Rivals Article on Alignment

Donate To GopherHole
Goldmember

Goldmember

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
2,816
Reaction score
1,153
Points
113
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1097701

David Fox's answer:
I just hope the Big Ten and Pac-10 don't look to the ACC for advice in splitting up the divisions. Five years later, it still takes a couple of minutes to recall the teams in the ACC Atlantic and ACC Coastal. Here's my advice: Split the teams geographically and give the divisions logical, directional names. Here's what I picked. In the Big Ten East, it would be Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and Purdue. In the Big Ten West, it would be Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern and Wisconsin. The only important rivalry broken up is Michigan and Minnesota's game for the Little Brown Jug, but I would advise the Big Ten to adopt the SEC's model to preserve that rivalry and set up permanent inter-divisional games between Purdue-Illinois (for something called the Purdue Cannon), Penn State-Nebraska, Ohio State-Iowa, Michigan State-Wisconsin and Indiana-Northwestern. Sure, the Big Ten won't get an Ohio State-Michigan championship game, but I don't think playing in the same division has harmed Texas and Oklahoma or Alabama and Auburn. Meanwhile, the ACC is still waiting for a Miami-Florida State title game. In the Pac-10, I would have Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Stanford, UCLA and USC in the South, and Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State and Utah in the North.
:drink:
 


Finally someone nationally acknowedging that the LBJ game is important. This man gets 3 cheers.
 

Finally at least one football pundit gets it. Most of them talking about how imbalanced an east-west split is are talking out their asses.
 

Regarding cross over games

While I love the idea of playing Michigan every year, doesn't cross over games do more to make the schedule less balanced competitively? With Goldmember's protected inter-division games, Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska will always play the historic power eastern power schools of Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State, automatically making their schedule most likely more difficult than Northwestern, Illinois and Wisconsin.

On a related note, if the Big 10 moves PSU west AND protects cross over games, then that is a sure sign that the division alignments were to give the power schools the best chance to be in the championship game, and not what's competitively balanced or fair for all schools.
 



East-West split, no protected games. This makes the division meaningful, that you have a relationship with your fellow division members that you don't have with teams from the other division. Yes, not playing Michigan every year would be a sacrifice, but we already don't play them every year. Having protected cross-division games could do a LOT more to cause competitive imbalance than having PSU in the east.
 

I agree with East/West split but keep the rivalry game with Michigan. The jug is the coolest trophy in all of football and it is a blast to win it every ten years or so.
 

We'd just play them somewhat less than we do now. Protected games seriously mess up "competitive balance".
 



loki said:
I agree with East/West split but keep the rivalry game with Michigan. The jug is the coolest trophy in all of football and it is a blast to win it every ten years or so.
Click to expand...

Does everyone forget? We already don't keep this rivalry game. We didn't play them last year and we don't this year. They rotate out every eight years. Now they would rotate out every two. We would see them twice every four years, just like from 2007-2010, or even 2009-2012 for that matter.

Protect a game for each team, MN-MCH for example, and the schedulers would need to have another team in the "East" play at the Bank but for once every six years. This is because you only play 3 "out of division" opponents each year:

MCH would take up one non-division game every year. That leaves two of the five remaining N-D teams in the first and second years of the cycle (H/A); two more of the five N-D in the third and fourth years of the cycle; then the fifth N-D team and one of the first cycle teams in the fifth and sixth years, etc., etc.

A four year player would never play against "the fifth team" at home or away. And the "fifth team" rotates every six years and for each graduating class. No OSU for the Class of 2014, no PSU for the class of 2015, etc.

Makes no sense. With divisional play and no cross-over protected games, every player gets to play every team at home at least once in his career, division teams twice. Lastly, if you're going to have divisions, make them mean something. The "protected game" throws that away. Simple.
 

highwayman said:
Does everyone forget? We already don't keep this rivalry game. We didn't play them last year and we don't this year.
Click to expand...

I think everyone is aware of this. Why not take this opportunity to right a wrong?
 


ruralgopher said:
I think everyone is aware of this. Why not take this opportunity to right a wrong?
Click to expand...

For the reasons he already listed.

And I think there are plenty of people who do not realize we don't always play them now, based on the comments I keep reading.


I am 100% in favor of East-West. While I can go either way on protected games, I would vote against it. It makes things far too unbalanced. Which again, is number one consideration according to the powers that be.
 



Wouldn't you rather be at a slight competative disadvantage in exchange for resurecting the greatest trophy game in college football history? I would.
 

ruralgopher said:
Wouldn't you rather be at a slight competative disadvantage in exchange for resurecting the greatest trophy game in college football history? I would.
Click to expand...

I'd might take the slight competitive disadvantage (If Michigan returns to their glory days it might not be slight) if there is an east-west alignment. You can't have protected games and claim to be concerned about competitive balance.
 

I agree with RodentRampage on this one. However the divisions end up, I wouldn't want protected rivalries vs. teams from the other division. The teams in your own division are the only ones you should play every year.
 

Goldmember said:
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1097701

David Fox's answer:
I just hope the Big Ten and Pac-10 don't look to the ACC for advice in splitting up the divisions. Five years later, it still takes a couple of minutes to recall the teams in the ACC Atlantic and ACC Coastal. Here's my advice: Split the teams geographically and give the divisions logical, directional names. Here's what I picked. In the Big Ten East, it would be Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and Purdue. In the Big Ten West, it would be Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern and Wisconsin. The only important rivalry broken up is Michigan and Minnesota's game for the Little Brown Jug, but I would advise the Big Ten to adopt the SEC's model to preserve that rivalry and set up permanent inter-divisional games between Purdue-Illinois (for something called the Purdue Cannon), Penn State-Nebraska, Ohio State-Iowa, Michigan State-Wisconsin and Indiana-Northwestern. Sure, the Big Ten won't get an Ohio State-Michigan championship game, but I don't think playing in the same division has harmed Texas and Oklahoma or Alabama and Auburn. Meanwhile, the ACC is still waiting for a Miami-Florida State title game. In the Pac-10, I would have Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Stanford, UCLA and USC in the South, and Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Washington State and Utah in the North.
:drink:
Click to expand...


:clap: Great post. The alignment is perfect, the Lil´ Brown Jug is protected, and Iowa and Wisconsin still have to play a team with a pulse in the protected intra division matchups.

Bravo!
 

ruralgopher said:
I think everyone is aware of this. Why not take this opportunity to right a wrong?
Click to expand...

And create a new, improved wrong? I still think it would be ridiculous for each player to never play a game against one of the Big Ten opponents. Reeks of silliness.

We stopped playing Michigan every year in 1998 and we have 3 wins since 1968. We are 9-39 in my lifetime. Not much tradition for me.
 

the conference championship game will be the second biggest game of the year in the big ten outside of the bowl game. I'm not sure OSU, PSU, and Michigan want to duke it out for one spot. I'm still betting on OSU and PSU in the East and Michigan in the west with Nebraska.
 

Schnoodler said:
the conference championship game will be the second biggest game of the year in the big ten outside of the bowl game. I'm not sure OSU, PSU, and Michigan want to duke it out for one spot. I'm still betting on OSU and PSU in the East and Michigan in the west with Nebraska.
Click to expand...

If they trade Michigan for Illinois or Northwestern, I'd love it. All of our historic rivals and best trophy games would be played every year. Yes, it would be a very tough division, but what a great division to be in: Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Wisconsin, plus an Illinois school.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom