Dividing The Big Ten: Succeeding Where Geography Fails
by Adam Jacobi on Jun 16, 2010 8:30 AM CDT
in Iowa Hawkeyes News
Email
Print
Nebraska's a member of the Big Ten now, and Notre Dame can keep holding onto independence now that the pin's been put back in the Big XII grenade. Thus, it's somewhat safe to assume the Big Ten will stay as is for the foreseeable future at 12 teams.
Now, clearly, it is absolutely not in the conference's best interests to stay unidivisional (new word alert). Jim Delany commits to nothing straight off the bat, and he committed to a football championship game at Nebraska's introductory presser. So for a championship game, the Big Ten will need two fair divisions. How best to accomplish this? Three factors need to be taken as equally as possible into account: geography, balance, and context. We'll explain.
GEOGRAPHY
On the first count, if Nebraska is the last and only addition to the conference, there is a glaringly obvious dividing line right at Lake Michigan and the Illinois-Indiana border. That makes the two divisions thus (and to be honest, I'm not married to the division names):
WEST BIG SIX
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Illinois
Northwestern
EAST BIG SIX
Purdue
Indiana
Michigan State
Ohio State
Michigan
Penn State
That's all fine and good from a logistical standpoint, but it creates a considerable disparity in traditional athletic success between the east and west. Plus, lest we forget, being in a perennially weak football division didn't exactly work out for Nebraska last time around.
BALANCE
The one curious aspect about Big Ten success is that there are rough binary analogues for success throughout the conference. For example, Michigan and Ohio State are roughly equals, historically (though it's anyone's guess where Michigan goes from here). As are Penn State and Nebraska. In fact, let's go down the line, separating corollaries by west-east:
Michigan-Ohio State
Nebraska-Penn State
Iowa-Wisconsin
Purdue-Michigan State
Minnesota-Illinois-Northwestern-Indiana (these four are all pretty much interchangeable)
The problem here is two-fold: one, first that's mostly football related, and things might change both in the short term and if basketball is introduced as a deciding factor--as it should be. Second, Michigan and Ohio State truly ought to be in the same division, as we'll demonstrate later.
It should be noted that Doug Lesmerieses at the Cleveland Plain-Dealer tried to tackle this very subject on Saturday, and he ended up with an East-West split, except Penn State went to the west and Wisconsin went to the East. And while he created a very competitive balance, matching Penn State with five teams west of Lake Michigan (including Nebraska, who is over 1,000 miles away) seems grossly unfair to Penn State.
Hey, speaking of unfair to Penn State...
Man, that felt good. Anyway.
CONTEXT
If Nebraska and Penn State are the geographic bookends, then they belong in their own divisions. Moreover, Michigan and Ohio State must stay in the same division for one reason: their season-ending rivalry. It's one of the best in all of sports anywhere. It is as sacred as anything in the Big 10. But if Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan are all in the same division, then that probably dooms Michigan State, Indiana, and Purdue to join them, right?
Incorrecto, friendo. Because unlike the Big XII, who was crippled by a geographic imbalance, and unlike the ACC, who was crippled by completely arbitrary divisions, the SEC got it right when they switched to 12 teams. How? By protecting inter-divisional rivalries, one per school. Thus, Alabama and Tennessee can still hate, as can Florida and LSU.
Thus, geography does not have to be a dealbreaker. The Michigan schools and/or the Illinois schools and/or the Indiana schools can be split. The Big Ten does not necessarily need to have a Big XII North, nor does it necessarily need to have an ACC Arbitrary. Competitive balance can be attained without significantly sacrificing geographic allegiances.
CONCLUSION
An easy fix would be putting Michigan and Ohio State in opposite divisions but protecting their rivalry, but that would be disastrous for the conference. Why? Because the game has gained massive popularity by closing out the BXI season in lieu of a de jure conference championship. The Big Ten, ostensibly, wants to continue that season-ending conference game. If the two teams were to then meet again with the conference actually on the line a week later, it would detract immensely from the game prior. They must be together.
So, in deference to as many of the necessary divisional pairings as Lesmerises posited earlier (especially the Michigan-OSU pairing), let's divide these teams up properly, and with their protected interdivisional rival.
EAST
Michigan
Ohio State
Penn State
Northwestern
Indiana
Illinois
WEST
Michigan State
Iowa
Nebraska
Purdue
Wisconsin
Minnesota
And the protected rivalries would be as such:
MSU-Michigan
Iowa-Northwestern
Nebraska-Penn State
Purdue-Indiana
Wisconsin-OSU
Minnesota-Illinois
As you've probably figured out, the bolded pairings are locks, while the unbolded rivalries are interchangeably random. It's not perfect but look at the SEC's setup again: do you really think anybody cares about Arkanas-South Carolina? Some marriages are for convenience's sake.
In fact, the only problem here is that conference kingpin Ohio State doesn't have a solid interdivisional rival with which to pair them. That's not to say the Buckeyes are hurting for rivals, of course, but they're all in the east: Michigan and Penn State are necessarily in the same division as the Buckeyes, and if Michigan State gets split off, they necessarily must maintain their annual rivalry with Michigan. So we gave them Wisconsin, but it could really be anybody else from the West.
In this scenario, the East is necessarily top-heavy, especially if you make the seemingly safe assumption that Michigan's downturn over the last few years is little more than a hiccup. But of the three traditional powers, Michigan gets the closest thing to a free pass in its guaranteed matchup. And even then, Sparty's terrible years are 5-7-ish instead of the 2-10's we often see from the basement of the conference.
Meanwhile, the West features Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Iowa... plus the aforementioned adequate MSU, a team with a Rose Bowl appearance within the last 10 years in Purdue (no slouch; they've gone 36-44 in the BXI over the last 10 years, and have consistently found success with the "1. Add good quarterback 2. Stir vigorously" recipe), and uh, Minnesota. Okay, they suck.
On the hardwood, the balance of power shifts west. In terms of consistent excellence, Wisconsin and Michigan State are the UM/OSU of Big Ten hoops, and they're both in the West. Meanwhile, Purdue has usurped control of the state of Indiana from Indiana. In the East, on the other hand, Ohio State and Illinois are both recent tournament darlings in their own right, and Indiana's lurking; all three programs have significant resources behind them. Plus, if Michigan gets their stuff together, look out.
So that's our plan of action. If we could pick up Penn State and drop them in St. Louis, this would be a much easier process, but BHGP's scientician consultants inform us that that would be impossible. Otherwise, we think we've found current and historical competitive balance in both the major sports while preserving geographic convenience for the most loyal fans: the local and mobile ones.
Agree? Disagree? Let's hear it.
193 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
North-South divisions would probably work better. See, the math’s already been done,
A North-South thing goes against one of the main premises; That Michigan and OSU be in the same Division
I actually don’t mind the straight east-west split. That being said, I like your ideas and would sign off on them without question
by Wegher Please! on Jun 16, 2010 8:46 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Considering how many people wanted an OSU/Michigan rematch in the BCS Championship game a few years back I doubt that many people would complain about the chance of a rematch in the Big 10 Championship every year.
Oh yes, they would. Don’t kid yourself.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 16, 2010 8:58 AM CDT up reply actions
I think the issue with that rematch theory a few years ago was more for the novelty of it than anything else… And to fuck the SEC
by Wegher Please! on Jun 16, 2010 9:01 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
“They” will still watch any championship game. I just think “The Big Game” is more special without the potential for a rematch. Just my $.02.
by Wegher Please! on Jun 16, 2010 9:09 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
And an immediate rematch, at that
Conference championship rematches are okay if the first game’s in, like, October.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
The problem is that Michigan and Ohio State would never even consider for one second the idea of playing THE GAME in September, which as you said, wouldn’t be totally ridiculous.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 16, 2010 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions
No way.
That game belongs on the last weekend of the regular season.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Jun 16, 2010 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
I’m not saying I care one way or the other (Although I’d love to shaft both schools), just saying that would really be the only way to split them up between two different divisions.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 16, 2010 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Except that doesn't shaft both schools
it shafts college football fans everywhere. For as many people as there are who hate those two schools, just as many neutral viewers love watching that game at that time of year. It’s part of the sport’s history Like Texas-Oklahoma on the final weekend of the Texas State Fair or Army-Navy on the closing weekend of the season; it just belongs where it is.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 16, 2010 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions
SHUT UP
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 16, 2010 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions
And, um, it still shafts both schools.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 16, 2010 12:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, was supposed to read
…doesn’t just shaft both schools…
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 16, 2010 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Moving it up a few weeks might not be so bad. If it was moved to, say, the same weekend as the Georgia-Florida game every year, it’d end up being a great annual “Judgement Day” for College Football fans.
That said I believe, rematches would probably end up being less frequent than people think. UM probably ends up in the tougher conference in a B10 North, with Wisc, and Iowa.
Doesn't matter if it's less frequent.
If it happens, it’s an embarrassment. As for moving it up, I can’t fathom either Michigan or Ohio State agreeing to that.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
Why do we need divisions?
I posted this originally on Rivalry, Esq. five days ago.
We see every now and then when a championship game has two teams that already played each other earlier in the year. I hate that scenario.
Keep the rotational schedule of the past, and only have a championship game if the top two teams have not played each other during the season. Have the game at the 1st place team’s home stadium.
Logistically, there is uncertainty for the sponsors and teams regarding whether or not there will be a game, but we avoid having a rematch for the championship.
Tiebreakers need to be thorough to guarantee that the right teams make it. Take 2002 for example, when Iowa and OSU were 8-0 in conference. The championship game is perfect for that situation. Have the game at OSU because they were undefeated overall.
Last season, OSU won conference at 7-1, and PSU and Iowa tied based on wins and losses. No need for a championship game, because OSU beat both teams that finished 2nd place.
Without divisions there is no risk for top heavyness. Look at the annual lamentation about the B12 South being better than the B12 North, and how the survivor of the B12 South gauntlet gets an easy CG.
This idea would never fly, just like the ideas floating around other sites about relegation and promotion similar to the EPL.
I think the logistics issue is the downfall
I don’t have a problem with your idea in theory… But for the sake of money (which is what all of this is about), the championship game needs to happen every year
by Wegher Please! on Jun 16, 2010 8:59 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
There's no way you go into the season not knowing if you're going to have a championship game.
Just too incredible. Too much to that needs to happen beforehand.
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
Maybe it's just me
But I’m tired of hearing about the Big12 alignment. The Big12 North sucked so hard that it made the Big12 South look like men among boys. But just because a geographical alignment in the Big12 produced one division that looked like a terd doesn’t mean that it will mess up the Big Ten.
The East/West split in the Big Ten is the way to go. Neb/Iowa/Wisco is as good if not better than OSU/UM/PSU right now. Historically this may not be the case, but every team regardless of divisions will have up and down years. Trying to predict future success is pointless. I care about rivalries and only rivalries. The geographic split is the best way to preserve rivalries.
by HawkeyeInExile on Jun 16, 2010 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Plus, don't forget
For the early part of the Big XII’s history, the North dominated (Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri). Past and present performance is no guarantee of future results.
For the early part of the Big XII’s history, the North dominated (Nebraska, Colorado,MissouriKansas St.).
/fixed
/
/
/…and now I’m pissed I just defended the mildcats
Nope...
…Missouri is still pissed they got fifthdown’d but Colorado was the one that won a MNC title that year (1990, split with Georgia Tech)
Missouri wasn’t really all that great in the Big 12 untill about the early ’00’s or, in actuallity, when they picked up the Brad Smith/Chase Daniel QB train.
Ah
Knew they’d been on the wrong end of a couple of championship-deciding weirdnesses (the other being the hacky-sack TD by Nebraska), but I thought they’d been in contention at least one of those times.
A couple?
Our hobby is collecting spectacular failures. If you’re going to fail, you might as well fail big.
Because of the NCAA
I’m pretty sure you have to have divisions to have a championship game.
The Gram stain is useful in classifying bacteria because....it gives me another reason to hate biology?
Another Idea is that each team could have 2 protected rivals from the other division
And play the other 4 teams 2 on 2 off. In Iowa’s case, Add Illinois as the 2nd protected rival, then play Michigan and Penn State home and away, then play Penn State and Indiana home and away. Kinda ties together as a nice, even package.
by Wegher Please! on Jun 16, 2010 8:55 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
That's a pretty solid breakdown.
I’m still partial to this set-up, if you swap out Illinois for Minnesota in Iowa’s little pod.
Great Lakes region
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan
3. Indiana
East Plains region
1. Penn State
2. Michigan State
3. Purdue
West Plains region
1. Iowa
2. Nebraska
3. Illinois
North Woods region
1. Wisconsin
2. Minnesota
3. Northwestern
Each team will play their regional foes as well as another randomly assigned region (rotated on a three-year cycle). Then each team will play a similarly seeded team (based on the previous year’s record) from the other regions. Each team will also be responsible for scheduling four non-conference games.
For example, here’s how the Illinois schedule would look with the West Plains region matched up with the North Woods region…
Non-conference: 4 games
Regional opponents: Iowa, Nebraska
Rotating regional opponents: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern
Seeded matches: Indiana, Purdue (No. 3 teams in Great Lakes and East Plains)
This would create an 11-game regular season schedule. From there, a conference champion would be crowned by taking the top team from each region and having them play a nationally televised semifinals round and championship game.
Downside: that’s only 11 regular season games for eight of the teams in the league; two would play 12 regular season games, while two more would play 13 regular season games (for the sake of argument, we’ll consider the conference semis/finals as regular season games). For athletic directors with lots of mouths to feed, I’m not sure that would fly. (OK, OK: it wouldn’t.)
Other downside: it’s potentially confusing, although it would be easy enough to remember who’s in your pod and from that point it just becomes another Big Ten schedule, subject to variance from year (or every two years, as it is now) to year.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
I’m already confused.
I thought that idea made some sense when it was four 4-team divisions in a 16 team league.
But it also makes for too many bull shit “championships” for schools to claim… Like if ISU had ever won the Big 12 north.
by Wegher Please! on Jun 16, 2010 9:06 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Travel would be a problem for the semi-final games
Both for the teams and the fan bases, particularly if they are neutral site. And no conference wants a nationally televised game with an empty stadium. If they are not neutral site, how would you determine who would get homefield advantage?
Ankles! We don't need no stinking ankles!
by three and out the kok story on Jun 16, 2010 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Standard tiebreakers?
Better in league games? Better record overall? Better record against common opponents? Etc.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Away goals...
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 16, 2010 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions
The stupidest tiebreaker ever.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
No Semi-finals
That would just cuase 3 of your best teams to end the season/ going into bowl season with losses…
That hurts the whole confrence
So I tried the Barbasol and Rotel dip and I was very dissapointed!
Not gonna happen
Since you basically sacrificed Iowa’s two biggest rivals, illinois’two “traditional” rivals, the MSU Michigan game, and a host of other rivalries. If rivalries matter, and according to Jim Delaney they do, this will not be how it happens.
http://victorypolka.blogspot.com/
Well, many of them would still get played if the seeds held true to form.
But, yeah, that isn’t going to happen always, so it would get messy.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
I'll read the rest in a little...
I could accept the PSU-Iowa pics/videos, but the Michigan one was throwing salt on the wound.
Rude.
"I'm colonel cool! And I'm the captain on this rocket to the stars!"
Haha, yeah, it was.
Remember whose house you’re in.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
You're thinking about it the wrong way
It’s not that it was good for Michigan, it’s that it was awful for Penn State. We specialize in that.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
You know what, friendo? If you’re gonna post that Manningham video, we’ll do whatever it takes.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 16, 2010 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
Wait...
…you’re implying that Ryan Field actually exists. It is merely a mirage by the lake full of fictional football players and devoid of the very fictional jNW fans.
[By the way, if it did exist, this couldn’t be Ryan Field West because jNW actually wins an occasional game here.]
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 16, 2010 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes
It was gratuitous. But, that’s a specialty here. It’s why I keep coming back.
by Internet Legend on Jun 16, 2010 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
If we could pick up Penn State and drop them in St. Louis, this would be a much easier process.
If this happened, St. Louis would be about 10000000000000 times more awesomer.
The level of basketball, however, would remain the same.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Jun 16, 2010 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions
What about no divisions?
And just have the 2 best teams play at the end of the season? I know its a pointless argument because JD said they want divisions but if you play without them, then you dont have all of the logistical problems. Im for moving the big rivalry weekends away from the last week of the season. I know it will ruffle feathers but Michigan-OSU will be just as good the 1st week of Nov as it was the last.
or at least have shuffled divisions every 2 or 4 years
I never understand the desire for geographic integrity. This isn’t the WAC where you’re crossing your fingers that the seat will sell out so you put teams close together, this is a conference where virtually everyone travels well. Maybe one protected rival or two, but I’d rather have competitive balance more than anything.
The dreaded "Rematch" issue
Anyone and everyone in sports that ISN’T a fan of the two schools in the rematch will not want to see the same two schools play each other twice in the same year, especially if they played one or two weeks before the conference championship game.
As awesome as it would have been for us to get another stab at OSU this year a week after the Minnesota game, I much prefer our match-up with Georgia Tech compared to Iowa Vs Oregon.
We would have demolished Oregon too.
Did you see how small their guys were compared to the big slow faster-than-their-Pac10-asses Big10 boys?
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 16, 2010 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Alabama - Florida may play twice this year.
by HawkeyeRecon on Jun 16, 2010 11:44 AM CDT up reply actions
Alabama doesn't close out the season against Florida, though.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Jun 16, 2010 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions
And...
Florida v. Alabama is only guaranteed to happen twice every four years.
And yes, those states border each other.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 16, 2010 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Check that.
guaranteed to happen 4 out of every 10 years.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 16, 2010 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Why do we keep the Northwestern rivalry?
It isn’t even an official rivalry between the two schools…it’s just something that’s been back and forth in very recent years.
If we keep a inter-divisional rivalry, it should be with Penn State, just sayin’
It's not an important rivalry.
And it’s pretty much interchangeable with the other three meh rivalries. Don’t read too much into it.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
I have no idea why Northwestern currently has a protected rivalry with Purdue now
I’d gladly trade Purdue for Iowa as protected rival… NU in the eastern division would be a bit harder to win than us in the western division. The western division in this scenario seems more balanced
by LincolnParkWildcat on Jun 16, 2010 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions
Northwestern lobbied for it...
given their recent uncanny success against the Hawks.
And the BXI has to throw them some kind of bone because someone things jNW is key to the Chicago television market…
Basketball divisions
Thought I had read elsewhere that there may be no divisions at all for basketball (like the BXII), although I realize that some conferences have established conferences for basketball (like the SEC). This whole setting up of divisions thing seems really football-centric and may not apply as much to basketball. Any idea what Delaney might do on this point?
Depends on how many in-conference games he wants
It’s very easy to work 16 games into a 12-team conference: 2 games per division opponent, one for the other six.
However, the BTN wouldn’t be terribly happy about losing the number of live events: going from 18 conference games to 16, even with adding the extra team, lowers the amount of total conference games played from 99 to 96. Not good for ratings. Stay at 18, and it’s 108 with 12 teams.
18 is still doable with or without divisions; I suppose the key is whether Delany wants to preserve home-and-away rights for traditional rivals. I could see it going either way and not being upset about it.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
Division standings SEC-style for basketball are moronic
This year a pair of 9-7 teams got byes in the conference tourney because they happened to be in the opposite division of the 11-5 third-place team.
The Big XII scheduled on a divisional basis but did 1-12 standings; the ACC schedules more or less at random (aside from some protected rivalries). Either of those two works for me; SEC-style is dumb.
Let me help.
Either of those two works for me; SEC-styleis dumb.
