Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's "sorta" geographical. but then again, it's not. that's why it doesn't have an east (which is what the Leaders basically are) or a west (which is what the Legends basically are).
So why the goofy set up? Because someone came up with what I think is a crazy notion that by putting Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan in the same division, you'd have too strong of an east with too weak of a west.
I'd contend differently.
Michigan isn't Michigan at this point; I'm not sure if they will be again. And part of the long term question on this has to be the continuing strength of MSU. If MSU stays on the assent, I don't think Michigan will be an elite since I don't see the ability for Michigan to be stellar if MSU is cutting into its base.
But I don't think it is all about what MSU does. Michigan may well not return to elite standards.
But what if it does? Couldn't one still make an argument that by switching U-M and MSU for Wisconsin and Illinois, you could get two fairly balanced divisions:
East: Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State
Yes, that puts U-M, MSU, and PSU in the same division. But wouldn't the west in fact be pretty darned strong with not only Nebraska, but a powerhouse Wisconsin program which is arguably at Michigan's level.
And Penn State hasn't exactly set the B10 on fire. I'd venture to say that there is a strong connection with Penn State's prominence and Iowa's prominence in the conference.
In other words: was there any reason a strict geographical split couldn't have taken place.
Especially when you consider what happened because it did not:
• the vaunted Michigan-Ohio State match-up, by far the best in the Big Ten, now occurs with teams not in the same division. One is left wondering if, in time, OSU-PSU and UM-MSU will be bigger rivalries than UM-OSU.
• Instate rivals Illinois and Northwestern have been split (though, like U-M and OSU, the rivalry is protected)
• Wisconsin's traditional rivals in the B10 have been Minnesota, Iowa, and Northwestern. It is in a division with none of them, and only Minnesota is a protected game.
I don't think this makes any sense at all. I really do believe in the long run that Iowa, Wisconsin and Nebraska could hold up very well against Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State.
The conference would do well with an eastern and western division and rid itself of all the horrendous scheduling and common standings problems among rivals that it has created.
The B1G created the divisions to try to make the divisions even. Using that logic, they put two of the traditional super powers into each division (Nebraska and Michigan in Legends and Penn State, Ohio State in Leaders). I also read that they may re-align the divisions if the landscape changes.
One thing to keep in mind is that each team has a cross-division rival that they play every year. That means that Ohio State will play Michigan each year. I also know that Nebraska will play Penn State each year. Not sure about the other matchups.
The B1G created the divisions to try to make the divisions even. Using that logic, they put two of the traditional super powers into each division (Nebraska and Michigan in Legends and Penn State, Ohio State in Leaders). I also read that they may re-align the divisions if the landscape changes.
One thing to keep in mind is that each team has a cross-division rival that they play every year. That means that Ohio State will play Michigan each year. I also know that Nebraska will play Penn State each year. Not sure about the other matchups.
you're right about the cross-division rivals; i mentioned that above.
the most important protected games are OSU-Mich, Ill-N'western, Wis-Minn.
the others don't make a great deal of sense: IU-MSU, Neb-PSU, Iowa-Pur
still, a rivalry is more intense if you are in the same group of standings. and, of course, with Michigan and Ohio State in different divisions, that sets up the possibility of them facing each other a week later in the conf championship game which would have a devastating effect on that traditional season's ender.
It's not the logic I disagree with as much as the assessment. I think the conference overestimated the power of Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State in relationship to what would be a strong power in base in the west.
you are also right about the reconsidering of the divisions. That's good that the B10 is keeping an open mind. But here's the part that makes no sense:
if you are going to keep the possibility of realignment, why not start with the strictly East/West split. Then, if you find an imbalance towards the East over a 4-5 year period, then go for plan 2 (i.e. Legends and Leaders)?
I didn't realize one bowl season defines a century of football.
I will add 10 seasons if that makes you happy.
Here is your last decade in the BCS era
2010 - 3-6
2009 - 4-3
2008 - 1-6
2007 - 3-5
2006 - 2-5
2005 - 3-4
2004 - 3-3
2003 - 3-5
2002 - 5-2
2001 - 2-4
2000 - 2-4
-------------
31-47 = 39.7% chance they will win.
39.7% is the stuff legends are made on.
Is that better?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
