Divisions - Delany comment - Won't be geographic

Donate To GopherHole

You know what? After reading that, my first thought was, "Yeah, better scratch the idea of East-West split."

But then after thinking about it for just a moment, what they might be doing is laying a foundation of confidence for the East-West divide by downplaying the geography. They may come out and say, "Yes, even without considering geography as a top priority, we have concluded that the East-West divide is best."

The argument is certainly there that since 1993, the western five (plus Neb) is only marginally worse than the eastern 6. And the difference lies mostly in the fact that OSU tips the scales no matter which side they are on.
And aside from poor Illinois, each school would only have minor quibbles with losing annual rivalry games.
 

badgergopher said:
“We didn't think there's any way we could achieve principle one and two if we were rigid about geographic contiguity,”]
Click to expand...

Then they either aren't thinking enough, or they have $$$ in their eyes. Any fool can see several principles:

1. Competitiveness inherently varies. You are never going to capture a divisional alignment that perfectly balances divisions. You should aim to have two divisions that are relatively similar to each other in terms of recent and long term success. Some teams that were great will not be great anymore (Minnesota, Michigan) and some teams that haven't historically been great may take that step up in the coming years (Wisconsin, Iowa). Look to the future, not just the past.

2. Geography matters. I would be much more likely to drive to a game against Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Nebraska or Illinois than I would to PSU. I really don't care about PSU (I realize we have a rivalry).
 

We're aware that an east-west split makes the most sense, but we're not going to be driven by doing what this right. That's what it comes down to. You can throw all the "competitive balance" nonsense out the window. Sometimes they tell the truth, that it is all about balancing brand names. If they have protected cross-divisional rivalries, then that means they were lying about competitive balance, as this is highly skews balance.
 

RodentRampage said:
We're aware that an east-west split makes the most sense, but we're not going to be driven by doing what this right. That's what it comes down to. You can throw all the "competitive balance" nonsense out the window. Sometimes they tell the truth, that it is all about balancing brand names. If they have protected cross-divisional rivalries, then that means they were lying about competitive balance, as this is highly skews balance.
Click to expand...

That's a great point. If they match Michigan/OSU and Nebraska/PSU in crossover games then the 'balance' argument goes out the window. OSU didn't need balance when winning the last five B10 titles - they play Michigan and PSU every year.
 


badgergopher said:
That's a great point. If they match Michigan/OSU and Nebraska/PSU in crossover games then the 'balance' argument goes out the window. OSU didn't need balance when winning the last five B10 titles - they play Michigan and PSU every year.
Click to expand...

Haha, true. Also true... they never have to face OSU. Lucky bastards!!
 

RodentRampage said:
We're aware that an east-west split makes the most sense, but we're not going to be driven by doing what this right. That's what it comes down to. You can throw all the "competitive balance" nonsense out the window. Sometimes they tell the truth, that it is all about balancing brand names. If they have protected cross-divisional rivalries, then that means they were lying about competitive balance, as this is highly skews balance.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Competitive balance is code for OSU, Mich, and PSU can't all be in the division b/c they are 3 of the 4 most marketable programs (Neb being the other).
 

I think top teams will be split this way:

Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin
Nebraska, Penn State, Iowa
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom