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.
The Big Ten conference took a different route from most in setting up divisions, favorably football competitiveness over geography to give them:
Division A
Penn State
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Wisconsin
Illinois
Division B
Michigan
Michigan State
Northwestern
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
Personally I think they got it wrong. I think the Big Ten could have gone for geography and still have gotten competition right:
Eastern Division
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Western Division
Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
First, let's look at what's wrong with the "competitive" model used and how it affects the relationship between conference members:
1. First and foremost, Michigan and Ohio State are in different divisions, never again to be counted in the same standings. UM-OSU is the conference's flagship game. Will it stay that way? Something very important says it may not:
Both Michigan and Ohio State have huge rivalries with schools in their own division: UM-MSU and OSU-PSU. What effect will those two rivalries within each division have, over time, on the iconic Michigan-Ohio State relationship which just doesn't stand up well in the new Big Ten set up.
2. Illinois and Northwestern are in-state rivals. Like OSU and UM, these two have been separated. The Prairie State is not a hot bed for college football. Putting NU and U of I in different divisions takes away an edge the state did have. The Cats and Illini play at Wrigley Field this Saturday; despite smaller crowds than should be expected throughout the year, this rivalry does count. NU and Illinois belong together like IU and Purdue or Cal and Stanford.
3. Wisconsin has been placed in a division that has NONE of its three traditional rivalries (based on location and length of series): Minnesota, Iowa, and Northwestern. Not really fair to the Badgers.
Now let's look at the other side of the coin, the geographical set up listed second on the two groupings above.
There was definitely thought that the Big Ten traditionally swung on the power of Michigan and Ohio State. That certainly was true for man years in the past and absolute reality in the Bo/Woody era.
But today? Not so much. The rest of the conference is more than competitive with Michigan and Ohio State, for what it is worth, has basically been in a class by itself. That won't last forever either.
Penn State? Great program. Lots of success. But so much of that success has come from being an eastern independent down through the years, and eastern football has hardly been powerhouse country. Joe Pa spikes Penn State's image and makes its successes seem greater than they are.
And while Big Ten membership has been a real boon to PSU and paid off nicely (it was the right move for the university), the pay off in conference wins and titles has been far less than it should be. In other words, Penn State is not quite as iconic as it seems. And Michigan may or may not return to glory days. Especially if MSU stays competitive with in state competition.
Thus I will put forth this:
In a geographic head to head match up on top.....with PSU, OSU, and U-M from the east butting heads with Iowa, UW, and Neb in the west, I'll go as far as saying that's pretty competitive. Nebraska is a given. Iowa and Wisconsin have both earned their places in the upper reaches of the conference.
Below that, I'd say NU and Illinois match up reasonably well against MSU and Purdue in the middle. On the bottom, both IU and U of M match each other fairly well in lack of success.
Personally I think the Big Ten could have had its cake and eaten it too with geographically based east/west divisions that really do do the trick competitively.
Of course if I really had my way and wasn't living in Fantasyland, I'd love to see an 11 game round robin conference schedule and dump the notion of divisions all together.
In your solution, the majority of power is in the eastern half. Makes a good possibility of a boring conference championship.
DRob, I don't know if my assessment was right or wrong. I'm saying a geographic solution, upon evaluation, could lead one to the idea that an east and a west could be fairly balanced.
If you disagree with that assessment, that's fine, but my argument is based on the geographic model actually being highly competitive. A West Division with the likes of Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa can easily hold its own.
You want to really get rid of the boring factor and make things interesting and fair:
a 12 team league could, if it wanted, play an 11 game round robin with no divisions.
Point being, either the current Big Ten system of missed opponents or the conference championship/division set up with teams in the same division not playing the same schedule and the posibility of a weak team playing a strong one in the championship are both bad.
The ten team Pac Ten with a nine game round robin is the only one that really gets it right.
1. First and foremost, Michigan and Ohio State are in different divisions, never again to be counted in the same standings. UM-OSU is the conference's flagship game. Will it stay that way? Something very important says it may not:
Both Michigan and Ohio State have huge rivalries with schools in their own division: UM-MSU and OSU-PSU. What effect will those two rivalries within each division have, over time, on the iconic Michigan-Ohio State relationship which just doesn't stand up well in the new Big Ten set up.
2. Illinois and Northwestern are in-state rivals. Like OSU and UM, these two have been separated. The Prairie State is not a hot bed for college football. Putting NU and U of I in different divisions takes away an edge the state did have. The Cats and Illini play at Wrigley Field this Saturday; despite smaller crowds than should be expected throughout the year, this rivalry does count. NU and Illinois belong together like IU and Purdue or Cal and Stanford.
The Ohio State-Michigan and Illinois-Northwestern rivalries are "protected rivalries" and they will continue to play. I am not sure what your angle with the seperate divisions is; but UM and OSU already have other rivalries with the Penn States and Michigan States of the world. Sometimes, these games are more important to the standings as it is now.
As an aside, I am so sick of hearing about how we have to protect Ohio State and Michigan. NEWSFLASH, most of us don't care.
