Big Ten Realignment: Michigan and Ohio State, Gone From November?
by Adam Jacobi on Aug 26, 2010 10:29 AM CDT
in Iowa Hawkeyes Football
Email
PrintThroughout the Big Ten conference realignment discussion, we've always sort of taken it for granted that Iowa would be firmly ensconced in a "West"-like substance of a division, containing neighbors like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and maybe Illinois and Northwestern--though that seemed like less of a mutual geographic necessity, considering those schools' proximity to the more eastern conference members. But those first four teams would be a natural grouping of teams to build the western division around, yes?
Well, no; Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez--who, oddly, has turned into Jim Delany's designated trial balloon during this whole process--told Madison.com that Wisconsin and Iowa will be in separate divisions when the new alignment is announced next month:
Alvarez confirmed Wednesday that when a two-division format for football is unveiled by league officials next month, UW and Iowa will be separated.
Alvarez implied that it shouldn’t be hard to figure out how the 12 schools will be arranged in the two divisions. He said there are four distinct tiers of teams, led by the four that have won national championships in the past 25 years: Ohio State, Michigan, Nebraska and Penn State.
The next level has UW and Iowa "within a hair" of one another, according to Alvarez.
This is an instance of Delany trying to divide the conference along the lines of "competitive balance"--the wisdom of which we'll get to in a second--but it's also a harbinger of doom for the Big Ten's best tradition ever.
After all, what's really at stake here is the historic Ohio State-Michigan rivalry, which traditionally ends the Big Ten's regular season. Jim Delany sees the success of one OSU-UM game and wants two, comparing the two teams to Duke and UNC:
"If Duke and North Carolina were historically the two strongest programs and only one could play for the right to be in the NCAA tournament, would you want them playing in the season-ending game so one is in and one is out?" he asked. "Or would you want them to play and have it count in the standings and then they possibly could meet for the right to be in the NCAA or the Rose Bowl?
"We've had those debates. It's a good one. The question is whether you want to confine a game that's one of the greatest rivalries of all time to a divisional game."
His point isn't entirely invalid, but he's clearly pining for two UM-OSU matchups a year. That's called counting your chickens before they hatch, and four-year-olds are taught to know better.
And if the Big Ten does so, they would also ignore the real lesson of the ACC, who gerrymandered their divisions in pursuit of an annual Miami-FSU championship game that hasn't happened once (and probably won't this year, either). Also, Nebraska-OU, that historic-turned-historical rivalry that helped beget the Big XII, has happened precisely once in the title game.
Further, we're willing to wager that even if Michigan bounces back from this rough patch, the odds of them meeting Ohio State in the Big Ten Championship are less than 50%, year-to-year; not only does college football require a certain amount of luck and health, after all, but they're going to have to win their division despite having to play each other every year. Everyone will have other inter-divisional games, of course, but think of it this way. With eight conference games a year (which Delany confirms will be the case until at least 2015), that makes five divisional games, one protected interdivisional rivalry, and two rotating interdivisional games. In other words, Michigan will have to play Ohio State every year, and the other teams in their division have a 60% chance of missing OSU that year. Bit of a stacked deck against a UM-OSU rematch, isn't it?
Also, though a UM-OSU rematch could very well be appealing to advertisers, fans will be unlikely to support the game the closer it comes to the first. Very few Big Ten fans want to see them play two games in a row. Therefore, for ratings' sakes, it would behoove Delany to move it to the middle of the season, which is exactly what whispers from the conference have been indicating.
So.
With the swift, gruesome demise of Nebraska-Oklahoma as a yearly event, Jim Delany now has the most iconic rivalry game, firmly entrenched in tradition at the end of the college football regular season. And now he wants to strip it of the end-of-year designation because of an unlikely potential matchup in the championship game?
Pardon our bluntness, but that sounds insane.
What this means for new divisions in Part II, later today.
139 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Is it about money?
Because that’s what I think it’s about. It’s about what people want to see. What, do you think people in the south or in the west know of any other rivalries besides tOSU v. Michigan? No, most of them don’t. They have no idea what Floyd is. People want to see that game so why not have it twice a year? On ABC no less? $$$$$
And remember, gerrymandering isn’t illegal! It’s actually encouraged…in Texas.
A Voice From Kinnick - A Hawkeye Blog
Yes.
Of course it’s about money.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
The answer is money.
Now what’s your fucking question?
by Stay thirsty, my friends. on Aug 26, 2010 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Except that the odds of it happening twice a year are pretty damn slim
In the SEC and Big XII, rematches have occurred less than 1/3 of the time (despite 50% of all possible pairings in a given year being rematches) … and in the SEC (the Big XII doesn’t have protected rivalries across divisions), none of the protected rivalries have ever been repeated in the title game. (And it’s not because the teams that are good in one division are rivals with teams that suck in the other – Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee have represented the East every year, and their three rivals have represented the West 14 times out of 18.)
It's a myopic move at best
and at worst just plain reckless. Too many people waste time analyzing the Big XII debacle, which is so full of unique circumstances that it almost doesn’t bear looking at, instead of the ACC (thank you, AJ) which trashed tradition and geography in favor of “promised” results that have never come to fruition.
Also, Jacobi, great new Avatar.
/throws hands up and retorts exasperatedly “Your father’s dead!”
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
I'll buy that
FSU-Miami is a great example of how a manufactured conference title game can go wrong, but, frankly, that “tradition” was about 10 really strong years of games, nothing before and only spotty games since. Miami was on nobody’s football map until 1983 and FSU showed up about the same time. The Big XII debacle is relevant because tradition was so much deeper and longer. True, the Big Ten isn’t talking about completely trashing the OSU-Michigan game like the Big 12 did Nebraska-Oklahoma, but the Big 10 is all about tradition.
A fella steps out for a two pound burrito and all hell breaks loose.
Whoa holy shit, I didn't even notice the new avatar. Good move.
Also I agree with stuff and various things.
"All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again."
by Bucketochicken on Aug 26, 2010 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions
And let's not forget
The Big XII North had all the national contenders for the first few years (Nebraska, Colorado, K-State). Balance of power tends to shift; build your divisions exclusively around that and they’re going to look insane in five years when those assumptions get turned on their heads.
I'll have to see it to believe it
moving Ohio State and Michigan into separate divisions would not be the end of the world, just as Nebraska moving into the Big Ten and abandoning the historic match-up with Okllahoma is the end of the world. But I agree it would be short sighted.
I think the law of unintended consequences in all this is very, very likely to help the second tier and hurt the first tier (OSU, UM, Neb, PSU). The field gets much more even when Ohio State has to beat Iowa or Wisconsin twice in one year to win the conference. Of course, that cuts both ways but I just think the historically better teams become vulnerable once you add a Championship game.
I have to admit though, I am VERY excited to add a Championship game. Because under Ferentz we have become a team that is built for a playoff. If we can somehow find a way into that game I will feel very good about our chances. The past 30 years have shown me that we just can’t seem to win the conference outright under the current model. So a new one excites me.
"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.
crap...need to proof more closely
Okllahoma is not the end of the world
"I wish you luck with a capital 'F'" - The Real Elvis.
by StoopsMyAss on Aug 26, 2010 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
Nebraska already gave up the OU rivalry
They played 2 on/2 off once the big8 went to the big 12. OU and UT became the marquee B12 rivalry. Also, I guess your logic of the CG making things “much more even” escapes me. I can only think of a few examples of the “historically better teams” being bitten by a less-name brand in the CG. KSU v Oklahoma, CU v Nebraska…that’s about it. I refuse to listen to any ACC argument so let’s just leave it at that. You say that it cuts both ways but it seems that it really cuts more one way than the other.
by Onestatewest on Aug 26, 2010 11:14 AM CDT up reply actions
There have been five upsets in the Big 12 CCG.
If you define upset as the lower-ranked team beating the higher-ranked team.
1996: UN Texas d. (3) Nebraska, 37-27
1998: (14) Texas A&M d. (2) Kansas State, 36-30 (2OT)
2001: (9) Colorado d. (3) Texas, 39-37
2003: (15) Kansas State d. (1) Oklahoma, 35-7
2007: (9) Oklahoma d. (1) Missouri, 38-17
So five upsets out of fourteen games (plus a few near-misses like last year’s game); that’s not a ton in an empirical sense, but it’s not all that insignificant. The Big 12 stats are also skewed a little by the fact that the Big 12 North was an utter wasteland in the ‘00s; we’re assuming that the Big 10 divisions wouldn’t be so embarrassingly lopsided.
FWIW, the SEC CG has featured an upset in six of the eighteen times it’s been played.
I think you’re obsessing a bit too much over one phrase, too, especially since SMA followed it with:
I just think the historically better teams become vulnerable once you add a Championship game.
I don’t think that’s much of a stretch. The “underdog” may not win most of the time or even 50% of the time, but they’ll win often enough to make it anything but a foregone conclusion as to who will win the title game.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
This is what concerns me.
the Big 12 North was an utter wasteland in the ‘00s; we’re assuming that the Big 10 divisions wouldn’t be so embarrassingly lopsided.
When the Big 12 came together Nebraska was playing for a MNC every year, Colorado was just five years removed from a MNC of their own and K-State was becoming a perennial power. If you remember, back in the 90’s Mack Brown was still at Carolina and Bobby Stoops was working for the Ol’ Ball Coach in Gainesville. It was actually the Big XII SOUTH that was a joke back then.
Teams will get better and worse over time. Ten years ago Purdue and/or Michigan State probably would have taken Iowa’s place in that middle tier of teams. What concerns me about gerrymandering of Big Tweleven divisions is putting them together based on what their football teams have done in the past, regardless of how far back you go. It seems like Pelini has Nebraska on the right track, but what happens if he leaves and the Huskers revert to their form under Callahan? Or if ’Sconnie (or, perish the thought, Iowa) looks more like they did in the ’70s than the aughts?
To me the one thing that doesn’t fluctuate is geography (although considering our conference’s reputation for slowness, maybe that should be accounted for also). I would prefer that be the lone consideration. It makes the most damn sense anyway.
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Aug 26, 2010 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Yes, teams change over time
Which is why having static divisions in the first place is a bad idea.
by the_iowa_hawkeye on Aug 26, 2010 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not saying it is a forgone conclusion
but I am saying that the game itself won’t change the breakdown of W/L for either side. I think the favorite would win the same percentage as they would against a similar ranked opponent in the regular season. I just don’t agree that the CG in and of itself evens anything out. The good teams will still be good and will share that trophy among a very small group. 3 teams have won 80% SECCG’s in the last 10 years (UGA 2, LSU 3, UF 3). Again, I just don’t buy that it appreciably evens anything out.
by Onestatewest on Aug 26, 2010 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions
Oklahoma is not the end of the world ...
but you can see it from Norman.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Aug 26, 2010 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Bob Stoops can see Russia from his house?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 26, 2010 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Bob Stoops is Sarah Palin?
I mean, have you ever seen the two of them at the same place at the same time? I’m not saying, I’m just sayin…
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
I know I'm skirting the no-politics rule
But I thought I stayed on the safe side of the danger zone
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Is that the side without Kenny Loggins?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 26, 2010 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions
In that case...
…GET OUT OF THE DANGER ZONE.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Aug 27, 2010 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions
Fact:
Sarah Palin would have kicked the field goal in that game against Florida.
“Big Game” Bob indeed.
Turn your crank to Frank!
by ReadingRambler on Aug 26, 2010 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions
I think it's idiotic.
Michigan-OSU on a random Saturday in early October isn’t going to be nearly the same as Michigan-OSU on rivalry weekend. Alabama-Auburn is as good as ever despite them both playing in the SEC West. As mentioned above, Oklahoma-Nebraska is now pretty much meaningless.