/Fixed
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
by BStylin Hawkye on Jun 17, 2010 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions
4-Year Divisional Test Drive?
Try something for four years. If it goes horribly wrong, something unforeseen happens that couldn’t have been planned for, etc then we can just shuffle up the divisions.
I picked four years, because that gives all of the rivalries two cycles of home-away.
Dollars Make Sense.
Sounds okay, 'cept
a lot of us Nebraska types would really like to play Iowa on a yearly basis. All due respect to Penn State, great program and all, but I for one am “meh” on a Nebraska-Penn State rivalry. Farmageddon would be way cooler.
"...when the devil says to you: do not drink, answer him: I will drink, and right freely, just because you tell me not to."
— Martin Luther
Oh my Gentle Jesus
I don’t care about the validity of his statement or the fact that he mentions two inter-divisional rivals as inter-conference rivals, we have an official name for the Nebraska-Iowa rivalry:
ALL HAIL FARMAGEDDON!!!!!!!!!!!
If the Big Ten is looking to expand, the question isn't what schools will join, it's what the Big Ten will call itself afterwords.
Isn't that taken
I thought that’s what they used for the big Iowa St. v Kansas St. game in KC.
I think someone mentioned that the other day.
However, most of us agreed it would be a better (and more high-profile) moniker for Hawkeye v. Husker matchups.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 17, 2010 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions
I thought that game was just a rumor.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 17, 2010 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions
I thought KU and KSU called their game that.
Either way, Farmageddon is not new and would be a giant fucking rip job if Iowa-NU tried to co-opt it.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
I agree.
“Farmageddon” obviously has it’s badass qualities, but do we really need to steal from little brother? Let ISU-KSU keep the name for the annual Big XII North 5th 3rd place match.
I propose we call this game “The War in the Cornfield”.
Come on! Meth Bowl!
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 18, 2010 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions
THE METHOCALYPSE IS NIGH
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
A little off-topic, but since you bring up Penn State
There’s been an abundance of old Iowa games featured on BTN lately, including several different Iowa-Penn State games. But one that I keep waiting for seems to be missing. Can we start a petition to get the 2004 Iowa-Penn State game added to the “Big Ten’s Greatest Games” lineup?
Sure.
As long as it gets added to the rotation after they get ahold of the Iowa-Michigan game from 1985.
/stillbitter
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
They actually have that game
They showed it leading up to the Iowa-Michigan game this past year. I watched it. They also showed the Iowa-Michigan game from, I think, 1983 when it was Michigan that got the last second field goal (they had the Michigan kicker commenting on it) to win.
by HawkgirlSTL on Jun 16, 2010 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Are you sure? That game isn’t included on the BTN’s list. I watched the ’83 game when they replayed it, and they had replayed the ’85 game I would have watched it as well.
I’m just wondering, because I remember something about CBS contracts having an effect.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 16, 2010 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think they do have it.
It’s never been listed in their Greatest Games schedules and I don’t recall them airing it (which doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot, given my faulty memory). And even if they DO have it, they sure as hell don’t air it very often, which is flat idiotic. (Then again, they also don’t air the OSU-Michigan 1v2 game from 06 much, either. Sometimes our BTN overlords are a bit dense.)
Maybe it was on ESPN Classic or something.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Maybe it was ESPN Classic
But yeah, I totally watched it on either BTN or ESPN Classic. I just know I watched it, and it was awesome. And I’m pretty sure it was on within a day or two of them playing the ‘83 game. The whole week leading up the ’09 Michigan/Iowa game they showed a few classic games. It was the only time I’ve ever watched that game since I was 3 at the time it was actually played.
by HawkgirlSTL on Jun 16, 2010 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions
CBS has their own college sports network.
So maybe that is why they haven’t just given it away to BTN, or ESPN Classic.
I would think the Big Ten would have free reign of their own games, but maybe not.
Finally, is there any sort of “Greatest Matchups” or “#1 v. #2” DVD out there, perhaps that CBS produced? Maybe they use that as some sort of reason not to release that game for broadcast.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 16, 2010 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
agree
Every time I see that Iowa is one of the classic games they show, I hope it’s that game. But alas, apparently 6-4 doesn’t sell, even as a re-run
They could show that game in a 30 minute time slot
“Do to time restrictions, we’ve moved ahead in the action.”
BBall Divisions
I’m under the impression that basketball divisions wouldn’t happen because a basketball season allows for every team to play every other team, which I imagine would change this separation considerably, no?
The idea that Penn State or Nebraska or Iowa or whoever traveling too far would affect them in some way is ridiculous. Nebraska traveling to PSU or vice versa would take all of two and a half hours by plane at most? Geography is irrelevant, the divisions should be separated based 50% on historical and current achievement and 50% on rivalries. In that case, OSU-Michigan-MSU have to remain together and Iowa-PSU-Nebraska have to remain together as well.
Then, for the sake of intelligent design the two Illinois teams and the two indiana teams should stay in the same division, which leaves the oldest rivalry in the game. Wisconsin and Minnesota can be split up because A) it’s a much lower profile game than OSU-Michigan and B) That one game can be protected every year for an end of the year game.
So, considering competitive balance, the divisions should be split like
A:
Iowa
PSU
Nebraska
Illinois
Northwestern
Minnesota
B:
OSU
Michigan
MSU
Wisconsin
Indiana
Purdue
And then it’s easy to give every team an end of the year game if we use the most intelligent design (though grouping PSU and MSU together may not be perfect)
PSU vs MSU, OSU vs. Mich, Iowa vs. Nebraska, Indiana vs. Purdue, Illinois vs. Northwestern, Wisconsin vs. Minnesota.
by Billiken Mafia on Jun 16, 2010 10:24 AM CDT reply actions
You mentioned intelligent design...
…your point is irrelevant.
Also, PSU with all of the western teams isn’t bad for the team’s travel (as you mentioned, they can fly), but it would suck for the fans to travel. Meanwhile, Iowa fans can drive to Chicago, Madison, Lincoln, Minn/Stain Paul, etc.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 16, 2010 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions
True
more than likely Delany will add more teams and this won’t matter at all. I guess travel for fans isn’t a major concern for me and I doubt it will be for Delany or the Big Ten either. Most of these games sell out and I don’t think it’ll matter that a Nebraska or PSU fan has to travel a little further. Those two fanbases will do it. Now, if Indiana fans or Illinois fans have to travel, that’s a concern… but I doubt Nebraska or PSU fans will mind much (though, being as I live in Iowa City, I understand that it is difficult for me to empathize about traveling long distances).
by Billiken Mafia on Jun 16, 2010 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions
I've lived in St Louis for 3 years now
and I still have no freaking clue what the hell a “Billiken” is. Can you please enlighten me? It doesn’t help that St Louis University’s ads are all “Be a Billiken.” All I can tell is it’s a blue devil-like creature.
Billikens are
a mythical gnome-like creature known for trickery i believe? The name came from a group of friends. We needed a team name and honestly imagining the U of St. Louis mascot in the mafia was the funniest thing I could think of.
by Billiken Mafia on Jun 16, 2010 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions
it's not that hard to find is it?
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
Thus, it's somewhat safe to assume the Big Ten will stay as is for the foreseeable future at 12 teams.
Not at all. Delany made clear that they are still in the 12-18 month time frame for studying expansion. He did not bring that period to an end. While Nebraska is a nice football addition it does not address either of the goals for expansion: More TV sets and adjusting the population base of the Big 10.
Nebraska is a “pot sweetner” for a school like Notre Dame. Delany is not done and the new face of the Big Ten has not yet been revealed.
by the_iowa_hawkeye on Jun 16, 2010 10:37 AM CDT reply actions
Nebraska and a 12-team Big Ten is going to be a reality as of 2011.
The odds of anyone else getting added into the league and starting then are pretty damn slim at this point. That’s the reality we’re dealing with here.
Unless you have a crystal ball that shows a different immediate future for the Big Ten, and if you do, please share your revelations.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
It might be for 2011, but that's not my "foreseeable future".
It seems logical to me that they will be looking to add another school to the mix over the next year or two, to join in 2-4 years.
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
screw Notre Dame
I’d much rather have Nebraska and I don’t see them as pot sweetener for anyone.
by HawkeyeInExile on Jun 16, 2010 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I assume...
You did mean cannabis when you said “pot”.
The Gram stain is useful in classifying bacteria because....it gives me another reason to hate biology?
Any future teams will not be far behind
And will likely be joining by 2012 or 2013. That means going through all of the “protected rivalary” business for one or two years?
Sorry, I find that a bit of a waste. Whatever the Big Ten looks like right now or in 2011 it will not be the same in 2012. Delany is going to add more schools, likely from the East. Going through all of this now is rather pointless.
by the_iowa_hawkeye on Jun 16, 2010 10:52 AM CDT reply actions
God forbid we "waste time" ion the goddamn offseason.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
by RossWB on Jun 16, 2010 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
A note on balance
I was curious how balanced these divisions would work out to be, so I crunched the numbers. Using the past 10 years of conference records for all 12 teams, Jacobi’s East division works out to have a winning percentage of .508 and his West division .505 — so, pretty close!
I was going to just write a comment about it, but it ended up being kind of long, so I put it on my blog (hey — I have a blog, check it out, be a friend): http://jamerchant.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/dividing-the-big-ten-with-excel/#more-435
I also used Excel to find perfectly balanced divisions, and here’s what it spit out:
Division 1
Michigan St.
Illinois
Ohio St.
Minnesota
Penn St.
Nebraska
Division 2
Iowa
Indiana
Northwestern
Michigan
Purdue
Wisconsin
I don’t particularly like that split, but it’s very balanced: .507 to .506.
Excel's split, in all kindness...
sucks just a little bit.
The Gram stain is useful in classifying bacteria because....it gives me another reason to hate biology?
Yours, however...
Is pretty good (though I like Sr. Jacobi’s better).
The Gram stain is useful in classifying bacteria because....it gives me another reason to hate biology?
Any division formula will have ...
inconsistencies. I guess I can live with that. Oops Pow Jacobi’s solution seems best.
But what are we going to call ourselves? I say stick with Big 10. Why? It’s been wrong for 20 years, why change now?
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Jun 16, 2010 11:32 AM CDT reply actions
Big Ten
We’re the oldest DI conference in the country, and we’ve been known by the name for almost a 100 years now. The association of colleges and universities that make up the Big Ten (including U o’ Chicago) has existed for over 100. That history should mean something. I think we should stay Big Ten, even if we add another 4 teams in the next few years. We can consider changing it when the new members like Penn State, Nebraska, Notre Dame (?), etc have been with us for at least another 30 years.
Uhhh, it hasn't been called the Big 10 for 100 years........
But close, the name was first used in 1917 when michigan rejoined the conference. Before then it was just the Western Conference.
I’m fuzzy on dates but we were also the Big Nine when Chicago left in the forties until Michigan state was added in the 50s.
by HawkeyeInExile on Jun 16, 2010 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions
Rounding
The association was first referred to as the Big Ten, you’re right, in 1917. That’s 93 years. I just rounded up to “almost 100”. If you take into account the beginnings of the conference, we’re ~115 years old.
+--+-1
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 16, 2010 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions
This was supposed to go after Buddy Light's comment.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 16, 2010 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions
There is no need to change the name
The Big 10 is not a description, it’s a brand – and with a brand comes brand recognition. Just like IBM no longer officially stands for International Business Machines, it is still IBM, because everyone knows what it is.
by HeroPatriotStanzi on Jun 16, 2010 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions
I still pay AT&T
because they’re the only ones that provide me with great telegraph service and price. All hail AT&T!
+1+---++--
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 16, 2010 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Stupid coverage areas
All my dahs keep getting dropped.
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Jun 16, 2010 5:22 PM CDT up reply actions
When's the new iMorse coming out?
"In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic!" - Homer Simpson
by EastLosRandy on Jul 1, 2010 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions
Big 10 it is, then...
We have lots of lawyas here. Someone get on the horn to Delany. Tell him we have spoken.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Jun 16, 2010 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions
The Big Ten will be the Big Ten forever
Or Delany must have some absolutely kick-ass marketing people that figured out a way to improve on 100 years of history. I don’t think it is possible.
Too high? What do you mean too high?
by The Bacon Explosion on Jun 16, 2010 12:28 PM CDT up reply actions
The name is staying, I'm sure.
We’ll just have to deal with all the “lol they can’t count” jabs.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
If the Big 12 wasnt at 10, I would be ok with it
But now it makes my head hurt that the Big 10 is @ 12 and the Big 12 is at 10. Hell add that the PAC 10 is at 11 and I start crying!
So I tried the Barbasol and Rotel dip and I was very dissapointed!
The Big Ten will remain the Big Ten . . .
and the Big 12 will now be called The Longhorn 10.
by The Naked Bootleg on Jun 16, 2010 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm just gonna call it BEVO
just easier
So I tried the Barbasol and Rotel dip and I was very dissapointed!
BEVO and Bitches
Fixed.
"Oh no, don't do that, don't do that. If you shoot him, you'll just make him mad." - The Waco Kid
by HawkOnRails on Jun 16, 2010 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I've been championing
keeping it as the Big 10 and that the name still makes sense even with 12 teams. If you can fit 12 into 10, then that really is a big 10. It’s like when it’s 4th and 3 and the announcer declares “4th and a long 2”.
Ron Jeremy would approve
if, in the spirit of your post, we started calling ourselves the Big Long Ten
"In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic!" - Homer Simpson
by EastLosRandy on Jul 1, 2010 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions
The Big Ten (Plus)
…and it works on tv too…
The Big Ten Network (Plus)
Everyone likes when you throw a “plus” in there. It implies that there’s more than meets the eye, that there’s some hidden value beyond what’s in the name. Marketing has used “plus” for years. Just don’t call us the Big Ten Extreme.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Jun 17, 2010 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions
The New Big Ten Economy Size!
Now with 20% more value!
"In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic!" - Homer Simpson
by EastLosRandy on Jul 1, 2010 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm thinking there are a number or decent solutions
I’m thinking each team will play 5 division games, and have 3 leftover conference games which can be scheduled to traditional rivalry games. However, divisions would be kind of tough with 12 teams. Would you rotate every couple of years with the other 3 teams from the other division that you did not play? or simply keep those games in tact for rivalrys not covered by your division games? Another interesting thing I’ve been reading about is that the teams in the Big12 have not liked playing a championship game. Mac Brown has been against it and thought it was a bad idea from the start, simply because you can lose a good bowl game by losing in that game. They’ve committed to a conference championship game…which will no doubt be sweet and most likely be played in a sweet venue! I’m pumped Nebraska is in the conference, but the way they decide to go about this will be interesting and I think they will come up with some type of middle ground to make everyone happy, first and foremost however is to allow traditional rivalries to be played every year.
by United We Stanzi on Jun 16, 2010 12:45 PM CDT reply actions
Also:
isn’t Iowa totally neutralized if you make them play Northwestern every year as their rivalry game?
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
One more thing, much less sarcastic.
So if we start with the premise that the Big XII was imbalanced, mostly because the south won the last six CCGs, then it seems foolish to say that the big ten divisions above are balanced, when at least the last nine* Big Ten champs are in your above-mentioned east division.
*I don’t feel like looking up who actually “won” the division when Iowa split with Michigan in 2004, and yes I’m giving the 2002 CCG to Ohio State.
Not that I don’t prefer it, but it’s absolutely not “balanced” no matter where you put Michigan Frickin’ State.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
No Championship game
Who knows who wins if they had 1 more game.
So I tried the Barbasol and Rotel dip and I was very dissapointed!
So the fact
that the best team in the league was in the east for nine* straight years is irrelevant then? That seems really, really silly and doesn’t address the point I was trying to make.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
That is, in large part, due to...
the fact that OSU has won at least a share of the league title for 6 of the last 8 years.
Man, those jerks ruin everything.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 16, 2010 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Indeed.
Although we’ve been annoyingly explaining for five years now that there was nothing “shared” about 2005 and 2008. They way I look at it, they’ve actually won 5 of the last 9, PSU has won 2, Ill and UM each have one.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
I like your version best. In any event, would you prefer PSU play in the “east” with tOSU and MI? I’d think it would be more fun, particularly given Jacobi’s proposed protected rivalry with NU. I don’t see you guys getting terribly worked up with WI, MN, or Purdue.
What's a Purdue?
I’d love to play Iowa and Nebraska every year, but the truth is OSU and UM are a bigger deal in State College, not to mention there are actually PSU alum who go west, but way less who get anywhere near the twin cities. It’s probably less “balanced,” and way less fun on the blogs, but the truth is PSU probably belongs in the east. I’m not passionate either way, but I lean east.
For obscurity's sake, people, Evan Hailes needs you.
The only difference between you and I is that I’m more passionate about it. I’ll see doing this the “ACC way” (I refuse to use another term) as a disaster designed by Michigan and Ohio State, something bound to eventually make us as a league look stupid.
My gut feeling, however, tells me that the Big Ten won’t do this stupid thing, because they’ve been pretty smart as of yet.
"Now we can no longer hold back. It will be a terrible war." - Emperor Jim Delany I
by ReadingRambler on Jun 17, 2010 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions
In the land of hypotheticals the one armed man is Hawkeye State
No way OSU wins that ’02 CCG.
Just no way. See UI vs. MN and OSU vs. PU box scores for why.
BUT, I also don’t agree that if Iowa beat ISU that year they would have played for the MNC. No way Iowa jumps unbeaten OSU or Miami.
by Internet Legend on Jun 16, 2010 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions
Traditional Power in the East?
Maybe. But if you look at how things have been trending, the West is right there.
*Iowa: I’ll not be stroking your egos today, but let’s just say you’re not hurting for football relevance.
*Wisconsin: I’ve been waiting for Bielema to fail miserably. Right now, it looks like I get to wait a little longer.
*Nebraska: We’ll see if they pull a PSU, but I think they’ll step right in and be fine.
*justNorthwestern: They look like they’re on their way up under Fitzgerald.
Sure, Illinois and Minnesota are about the same right now, but the other side has Indiana and Purdue. And the rest of the East? Penn State is better than solid, and tOSU is the big Mcnugget in the (Big) 10-piece, but MSU’s been consistently below expectations forever, and Michigan is going to be entertaining (in the “What the fuck are they doing?” style) as long as Rodriguez is there. I’m still convinced that East-West is the bestest way to go.
Everyone fails. The successful learn from their failures. I just wish we'd quit giving ourselves so many learning opportunities.
by WhiteSpeedReceiver on Jun 16, 2010 1:00 PM CDT reply actions
WhiteSpeedReciever
I like what you brought up. Anyone think they could have 2 divisions, but no east or west distinction…just mix them up every couple of years? Kind of like they rotate the schedules now, but keep rivalries in tact?
by United We Stanzi on Jun 16, 2010 1:16 PM CDT reply actions
Not a fan of this idea.
Why even call them “divisions?” Why even have them? Just make the top two teams play for the conference title.
I favor an east-west split. Michigan can take it for a few years (serves them right for hiring RichRod). If Iowa can keep playing PSU as a rival, great. If not, we will see you in a couple years.
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
-- Judge Smails
by WaterlooChazz on Jun 16, 2010 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions
Shifting Divisions? That's a bad idea on multiple levels.
Besides, what I was saying can be summed up thusly: College Football power can shift quickly, but geography takes a lot longer to move.
Everyone fails. The successful learn from their failures. I just wish we'd quit giving ourselves so many learning opportunities.
by WhiteSpeedReceiver on Jun 16, 2010 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Agreed x 999999
The Gram stain is useful in classifying bacteria because....it gives me another reason to hate biology?
This discussion makes my head hurt.
But I laughed out loud at the idea of making PSU play Iowa every year.
Bottom line, the Big Ten will immediately be known as the most physical defensive-football playing conference in the country, even if RichRod manages to hold onto his job. That, plus we use the exotic position of Tight End.
I would make the split at the Ill/Ind line, as is obvious. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the schools from the small states having larger recruiting burdens. They always have carried that load, and it’s just the way the game is played. Out here on the prairie we have to actually play and coach football, not just recruit the latest Baby Jesus. I’m thrilled with the Nebraska addition.
We just have to make sure the conference championship game is played, in December, someplace where the weather makes a difference. I suggest Winnipeg.
Mr. Boh Knows ...
Then RichRod
can go to Florida and recruit his latest 5’8" 168 pound really really fast option QB and say, “And if everything goes right, you can play Iowa in the snow, when they’re in t-shirts and it’s minus 5. For the conference championship.” Sounds like a winning pitch, to me.
Mr. Boh Knows ...
The nice thing about Rich Rod's 5'8" 168 pound really really fast option QB:
They give the DL and LB in the conference something to play with, like a cat batting around a decapitated mouse.
Everyone fails. The successful learn from their failures. I just wish we'd quit giving ourselves so many learning opportunities.
by WhiteSpeedReceiver on Jun 16, 2010 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Or Adrian Clayborn and Tate Forcier
The Gram stain is useful in classifying bacteria because....it gives me another reason to hate biology?
Ndamukong Suh and Colt McCoy
They should put this thread in an SAT prep class.
"In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic!" - Homer Simpson
by EastLosRandy on Jul 1, 2010 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions
When you're arguing against geographic divisions, you use the Big XII as an example.
When you’re arguing for, you use the ACC as an example.
The ACC decided to split based on something other than geography. I’m not really sure if it was current relevance, projected relevance, or a random draw. But Virginia Tech and Miami now fight for a division title and the chance to beat up on whoever the other division spits out. They probably weren’t projecting Florida State’s fall from grace or Clemson’s ineptitude in important games when they drew this up.
Now that’s not to say that the divisions won’t be even again someday, and there might even be a swing in power to the Atlantic Division at some point. Things in college football are constantly changing, so you shouldn’t draw up divisions based on how balanced you think they will be.
A West-East split is the way to go. We have a nice dividing line at the Illinois-Indiana border. Things aren’t too unbalanced this way. Don’t try to convince me the top three teams are in the East. If you think that, it means that a) you don’t realize that Nebraska just joined, and b) you haven’t seen Michigan football for the past year.
by Lioli44 on Jun 16, 2010 2:44 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
I believe it was set up based on the idea of "How do we design divisions such that Miami and FSU can play in the championship game?"
Which has not yet happened.
Now that you mention it, that sounds about right.
And that is why we don’t need to split up Ohio State and Michigan.
I'd rank importance, subjectively included current, recent past and projected future values, in this way...
Ohio State
Penn State – Nebraska – Iowa* – Michigan
Wisconsin – Michigan State – Purdue
Illinois – Minnesota (not too far above)
Indiana – Northwestern
Going with that, someone has to have Ohio State… split the next tier in half (Michigan is fading as their history succumbs to their present), give the division that doesn’t have Ohio State 2 of the next 3, and split each of the bottom tiers… which just so happens to be geographical.
If Ohio State stays in a class by itself, that’s about the best you can do. I really don’t think there’s any other way to do it.
*Iowa is a reach here, but I think the longer Michigan stays, they’re a reach, too. In the next two years, Iowa can just as easily (in my opinion) prove they belong up here as Michigan can prove that they don’t.
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
Sorry for the long post, but here goes...
Used this data elsewhere today so though I’d bring it out again here. Here’s every team with their conference record for the last decade.
Ohio State 64-16 (.800)
Michigan 53-27 (.663)
Iowa 49-31 (.613)
Penn State 45-35 (.563)
Wisconsin 44-36 (.550)
Purdue 41-39 (.513)
jNorthwestern 38-42 (.475)
Michigan St 32-48 (.400)
Minnesota 30-50 (.375)
Illinois 26-54 (.325)
Indiana 18-62 (.225)
So using your above tiers this is how I see the conference
Ohio State
Michigan, Iowa, Penn State, Nebraska
Wisco, Purdue, jNW
MSU, Minne
Illinois, Indiana
So now using your rules for alignment I start with OSU in the East. Split the next tier in half and you have Iowa, Neb and OSU, PSU, UM. Add two of the next tier to the non OSU group and we have Iowa, Neb, Wisco, jNW and OSU, PSU, UM, Purdue. And finally split up both the last groups to give you
East: OSU, PSU, UM, Purdue, Mich St, Indiana
West: Iowa, Neb, Wisco, jNW, Minne, Illinois
Perfect East/West split. Competitive Balance restored.
by HawkeyeInExile on Jun 16, 2010 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions 5 recs
This is a winner- Great Post
Can teams start laying down for the Braves, so Bobby Cox can go out in normal fashion.... losing in the NLCS?
Makes sense and selfishly
I think these divisions would greatly benefit Iowa in football.
by HeartOfHawkness on Jun 17, 2010 4:03 AM CDT up reply actions
Combine this with a 9-game schedule
and a six-year review period, and you have perfection.
"In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic!" - Homer Simpson
by EastLosRandy on Jul 1, 2010 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions
After seeing your conclusional crossover rivalries...
I would like to see a few of them this way:
Iowa-Penn State
Nebraska-Ohio State
Wisconsin-Northwestern
With another NU in the conference now
will the BX(2) officially refer to Northwestern as “jNWU” finally?
I’ve already seen some jNWers getting upset with the references to Nebraska as NU – as in, there’s already an NU in the conference. I find this funny out of proportion, and also think they’re going to lose that point. Win/win.
except Nebraska is UN
"In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic!" - Homer Simpson
by EastLosRandy on Jul 1, 2010 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Relegation!
Just like in European soccer!
Ohio State, Michigan, Team America, Nebraska, Penn State and Wisconsin in one group, everyone else in the other. Bottom two teams slide down at the end of the year. Top two move up.
Holy crap, would first division play be a blood bath, or what?
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Jun 16, 2010 6:02 PM CDT reply actions
I don’t think you’re going to see a system where any given team can’t win the championship in any given year. Relegation might work for pro sports (I’m assuming Euro soccer is pro) but given the high turnover in college athletics things change too fast to automatically exclude half the teams from even a shot at a championships.
by HawkeyeInExile on Jun 16, 2010 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions
Oh I know...
I’m just musing out loud. No chance for any of this.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Jun 16, 2010 8:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Messing with things for the sake of competitive balance is silly
That balance will shift inevitably. Look at the ACC. (Or, rather, don’t. It’s an eyesore.) Look at the Big XII (where the North was absolutely dominant in the early days). Sure, you don’t want to create divisions where one side is absolutely loaded, but as long as it’s close natural drift can be counted on to keep things within reason.
Only two things are constant in a conference (assuming unchanging membership, obviously a bit of a stretch here but we’ll go with it – and if we’re talking short term including Michigan as a power team is probably a mistake anyway): geography and rivalries. Existing protected rivalries all occur in these groups:
MSU-OSU-PSU-Mich
Ill-NW-Ind-Pur
Wisc-Iowa-Minn
Lump Nebraska in with that last group, split up the middle one (no one outside of the two schools involved cares about Illinois-Indiana, and nobody even within the schools involved cares about NW-Purdue), and you have an ideal split both geographically and in terms of rivalries. And it’s not that awful on balance, either: Not even half the time in the past decade would the top two teams have been in the same division (2008, OSU-PSU-MSU; 2005, OSU-PSU; 2003, Mich-OSU; 2001, Illinois-Nebraska; perhaps 2006 OSU-Mich as well though Wisconsin ended up tied for second). On average you’d expect it to happen close to half the time with balanced divisions, and so it does here. So I don’t see any reason to mess with the obvious E-W split.
Agreed
This doesn’t need to be any more difficult than the obvious. The good become bad, the bad become good, but that’s life if lived long enough. Jim Delaney-willing, the B10 will be around for a long, long time. Psuedo-rivalries with Penn State or where the current balance power lies in women’s track shouldn’t be a consideration when splitting into divisions.
by Pubes in Pink Urinals on Jun 16, 2010 9:59 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
I really like the games w/ Penn St...
;but if we get a better rotation by only playing them as often as everyone else; that’s probably a more ideal schedule. The games when Iowa does play them will be that much more important.
by HawkeyeRecon on Jun 16, 2010 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions
your ideas are valid, but furthermore, whose to say that the michigan and osu are going to make it to the conference championship? its a safe bet that one of them will, but not every year.. but if you were to put them in the same conference, why not put them in the West, and put Purdue and Michigan state, or Wisconsin in the east?
Wow. There are serious discussions going on here.
You guys really have to stop it.
(seriously, some great points here).
My blog: http://www.gretainthebox.com
by Leftcoast Hawk on Jun 16, 2010 11:07 PM CDT reply actions
They're just going to have to do geography
I know people say “You can’t put Michigan, OSU and PSU in the same division” but what other choice to you have? It’s a non-starter to split up Michigan and Ohio State, so now you’re just stuck sending PSU west. Then who do you send east? Wisconsin? I’m sure they’d love losing their rivalries with us and the Gophers (and now the Huskers) and besides, how much are you improving the West by replacing Wisconsin with Penn State? On top of that, Penn State’s closest divisional opponent becomes the Illini, which is probably fine for the team but not so great for the fans. If you send a team like jNWU west instead, then you’re just saying the winner of OSU/UM gets to go to the championship game. They’re already getting Indiana in their division.
Anything more radical than that really breaks up all the rivalries.
Will the east be stronger than the west? In most years, probably by a little. But we’re not talking about a Big 12 north/south situation here. Certainly this season I’d take the West with us, the Badgers and Huskers (yeah, I know they’re not playing this year) over the East, which would have tOSU, a down PSU and an out UM. MSU would probably be the Buckeye’s toughest test.
Breaking up rivalries is just not worth guessing who’s going to be good. How long is it going to take Michigan to get good again? What’s going to happen to Penn State when Paterno retires?
This. A thousand times this.
Guessing at future strength makes no sense when the improvement is likely to be marginal at best and you create ACC-like monstrosities of divisions in your quest for perfect balance.
Just so long as we can
Have this for the West Division Trophy
And a bust of this fellow for the East Division
We should always try to remind Southerners….edumacation purposes and all.
Hawks for the win and falafels for the vagina
by DoYouLoveHawksorHate'Merica? on Jun 17, 2010 1:04 AM CDT reply actions
That is
quite a forehead going on there. Are you sure he’s not actually the Leader on break from fighting the Hulk?
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Jun 17, 2010 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions
I also suggest pre-90s NHL-style division names
and use it as a way to honor past players.
Call the West the “Grange Division”, and call the East the “Griffin Division”. I’m sure there are other players to consider too (obviously Kinnick for the West), but when I think of great Big Ten players those are the first to come to mind. Not to mention that you won’t get more alliterative than that.
I like the straight-down-the-line east/west split.
Football-wise, the entire B12 North is crap except for Nebraska. Although people joke about Illinois and Minnesota, both were national powerhouses once upon a time, unlike any team in the B12 North. Wisconsin and Illinois have been as successful in the modern era as Colorado and Missouri. Northwestern and Minnesota have been more successful than Kansas and Kansas State. And nobody but nobody in the Big Ten has been as awful as Iowa State (though Indiana comes close). Iowa, in turn, has been more successful than any of the above. This hypothetical division would be nothing like the Big 12 North. It would be a successful, deep division, with several solid programs in place prior to the addition of Nebraska.
Granted, the hypothetical East division would have the lion’s share of historical success, but I can’t really see splitting up Michigan, tOSU, and MSU, and Penn State, being the easternmost school in the conference belongs there too. The split would be unequal in many respects, but it would hardly be illogical or unfair.
Brunettes not fighter jets
the_Ketch's Big 10 Divisional Plan
the_Ketch’s Big 10 Divisions plus 1 rival plan…
2 divisions listed opposite permanent interdivisional rival…
Div 1 Div 2
Michigan Ohio State
Nebraska Penn State
Iowa Wisconsin
Indiana Purdue
Michigan State Minnesota
Illinois Northwestern
Teams play division games (5) plus one game against its designated rival (1) and two games (2) against the other division teams per year. That’s a total of (8) league contests. Division winners play in league title (The War for the Roses) game.
· The haves play each other more often, creating maximum interest and tv Revenue. Thus every year the league offers these gems:
o Michigan vs. Nebraska, Ohio State and Iowa
o Ohio State vs. Michigan, Penn St and Wisconsin
o Penn State vs. Ohio State, Nebraska, and Wisconsin
o Nebraska vs. Michigan, Iowa and Penn State
· All top rivalries are kept except Iowa/Minnesota (sorry but tv is not clamoring for this one)
· No travel advantage
· Balance within each division having 2 bigs from (Michigan, Ohio State, Penn St. Nebraska), and 1 near big of Iowa or Wisconsin— also avoids the geographical situation in the Big XII by spreading divisions across the geographical footprint so that it doesn’t get to be too us vs. them among divisions.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Black Heart Gold Pants
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