The Big Ten conference took a different route from most in setting up divisions, favorably football competitiveness over geography to give them:
Division A
Penn State
Ohio State
Indiana
Purdue
Wisconsin
Illinois
Division B
Michigan
Michigan State
Northwestern
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
Personally I think they got it wrong. I think the Big Ten could have gone for geography and still have gotten competition right:
Eastern Division
Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Western Division
Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
First, let's look at what's wrong with the "competitive" model used and how it affects the relationship between conference members:
1. First and foremost, Michigan and Ohio State are in different divisions, never again to be counted in the same standings. UM-OSU is the conference's flagship game. Will it stay that way? Something very important says it may not:
Both Michigan and Ohio State have huge rivalries with schools in their own division: UM-MSU and OSU-PSU. What effect will those two rivalries within each division have, over time, on the iconic Michigan-Ohio State relationship which just doesn't stand up well in the new Big Ten set up.
2. Illinois and Northwestern are in-state rivals. Like OSU and UM, these two have been separated. The Prairie State is not a hot bed for college football. Putting NU and U of I in different divisions takes away an edge the state did have. The Cats and Illini play at Wrigley Field this Saturday; despite smaller crowds than should be expected throughout the year, this rivalry does count. NU and Illinois belong together like IU and Purdue or Cal and Stanford.
3. Wisconsin has been placed in a division that has NONE of its three traditional rivalries (based on location and length of series): Minnesota, Iowa, and Northwestern. Not really fair to the Badgers.
Now let's look at the other side of the coin, the geographical set up listed second on the two groupings above.
There was definitely thought that the Big Ten traditionally swung on the power of Michigan and Ohio State. That certainly was true for man years in the past and absolute reality in the Bo/Woody era.
But today? Not so much. The rest of the conference is more than competitive with Michigan and Ohio State, for what it is worth, has basically been in a class by itself. That won't last forever either.
Penn State? Great program. Lots of success. But so much of that success has come from being an eastern independent down through the years, and eastern football has hardly been powerhouse country. Joe Pa spikes Penn State's image and makes its successes seem greater than they are.
And while Big Ten membership has been a real boon to PSU and paid off nicely (it was the right move for the university), the pay off in conference wins and titles has been far less than it should be. In other words, Penn State is not quite as iconic as it seems. And Michigan may or may not return to glory days. Especially if MSU stays competitive with in state competition.
Thus I will put forth this:
In a geographic head to head match up on top.....with PSU, OSU, and U-M from the east butting heads with Iowa, UW, and Neb in the west, I'll go as far as saying that's pretty competitive. Nebraska is a given. Iowa and Wisconsin have both earned their places in the upper reaches of the conference.
Below that, I'd say NU and Illinois match up reasonably well against MSU and Purdue in the middle. On the bottom, both IU and U of M match each other fairly well in lack of success.
Personally I think the Big Ten could have had its cake and eaten it too with geographically based east/west divisions that really do do the trick competitively.
Of course if I really had my way and wasn't living in Fantasyland, I'd love to see an 11 game round robin conference schedule and dump the notion of divisions all together.
But that's another story.
( regarding #3)--------Wisconsin and Minnesota will still play each year so the rivalry will go on.
Michigan & Ohio State had to be in separate divisions... They are the 2 winningest programs. When the SEC split they put the 2 winningest programs in the separate divisions. Alabama and Tennessee. It will make the other programs better... watch. The Big Ten is following thier model. Looks like a good split to me.
everything you say is 100% correct for geographical allingment.
the immediate repsonse is always the east would be more powerfull because of UM and OSU but Mich isn't even that good right now.
your comment about Ind and Minn balancing out as doormats is great.
Wisconsin is missing it's second rivalry with Iowa. And Norhtwestern was always a big game, many have gone to live in Chicago for jobs so that game was always a good one.
Iowa is always a formidible, tough team and Nebraska is top ten this year and will only get better with Big Ten money and exposure. The West wouldn't have been that bad of a division. Who knows when or if Michigan will come back. Michigan State has been a solid program for years.
Penn st. made a splash in the 90's when they first joined and were essentially a powerhouse, but for many, many years thye've been an above avg. team in the Big 10 but not really a powerhouse like they first were. Penn St. isn't a scary team like that anymore.
and I agree totally, they should just play a round robin, there's really no excuse not to. The ironic thing is they've done these divisions for "balance" and no matter what the schedule isn't balanced and never will be but easily could be if they just scheduled everybody like the Pac 10.
people need to stop thinking of the Big Ten as just michigan - ohio state, there's so much more there including some of the oldest progams and rivalries outside those 2 teams.
Michigan & Ohio State had to be in separate divisions... They are the 2 winningest programs. When the SEC split they put the 2 winningest programs in the separate divisions. Alabama and Tennessee. It will make the other programs better... watch. The Big Ten is following thier model. Looks like a good split to me.
But Tennessee is a mid-pack SEC team now, just as Ohio State or Michigan could end up a mid-pack Big Ten team someday. Then the Big Ten split them up for what reason? Splitting them up to ensure that they meet in the Big Ten Championship seems a bit premature, and also smacks of elitism a bit. It's a way of saying that the Big Ten is Ohio State, Michigan, and 10 other also-rans. You don't see Texas and Oklahoma in different divisions in the Big 12.
But Tennessee is a mid-pack SEC team now, just as Ohio State or Michigan could end up a mid-pack Big Ten team someday. Then the Big Ten split them up for what reason? Splitting them up to ensure that they meet in the Big Ten Championship seems a bit premature, and also smacks of elitism a bit. It's a way of saying that the Big Ten is Ohio State, Michigan, and 10 other also-rans. You don't see Texas and Oklahoma in different divisions in the Big 12.
The Big Ten has stated that they "might" re-align the divisions as things change.
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.
