East-West split, Indiana and Purdue get Penn State as a regular game. Penn State is a bigger draw then Northwestern. OTOH, Penn State is a tougher opponent.

Can those that favor putting PSU to the West get 8 votes for it?

[GoAUpher]

If it is a 2/3 majority, I can promise that the 6 schools in the "west" would vote against moving Penn State to the West. (except maybe the school moving to the weaker "east")

Unless Nebraska wants more annual matchups against the Big 3. Nebraska still looks at itself as a national power and might not care about making the division "tougher".

[howeda7]

Swapping MSU-Michigan for Illinois-Northwestern still leaves the problem of OSU-Michigan. The other schools will kowtow to OSU and Michigan. I would prefer not to have protected cross-divisional rivals, it unbalances things too much.

That still has the problem of making the west brutal, with 4 of the top 6 teams. There's nothing you can do to balance out one dominant team: You can only lose to OSU once. (not counting the conference championship game, for nitpickers.)

I think a protected rival in the other division is a virtual lock at this point, regardless of which alignment is chosen. And frankly, that's not a bad thing for MN. The West is going to be tougher top to bottom regardless and a nice protected rivalry with Indiana may be a welcome break. East/West with the Michigan and Illinois schools swapped would mean all 3 trophy games are in the division. OSU-Michigan, PSU-Nebraska, Wisonsin-NW and Illinois-Iowa could be protected rivalaries with MSU-Purdue and MN-IN as the left-overs. I see no huge issue with it other then the loss of the great 'Land Grant' trophy for MSU-PSU.

[RodentRampage]

I think a protected rival in the other division is a virtual lock at this point, regardless of which alignment is chosen. And frankly, that's not a bad thing for MN. The West is going to be tougher top to bottom regardless and a nice protected rivalry with Indiana may be a welcome break. East/West with the Michigan and Illinois schools swapped would mean all 3 trophy games are in the division. OSU-Michigan, PSU-Nebraska, Wisonsin-NW and Illinois-Iowa could be protected rivalaries with MSU-Purdue and MN-IN as the left-overs. I see no huge issue with it other then the loss of the great 'Land Grant' trophy for MSU-PSU.

Perhaps, but protected rivalries are a mistake. In any case, OSU and Michigan are virtual locks to be in the same division. Michigan and OSU want to play each other each year in the last game of the season. They are afraid that if they then meet in the conference championship game, that the rematch the very next week will be a letdown. And of course, OSU and Michigan fans are convinced that if they were in seperate divisions, that they would meet in the conference championship game every year.

If the Big Ten does go to protected rivalries, than it shows that the concern over competitive balance is a sham. Protected rivalries disrupt competitive balance. And besides, the divisons should mean something. Protected rivalries undermine the importance of the divisions.

[Schnoodler]

Perhaps, but protected rivalries are a mistake. In any case, OSU and Michigan are virtual locks to be in the same division. Michigan and OSU want to play each other each year in the last game of the season. They are afraid that if they then meet in the conference championship game, that the rematch the very next week will be a letdown. And of course, OSU and Michigan fans are convinced that if they were in seperate divisions, that they would meet in the conference championship game every year.

If the Big Ten does go to protected rivalries, than it shows that the concern over competitive balance is a sham. Protected rivalries disrupt competitive balance. And besides, the divisons should mean something. Protected rivalries undermine the importance of the divisions.

Maybe we're thinking too hard. I think the NCAA is working up to a 13 game season if a conference has a championship game. So with two divisions of 6 and 6, that's five divisional games and three games with the other division. So you're looking at playin each team at least every other year.

I say no to protected rivalries for this reason.

[TAW]

Does anyone think that there will be complaints if it does come down to a straight East/West split? Who would the complainers be?

Whatever happened to the results in this survey? (http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?t=18231) Wasn't Skalmo going to post this on a forum for each University and aggregate the results?

Here's the link to Skalmo's response (http://buckyville.yuku.com/topic/32503).


I lost interest and quit. Sorry.

The GopherHole was excellent about responding to my inquiries but Iowa and Ohio State fans sucked. I got maybe two responses on each of those boards and I figured if they didn't have much interest in responding the survey wouldn't be very good.

I learned that Minnesota fans care far more about the Little Brown Jug than I would have expected. They want to protect that rivalry almost as much as Iowa and Wisconsin.

Here's the link (http://buckyville.yuku.com/topic/31603) to the Badger responses to Skalmo's OP.

[MrGopher]

Okay. Let's say it's straight East/West split. And each team gets one cross-division rival, just like the SEC.

What are the Pairings? Obviously most of us would prefer to play Michigan. So...

Minn-Mich, Wisc-MSU, Iowa-PSU, Neb-OSU, Ill-Ind, NU-Pur???

Might not be the best way, but if I ruled the universe, that's how i'd do it.

[GopherGod]

Nebraska will not get a vote in deciding the divisions unless they wait until July 2011 to decide divisions which obviously won't occur. Nebraska will be aloud to voice ther opinion at the upcoming meetings but will not be aloud to cast any votes.

[GoGophers2005]

Ohio state
Nebraska
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Northwestern

Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana

I say we change the rivalry weekend to the. Last weekend in October (Halloween).

[GoGophers2005]

Nebraska
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin

Michigan
Michigan State
Nortwestern
Illinois

Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Indiana

3 divisions (lets think outside the box?)
Division winners plus 1 wild card play semifinal games in Detroit and Indianapolis. Winners meet for championship in Chicago.

3 divisions look pretty even to me.

[MrGopher]

Nebraska
Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin

Michigan
Michigan State
Nortwestern
Illinois

Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Indiana

3 divisions (lets think outside the box?)
Division winners plus 1 wild card play semifinal games in Detroit and Indianapolis. Winners meet for championship in Chicago.

3 divisions look pretty even to me.

If there ever will be a playoff to decide the bigten champion, it will come when there are 16 teams. And probably only then if most other conferences had the same system. There are just too many opportunities to lose, for those who have national champion dreams. It may happen, but i hope not anytime soon.

Think:
1. Minn, wisc, Iowa, Neb
2. Ill, NU, Pur, ND
3. Mich, MSU, OSU, Ind
4. PSU, Pitt, Syr, Rut

I hope it never comes to that, but some are predicting super-conferences are not far off.

[GoAUpher]

Nebraska will not get a vote in deciding the divisions unless they wait until July 2011 to decide divisions which obviously won't occur. Nebraska will be aloud to voice ther opinion at the upcoming meetings but will not be aloud to cast any votes.

Good point GG. I'm getting so used to the thought of them in the B10 that this never even crossed my mind.

[badgergopher]

Think about the priorities & votes for the two scenarios.

Geographic
MI - Doesn't like three in the east because of 'balance'. Knows that any scenario will protect 'the game'. Votes against.
OSU - Same as UM. Votes against.
PUR - Dosen't like it because they will never get back to the Rose Bowl with these three in the division. Votes against.
IN - Same as PUR. Votes against.
MSU - Same as PUR and IN but it grateful that UM-MSU is protected in this scenario. Votes against.
PSU - Is generally happy because they know that most of the 'balance' scenarios will split PSU and OSU, their biggest rival. Votes in favor.

NU - Doesn't get a vote.
WI - Wants the MN and IA rivalries protected and is happy to have NU in division, votes in favor.
IA - Same as WI. Votes in favor.
MN - Same as WI and IA. Votes in favor.
NW - It preserves their biggest rival, IL, and allows them to continue to recruit the western B10 states. Votes in favor.
IL - Most of their perceived rivals are in the east. Casts a tepid vote in favor.

Big Ten media partners - strongly advise the conference to split the 'big 4' so that they get more 'big 4' title game matchups.

Now consider PSU swap for IL.

MI - Likes the 'balance', protection of OSU and MSU. Votes yes.
OSU - Likes 'balance' protection of 'the game'. Votes yes.
PUR - Likes the swap of IL for PSU becasue it appears to be an easier divison to win, votes yes.
IN - Same as PUR. Votes yes.
MSU - Same as PUR and IN & happy that MI is in same division. Votes yes.
IL - Most of their perceived rivals are in the east, likes the fact that only two of top six are in the division, doesn't care about NW. Votes yes.

NU - Doesn't get a vote.
WI - Doesn't like 4 of the top 6 in the west but votes yes because the rivalries are protected (top priority) and NU is in the division.
IA - Same as WI. Votes yes.
MN - Same as WI and IA. Votes yes.
NW - While disappointed that IL rivalry will not be every year, is thrilled that WI, IA, and NU are in division because they are likely sellouts (no longer a concern for the Gophers!). Votes no.
PSU - Is pissed about moving west. Votes no.

I think based on the dimestore analysis above, that the geographic will be a very close vote and may not have enough support to get over the hump. I think Maturi and many others will defer to the leage office on what is 'best for TV'. While there may be some misgivings about the PSU/IL swap, I think it meets almost everyone's top priority.

[SelectionSunday]

If they make one swap, I think it's going to be Penn State to the West, Northwestern (instead of Illinois) to the East. Otherwise, I think they'll stick with the time zones.

[MrGopher]

If they make one swap, I think it's going to be Penn State to the West, Northwestern (instead of Illinois) to the East. Otherwise, I think they'll stick with the time zones.

No. Illinois is closer tied to, and has more rivals within the east. Northwestern, on the other hand is just the same for the west. OSU, Indiana, Purdue and Michigan would all rather have Illinois. Iowa and wisky would rather have NU.

I realize NU is technically more east than Illinois. But the difference is marginal.

[TAW]

No. Illinois is closer tied to, and has more rivals within the east. Northwestern, on the other hand is just the same for the west. OSU, Indiana, Purdue and Michigan would all rather have Illinois. Iowa and wisky would rather have NU.

I realize NU is technically more east than Illinois. But the difference is marginal.

Not to mention that a NW roadtrip is infinitely more fun than Champagna.

[RodentRampage]

I would think that Iowa and Wisconsin would vote no on swapping Penn State with anyone from the west. Voting to swap Penn State to the West is to make a statement that Iowa and Wisconsin won't continue to be good, and thus Penn State is needed to balance the divisions.

So, are Iowa and Wisconsin going to vote to disrespect themselves? I'll hound them on it forever if they do.

It's likely that Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota will be in the same division regardless. I don't think that anyone will be able to force an alignment through that doesn't include these three teams in the same division. So, Iowa and Wisconsin could stick to their guns on not imbalancing the conference by moving Penn State west.

Are we sure that Nebraska isn't being given a vote on this?

[Rosemountian]

Ohio state
Nebraska
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Northwestern

Michigan
Michigan State
Penn State
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana

I say we change the rivalry weekend to the. Last weekend in October (Halloween).
That puts 4 of the top 6 and 6 of the top 10 programs in the same division. Try again.

Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin have to be 3/3
Indiana, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Minnesota, and Michigan State have to be 3/3 if you are trying to achieve competitive balance.

[Rosemountian]

The only logical switch from E/W would be moving one of PSU, Mich, or OSU, and trading them for Wisconsin or Iowa (most likely Wisconsin). With the purpose of preserving competitive balance, trading for Illinois or Northwestern does more harm than good. If you traded Penn State with Wisconsin and did protected rivalries it would be.

PSU-OSU
MN-WI
NEB-MICH
IA-MICH ST
NU-PU
IL-IN

[badgergopher]

I would think that Iowa and Wisconsin would vote no on swapping Penn State with anyone from the west. Voting to swap Penn State to the West is to make a statement that Iowa and Wisconsin won't continue to be good, and thus Penn State is needed to balance the divisions.

So, are Iowa and Wisconsin going to vote to disrespect themselves? I'll hound them on it forever if they do.

It's likely that Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota will be in the same division regardless. I don't think that anyone will be able to force an alignment through that doesn't include these three teams in the same division. So, Iowa and Wisconsin could stick to their guns on not imbalancing the conference by moving Penn State west.

Are we sure that Nebraska isn't being given a vote on this?

I don't think it is necessarily accurate that they won't split these three. A lot of this depends on how important WI and IA consider their rivalry. As another poster points out later a PSU WI swap is an idea being discussed in many forums. In this case they'd protect Wi/MN, PSU/OSU, and MI/NU (the rest would be contrived). I think this Is essentially the Rittenburg approach and it gets a lot of play on OSU and MI boards.

In this case crossovers might be, MN/WI, PSU/OSU, MI/NU, IA/PUR, NW/MSU, IL/IN. These would be played mid season.

End of season games would be, NU/PSU, MN/IA, NW/IL, MI/OSU, PUR/IN, and MSU/WI.

Would the western teams prefer this to the PSU/IL swap? Maybe. WI loses their rivalry with IA and gets a manufactured end of season rival. On the other hand they play in a more balanced division and get OSU every year which is preferred to PSU from most WI fans perspectives.

[imthewalrus]

There will most likely be a couple more teams added in the next five years any way. ( Starting withNotre Dame and one more from the East Coast and then moving on from there as opportunity presents itself.) So, keep it simple now. Schedule an 11 game Conference Schedule in which every team plays every other team. Skip the Conference Championship for the time being, until Notre Dame and another team come into the conference. Sure, it would present scheduling problems with the signed non-conference teams. But, it will be incredibly confusing if they set up this divisional thing right now and in a year or two if and when ND and another team from the East Coast are added, they have to re-do the whole thing. When they add more teams, then they can easily split the whole thing into two divisions and do a conference championship if they think they must.

Personally, it seems to me that more revenue would be generated by having 11 conference games for the Conference Network to sell than to have a cheesy, hastily put together conference championship game that only two of the fan bases would be interested in any way, only to have to go through the entire mess again in a few years.

Let Nebraska properly be welcomed into the Conference by playing every team in the Conference during the first few years they are the "new kids in town..." Doesn't everybody want to either go look at Nebraska's house or have Nebraska come to their house? Just the event of having a new strong Conference Member will create buzz and excitement in itself. There is still more work to do. There will eventually be 14 Conference Member Teams to 16 Conference Member Teams. SUPER COFNERECE CITY is the way to go to enhance the Network that the Big Ten Commishner has built. Get the pay out up to 30 million or more per school. Build it right and it will pay untold dividends. And welcome Nebraska into the Conference by having them play every school in the conference!

[sec105]

The competitive balance argument should be a non factor. A geographic split is the only thing that makes sense,

I would be in favor of swapping MSU and Michigan for NU and ILL (I do like the idea of keeping the LBJ game in conference) but either way it would be acceptable. Putting PSU in the West would be just plain wrong as would putting NEB, Wis or IA in the East.

JMO

[RodentRampage]

I looked at the Star Tribune article, and it talked about the 4 powers needing to be balances as being Nebraska, OSU, PSU and Michigan, with no mention of Iowa or Wisconsin. Why aren't Iowa and Wisconsin and their fans up in arms over this assumption that they aren't among the conference powers?

Having 4 of the top 6 teams in the West makes the West absolutely brutal. We could play all of the top 6 teams, while OSU might have to play only one. And if Michigan doesn't bounce back, they might not play any at all. It seems they have learned nothing from the ACC.

[MrGopher]

I looked at the Star Tribune article, and it talked about the 4 powers needing to be balances as being Nebraska, OSU, PSU and Michigan, with no mention of Iowa or Wisconsin. Why aren't Iowa and Wisconsin and their fans up in arms over this assumption that they aren't among the conference powers?

Having 4 of the top 6 teams in the West makes the West absolutely brutal. We could play all of the top 6 teams, while OSU might have to play only one. And if Michigan doesn't bounce back, they might not play any at all. It seems they have learned nothing from the ACC.

Why are so many on this board so willing to give so much credit to wisky and Iowa? I would hope one of the reasonable goals of our program would be to surpass wisky and Iowa in the next year or two. And hopefully it doesn't seem so out of question that we can string some wins against them in the near future.

If we believe that we can surpass those schools, then why are they considered so powerful. Yeah, they're good at football lately, but they are not icons of College football. Nebraska is, Michigan is, and OSU is. PSU is a quarter of a step lower, but still a national-level power.

Having said all that, i do believe having east-west geography split in divisions will work to create balance. And if three (Mich-OSU-PSU) are in one division, one of those schools will begin to look like an underachiever really quickly if they end up in third place in the east or lower year in and year out.

[GoAUpher]

I think what people need to get their head around is that "competitive balance" is code for "making sure we don't put 3 of the 4 most nationally marketable programs in the same division." Iowa and Wisky don't fall into that category. Alvarez has admitted as much.

[highwayman]

Having said all that, i do believe having east-west geography split in divisions will work to create balance. And if three (Mich-OSU-PSU) are in one division, one of those schools will begin to look like an underachiever really quickly if they end up in third place in the east or lower year in and year out.


A while back, I posed this:


"When was the last season that all three had 0 or 1 conference losses at the same time?

THAT WOULD BE NEVER. And that includes seasons when they didn't play each other.

In fact, PSU, OSU and Mch have finished 1-2-3 only twice (1994-combined 5 losses, 1997-combined 4 losses). 13 seasons ago. Too many people are considering all-time totals and tradition, and are not looking at the B10 standings from year to year, especially the last 20 years.

There are ups and downs. "Division strength" in the conference would have little effect and would not result in much of a difference over time, except possibly in a conference championship game.

Check out the standings and analyze yourselves."

I still believe it.

[RodentRampage]

I think what people need to get their head around is that "competitive balance" is code for "making sure we don't put 3 of the 4 most nationally marketable programs in the same division." Iowa and Wisky don't fall into that category. Alvarez has admitted as much.

No, I don't need to get my head around that. I understand that when they talk about competitive balance, they are lying through their teeth. But I have no need whatsoever to accept those lies.

[RodentRampage]

In fact, PSU, OSU and Mch have finished 1-2-3 only twice (1994-combined 5 losses, 1997-combined 4 losses). 13 seasons ago. Too many people are considering all-time totals and tradition, and are not looking at the B10 standings from year to year, especially the last 20 years.

There are ups and downs. "Division strength" in the conference would have little effect and would not result in much of a difference over time, except possibly in a conference championship game.

Check out the standings and analyze yourselves."

I still believe it.

You have people talking about 10 years as being a mere "snapshot", and saying you have to look back 50 years. It's absurd to think that the events of 40 or 50 years ago have anything to do with how good a team will be now and for the forseeable future. 50 years ago, the Gophers were national champions.

[RodentRampage]

Why are so many on this board so willing to give so much credit to wisky and Iowa? I would hope one of the reasonable goals of our program would be to surpass wisky and Iowa in the next year or two. And hopefully it doesn't seem so out of question that we can string some wins against them in the near future.

If we believe that we can surpass those schools, then why are they considered so powerful. Yeah, they're good at football lately, but they are not icons of College football. Nebraska is, Michigan is, and OSU is. PSU is a quarter of a step lower, but still a national-level power.

I don't care about icons, that's about perception. It doesn't bring me any pleasure to observe that Nebraska, Wisconsin and Iowa balance about as well as possible OSU, Michigan and Penn State. OSU brings its own brand of imbalance, it's impossible to balance around one dominant team.

Just because I recognize that Wisconsin and Iowa are good programs doesn't mean I don't think we can't knock them off and take their place down the road.

[howeda7]

The more I think about this, the more I hope they swap Michigan/MSU and Ill/NW if they refuse to do it the right way. To swap Ill and PSU makes the West way too strong. To swap WI and PSU damages way too many rivalaries in the name of balance. (WI would have to give up Iowa, Ill and NW.)

The MI/MSU swap for Ill/NW would be best for everyone (outside of straight geography). MI/OSU would be preserved via the protected rivalry. Ill would get to keep rivalaries with OSU, Indiana and NW with Iowa protected via the rivalry game. The crossover games would be: MI/OSU, NU/PSU, WI/NW, IA/IL, MSU/PUR and MN/IN. The final week-end match-ups would be in the division: MN/WI, NU/IA, MI/MSU, OSU/PSU, IN/PUR and Ill/NW. Literally, the only disadvantage is Michigan and OSU having to move 'the game' to earlier in the season. To breakdown how the votes would go:

MI: They would vote no due to the damage to the OSU game
MSU: The Michigan rivalary is protected. The loss of the PSU rivalry is made for by getting a game with Nebraska. They vote yes.
WI: Rivlaries are protected, they'd vote yes.
IA: Ditto
MN: All 3 trophies are in the division, they can't ask for more. Yes.
NU: Doesn't get a vote

OSU: They vote no for the same reason as Michigan
PSU: They don't have to go West. They vote yes.
IN: They get an easier division and to keep Illinois. They vote yes.
PUR: Ditto.
Ill: They get to keep all thier rivlaries. They vote yes.
NW: They're happy to still be with Ill. They vote yes.

So 9 of 11 would be in favor. And Michigan and OSU's objection is pretty minor.

[RodentRampage]

All collges are equal, but some are more equal than others. OSU's and Michigan's objections would carry a lot of weight.

[RodentRampage]

How about geographical until the next round of expansion. We know it's coming one of these years, that would be a good time to reassess whether geographical works or not.

[Rosemountian]

People should not bank on the fact that the conference will expand again in the future. Unless Notre Dame wants to join (unlikely now that super-conferences are not forming) it would be very difficult to find teams that add value to the conference. Assuming that the value the conference gives to each Big Ten team is about 23 million next year, in order to find a team that brings that number up to 24 million per team, you would have to find a team that adds 36 million dollars. Pitt does not do that, Syracuse and Rutgers do not do that unless they give you the entire New York Market (They don't).

In economics, they call it "The Law of Diminishing Returns." With a title game already in place, there are only a select few teams that would add value to the conference (Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame are the only teams with Big Enough Markets or National Followings, that are not already in stable major conferences to add value).

Unless Notre Dame or Texas want to join, the conference will not expand again. You can say "the Big Ten will add three Big East teams and force Notre Dame," but they won't. If Notre Dame balked even if the Big East was folding, it would cost each Big Ten team millions of dollars per year.