Division alignments

Donate To GopherHole
SelectionSunday said:
According to Jim Delany in Chicago Tribune:

#3 Geography

#2 Traditional rivalries

#1 Competitive balance

Here's my prediction if it's only the current 12. No way they'll put Mich, OSU and PSU in same division.

Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska (historical power)
Northwestern
Penn State (historical power)
Wisconsin

Illinois
Indiana
Michigan (historical power)
Michigan State
Ohio State (historical power)
Purdue

This way Illinois-Northwestern is the only rivalry being broken up, and I wouldn't really call it much of a rivalry, anyways.
Click to expand...
That breaks down really well for the basketball program, doesn't it?
 



13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
The only alignment that makes any sense (considering the current crop of teams) is Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois in the west and the rest in the east.

Anything else would be entirely idiotic.
Click to expand...

+1. You can´t break up Minnesota Iowa Wisconsin under any circumstances. Likewise, you can´t break up Ohio State and the Michigan schools, and obviously Indiana and Purdue need to stay together. I think this is the best lineup. Northwestern and Illinois also make sense together since they occupy the same state.

I love this lineup. The Gophers will have a great chance to make a Big Ten title game if this is how it pans out.
 

tato2001 said:
Why in the world would PSU, OSU, and Michigan want to be in the same division? Seriously, someone explain that to me.
Click to expand...

Browse all of the posts in all of the threads. You're misunderstanding probably results from giving PSU, OSU and Michigan too much credit for their performance over the last 15-17 years and giving Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin entirely not enough.
 


13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
The only alignment that makes any sense (considering the current crop of teams) is Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois in the west and the rest in the east.

Anything else would be entirely idiotic.
Click to expand...

To top this off I'd have the East division start home games at 11:00 and the West gets the 2:30 start. Any other takers?
 

highwayman said:
It will be an east-west alignment. No records, strengths, rivalries, or other factors will be considered, It WILL be (names only mine):

Great Plains
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Northwestern
Wisconsin

Great Lakes
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue

5 games in division, rotating 3 out of division. Championship game at Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis. THINK CLEARLY, PLEASE.

There is no other alignment, there is no other considerations. Get over it, move on.
Click to expand...


Great division names.

The only thing I would want to see changed is the location of the championship game. Given my utter contempt for indoor football, I'd rather see Soldier Field.
 

Goldmember said:
Browse all of the posts in all of the threads. You're misunderstanding probably results from giving PSU, OSU and Michigan too much credit for their performance over the last 15-17 years and giving Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin entirely not enough.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point, the credit I give to Mich and OSU is meaningless. What matters is that THEY will give THEMSELVES too much credit.

My question was why would they support being in the same division, and I stick to the claim that I believe THEY would fight it. And as the most successful teams in the Conference (currently), they will likely have considerable clout. I presume that at some point, everyone will be in a room debating the alignment.

Here's the argument that Mich, OSU, WON'T make:

"our success over the past 15-20 is overstated. In reality, we aren't that much different than any other team and thus putting us in the same division is fine."

Here's the argument that Mich, OSU, WILL make:

"our programs are clearly stronger as the past 20 years have demonstrated. Balanced divisions are in the best interest of the Big Ten, so we should NOT be in the same division.

what's more, the Mich-OSU game is one of the MOST WATCHED games in College Football. With a dedicated rivalry game, the Big Ten could have this game TWICE A YEAR if we are in separate divisions. Think of the audience if the Big Ten championship is viewed as a Mich-OSU re-match!"


...their selfish reasons will be because they won't want to have to beat each other to get to the Championship. But the above is how they will argue. Rightly or wrongly. I hope it goes geographic, but if they argue in their own best interests, they will fight to be in separate divisions.
 

When you separate into two divisions, there will be no permanent cross division rivalries...sorry but it would be a scheduling nightmare. So everyone has 6 locked games and 2 non-locked. Good luck making it fit and not having the same schedule every year. There would just not be enough permutations in scheduling.

If and when there is a division split, there will be no locked-cross division games. That is a reason why OSU-Michigan...MSU/MIchigan will not be split. MN/IA/WI/NE will not be split.


Also keep this in mind. The bottom 6 programs of the Big Ten (in no order) are clearly Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State....there will not be a conference schedule in which 4 of these 6 teams are in the same division if their goal is to actually have balance.