I don’t understand why you don’t just move PSU to the west to have competitive balance. Put Nebraska, PSU, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin in one division and OSU, Michigan, and the rest in the other. It does put four of the best six programs in the west, and if that’s really an issue, flip Wisconsin with Northwestern if you must, and Iowa will just have to live with only playing Wisconsin every few years. Minnesota is probably a slightly bigger rival anyway and Illinois could become a good rivalry if they ever got decent. Iowa-Illinois was a fantastic rivalry in the 80s and early 90s.
I would agree
That Michigan-OSU is much bigger then Iowa-Wisconsin. They vehemently hate each other, and it is one of the better rivalries in college football (in my opinion).
I think Iowa-PSU is actually gaining some ground as a rivalry, and as you stated, the rivalry with Kinnick north is alive and well.
Penn State in the West is by far the best solution.
The chirping about their travel is almost a non-issue. Once the schedule moves to 9 games, you only miss 2 schools a year. So instead of playing 5 east and 4 west teams, Penn State would play 5 west and 4 east teams. How is that really any extra travel?
And PSU-Nebraska and PSU-Iowa will become (or already are) good rivalries.
by Cattlefeeder on Aug 26, 2010 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Yes, this.
Once the schedule moves to 9 games, you only miss 2 schools a year. So instead of playing 5 east and 4 west teams, Penn State would play 5 west and 4 east teams. How is that really any extra travel?
Once the 9-game conference schedule kicks in, it should alleviate most of the concerns since you’ll play every team in the league AT LEAST twice every four years (and you’ll play seven teams every year). (Although obviously that wouldn’t really solve the problem of the OSU-Michigan game being moved from the final weekend of the season if that does happen.)
Unfortunately, the four years from 2011-2014 could be a bit sticky when it comes to scheduling and the like.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Travel ...
it’s not like Big 10 teams will short on gas money.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Aug 26, 2010 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions
No
It’s the fans who have to pay the extra travel expense. Ask a PSU fan who travels to away games how they feel about them being out in the “West” Division.
"The possibility of physical and mental collapse is now very real. No sympathy for the Devil, keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride!" HST
PSU fans have been doing this for -- what? -- 15 years...
they’ve scraped by somehow.
If you’re going to every game, then money isn’t really an object. Some PSU fans — as with fans with all teams — will make a special long weekend/vacation out of one of the away games.
I’m indifferent to the way the divisions shake out, as long as OSU and Michigan play at least once a year. If the divisions don’t work, Delany and/or his successor will change them.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Aug 26, 2010 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions
How many away games do fans travel to in a season?
If Penn State only played four teams from the “East” chances are at least two would be away providing fans with a couple good options a year.
Furthermore, Pennsylvania is already an outlier in the Big Ten. Even if Purdue and IU were “East” chances are that large segments PSU fans would be flying to those games anyway. Does it matter that they’d fly to Chicago or Minneapolis to face “Western” opponents instead of flying into Indy? When the Big Ten considers “travel” they’re not talking about it from a fans’ perspective nor should they.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 26, 2010 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions
The fans are the driving force behind it all.
To dismiss that is asinine. Of course the conference isn’t going to let a traveling fan base be the deciding factor in determining divisions, but they at least have to consider it. Fans buy the season tickets, donate millions of dollars to the universities, and drive television revenue by watching the actual games. Why would any conference dismiss this fact?
"The possibility of physical and mental collapse is now very real. No sympathy for the Devil, keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride!" HST
Great.
My point is that Penn Staters or whomever will already have plenty of travel options. It’s not as though their yearly schedule would look a whole lot different than it currently does. To invoke travel as a prime factor is absolutely stupid, just as it was during conference realignment. Transportation is as good and quick as it has ever been. Stop acting like we’re catching stagecoaches to Bloomington, IN.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 26, 2010 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Hello
I am not saying it is a prime factor. I am simply stating that the fans need to be considered in all of this. Moving Penn State out West puts their fans at an unfair disadvantage. Instead of driving to Columbus, Ann Arbor or East Lansing, they are flying to Minneapolis, Cedar Rapids/Des Moines, or Omaha. Last time I checked, flying was a pain in the ass and I don’t see it getting better anytime soon.
I don’t see how you can just completely ignore the cost of travel for the fans. I used to travel to every away game until the economy took a dump. If you have ever traveled on a consistent basis, you would understand this.
FYI, I will be arriving at your place to discuss this further. I am going to need a stable for my team of horses and a place to store my stagecoach. I will be there in a few weeks…maybe within the month if I give Jonny, my lead horse, lots of speed.
"The possibility of physical and mental collapse is now very real. No sympathy for the Devil, keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride!" HST
As Kyle stated, they have to do that anyway.
You can’t tell me that PSU are magically going to teleport into CR or IC or Minneapolis or Tuscaloosa this year. They are already traveling as it is. All that the “West” designation is for is who they would be playing on a yearly basis.
As for needing speed, give the ESSSSSS EEEEEE CEEEEE a call. They swear they have all the speed you could ever want.
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
by BStylin Hawkye on Aug 26, 2010 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions
Why do the traveling fans have to be considered?
The tickets can’t be sold to locals? The BigTen doesn’t need to consider traveling fans when planning divisions. The only reason to consider geography is to ensure that no team has to spend absurd amounts of money to travel throughout the year.
The only thing that is “asinine” is the assumption that traveling fans have a right to go to games semi-locally. If you won’t travel to an away game because it requires a plane ticket instead of a couple stops at a gas station, then that’s your issue, not the BigTen’s.
by The Mexican't on Aug 26, 2010 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Precisely.
And further to the point, while the fans are the primary force behind these decisions, it’s not those actually in attendance. TV continues to be the major force here i.e. Jim Delany is betting on an incongruous PSU/Nebraska match-up trumping a localized Michigan State/Purdue meeting. Although I don’t like anything but a geographic split, the Big Ten is absolutely going to maximize every ounce of their revenue potential through match-ups…that is until another 2-4 teams are added in 2015.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 26, 2010 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions
While I would like...
it to be somewhat easy for me as Hawkeye fan to get to away games, it can’t be a driving force here. Any football team that doesn’t suck gives only a small allotment of tickets to away fans to begin with. For instance, when Iowa plays PSU, or MSU, or Purdue or Indiana, you don’t see a huge group from those schools showing up at Kinnick. When OSU and Michigan are not very good, it is a bit similar.
On the other hand, I do favor basing this on geography. That is the way pro teams do it. That is how most of the big conferences got formed. College football needs tradition. The day we turn our back on tradition, we end up with Black-Eyed Peas songs non-stop on the PA system, and a Delta Dental SmileCam on the jumbotron once every minute.
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 Aug 26, 2010 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Hey now, Delta Dental just saved me a ton of money.
Thanks, Delta Dental!
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 26, 2010 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions
I would like Penn St to come to the west, but Wisconsin would have to go east...
Otherwise the west is way too strong and Ohio St has a way too easy road to the conference championship game. Even then, the west would be stronger. Indiana should come west and Northwestern go east.
by HawkeyeRecon on Aug 26, 2010 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Travel
Is really more of a concern for the non-revenue sports. Unless the Big Ten wants to create different divisions for each of the sports, which just seems ludicrous.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
This
If divisions are maintained throughout sports, then PSU would definitely be in the East. Their AD would throw a chair at Jim Delany (by the way, does Jim’s last name have an E in it?) if he made their volleyball/basketball/rowing team drive 16 hours to Lincoln, Madison, Minneapolis, and Iowa City at least once every year. That said, if non-revenue sports play everyone already anyway, there’s no point in having divisions. Commish Delaney/y already said divisions in basketball would be stupid.
You see what I did there? Yeeeaaaaaahhhh.
Well...
I don’t understand why you don’t just move PSU to the west to have competitive balance.
Because the PSU fans shit a brick when you suggest that.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
We do
And deservedly so, I’d like to add.
We’re something like a 6 hour drive from our nearest conference foe as it stands now. Throwing us into a division where we have to consistently travel over twice that just because OSU and Michigan don’t want to simply change the date of their rivalry game seems a little absurd to me.
And using “competitive balance” as an argument for forcing PSU to go west just doesn’t resonate with me. Maybe I’m being short-sighted, but if you tell me having Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, and Penn State in one division balances out Ohio State and Michigan, I’m going to have a hard time thinking you’re not retarded. You can then safely assume that either OSU or UM will go to the CCG for sure. If one team has a down decade cough Michigan cough, you’re essentially gifting OSU a free shot at the championship. But out “west”, you’d have any one of the four coming out on top. You’d have to compete with three other consistently good programs, while OSU or UM steamrolls Northwestern (oops, sorry), Indiana, Illinois, etc.
Luring recruits with my new "Posting HD" scheme since '08.
+1
yup..just give the bucks a free pass already
"He was the one that didn't give us a touchdown, ... He didn't officiate for us again." ...Hayden Fry
by chuck longs mom on Aug 26, 2010 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions
True. Wisconsin going east helps even things out.
Whatever the mix, it seems that breaking up the “big 4” in half and splitting Iowa and Wisconsin is a necessary step.
by HawkeyeRecon on Aug 26, 2010 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
flip Wisconsin with Northwestern if you must, and Iowa will just have to live with only playing Wisconsin every few years.
Correct me if I am wrong but don’t we get to designate a couple cross division rivals that would be annual games. Given the current trophy status of the Iowa-Wisconsin game, I would bet we play them every year regardless of which division we/they are put in.
the trailer hitch scrotum was my idea
Yes
If that happens, Wisc will be our protected inter-divisional game. There was some talk a while back that both Minnesota and Wisconsin would be in the opposite division from Iowa, which would mean that one of the trophy games wouldn’t be played every year. From the sounds of things now, this shouldn’t be a concern to us anymore
"I shoot, I score. He shoots, I score." - Dan Gable
by ClaybornSmash on Aug 26, 2010 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Or how about screw competitive balance, because you're going to get it wrong anyway
What’s PSU going to look like after JoePa finally retires? How long before Michigan recovers (if they do)? What if Iowa or Wisconsin becomes one of the powerhouses, or falls into mediocrity?
The Illinois-Indiana border exists for a reason. Use it.
I wonder if the UM and OSU fans that are complaining about this...
…ever thought what it might do to make them more competitive in the CCG. When UM isn’t in the wilderness The Game gets rather nasty, and both schools build to that season ender. They leave it all on the field.
Would either team be as competitive the next week in the CCG if one (or both) did make it? Would both schools still play balls to the wall in The Game if they knew they might/did have to save something for the next week? It would suck for OSU (of course I wouldn’t be sad) to be the best team, but to lose the CCG cause they’re a bunch of walking wounded, or because their players have a letdown game after the high emotion of playing UM.
Just questions I thought of. Just sayin.
by Eyeheartfreedumb on Aug 27, 2010 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions
OSU leaves it all on the field...
as they dance onto the field.
God, I hate them.
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 Aug 28, 2010 12:18 AM CDT up reply actions
Hmmm..
So what we know so far…
Ohio State and Michigan in separate divisions
Penn State and Nebraska in separate divisions (if we’re splitting up the ‘Big 4’)
Iowa and Wisconsin in separate divisions
In terms of the rest of the schools, how do you think competitive balance shakes out?
MSU = Purdue?
Northwestern = Minnesota?
Indiana = Illinois?
Anyway, what I want to know is, what’s going to happen to our rivalries? Iowa-Wisconsin has been fairly competitive as of late, and even though the trophy is new, we’ve been playing every year for…what…80-100 years?
Iowa-Minnesota doesn’t mean much anymore, but Floyd is still a historic trophy.
Iowa-Nebraska and Iowa-Penn State are potential rivalries, but the latter really only because of how we’ve played them as of late. If we had lost more games to them earlier this decade, and had lost maybe last year or the year before, I can’t see Iowa fans really chasing a Iowa-PSU rivalry. However, an Iowa-Nebraska rivalry would probably attract more attention.
Iowa Rivalries and Greater Expectations
I believe that Iowa needs to be willing to forget the old rivalries if they expect to stay competitive year in and year out for the Big Ten Championship. With Nebraska coming in, and the building hatred with Penn State, I would rather face those two teams every year than Minnesota and Wisconsin. I will grant you that Wisconsin has been more competitive, and even threatens to win the Big Ten this year. However, the saying goes, to be the best you have to beat the best.
With that in mind, I think and end of year Iowa – Nebraska game would mean more for our future than either Wisconsin or Minnesota.
I may love the Steelers, but I live and die by my Hawkeyes.
by HawkeyeFrake on Aug 26, 2010 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions
"Building hatred with Penn State"
I wasn’t aware our “rivalry” was any older than the Kirk Ferentz era. With such a Ferentz-centric rivalry, designation would be a terrible idea. Of course, the only thing that Iowa-Minnesota has over Iowa-Penn State is history, and Wisconsin wasn’t all that hot before Barry Alvarez got to town, so I don’t know that either of our rivalries are actually necessary. Fuck it. Let’s play Virginia and Stanford every year.
You see what I did there? Yeeeaaaaaahhhh.
My guess?
You’d potentially have 2 years from 2011-2014 where Iowa would not play Minnesota for Floyd (based on Rittenberg’s breakdown of the divisions)
After that, it would get reinstated in the 9 game conference schedule as the 2nd protected cross-divisional game for Iowa.
It's not as bad as you think, but it'll never be as good as it was.
As you’ve pointed out, FSU-Miami hasn’t happened once. As somebody else pointed out, neither has Tennessee-Alabama, or Georgia-Auburn, or Florida-LSU. In any case, the appeal of the UM/tOSU rivalry is partly based on its being a de facto Big Ten championship game, with its place at the end of the schedule, the lack of a formalized such game, and the undeniable number of times the game has been just that. But it will be no more. The addition of Nebraska and a formalized CG dictate that already. It will either be a divisional end-of-season matchup, often but not always for the right to play in the CG, or it will be a protected October cross-divisional game that will be a big deal, and will carry the possibility of a rematch, however remote. Either way, as long as they play every year (unlike Nebraska and Oklahoma), the rivalry, and the rivalry game, will be fine. Texas/Oklahoma, Georgia/Florida, Alabama/Tennessee and Notre Dame/USC are all rivalries who play in October that thrive. And for all that they’ve never met in the ACC CG, I’m not under the impression that the FSU/Miami rivalry has diminished at all. It will not be possible to hopelessly screw these divisions up (unless, of course, Iowa does not play Wisconsin every year. Then I get mad.)
If both Minny and Wisky are in the other division from us, I'd rather play Minny every year.
by HawkeyeRecon on Aug 26, 2010 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions
I think it's an easier path to the championship game.
Conference win record will come into play if there are ties in divisional records. I respect Wisconsin as a program, but wins are going to be hard enough to come by. There will be no more shared titles. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE. We’re competing against teams that get “better” recruits and are in states with significantly larger populations. Thus, every little advantage we can get, we should take. If we end up in a division with Nebraska and Michigan as the only real competition, and Nebraska as our main rival, we have a good chance of becoming a consistently elite team. Think about how success against Penn St has raised Iowa’s profile nationally in college football…
by HawkeyeRecon on Aug 26, 2010 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions
THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
by BStylin Hawkye on Aug 27, 2010 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions
Please tell me you're making this up
Conference win record will come into play if there are ties in divisional records
Division titles come from conference records, not division records. If you make it division record only, you have a pair of six-team conferences with a weird scheduling agreement and a playoff, not a 12-team conference with two divisions.
Greater Story of UM and OSU Playing for Title Shot
I would think the better story line at the end of the regular season would be to have OSU and Michigan playing for the divisional spot in the Big Ten Championship. ESPN loves calling that week “Rivalry Week” already, and if UM gets back to being a good team, the press would be going crazy for the UM-OSU game.
I may love the Steelers, but I live and die by my Hawkeyes.
I personally don't care much for any CCG story line that doesn't have "Iowa" in it.
the trailer hitch scrotum was my idea
I grew up in Big 8 country
and only really followed the Big 10 when I decided to go to college at Iowa. The only tie to Iowa was my mom, who attended Drake but whose eyes lit up a little when Iowa City was ever mentioned, and always looked out the corner of her eye for the Iowa game score on Saturdays.
Growing up, there was only one college football game that mattered. The entire season built up to it. That game was Nebraska-Oklahoma, usually the day after Thanksgiving. It was must-see television, the entire family watched, and while we had lived in Nebraska one year and developed a rooting interest for them in the game, it didn’t matter—this game determined who went to the Orange Bowl and who oftentimes played for the national championship. I went to the 1970 game as an 8-year old boy and the memory is burned in.
By the time the Big 8 became the Big 12, I was an Iowa alum and followed the Big 10-11 closely. Still, always, the Nebraska /Oklahoma game was a must-see, and the primary reason, aside from Bill Snyder’s Kansas State teams, why the old Big 8 still mattered to me. The game was not competitive oftentimes in the ’90s, but still compelling. Then, of course, the Big 12 dumped it. My personal favorite rivalry in all sports was gone, I never cared about the conference again, and I thoroughly enjoyed watching a lot of what happened in June.
I have already seen this movie. I think it was 1978, and Oklahoma beat Nebraska the day after Thanksgiving, in a game where I recall Nebraska was relatively strongly favored. Through bowl oddities, the Orange Bowl turned out to be a rematch, and even though Nebraska won, which I liked, the whole thing seemed somehow hollow. This backyard fight was already settled, six weeks before.
The modern sports attention span and memory is so short, unless you’re a Notre Dame fan. If anyone can tell me with a straight face that Michigan would be favored to make it to the conference championship game in the next five years, this might make just slightly more sense. I know, other conferences do have big rivalries mid-season, though Georgia-Florida has always been midseason . (OU-Texas was intersectional for years, ND-USC still is) The difference is that the Big 10 relies on and pushes its tradition more than any other major conference. Making the showcase rivalry of a conference which banks on its tradition a mid-October game, and counting on a rematch in a conference which is stronger now and will become even more so, just seems reckless.
A fella steps out for a two pound burrito and all hell breaks loose.
by Mr. Grizz on Aug 26, 2010 11:26 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Alternate Photo Caption
When I look into your eyes, Rich
I can see a love restrained
But darlin’ when I hold you
Don’t you know I feel the same
‘Cause nothin’ lasts forever, Jim
And we both know realignment can change
by KentuckyThunderPussy on Aug 26, 2010 11:53 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Im sorry Rich,
I think I just farted
"He was the one that didn't give us a touchdown, ... He didn't officiate for us again." ...Hayden Fry
by chuck longs mom on Aug 27, 2010 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions
The big ten is going to fuck this one up.
East west split would be best for the conference, but might not produce the most $bux$ in the very short term.
Splitting up OSU and Michigan is the dumbest thing that the B10 can do.
Brunettes not fighter jets
I have to agree. the Big Ten has been going strong for 100 years
when it celebrates it’s sesquicentennial who knows what teams will be strong and which teams will be dogs; but I will bet that football will still be a regional game in 50 years and those border rivalries will be just as strong regardless the teams’ strengths. Minnesota sucks right now but 50 years ago they finished at #6 in the AP Poll along with Ohio State (#2), Michigan St. (#8) and Purdue (#12). In 2061, Northwestern could be putting the finishing touches on their expanded Huge House stadium to 150,000 seats due to alumni demand after winning three consective NCGs and Penn State may be finalizing it’s merger and renaming itself Pittsburgh University at Happy Valley.
the trailer hitch scrotum was my idea
I have got to admit, it has a nice ring to it!
“Pittsburgh University at Happy Valley”
"The possibility of physical and mental collapse is now very real. No sympathy for the Devil, keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride!" HST
Barry Alvarez a.k.a. Deep throat
wonder if Barry’s lookin for a new job yet…cause, according to Jim Croce, " ya dont pull the mask on the ole Lone Ranger and ya dont mess around with Jim"
"He was the one that didn't give us a touchdown, ... He didn't officiate for us again." ...Hayden Fry
by chuck longs mom on Aug 26, 2010 12:09 PM CDT reply actions
Alvarez is doing a lot of snitchin'...
But there’s no doubt it’s all Delany-approved snitchin’. As Adam said, this is all Media 101 trial balloon stuff to ease the information out into the general discourse.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Absolutely
You’ll notice Alvarez had a few words at the start of the expansion thing, but then said nothing more. He’s no dummy.
"If you need a rah-rah speech at halftime, you’re playing the wrong sport." - Pat Angerer
He's like an older, chubbier Ari Fleischer.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 26, 2010 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Initially, the split didn't seem so terrible, as long as the game was moved.
Now, though, I’ve joined the “leave the game alone” camp and think that OSU-Mich should just remain in the same division. I don’t necessarily believe that PSU needs to be shipped out west, as long as Alvarez’s wrong and Iowa/Wisc/Neb are available to offset PSU/OSU/Mich.
I honestly wouldnt mind the split for several reasons
- There’s not too many signs as of yet that Michigan will return to its dominant form, making any form of “the game” relatively meaningless to non OSU and UM fans
- The big tens not just gonna let the game slip away like the big 12 with oklahoma nebraska. Worst case scenario they still play every year.
-It would most likely allow the best competitive balance between the would divisions
And lastly I think it would be an awesome way to start the big ten season. There are usually very few marquee match ups early in the season for the big ten, and this would be a great way to change that. And best of all, if both teams are good and it turns out to be a great game, who wouldn’t want to tune in for a rematch in the big ten championship?
Oh, please.
There’s not too many signs as of yet that Michigan will return to its dominant form, making any form of "the game" relatively meaningless to non OSU and UM fans
Michigan is three years removed from an 11-win Rose Bowl campaign and yet we’re willing to look over a century of success in favor of a bad patch that has (so far) lasted as long as Arrested Development’s run on FOX.
And if you’re really a fan of any Big Ten team then The Game should matter to you. It’s part of our Big Ten DNA, like it or not.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 26, 2010 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
I understand that Michigan will probably become good again
But that doesn’t change anything else in my argument. When they’re very good they will meet a second time in Championship game At the end of the season where exciting games belong. If they’re not that good then it’s better to put it at the beginning when there could still be some hype to the game.
by cubbyhawk on Aug 26, 2010 2:12 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Army and Navy are generally bad and OK respectively
and it doesn’t diminish the importance/excitement of that game being played at the end of the year. And, yes, Michigan/Ohio State is that level of special.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 26, 2010 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions
Not Only
will Michigan return to form, OSU will cease to be as dominant as they are now. Someday.
Circle of life, man.
"If you need a rah-rah speech at halftime, you’re playing the wrong sport." - Pat Angerer
someday
hopefully soon.. I know it would not be great for the perception of the Big Ten by the media but it would be enjoyable to watch them go through a rough patch here and there.
by SaturdayMorningKegStanzis on Aug 26, 2010 12:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Mighigan will come back, though
if the RichRod experiment continues past this year, it will take longer. I think its at least 5 years, one more with RichRod, then four with a new coach who has to deal with Rich’s players and incorporate a scheme that tries to use them and bring back the kind of players that made Michigan dominant.
Still, if you’re going to set up the conference to have some sort of expectation of a Michigan-Ohio State championship game, the timing is all wrong to mess with the franchise.
A fella steps out for a two pound burrito and all hell breaks loose.
Does that make Jim Delany
Mufasa?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 26, 2010 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Michigan will always be...
competitive with almost everyone (except if OSU gets uber-dominant). But I don’t necessarily think they will be “back” soon. Yes, they have more tradition than most, but I can see them going the route of Florida State, or USC from 1982 to 2001, or Minnesota after the 1950s, where they once were very good, but then dipped and didn’t come back to elite status for a good long time.
And I don’t think we should make possible long-term arrangements based more on Michigan than on Wisky, PSU, or maybe even Iowa.
If Michigan can get good enough, and if OSU can stay good enough, then they can handle playing once a year or twice per year.
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 Aug 26, 2010 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions
(except if OSU gets uber-dominant)
If winning the last 5 Big10 championships is not considered “uber dominant” what is?
the trailer hitch scrotum was my idea
Ahem
“Shared” championships. Or, to us PSU fans and other logical people, OSU only has 3 of the last 5 conference championships due to heads-up losses to PSU.
Luring recruits with my new "Posting HD" scheme since '08.
Maybe actually winning a couple or three BCS title games in a row?
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 Aug 28, 2010 12:20 AM CDT up reply actions
Michigan is one coaching change away.
Look at OU or USC. In the late 90’s both were struggling, relative to historical expectations (although neither of them were as bad as Michigan has been lately). In 1999 OU hired Stoops, won a MNC within two years and enjoyed a decade of top ten finishes and BCS bowl games. USC hired Carroll in 2001 and he had them in a BCS game the next season and winning a BCS title four years later.
There’s a lot of discussion the effectiveness of RichRod’s scheme for Michigan. But really, the money is there, the size of the fan base and national draw is there, the recruits are consistently there. You just need the right guy there and Michigan will be right back to traditional form.
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Aug 27, 2010 8:41 AM CDT up reply actions
Conversely, couldn't you say the same thing about Notre Dame?
But really, the money is there, the size of the fan base and national draw is there, the recruits are consistently there. You just need the right guy there and Michigan will be right back to traditional form.
That seems to fit ND as well and we’ve been waiting about 20 years for them to find that elusive right coach and retake their spot among the sport’s elite.
Sure, the right coach could resurrect Big Blue, but it’s no sure thing that they’ll be able to identify one. Alabama wallowed through lean years before hiring Saban; USC did the same pre-Carroll, Texas did the same pre-Brown, etc. Sometimes you hit a home run and sometimes you don’t. Sometimes you hire the hot defensive coordinator and you get a great head coach like Bob Stoops that can return your program to its old heights. Sometimes you hire the hot defensive coordinator and you get Ron Zook and he nearly undoes a decade’s worth of dominance in the span of a few years.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Exactly.
It has usually been important for Michigan to hire a “Michigan Man.”
Gary Moeller didn’t work out, Lloyd Carr did (but was run out by the big-wigs). And so far, the RichRod era has been a failure.
Do they try to hire someone with Michigan ties next? Or do they hire another RichRod? Or do they hire a proven winner (Meyer, Saban, [gulp] Ferentz?)
I can see them coming back to prominence with some of those options, but I can also see them sticking to somewhere between .500 and 8 wins per year.
Basically, while Michigan may be important to the Big Ten (maybe even more important than Iowa), I don’t think you make long-term plans that screw other things up just for them.
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 Aug 28, 2010 12:26 AM CDT up reply actions
They probably swallow their pride
and make a hard run at Harbaugh at Stanford.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
If RichRod gets fired
it will be the least surprising coaching search ever.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 28, 2010 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions
The only thing from making it a slam dunk
Is that Harbaugh has taken some shots at Michigan.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
I think that's a calculated move on his part.
He’s essentially saying “this isn’t the Michigan I remember but I’m the guy to bring that Michigan back.”
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 29, 2010 12:48 AM CDT up reply actions
I would give Ferentz to Michigan...
a slightly better chance than Ferentz to the Detroit Tigers…but by the slimmest of margins.
Plus...
…it creates 2 potentially huge “rivalry” weeks for the Big Ten:
- One at the end of October, where you’d have cross-divisional games like OSU-Michigan, PSU-Nebraska, Iowa-Wisconsin, and probably Minny-MSU, Northwestern-Purdue, and Indiana-Illinois (although those latter 3 could be rearranged).
- One the last weekend of the season (potentially being split between the Friday and Saturday after Thanksgiving), involving intradivision games: OSU-PSU, Nebraska-Iowa, Michigan-MSU, Minny-Wisconsin, Indiana-Purdue, and Illinois-Northwestern (although you could instead see Nebraska-Michigan and Iowa-MSU on that last weekend of the year, even though that sucks for you Hawkeye fans, based purely on TV eyeballs)
by Chadnudj on Aug 26, 2010 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Este
Me gusta. Me gusta mucho. Except for the bit about Iowa-MSU on the last weekend of the year. That’s just dumb. Iowa-Nebraska, Michigan-MSU would be a much better slate for the last weekend, even though it isn’t The Game.
You see what I did there? Yeeeaaaaaahhhh.
Isn't this scenario best for Iowa?
Besides the big game is now the championship game. It is better for the whole of the conference.
by ChryslerKinnick on Aug 26, 2010 12:19 PM CDT reply actions
as mentioned above
what’s wrong with Ohio St, Mich, Penn St on one side, and Neb, Wisc, Iowa on the other?
I’m a bit surprised that the final criteria for alignment would be championships within the last 25 yrs or whatever it was.
by KentuckyThunderPussy on Aug 26, 2010 12:38 PM CDT reply actions
I think that its more about national perception than actual performace
with tOSU, UM, and PSU you have 3 of the biggest and loudest fanbases with the most tradition. Nebraska certainly brings its own reputation and fanbase, which helps. But we’re kidding ourselves if we think that the national media wouldn’t automatically assume that the division with the three “traditional” powerhouses is stronger every year (whether it was true or not). If you look at this year with an unbiased eye, the Neb, Iowa and Wisc division is probably going to be the stronger division, but how many national talkingheads are going to say that? Answer: not many.
"I shoot, I score. He shoots, I score." - Dan Gable
by ClaybornSmash on Aug 26, 2010 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Partly Perception
OSU, UM, PSU & N are “marquee” teams that draw fat TV ratings. They want everybody to think they balanced the divisions so that N isn’t stuck on the weak sister side. It’s a fight they really can’t win because things change.
"If you need a rah-rah speech at halftime, you’re playing the wrong sport." - Pat Angerer
Nebraska/Iowa/Michigan/Michigan State/Northwestern/Illinois in one division
with Ohio State/Penn State/Indiana/Illinois/Wisconsin and Minnesota in the other.
Last weekend matchups will all be intradivisional rivalries:
Iowa vs. Nebraska
Michigan vs. Michigan State
Illinois vs. Northwestern
Ohio State vs. Penn State
Indiana vs. Purdue
Wisconsin vs. Minnesota
B10 will take a cue from the SEC and have each institution play one inter-divisional protected game. Protected games will be:
Ohio State vs. Michigan
Penn State vs. Michigan State
Iowa vs. Minnesota
Wisconsin vs. Nebraska
Illinois vs. Indiana
Purdue vs. Northwestern
Protected games will all be played on the same Saturday in mid-October.
Huh? You got Illinois in both divisions.
A pecker-slap is on order for you.
by Stay thirsty, my friends. on Aug 26, 2010 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe someday the Illini will be good enough to play in both divisions?
I almost made it through that whole sentence without chuckling.
Who's leg do I have to hump to get a drink around here?-Brian
One Illini team coached by Ron Zook...
the other coached by:
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 Aug 26, 2010 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Thanksgiving Weekend TV Lineup
Friday
12:00 EST — Indiana vs. Purdue (Old Oaken Bucket)
3:30 EST — Wisconsin vs. Minnesota (Paul Bunyan’s Axe)
8:00 EST — Iowa vs. Nebraska (Battle for Council Bluffs)
Saturday
12:00 EST — Illinois vs. Northwestern (Sweet Sioux Tomahawk)
3:30 EST — MIchigan vs. Michigan State (Paul Bunyan Trophy)
8:00 EST — Ohio State vs. Penn State (Sweater Vest vs. Coke Bottle Glasses)
The B10 would dominate the airwaves that weekend.
Truly a glorious weekend...
….of football.
Almost as good? Cross-divisional, end of October, Big Ten-aggedon:
OSU-Michigan
PSU-Nebraska
Wisconsin-Iowa
Purdue-Northwestern
Minnesota-MSU
Indiana-Illinois
(Battle for Council Bluffs)
That has a nice ring but how about
The Husker-Hawk trophy
the trailer hitch scrotum was my idea
I was thinking
The Nebraska Sucks trophy. Has a nice ring to it.
"If you need a rah-rah speech at halftime, you’re playing the wrong sport." - Pat Angerer
reminds me too much
of the Cy-Hawk trophy, which is a pretty lame name.. Also, why are we always the second name on these things.
by SaturdayMorningKegStanzis on Aug 26, 2010 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions
cause Hawkhusker just sounds wrong to me. How about this?
just because I like donuts.
the trailer hitch scrotum was my idea
How aobut the BIG PIECE of CORN Trophy
by ChryslerKinnick on Aug 26, 2010 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions
That is so upsetting.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Aug 26, 2010 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions
Iowa NU game should be the Battle for Carter Lake (it's part of Iowa but on the Nebraska side of the Missouri)
Well, isn't what LeBron did last night the living embodiment of The Secret, leaving millions on the table and turning himself into a hometown villain, all for the sake of winning?
Neil Paine, basketball-reference.com
This will all change once Delaney adds more teams
Why worry about it now?
by the_iowa_hawkeye on Aug 26, 2010 1:13 PM CDT reply actions
The one thing that makes this split interesting is...
We will see who has more pull in the End of the Year Rivalry game, and which division Nebraska falls into. Coach Ferentz or a certain Tiger Hawk tattoo wearing coach from Wisconsin.
Who's leg do I have to hump to get a drink around here?-Brian
Trying to split divisions on competitive balance is a fool's errand
We can’t predict with a whole lot of certainty who will be good one year from now, much less ten or fifty. No matter what divisions you pick, you’re going to get it wrong on balance at least 1/3 of the time, so pick something that makes sense on other criteria. Criteria like “hey, let’s not fuck up the biggest rivalry game in the entire damn sport”, for instance.
But how do you really feel about basing it on competitive balance, SDan?
LOL
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 Aug 26, 2010 10:03 PM CDT up reply actions
I've gone on many a fools errand. I know fools errands
and this my friend is not a fools errand. It is a sham, an obscuration and facade but not a fools errand. They know exactly what they are doing and like a three card monty sharp, Delany has us debating competitive balance until we are thoroughly distracted and then he will pair the divisions the way he wants.
the trailer hitch scrotum was my idea
ACC Geography
Why does everyone point out the ACC divisions as if it’s some horrid example? Geographic ones would have made even less sense.
ACC North ACC South
Boston College FSU
Maryland Miami
Virginia Georgia Tech
Virginia Tech Clemson
Wake Forest North Carolina
Duke North Carolina State
ACC West ACC East
Florida State Boston College
Georgia Tech Maryland
Clemson Virginia
Wake Forest Duke
North Carolina North Carolina State
Virginia Tech Miami
There’s even less balance to these than the current one. The current one isn’t that unbalanced either. You have a three-team race in the Atlantic and a four-team race in the Coastal (assuming UNC does not get blasted into oblivion by the NCAA).
“Competitive divisions” does not mean “balanced”. The three best teams were all in the Coastal last year, and that’s likely to be true again this time; on the other hand, the Atlantic has only once had a team finish below 2-6 (and two more equal to that), while the Coastal has had one every year except last.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