So one division will definitely have
Michigan
Ohio State
Michigan State

the other will definitely have
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin

Leaving Penn State, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern, and Illinois not yet placed in conferences. By the rule of not having 4 of the bottom 6 in the same division (for competitive balance), you cannot place 3 of the 4 non-Penn State schools together. So 2 go east and 2 go west.....Meaning the only place left for Penn State is in the east.


Selection Sunday's division of
Illinois
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan State
Michigan
Ohio State is an extremely weak division

If Michigan does not bounce back fast and that division was actually put into practice....that division would have 4 of the bottom 5 teams in the conference every year. If they do bounce back, the division would have 3 of the bottom 4 every year.
 



People who say the Big Ten will never put Michigan/OSU/PSU in the same division are missing the point. The bottom line for the conference is MONEY. There would be a guaranteed 3 weeks each fall will have these 3 teams squaring off with a potential divisional title on the line. That means big national exposure for the conference. Plus the conference can alter the inter-divisional schedule to make sure that Nebraska never misses more than 1 of those teams at a time so that makes 5 games each fall that would be between Nebraska/Michigan/OSU/PSU.

If you split these 4 schools 2+2 then in a 6 year period there would be 6 matchups between the teams twice and the remaining 4 years would only see them play eachother 4 times.

3-1 split = 30 matchups with 18 being intra-divisional (i.e. more meaningful)
2-2 split = 28 matchups with with 12 being intra-divisional

Since a 3-1 split makes geographic and financial sense, this is what the conference should (and I believe WILL) do.
 

tato2001 said:
You're missing the point, the credit I give to Mich and OSU is meaningless. What matters is that THEY will give THEMSELVES too much credit.
...
Here's the argument that Mich, OSU, WILL make:

"our programs are clearly stronger as the past 20 years have demonstrated. Balanced divisions are in the best interest of the Big Ten, so we should NOT be in the same division.
Click to expand...

They will be entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Here are the wining percentages over the last decade:

Rank Winning %
Ohio State 1 0.803
Wisconsin 2 0.667
Nebraska 3 0.656
Michigan 4 0.653
Iowa 5 0.640
Penn State 6 0.626
Purdue 7 0.540
Minnesota 8 0.500
N'western 9 0.500
Mich State 10 0.492
Illinois 11 0.381
Indiana 12 0.333

You would have to go back-in-time to an era when college football games on television were rare, no one had ever heard of the internet, and Detroit and Cleveland were considered a couple of the most hip metropolitans in the country to find yourself in the era when OSU, PSU and Michigan were all better than Wisconsin and Iowa. And even then, Nebraska was much better than any of the three. Over the last 30 years Nebraska would have had the highest winning % in the Big Ten.
 

Goldmember said:
Ohio State has easily been #1, so whatever division they land in is going to appear stronger.
Click to expand...

That is a really good point. I hope the B10 doesn't miss the boat on this. OSU with MN, PUR, IN, IL, NW would have dominated the last five years in terms of titles. It might create balance but would not be ideal for fans or tv.
 

Breakin' The Plane said:
So the two division leaders wouldn't get the 1 and 2 seeds in the Big Ten tourney?
Click to expand...

No, what I'm saying is that the divisions wouldn't have to get used in basketball. They could play an unbalanced schedule like they do now with the same basic tournament structure (look at the ACC as an example). It looks like SEC uses their divisional structure for bball, but I don't see the Big Ten choosing to do so.
 



13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
The only alignment that makes any sense (considering the current crop of teams) is Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, and Illinois in the west and the rest in the east.

Anything else would be entirely idiotic.
Click to expand...

I agree. Delaney talked about alignment being done by 1. Competition 2. Rivalries 3. Geography.
I think it should go in reverse starting with Geography. Competition is always changing. I think the East/West is best case for Geography, Rivalries and Competition.

Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconin vs Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan
Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois vs Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State.

You have three above average programs in each division and three below average in each division. This becomes more difficult if they expand beyond 12 teams.
 

People need to relax on the geography issue.

Geography will naturally be done its due justice if the rivalries are done their due justice.

Nearly all of the rivalries are based on geography. If two nearby school are close geographically, but haven't developed an intense rivalry (some even after a hundred years), then there is no need to play this game over a genuine rival from much farther away.

Example: I know that Minnesota fans would much rather play Michigan than Illinois. And Michigan fans would much rather play Minnesota than Indiana. And Illinois and Indiana would rather play each other than play Minnesota and Michigan, respectively. So what is the sense in having Min and ILL in one division and Mich and Ind in the other? None. Rivals are most important.

And when it comes to Nebraska, its rivals should be easy to assign: Iowa (obvious proximity and intersecting fanbases), and Minnesota (Geography and long history).

This crap about bielema wanting to start a trophy game with nebraska is complete garbage and would end up feeling as forced as PSU-Minn trophy game. Trophies don't make rivals. The criteria i mentioned above does.
 

For what it's worth, from the Lincoln Star, a poll,

Which Big Ten opponent most excites you?
35% Ohio State
27% Iowa
15% Michigan
9% Penn State
8% Wisconsin
5% Other
 

After all the discussion, my 1st and 2nd choices are below. I don't like any of the 'protected crossover' ideas. I know they did it in the SEC but I don't like the idea of seeing Michigan 1 of every 3 years or of playing nine conference games.

1. Strict geographic

This option maximizes geography and rivalries but sacrifices balance. End of season rivalries shown below.

MN/WI
IA/NU
IL/NW

MI/OSU
MSU/PSU
PUR/IN

2. Geographic with PSU / IL swap

This option maximizes balance while protecting most rivalries and protecting geography except for PSU. It could be a football only alignment with other sports following strict geography or playing a true round robin schedule. It sacrifies PSU/MSU and PSU/OSU, two 'protected' games under the current regime but PSU and MSU don't care that much about thier game, and the assumption is that PSU would be willing to trade NU for OSU because it would instantly become a very big national game and unlike OSU/PSU, it can be played on rivalry weekend. End of season rivalries shown below.

MN/WI
IA/IL
NU/PSU

MI/OSU
MSU/NW
PUR/IN
 


13 Lined Ground Squirrel said:
Great

The only thing I would want to see changed is the location of the championship game. Given my utter contempt for indoor football, I'd rather see Soldier Field.
Click to expand...

Yes. Perfect. Exactly.

Indianapolis can have the B10 hoops tourney.
 

The Big 10++ Championship game will be played each year at the Mall of America Field at the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, to use it's full name.

No, not really.
 

Delaney said preserving rivalries was number one, but he would not do this at the expense of competition.....which was a very close 2nd. The West/East alignment takes care of this. Rivalries spark better competition. These are the games the fans want to see and will tune in for, which boosts tv ratings. You will get better games when you see teams that hate each other most often becuase the level of competition goes way up. Why wouldn't fans want to see that? And if you split up PSU-OSU-Mich...you're not only taking away great competitive rivalries, you're also then making it more unbalanced for the other division. The West/East alignment makes the most sense, is the most 'balanced' overall, and is better for the fans and tv ratings
 

Gophfan22 said:
Delaney said preserving rivalries was number one, but he would not do this at the expense of competition.....which was a very close 2nd. The West/East alignment takes care of this. Rivalries spark better competition. These are the games the fans want to see and will tune in for, which boosts tv ratings. You will get better games when you see teams that hate each other most often becuase the level of competition goes way up. Why wouldn't fans want to see that? And if you split up PSU-OSU-Mich...you're not only taking away great competitive rivalries, you're also then making it more unbalanced for the other division. The West/East alignment makes the most sense, is the most 'balanced' overall, and is better for the fans and tv ratings
Click to expand...

+1
 

Also, a geographical split makes the drives to road games shorter. Some people would have Penn State and Minnesota in the same division. That's going to be a fun road trip.
 

I say split it geographically, embrace the rivalries, and play it like the prep bowl with all the games on espn, abc, or the b10 network.

Schedule
8 Indiana vs. Purdue & Illinois vs. Northwestern
11 Penn State vs. Michigan State
2 Wisconsin vs. Minnesota
5 Nebraska vs. Iowa
8 Michigan vs. Ohio State
 

Everyone else is, so I might as well too. At first I thought East-West was the only way to do it. Not so anymore.

Plains(or whatever)
1. MN
2. IA
3. NE
4. IL
5. PU
6. PSU

Lakes(again whatever)
1. WI
2. MSU
3. MI
4. NW
5. OSU
6. IN

Crossover games played every year as follows:
MN-WI
IL-NW
PU-IN
IA-MI
OSU-NE
MSU-PSU

Pretty balanced while maintaining some rivalries. SIAP
 

The fact that people are so concerned that the East will be stronger than the West (and are so willing to argue about it in mid-June) is evidence enough for me that this is easily the most valuable split. You know when you've created controversy in college football and something worth arguing about in June that you've really stumbled upon significant added value.

Now I will be even more disappointed if they didn't go with a West/East split.
 

The ACC attempted to divide power for competitive balance....




So did Soviet Russia for that matter.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom